Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Art's avatar

It’s not at all clear that homes built specifically for the rental market disenfranchises homebuyers. An argument could be made that increasing the stock of single family homes for rent adds to overall supply and decreases prices. It’s the private equity firms buying existing housing stock that is potentially competing against first time home buyers.

And if Congress wants to do something productive in its spare time, how about passing voter ID instead of having doggie costume parades: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/one-week-into-dhs-shutdown-dogs-in-costume-parade-through-the-senate/ar-AA1X7mWW

Brian Villanueva's avatar

I actually support the bill and the corporate ownership ban, but this post is drivel.

There are about 90M single-family homes in America, and about 500-800K of them are owned by "large institutional investors".

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2026/feb/25/josh-riley/investor-owned-single-family-homes-us

https://www.credaily.com/briefs/single-family-rental-ownership-remains-individual-led

As those articles make clear, the talking points the Senator uses in this "article" (let's be charitable and call it that) lump anyone who purchases a home using an LLC or S-Corp into the "corporate investor" category. That would include me, since I owned a rental property through an S-Corp for about a decade. The Senator's major claim here -- big corporations are screwing the little guy by gobbling up entire subdivisions -- is bunk. It's so obviously bunk it strains credulity to claim the Senator doesn't realize it.

Bernie Moreno may be a very nice, well meaning, and intelligent man, but in his role as Senator Moreno, his job is not to be honest or intelligent but to push his party's agenda regardless of how stupid it might be.

I don't subscribe to Commonplace to hear ill-informed Senators spout talking points as if they actually know something about this (or any other) field.

31 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?