Post

In context I think she is opposing corporate ownership of multifamily homes and condos, not the existence of multifamily homesand condos.

Impact on Market: Critics argue that all-cash, tech-enabled offers from large investors, such as those holding at least 350 homes, make it difficult for families to compete, contributing to higher home prices and rents.

…she also in the same article is quoted as encouraging them to build more triplexes and apartments. The difference is she doesn’t want large corporations to own our basic housing rights, she wants people to own them. Do you think we’re better off with large corps owning the majority of housing?

Gotta wonder how restricting corporations from building apartments is supposed to help with supply of apartments

No she is saying homes = single-family houses, and condos, apartments, etc. are not homes…investors can run wild with the latter but need to stay away from the former.

Missing the point. She is not saying your condo isn't a home or that rentals are bad, but rather that letting corporations buy up the supply of homes is a bad thing.

Investors can build the housing-not own it after they build it. She is the only one that is going to keep them out, but, what they miss is that there are a ton of LLC's buying up homes and renting them. Real Estate agents do this all the time. They own 1-4 each, housing is now rented instead of ownd

Wouldn't this have the effect of increasing the number of apartment buildings being built though, likely a net good for CBNA?

It's a home, but not a house. If you own a condo, you don't really own anything, you just own what exists in that space at that point in time. A condo on the 10th floor of a building is just 1000sq' box 100' in the air held up by someone else's building. Demolish the building, you have nothing

My condo is right around the corner from Elizabeth Warren’s single family home. And my building has a larger garden and lawn than hers.

🐍🐍🐍

I am so tired // I AM SO ANGRY as a forty year old queer person

Yeah, Warren's pretty sharp on some issues, but this smells of her biases as both upwardly mobile and Oklahoman. She should challenge that a little. That said, your response is more heated than some mild pandering to would-be home buyers warrants. Are you a misogynist looking for a fight?

The problem isn't that corporate landlords own homes. The problem is that there aren't ENOUGH homes to keep up with demand.

Renters who want to live in houses should be able to rent one. Homeowners who want to live in condos should be able to buy one. Just let people do what they want, geez.

Also, being able to rent a house is a huge boon for many people

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not understand what she's proposing? She's saying corporate landlords and investors shouldn't be able to set the market to gouge tenants, pricing out people who just need a place to live. She's not saying your condo isn't a home.

Drives me absolutely nuts.

she’s a Nazi.

You’re missing the point here. I’m in a small suburban subdivision in Georgia. Every month or so I get an offer from a company that wants to buy my house for an over priced cash offer. Many of my neighbors have done this. They then make it a corporate rental. Money sucked out of area to wall st.

You can’t read.

Yeah I found this interpretation very confusing

Rage gets the likes on social media

Oh ffs, she just used homes as a synonym for houses.

Except that’s not her issue. She’s saying corporate investors need to stop buying up thousands of homes (of all types) so that human beings can only live in them by paying rent to the corporate investors who were rich enough to buy multiple properties in the first place.

I have to move out because the corporate landlords have increased the rent 8% every year I've been here and I can't afford another increase. ???

Also large institutional investors only own about .3% of all single family homes in the country anyways. It’s not actually a problem.

Investors will latch on to any type of housing, including single family homes, which they have. If you don’t want real estate to be used as an investment vehicle, then tax the ever living f*ck out of vacant real estate (not just housing), or ban non-owner-occupied housing.

Completely incapable of using the English language effectively as a politician. She should get off the stage and do her work behind the scenes.

I'm not seeing where she says that it isn't one.

My house for a walkable affordable 3 or 4 bedroom apartment.

Even if you own a unit, you're still beholden to the whims and rules of others on a constant basis. At least an HOA stops at the door and at the floor. That's why multi units fall short of being homes (unless one owns the overall property).

Did you read the article? It is specifically about single family homes. The goal is to prevent large corporations from building and owning a ton of single family homes. Yes, your condo is a home. Nobody is trying to insult your home.

I own a single family home and grew up in one, but I've also lived in apartments (rented). The apartments were my home just as much as my house is now. An attached unit--owned, rented, whatever--is no less a home than a house.

If you are a large corporation who built that condo and priced out the local population to live there, then fuck you. If not, what the hell are you bitching about?

The point you missed it.

Maybe you should remember the NYT is a nazi rag and figure out they're not being honest and Warren's position.

At the risk of destroying my notifications for the weekend, and admitting that I couldn't afford to read the NYT article, I clicked on the axios link and she seems to be coming after the corporate ownership of rental homes? Isn't that what we all want or do we love blackrock now?

Feels like you should be pushing for condos to be part of this instead of cursing her: “The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act would [set] new restrictions on investors who own 350 or more single-family rental homes, requiring them to sell newly built units to individual owners after seven years.”

You dropped some context, here you go:

Hey,#liz, walk it back!

Oh, ok. Not a good sentiment, but I am glad she isn't trying to keep larger dwellings from being built

It isn't good, but everyone here seems to be reading it as saying single family homes are superior. That isn't what she said at all.

Isn't this meant more as a caution on corporations, especially private equity firms, building homes most can't afford, or buying them up and living them vacant? How is this against condos?