Let's ban corporations from owning residential property. It makes zero sense.

Start with outlawing institutional investing in homes

It will not fix anything. There are plenty of homes already. Corporate greed is the cause of the housing crisis. There needs to be legislation that makes it unprofitable to own and hold unused properties

It's such a complex problem, it's going to take a long time to fix. Part of the problem is people don't really understand what the real problem is. They think the problem is that there aren't enough detached, single family homes being built. I get why people would focus on single family homes because that's what Americans want. The "American Dream" is to own your own home in the suburbs, and if you think that everyone who wants a single family home should be able to buy one, then, yeah, you're going to see the problem as one of not enough single family homes being built. However, I would argue that the American dream itself is the problem.

Suburbs are expensive, and inefficient, bad for the environment, and bad for our physical and mental health. Suburbs necessitate car dependence, and cars themselves require a lot of expensive infrastructure. I know a lot of Americans don't like to hear it, but we really do need to be living in higher density urban areas. Higher density, mixed use urban areas allow people to walk and bike more, which is better for our health. It's also less expensive. The farther apart everything is, the more you'll need to drive, and that means owning your own car, which is expensive.

I don't think people even necessarily know why they want a single family home. I think Americans want single family homes because we're told from day one that is what we should want. It's our culture. You grow up, get married, buy a home in the suburbs, and start a family. You own at least two cars, you drive everywhere, that's the American dream. I think we need to start questioning if this is really what's best, and if we should really want it. I know I have, and I've decided it isn't best. I think I would be happier and healthier living in a mixed use urban area, where I could walk or bike to a lot of places, or take public transportation, and if I needed to drive somewhere, maybe I'd take a taxi or rent a car or use some car sharing service.

Very few places like these exist in the US, and that's because too many people still want to live in a single family home in the suburbs, and many of those people, also have most of their personal wealth in their home, so they push for restrictive zoning laws and other regulations, limiting how much higher density housing and mixed development can be built, thus making such areas relatively rare and thus expensive. There's a battle going on between people who want single family homes and people who want higher density, mixed use areas.

I know people don't want to talk about that, because they don't want to make it an us vs them thing, but it just is. Our desires are mutually exclusive, due to the finite nature of land. A given piece of land cannot be both a low density, single family suburb and a higher density, mixed use area, simultaneously. It must be one or the other. How we "fix" the housing crisis depends on which we choose to prioritize. We either find ways to build more and more suburbs, or we eliminate single family zoning and invest in building many more, higher density, mixed use urban areas. I know which one I choose.

Cripple the speculative housing bubble by making corporate property ownership of single family or multifamily dwellings limited to maaaybe 100 properties. Probably less, like 50.

Give them 5 years to unload assets that are in excess of this legislation and get it passed.

Doesn't affect business. Doesn't affect developers, doesn't affect anyone but vulture venture capitalists.

This does nothing to address the root cause of housing price increases. Black rock will buy 2.5 million of these homes.

as long as corporations and land horders are allowed to keep buying home and lands to keep the market scarce and rent and sell prices high, it doesnt matter how many homes you build.

and if you issue an immediate ban on mass home hording, and issue massive monthly fines for exceeding the limit, fines that are multiples of the profit that they make, not fractions, enough homes will immediately flood the market and will bring prices and rent down

This proposal is basically "infrastructure week".

Building more homes and offering subsidies will only put more money into the builders’ pockets. We already have too many homes. The issue is companies owning hundreds or even thousands of homes, only to refuse to sell or rent 75% of them so they can charge 400% more for the 25% they do sell or rent. It’s blatant market manipulation.

Begin a vacant property tax, (based on having more than 30 days in the calendar year with the property empty) which ratchets up as you own more vacant properties. So people can have a summer and winter home if they want, without their tax increasing too much. After all, it’s only one vacant home. But when you own a dozen vacant properties, you’re gonna get fucked hard by the IRS.

It will incentivize companies to actually rent or sell their vacant properties, instead of letting them sit vacant for years at a time. And that 30 days of vacancy should be any 30 days, so people who rent are incentivized to offer longer lease terms and change tenants less than once a year. Meaning short term rentals (AirBnB) will also be less attractive, because they typically only operate at ~50% occupied, as they’ll typically have a few days between rentals. Since short term rentals have been cannibalizing the long term rental markets recently, (lots of landlords have moved towards having properties be full time AirBnBs, which means there are fewer places left for actual tenants,) it will also help correct the rental markets which are overvalued.

increasing stock does not mean prices will magically go down and cool the inflation

living wages, pushing for fixed mortgage rates, pushing for nondiscriminatory banking policies nationwide, increasing the education budget are things that do that

increasing the number of overpriced houses instead of fighting for the people to have living wages is not helping

and all these homes would require the roads to be torn up and repiped

where is that budget? is places like Flint going to finally get the nonlead pipes?

logistics were not expanded on in the article

what about the already over stressed water table here in the US?

impact studies seem to be a thing of the past when it comes to new construction

even the article linked in the article mentions nothing about anything that would actually go towards solving the issues at hand

https://apnews.com/article/harris-economy-taxes-homes-food-prices-insurance-e1ad3f26f2ce8e6cb365a4ffe2ca3e6b

and in this statement

In her speech, Harris offered stark contrasts with Trump’s economic proposals, including his call for steep tariffs on foreign goods. She said that her opponent “wants to impose what is, in effect, a national sales tax on everyday products and basic necessities that we import from other countries.”

Biden and Harris has been doing steep tariffs that amount to more the citizens have to pay for goods

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-action-to-protect-american-workers-and-businesses-from-chinas-unfair-trade-practices/

every election cycle makes it more obvious that neither party have our interests at heart

We need more than just that. I'm continuing to email the Biden administration monthly about implementing a vacancy tax for private owners with 3 or more single family dwellings. I'll continue to do so under the Harris administration.

My only shot at every being able to afford a house is if the billionaires and real estate corporations get taken out of the equation. Taxing them for sitting on empty properties is much better than building more for them to snap up because they won't be priced fairly to begin with due to market manipulation.

3 million homes that will be bought by the former employers of her economic team, Black Rock.

She will never do anything that would impact the profits of her owners, the donor class

We need to look at this thing called 'adapting in place'. I think this is just such a complicated situation that people just need to figure out what's going on around them, at least for the time being. Radical simplification - corporate greed, yes, but it's still complicated as to what exactly we do about it.