Let me guess, they set the limit so freaking high because all of them have friends who own 99 houses.
franktakesfrankly on
How about Hedge Funds are allowed to own ZERO single family homes.
mike2ff on
Hopefully, they have language in it regarding sub, corporations, and wholy owned subsidiaries. Otherwise each of them is going to just open 1,000 LLCs, and each holds 99 homes.
countfizix on
Given this passed so easily, I assume there is a loophole in the definition of ‘corporate investor’ that makes this completely meaningless. EG Blackrock doesn’t own the home, but Blackrock_233 owns it as one of its exactly 99 homes.
SXTY82 on
It’s a start but it is a poor start. Corporations should not be able to own single family homes unless they are to house their employees. Full Stop.
Burnvictim49percent on
It’s a start hopefully they improve it on a national level but I’m not holding my breath on that.
rcinmd on
100 homes is still excessive, but at least it’s a start.
Sad_Intention2932 on
How about companies can’t rent homes? Also they can make and dissolve shell companies like candy, they’re just gonna have hundreds of company owning 100 homes each.
I love the idea but this feels like a nothing burger.
Parking_Criticism546 on
Yes but how easy would it be for them to open up shell companies and scoop up houses that way?
pvtteemo on
So how many in the chamber own 99 houses and/or have equity in funds that do?
golfwinnersplz on
Makes sense. Everyone I know owns 100 homes. 🤯🤷
GaiusGraccusEnjoyer on
Will have nearly no impact because large corporations own an insignificant portion of homes in Tennessee. That’s why it’s so easy to pass, because it doesn’t do anything (except maybe make it more complicated to develop a subdivision/condo with more than 100 units, depending on how the law is worded)
yusill on
99 homes new LLC. 99 homes new LLC. Great you caused more paperwork.
knucklepirate on
They will just create shell companies
tenkaranarchy on
Well good for Tennessee. Doesnt help the rest of us though. In my town they took 4 residential lots and split it into 16 little subdivided lots and built tiny houses on them that were all for sale for $249k which is like half the price of any other houses. On the corner they put up a sign that said “why rent when you can buy?” Yeah about that…..one corporation bought 12 of the 16 homes and rents them out for $1800 a month.
Zargoza1 on
Here come the political donations …
Hank_Dad on
This is a strawman argument. Large investors make up <5% of the housing market.
WumpusFails on
From an analysis that I’ve seen, that accounts for about 1% of the market.
I’m not sure who owns most of the investment market, but this looks like a do-little bill designed to short circuit opposition.
joshdrumsforfun on
This accomplishes nothing but makes it look like they did something.
This is worse than not passing any bill.
The-Bi-Surprise on
Likely bipartisan because the realtor lobbyists support this, because it means more of their members can buy “investment properties” and rent them out for more than they’re worth.
Sleep_adict on
Yeah, just at up some SPEs and you are good
Docrandall on
100 seems like 99 too many but its a start.
MustyBox on
Wow! Only 100 houses before they’re cut off? How will they ever manage??
RabidPlaty on
What’s the catch…
Vorenthral on
Large corporations should be able to own zero family housing. This bill seems more like virtue signaling than doing anything about the problem.
Borisof007 on
It’s a start
RedBeans-n-Ricely on
I guess this is a start, but Jfc! Who needs 100 homes??? Cap it at 5
Beer-Me on
The number corporations should be allowed to own should be 0
Donmiggy143 on
So they’ll break the company into several separate funds each owning 99 estates? Meh, this is nothing.
cvanhim on
The problem is that large corporate owners are such a small part of the problem. I spent a summer working in a city in which 90+% of rental properties were owned by corporations. Almost all of them were owned by smaller LLCs 20-30 at a time rather than large corporations. Even those LLCs that owned only 5-10 properties have the same issues as those that own somewhat more. They leverage the issues in one property against the others through raising rents rather than investing in actual landlord-tenant community relationships.
FilthyStatist1991 on
100 or less and we call that legislating? 😂
brianishere2 on
Investors will certainly set uo LLCs, each with slightly different ownership characteristics. They will easily evade the limits. 100 is an insane figure for individual houses.
Imaginary_Audience_5 on
They will make multiple corporations.
Matts3sons on
This is a good idea, but not that big of a deal, considering they account for about 1.5% of the real estate sales over the last few years.
dorestes on
Sure, that’s fine. It helps a bit. But it won’t make more than a drop of impact. Corporate investors like Blackrock aren’t great, but aren’t why housing is expensive. Lack of supply is.
InterestingPickles on
This doesn’t really address the wider problem of simply not enough housing units that are affordable that exist in the first place.
Pitiful-MobileGamer on
They better have some language on separate corporate entities, or else this is just political pandering.
ophaus on
Shell companies. This won’t change anything.
InGordWeTrust on
Fluff
MattintheMtns on
Don’t forget Adam Smith and Jeff Merkeley have proposed this in the US Congress…
40 Comments
Let me guess, they set the limit so freaking high because all of them have friends who own 99 houses.
How about Hedge Funds are allowed to own ZERO single family homes.
Hopefully, they have language in it regarding sub, corporations, and wholy owned subsidiaries. Otherwise each of them is going to just open 1,000 LLCs, and each holds 99 homes.
Given this passed so easily, I assume there is a loophole in the definition of ‘corporate investor’ that makes this completely meaningless. EG Blackrock doesn’t own the home, but Blackrock_233 owns it as one of its exactly 99 homes.
It’s a start but it is a poor start. Corporations should not be able to own single family homes unless they are to house their employees. Full Stop.
It’s a start hopefully they improve it on a national level but I’m not holding my breath on that.
100 homes is still excessive, but at least it’s a start.
How about companies can’t rent homes? Also they can make and dissolve shell companies like candy, they’re just gonna have hundreds of company owning 100 homes each.
I love the idea but this feels like a nothing burger.
Yes but how easy would it be for them to open up shell companies and scoop up houses that way?
So how many in the chamber own 99 houses and/or have equity in funds that do?
Makes sense. Everyone I know owns 100 homes. 🤯🤷
Will have nearly no impact because large corporations own an insignificant portion of homes in Tennessee. That’s why it’s so easy to pass, because it doesn’t do anything (except maybe make it more complicated to develop a subdivision/condo with more than 100 units, depending on how the law is worded)
99 homes new LLC. 99 homes new LLC. Great you caused more paperwork.
They will just create shell companies
Well good for Tennessee. Doesnt help the rest of us though. In my town they took 4 residential lots and split it into 16 little subdivided lots and built tiny houses on them that were all for sale for $249k which is like half the price of any other houses. On the corner they put up a sign that said “why rent when you can buy?” Yeah about that…..one corporation bought 12 of the 16 homes and rents them out for $1800 a month.
Here come the political donations …
This is a strawman argument. Large investors make up <5% of the housing market.
From an analysis that I’ve seen, that accounts for about 1% of the market.
I’m not sure who owns most of the investment market, but this looks like a do-little bill designed to short circuit opposition.
This accomplishes nothing but makes it look like they did something.
This is worse than not passing any bill.
Likely bipartisan because the realtor lobbyists support this, because it means more of their members can buy “investment properties” and rent them out for more than they’re worth.
Yeah, just at up some SPEs and you are good
100 seems like 99 too many but its a start.
Wow! Only 100 houses before they’re cut off? How will they ever manage??
What’s the catch…
Large corporations should be able to own zero family housing. This bill seems more like virtue signaling than doing anything about the problem.
It’s a start
I guess this is a start, but Jfc! Who needs 100 homes??? Cap it at 5
The number corporations should be allowed to own should be 0
So they’ll break the company into several separate funds each owning 99 estates? Meh, this is nothing.
The problem is that large corporate owners are such a small part of the problem. I spent a summer working in a city in which 90+% of rental properties were owned by corporations. Almost all of them were owned by smaller LLCs 20-30 at a time rather than large corporations. Even those LLCs that owned only 5-10 properties have the same issues as those that own somewhat more. They leverage the issues in one property against the others through raising rents rather than investing in actual landlord-tenant community relationships.
100 or less and we call that legislating? 😂
Investors will certainly set uo LLCs, each with slightly different ownership characteristics. They will easily evade the limits. 100 is an insane figure for individual houses.
They will make multiple corporations.
This is a good idea, but not that big of a deal, considering they account for about 1.5% of the real estate sales over the last few years.
Sure, that’s fine. It helps a bit. But it won’t make more than a drop of impact. Corporate investors like Blackrock aren’t great, but aren’t why housing is expensive. Lack of supply is.
This doesn’t really address the wider problem of simply not enough housing units that are affordable that exist in the first place.
They better have some language on separate corporate entities, or else this is just political pandering.
Shell companies. This won’t change anything.
Fluff
Don’t forget Adam Smith and Jeff Merkeley have proposed this in the US Congress…