Will have to look for the actual bill...everything I saw on a quick glance was the typical we are going to save the world political speak.
I get the idea that they want to prevent institution investors from owning homes and such....just curious how they are going to balance that with needing institutional investors to own homes if they want new housing complexes built.
Would also like to see explained how they believe that getting .7% of the single family homes back on the market is going to have a huge impact...and going by their ten years to make it happen...how a .07% increase a year for ten years is going to make a difference.
Their numbers are 574,000 institutional investors owned homes in the US. Quick Google search puts the total number if single family homes in the US at 82 million. That's the numbers I used for the percentages.
Also a quick Google search put the number of homes short in the US at 3.5 million...so even if you got the investors half million back you are still short 3 million...again not sure what real difference that would make, specially when you factor in that you are pushing out of the housing market the people with the money to build homes on a mass scale.
Average cost to build a home in the US right now is sitting at 329,000. That's for the home. Just for that you are at 1.1 trillion.
Now add in the land, the roads, the electrical being ran, sewers, water pipes...you are probably getting up around 2 trillion minimum. Cities and counties make the housing project developer pay that many times.
Again...not sure how kicking institutional investors out of housing is going to help when they are the only ones that are going to throw around that kind of money.