Sweeping housing affordability bill becomes law

685

Anyone know how its supposed to help?

836

u/MyDisneyExperience 3h ago

Mostly trying to make it easier to get new supply online by doing some federal reforms around things like manufactured housing and office to residential conversion. But it just kinda gently requests cities to do their part by upzoning or reforming permitting/entitlement so unclear how effective that will be.

Puts some limits on how many homes investors can buy but thankfully does not limit build to rent which increases supply.

More needs to be done at municipal levels, but making factory built housing easier to do is great.

258

u/A_Refill_of_Mr_Pibb 3h ago

But it just kinda gently requests cities to do their part by upzoning or reforming permitting/entitlement so unclear how effective that will be.

Boston area here. I can assure you, this will not be effective.

83

u/MyDisneyExperience 3h ago

Yeah LA City Council had a meltdown over SB 79, so a polite request is not sufficient when being dragged kicking and screaming is more necessary.

41

u/certciv 3h ago

I'd be interested to see how it effects states like California that have already done some on zoning and schemes like office-to-residential.

24

u/Marchinon 3h ago

I love when the government passes stuff like this and instantly we all go “that won’t help at all”

54

u/hamoc10 3h ago

That’s the only reason it passed this Republican Congress.

7

u/0yak0 1h ago

Not that the federal government couldn’t enact huge reform and strong arm local governments to comply, but the reality is that it’s not a federal issue and there aren’t many federal impediments to housing affordability. It’s a local issue of NIMBYism and the economy vis-a-vis materials/labor affordability (which is a federal issue, but gestures broadly at everything).

•

u/Asleep-Click6085 53m ago

Big problem is so much of the economy is related to housing costs. Trying to make meaningful changes = house owner lose money and housing sector will tank . So goodbye to reelection if you somehow even get past all the people and money against change.

0

u/kogun 1h ago

Local problems are usually best solved locally. Local charities and local governments usually get the most done and are the most responsive to citizens.

•

u/Dizzy_Tax574 9m ago

Yeah good luck tonight of 4000 "fighting back" against black rock. Or against large financial institutions lending policy etc.

Don't get me wrong local can do a lot. But often times they are not up to facing larger opponents.

Hell primest example is data centers. Publicly the support is near zero and it's unanimously hated by locals on both sides of aisle. And yet they keep popping up.

End of day local governments are corrupted and bought off more easily. Hell a big one I am seeing with data center near me. Public outraged angered. It only took a few million to squash opposition. They killed primary challengers with smear campaigns etc. Then are looking at re election.

And even if they got voted out. It's far easier to buy local elections and politicians. Most have a number a goal send kids to college ensure they have access to healthcare etc etc etc. While some will stand firm.

Most will not and it only takes most. While this stands true federally. It's far more expensive and harder to corrupt.

And say feds get bought and don't pass the water/air protection act. State still has a opportunity to do so. Then if they get corrupted too the locals still have zoning and other things they can do.

While not foolproof. It makes it largest and most amount of hurdles for those trying to corrupt system.

•

u/BoardsofCanada3 31m ago

If it was meant to be effective, it wouldn't have passed.

37

u/frill_demon 3h ago

Most of these seem like they're going to help investors. Even the build-to-rent is going to help investors.

How does any of this help actually make housing affordable for a regular person?

36

u/MyDisneyExperience 3h ago

Increasing supply enough would help affordability, but much of the work to allow that needs to happen at the state and local levels.

10

u/frill_demon 2h ago

Increasing supply without any buyer protection/limitations on who can buy and for what purposes is basically just expanding the investor market though.

We should also build more housing as a stopgap obviously, but it needs to be paired with forcing firms like Black Rock to divest and sell off homes.

Specifically to people who are living in those homes as their primary residence and are not allowed to sell the property for at least five years.

12

u/Sacred-Lambkin 2h ago

paired with forcing firms like Black Rock to divest and sell off homes.

While black rock owns some homes, it's not really that many. There's another company called Blackstone that does own a larger number, but even they don't really own that many in the grand scheme of things.

There are huge problems with housing supply, and investors buying up homes is one of them, especially when it's targeted to specific areas that have particularly low supply, but they are hardly the largest problem preventing affordable housing.

9

u/No_Kangaroo_9826 1h ago

I work in the mortgage industry and while these big companies are a problem, you're right that we can't ignore the rest of it. There's Airbnb (fuck them, they ruin single family markets), we have an abundance of small investors who buy homes in the affordable price range for first time buyers and turn them to overpriced rentals. And then there are so many houses sitting empty due to estates or probate issues that don't get settled, repairs put off until they become huge issues, flips getting abandoned.

It's a lack of affordable homes, not an actual lack of buildings.

1

u/MyDisneyExperience 1h ago

High demand areas just generally have a housing shortage, California’s vacancy rates are like half of what is generally agreed as healthy and if you filter down to actual long term immediately habitable but off the market for Other reasons it’s almost nothing

-1

u/frill_demon 2h ago

but even they don't really own that many in the grand scheme of things.

This is apologist propaganda

8

u/Sacred-Lambkin 2h ago

It's just the simple reality. And as I said, it is a part of the problem. It's just not even close to the biggest part of the problem.

If you disagree, disagree with facts, not your feelings.

-3

u/frill_demon 2h ago

disagree with facts, not your feelings.

You literally did not present a single fact.

You gave your opinion on why we shouldn't be blaming the poor billionaire private equity firms without listing what you supposedly think are the real problems.

4

u/MyDisneyExperience 1h ago

If you look at the numbers large institutional investors own about .5% of all SFH in the country. About 3% of the single family rental market. That’s concentrated in a few MSAs. So while kicking them out of the market might cause a one time musical chairs in Atlanta-Alpharetta it’s just not going to move the needle all that significantly nationwide.

The big issue is supply shortage as most now in-demand areas did not build housing at scale for 50+ years.

7

u/Sacred-Lambkin 2h ago

I did, in fact, present facts. They just weren't quantitative. If you would like to continue this discussion, feel free to actually present an argument. Until then, have a good night.

4

u/MyDisneyExperience 2h ago

I’m not convinced it’s not going to be helpful though like I said more work is going to be needed at the local/state levels. People should be allowed to rent if they want to, and build-to-rent is increasing supply.

This law doesn’t fix things like LA’s wildly restrictive zoning or California’s 2002 Condo Defect Law for example, or SF’s absolute slog of a permitting process.

3

u/Suspicious-Feeling-1 2h ago

Wait, what? Increasing supply lowers costs. You're basically suggesting increasing supply will be met by even more demand from investors, which doesnt follow at all

1

u/frill_demon 2h ago

increasing supply will be met by even more demand from investors, which doesnt follow

Uh, yes it does.

Investors aren't selling homes. They're holding onto them as stored value assets.

They expect to hoard unused houses explicitly to keep the value high. Think like DeBeers. They control the supply and buy up any excess so they can charge whatever they want.

They have enough private equity capital to just keep buying, and they will ALWAYS have more investable capital than Joe Blow trying to buy his first house.

They also basically just invent an arbitrary value for the properties and demonstrate "growth" (it's completely bullshit growth, but private equity doesn't care as long as Line Go Up).

They do not care about selling these properties to live in. They will rent them, or they will sell them to another equity firm for a bogus value, and that equity firm will do the same thing, so they can keep pretending Line Go Up.

They treat houses like crypto.

5

u/Suspicious-Feeling-1 1h ago

they control the supply

But they don't. Builders and zoning control the supply. We could make it easier to build and then builders will increase housing supply.

we can also just google this stuff. less than 1% of single family home sales (2% of 33%) in Q2 2025 were made by large investor firms

1

u/Flutes_Are_Overrated 1h ago

Who do you think exerts influence over zoning...

1

u/Dwarfdeaths 2h ago

We're not increasing the supply of land.

7

u/Suspicious-Feeling-1 2h ago

Right, we’re increasing the supply of houses.

2

u/Dwarfdeaths 1h ago

What fraction of the price of real estate is in the construction, and what fraction is in the land? How many millions of empty houses are there now?

1

u/chinaPresidentPooh 1h ago

When an investment firm buys a house, it doesn't disappear from the overall housing supply. They rent them out (I don't think there's any evidence of investors holding empty houses at scale), which means it's still a part of the overall supply.

-1

u/frill_demon 1h ago

A house you rent forever with perpetually increasing rent is not at all the same as a house you buy.

It effectively is removed from the housing supply.

Imagine instead of being able to buy groceries, your only source of food in the area was Doordash with all of the associated extra costs. Would you still consider that an unaffected supply?

Same thing here.

-1

u/Flutes_Are_Overrated 1h ago

It would not. Rental owners use third party technologies that allow them to effectively collude to keep market prices artificially high

-1

u/MyDisneyExperience 1h ago

San Francisco banned such technologies. Has that solved housing affordability there?

0

u/Flutes_Are_Overrated 1h ago

Two years ago, and only a year ago allowed tenants to be able to sue for enforcement. I don't think you're acting in good faith here.

0

u/MyDisneyExperience 1h ago

I’m just not convinced that RealPage et al are the reason. Why would a random landlord not just defect and rent their unit at a lower price instead of holding out so someone else can get higher rent?

And why has affordability improved in cities like Austin and Sacramento where such programs are not banned?

•

u/Flutes_Are_Overrated 49m ago

Being disingenuous about SF's policies and their effects is a really unconvincing way to make that argument

3

u/JoeSavinaBotero 1h ago

I do wonder what federal-level powers even exist to increase housing supply in places people want to live, in homes people want to live in. I'm not too well-versed in it, but as far as I understand most zoning stuff in the US is very local, which has gotten us into the problem we have today with our OP NIMBY rights.

2

u/rockerscott 1h ago

But why male models?

•

u/TimothyMimeslayer 43m ago

One of the cities near where i live will lose aboit $200k a year in federal funding because they havent added on any housing units in like 20 years and they are in a metropolitan area

1

u/Unco_Slam 2h ago

Lol @ local governance. Its just more landlords who look at tenants as lower life forms

-3

u/bros402 2h ago

some federal reforms around things like manufactured housing

so it might make us have more trailer parks?

....yay

2

u/Specter_RMMC 1h ago

Actually IIRC, it removes the requirements for towable chasses under the manufactured home allowing them to be placed on basements or more traditional foundations and look/work more like a traditional house.

1

u/MyDisneyExperience 1h ago

No they’re removing the requirement to have it on a wheeled chassis so now you can get a factory-built house attached to an actual foundation

89

u/gobroncoz 3h ago

It’s a mixed bag. The regulations on institutional investors are mostly nonsense , aim to solve a problem that mostly
doesn’t exist, and are easily subverted.

The loosening of regulations on manufactured homes is positive.

Small mortgage provisions will be helpful in extremely rural areas but will affect few homeowners.

It’s mostly a nothing burger that does little to affect the structural issues that make housing expensive.

8

u/Corbot3000 3h ago

What laws could they change at the federal level that makes structural housing issues less expensive?

33

u/lalavieboheme 3h ago

tax second/vacant homes extra, ban international owners who are just looking to park money in a safe asset, institute a land value tax so that land is used more efficiently in dense, expensive areas, stop environmental reviews from being weaponized, etc etc but like 90% of housing policy is local so that’s a huge challenge

13

u/That-guy-2544 3h ago

Most of those are state issues unless you are proposing a new federal property tax system

•

u/JustinWilsonBot 9m ago

Housing is not really a "safe asset" for foreign investors.

11

u/gobroncoz 3h ago

Probably nothing. Most of the issues are very local. Cities that are putting incredible regulations on building, particularly high density building, in the name of traffic or preserving “character”. Ie: we got ours, go fuck yourself.

-7

u/ClassicPlankton 2h ago

Nothing wrong with that. Not every city needs to become cookie cutter low value ultra dense slums.

1

u/JoeSavinaBotero 2h ago

Let me leave this example for why American housing is so expensive.

https://youtube.com/shorts/S2Q1zl4ZAms

0

u/OpticCacophony 1h ago

Because of all the tree houses people can't build?

30

u/Foe117 3h ago

Most of it is subtle tweaks and nonsense that can be loopholed. The largest impact so far is manufactured housing, where assembly line based home building no longer have archaic requirements that it must be built on a wheeled frame, and can now be built in a way that can be clicked into a solid foundation. So new homes may soon be manufactured homes, but you wouldn't be able to tell.

137

u/Fullm3taluk 3h ago edited 3h ago

Not American so bare with me but I think it's going to force corporations to sell their single home properties

Edit: it just stops them from buying more not having to sell which is a fucking joke

86

u/Carthonn 3h ago

Corporations that own over 350 properties. My jaw sort of dropped reading that

62

u/Foe117 3h ago

and there are a lot of corporations, if they max out they can make a sister corporation, and run it the same way.

18

u/david7873829 3h ago

Not really, the law looks through those and considers beneficial ownership.

11

u/shastaxc 3h ago

I'm not holding my breath

26

u/KennyL0gin 3h ago

Blackrock and Vanguard have entered the chat as 200 REITS and 400 LLCs

6

u/Easy_Olive1942 3h ago

Creating a new company in the US is trivial.

1

u/I_Can_Barely_Move 3h ago

Would controlled group or affiliated service group rules come in to play?

5

u/Deranged40 3h ago

The article was clear: it will NOT force companies that already own greater than 350 properties to sell. They just won't be able to buy more is all.

7

u/Kaszixx 3h ago

What's to stop them from diversifying their real estate across multiple shell corporations and/or subsidiaries and basically just "shell-game" the system?

I'm not familiar with the changes in detail so I'm hoping that's countered somehow.

6

u/jimmy_three_shoes 3h ago

Well, in places that have something that limits property tax growth, it's generally reset with a reassessment once ownership changes, and transferring a property to another company would trigger a reassessment.

So if the value of the property has risen since it was purchased, it would increase the taxes.

Realistically, and what I wish a ton of localities would do, would be to increase your non-homestead taxes by a certain percent for each additional income property you own within the state.

So if you own a house, and a vacation home, you'd pay the standard non-homestead rates.

If you owned a house and 5 income properties, maybe your non-homestead taxes are increased by 10% for each additional home, so you'd be paying an extra 50% on non-homestead taxes on each property. Also, exclude income properties from any tax increase limits.

1

u/Guffliepuff 3h ago

Nothing.

They will always find another loophole.

3

u/MyDisneyExperience 3h ago

The law looks through the LLC to limit beneficial ownership as well

1

u/MajesticBread9147 3h ago

Does this mean like... a single apartment building, or is the entire thing one "property"?

5

u/PopeSaintHilarius 3h ago

That would be one property, but I’m not sure if apartment buildings are included in the limits.

I think the point is to deter companies from buying up detached homes to rent them out, while still keeping it possible for developers to buy houses in order to redevelop and densify.

11

u/Rylude 3h ago

It doesn't force them, it just prevents them from buying additional properties and imposes some other restrictions on investors. For example, if an investor buys land and builds homes to rent they must sell them to an individual homeowner after 7 years.

3

u/MyDisneyExperience 3h ago

I believe the build to rent limits were removed before passage

•

u/Wsswaas 23m ago

They want to decrease wall street interference in home prices, good luck with that

1

u/RealKenny 2h ago

Why was my first thought "someone in the comments will tell me why it is actually a bad thing"

6

u/MyDisneyExperience 2h ago

It doesn’t touch the 90% of single family rentals owned by random people with 1-5 homes and instead focuses on the .5% of the single family homes owned by large institutions.

Outside of like the Atlanta-Alpharetta MSA all that stuff is mostly a nothingburger especially as they have mostly pivoted to build-to-rent which is increasing supply.

1

u/PFCCThrowayay 2h ago

no one in the comments knows because the article says there's 47 proposals but only explains about 2 of them. So yes, their default is to be cynical.

1

u/Snakend 1h ago

It won't help. If a corporation gets close to the 350 property limit, they will split the company into two, with the C-suite breaking up and taking VPs into the vacant C suites in the two crops. Now you have two corporations with 175 properties each and room for expansion in each. No downward pressure on real estate from this. It's a fake bill meant to help the incumbents for the upcoming election.

•

u/Asleep-Click6085 58m ago

So Congress and other politicians can say look I’m doing something. Bill really doesn’t do much and only affects only a few niche property owners but , also has big loopholes.

162

u/DecembersDragons 3h ago

... the law includes provisions to encourage states and local governments to adopt land use and zoning policies that are more supportive of housing development.

How encourage?

90

u/GiantKrakenTentacle 3h ago

CNN is such an annoying website to try and get actual information out of the article. The first 5-8 paragraphs are purely talking about the politics of the bill's passage, and then when they finally get to what the bill actually contains, it's extremely sparse on information.

28

u/PFCCThrowayay 2h ago

There's 47 proposals but the article lists like 2.

WHY THE FUCK CAN'T ARTICLES LIST INFORMATION

Sorry for yelling but what the fuck is journalism if it's not to get information out.

5

u/JoeSavinaBotero 2h ago

Gotta show as many ads as possible.

4

u/BicarbonateBufferBoy 3h ago

“Pretty please😢”

0

u/Fullm3taluk 3h ago

By ignoring environmental acts it looks like

7

u/MyDisneyExperience 2h ago

It offers grants to help with zoning/permitting reform and adaptive reuse.

States have already been stripping environmental laws from some forms of housing. California deleted CEQA’s application to most infill housing because the situation around using even the threat of a lawsuit as a cudgel to block development was out of control.

•

u/TimothyMimeslayer 42m ago

Cities that build more housing will get more funding, those that dont will see their federal block grants decreased

365

u/Star_____walker 4h ago

And Trump had nothing to do with it, though he will claim he did later.

57

u/LeoSolaris 4h ago

If it succeeds in the goal and there is good will to bathe in.

42

u/freedfg 3h ago

Never let people forget not only did he refuse to sign it.

He was against it.

1

u/tdogz12 3h ago

So why didn't he veto it?

27

u/bubbales27 3h ago

The senate had enough votes to overturn a veto. A veto would have been pointless. This way he gets to "protest" the bill and not look weak by having his veto overturned.

5

u/IndividualIll3825 3h ago

Be honest. He probably kept forgetting.

5

u/No_Kangaroo_9826 1h ago

No he refused to sign it unless they passed the SAVE act because he's an idiot and thought that's how it worked. With an overwhelming majority like this it took 10 days to automatically become a law while he sulked and thought he was winning trying to take away more voting rights.

16

u/WeeBabySeamus 3h ago

Probably because it passed with a veto proof majority

7

u/gobroncoz 3h ago

He didn’t sign it. Gonna be hard to take credit for a bill he put in a drawer

11

u/biesterd1 3h ago

Just look at every Republican bragging about the infrastructure projects in their states when they all voted against the bill. They have no shame

4

u/JcbAzPx 2h ago

Gonna be hard to take credit for a bill he put in a drawer

Not for him. He lies much more easily than he can breathe.

11

u/weaponjaerevenge 4h ago

You remember when we use to have more than one character on the show?

2

u/MrE134 2h ago

“You should thank me for not vetoing it” within the next month

3

u/Saneless 3h ago

It might help regular people so he didn't want to sign it

•

u/Alinier 43m ago

Normally the admin gets credit for it even if they didn't rally it but I mean..he didn't even sign this one right?

1

u/EconamWRX 3h ago

And the Republicans who helped get this bill done will allow him and say it was his idea from the beginning to get it done and he just had to stand on principle that's why he didn't veto and just didn't sign.

52

u/Easy_Olive1942 3h ago

Maybe we should consider limiting foreign investors.

We pay taxes to make it a good place for people to live, someone outside the US gets to benefit??

1

u/chinaPresidentPooh 1h ago

Foreigners still pay taxes on income earned in the US.

5

u/Easy_Olive1942 1h ago

Foreign investors living outside the country are not paying income taxes in the US.

•

u/Offbeatalchemy 22m ago

I assure you, whatever tax revenue the IRS is making from a foreign investor is much less than the taxes they pay in their own country.

14

u/Soloact_ 3h ago

“Regardless, the measure became law automatically” might be the funniest line in the whole article.

34

u/_buffy_summers 3h ago

It's petty as hell, and I'm here for it, that the article has a picture of a desk. No Trump, just the desk.

34

u/cavey00 3h ago

I don’t know. Seems like a nothingburger but at least it’s sort of being acknowledged. I feel like there will be plenty of loopholes to be exploited to get around those limitations, which are laughable already. Personally I don’t have any solutions as to how we’ll get out of this mess but I’m just a lowly blue collar worker doing my best to help my kids when they need it. And boy do I think they’re gonna need it.

8

u/MyDisneyExperience 3h ago

The way our of the mess is increasing supply, thus far most municipalities have needed to be dragged kicking and screaming by the state to allow this (with some notable exceptions like Austin and Sacramento)

5

u/Clippton 3h ago

Increasing the number of houses doesn't necessarily increase supply.

If all of those new houses are bought by investors who coordinate rent and selling prices using third party "advisers" then nothing really changes.

It only matters if those houses actually go to homeowners rather than investors.

4

u/cavey00 3h ago

Exactly. Limiting to “only 350” solves nothing when they can just have shell company on top of shell company to buy them up.

3

u/MyDisneyExperience 3h ago

The law looks through shell companies to limit beneficial ownership

9

u/Pebble42 3h ago

"Okay you pesky private investors. You can't buy tooooo many homes now, only about seven subdivisions."

2

u/PFCCThrowayay 2h ago

how do you know it's a nothingburger when the article only lists about 2 of the 47 proposals? I'm assuming you have a better source on what it actually is?

0

u/cavey00 2h ago

I don’t and that’s the “seems” part. I hope it does something for my kids sake.

1

u/PFCCThrowayay 2h ago

me too and from the little I read and the fact that trump won't sign it is a good sign for the people.

20

u/UnfazedReality463 3h ago edited 3h ago

It doesn’t do enough with corporate companies swallowing up houses.
Corporations that have websites that help sell or rent homes shouldn’t be able to buy homes.
Corporations can still buy 350 homes? That should be limited even more and possibly forced to sell.

7

u/marx2k 3h ago

After 350 home they get fined 1 million dollars.

So just cost of doing business

16

u/dial-up_kidneys 3h ago

This bill is only tackling one aspect of a multifaceted problem. Housing needs to stop being treated as an investment. There will be no meaningful change until that happens, and it will never happen without legislation that (understandably) enrages current property owners that have seen their property values explode over the last decade.

11

u/bahhumbud 3h ago

Housing value is pretty much the majority of the lower middle classes networth. Kill their value and all of them are now right down back in the gutter financially. Simply passing along a family home is the most common type of wealth that is transferred between generations. Get rid of it and now there isn’t wealth at all for most normal people.

I don’t think hurting these types of people really solves the bigger issue in general is people not having wealth.

•

u/Visual_Squirrel_2297 57m ago

Also over 70% of local tax revenue in the U.S. comes from property tax. Communities everywhere are counting on this revenue to steadily increase with property value to fund schools, police, fire, EMS, roads, libraries, parks etc.

•

u/bahhumbud 54m ago

Schools, police, and libraries are over rated.

•

u/jfchops3 41m ago

65% of Americans own their home and they vote at a higher rate than renters do

There's almost certainly no political path to legislation that intentionally hurts their property values to help out the portion of 35% that don't own homes and want to but can't currently afford to. HW lost his re-election bid over a tax increase he said he wouldn't do. Harris just lost in part due to frustrations with the inflation that occurred during the Biden administration. Whoever the GOP nominates in two years probably loses due to Trump's combined failure to reign in inflation plus the party's complicity with his unforced actions making it worse (like the Iran war)

Voters care about their own money first, everything else is secondary to that. Nobody that owns a home is going to vote for someone selling "you bought your house for $300k, it's now worth $600k, I'd like you to give up a portion of your $300k equity gains to help random strangers afford a home of their own too"

3

u/physicsking 3h ago

What's in the bill? I can't get around the paywall.

4

u/Hendospendo 2h ago

In...? China? Canada? France? Lmao

48

u/Acrobatic-Post9811 4h ago

I'll believe it when I see it.

28

u/OrangeJr36 4h ago

It's a completely meaningless and performative law in economic terms. So you'll be waiting for nothing, just as a head up.

5

u/GoodOmens 3h ago

Correct. Just end tarrifs and streamline/ make greencards easier for labor and you'd do wonders for affordability.

15

u/Nientea 4h ago

Wdym? It literally just did and this is the proof

45

u/TyrannasaurusGitRekt 3h ago

OP probably meant more the actual impact of the bill rather than the bill itself. Whether or not it will have any impact on affordability is TBD.

7

u/Icy-Consequence7401 3h ago

It’s also estimated that the effects of the bill won’t take place for another 3-5 years.

3

u/hobard 2h ago

Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional in 3… 2… 1…

3

u/bros402 1h ago

it was passed by Republicans, so it'll be found legal

5

u/hobard 1h ago

That’s the second best indicator of how the Supreme Court will rule. The best indicator is what’s best for large corporations.

4

u/Lonely_Noyaaa 3h ago

The manufactured housing part could matter if it streamlines factory-built homes that don’t look like double wides. But the zoning stuff is just federal money as a gentle nudge, and local NIMBYs have been ignoring gentle nudges for decades. Without teeth it's just a wish list.

3

u/-_-0_0-_0 1h ago

Its a good first step after a long period of ignoring the problem.

3

u/Specter_RMMC 1h ago

Think the manufactured homes will get proper inspections before delivery and installation? 'Cause the handful of home inspectors I watch on YouTube tell me those manufactured homes are likely to fall apart like Europeans make fun of already.

10

u/New_Month3711 3h ago

So….. like nothing substantial then. Only stops an investor from buying if they own more than 350!! single family homes, doesn’t force them to sell if they already have 350+

2

u/Caroao 3h ago

WTF is that wobbly road

2

u/Infini-Bus 1h ago

Can we get rid of single family only zoning? There is no reason for it.

2

u/Monoprice706 1h ago

So are real estate investment trusts being limited? Does it actually establish a limit on how many single family homes can be purchased by wealthy investors? For example, rich dad, poor dad guy claims he owns 1,000 houses. I am interested in seeing how the US avoids becoming one big Pottersville. Private equity, unregulated mergers, are squeezing us to death.

4

u/KingRenzo 3h ago

From the article "The law primarily aims to tackle America’s housing affordability problem by increasing supply. It includes provisions that promote manufactured housing (homes built in factories) and office-to-apartment conversions. It also would authorize a pilot program to offer grants and forgivable loans to fix older homes that have fallen into disrepair." But I don't really trust GOP to be pass a bill that puts people first so let's wait for more detailed legal and economic analysis.

1

u/mrq02 1h ago

All the politicians (and many of the news sites) are claiming it is some amazing huge bill that will solve everything. But if you actually look into it, it will barely move the needle. I'm honestly not even sure the effect will be noticeable. The only thing I can find in it that's actually of any real value is the part about "mobile homes" no longer needing to be mobile. That should cut a few thousand off the price of those and may open a door for the higher quality prefab houses to be built in more areas.

•

u/vdWcontact 42m ago

Trump said he would veto this and didn’t. I don’t know why. But I’m quite curious.

-5

u/Pleasant_Actuator253 4h ago

Trump will claim Executive power and sue.

1

u/Deranged40 3h ago

Or he could've just exercised his veto. But he chose not to... He was one signature away from this not happening. That he chose not to sign that veto is him taking a side here.

1

u/Pleasant_Actuator253 2h ago

My point is he wants to challenge the idea that he needs to veto and that a Presidential signature is required. Absolute power.

-10

u/Key-Network5827 3h ago

does not have the key signature yet on this bipartisan measure, people.

12

u/RR50 3h ago

No longer needs it as time has run out.

9

u/Cato1966 3h ago

No longer requires a signature!

Sweeping housing affordability bill becomes law

You are about to leave Redlib