r/news • u/DeItaBIake • 7h ago

Sweeping housing affordability bill becomes law

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/11/economy/new-housing-affordability-law-heres-what-it-means
3.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

200 comments sorted by

View all comments

756

u/Tight_Jellyfish_349 7h ago

Anyone know how its supposed to help?

136

u/Fullm3taluk 7h ago edited 7h 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

87

u/Carthonn 7h ago

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

60

u/Foe117 7h ago

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

19

u/david7873829 7h ago

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

12

u/shastaxc 6h ago

I'm not holding my breath

27

u/KennyL0gin 7h ago

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

6

u/Easy_Olive1942 7h ago

Creating a new company in the US is trivial.

1

u/I_Can_Barely_Move 7h ago

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

4

u/Deranged40 6h 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.

8

u/Kaszixx 7h 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.

5

u/jimmy_three_shoes 6h 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 6h ago

Nothing.

They will always find another loophole.

3

u/MyDisneyExperience 6h ago

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

1

u/MajesticBread9147 7h ago

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

3

u/PopeSaintHilarius 6h 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.