43.3 million acres 54,300 residential properties owned by foreign entities it's time to end foreign ownership of U.S. real estate

Homeland Security
1

Proposal to End Foreign Ownership of Real Estate in the United States

Objective: To safeguard national security, economic stability, and the interests of American citizens by prohibiting foreign entities from owning real estate in the United States.

Background: Foreign ownership of U.S. real estate has been a growing concern, with foreign entities currently owning approximately 43.4 million acres of agricultural land and 54,300 residential properties. This ownership can pose risks to national security, inflate property prices, and limit opportunities for American citizens to own property.

Start with legislation that clearly says the Constitution of the United States only applies to citizens of the United States it does not apply to foreign corporations, foreign Nationals, or foreign individuals. The world is not a US citizen nor do they have the rights of the US citizens.

Proposal:

Legislative Action:
Enact federal legislation to prohibit foreign entities from purchasing or owning real estate in the United States. This includes agricultural, residential, and commercial properties.
Define “foreign entities” to include foreign governments, corporations, and individuals who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
Allow existing foreign-owned property owners 3 years to sell the properties, if they do not sell within 3 years use eminent domain to take the property as a national security issue. None of these properties may be sold to investment companies such as black rock or other investment companies they should all be owner-occupied properties.
Enforcement and Compliance:
Establish a federal oversight body to monitor and enforce compliance with the new regulations.
Implement strict penalties for violations, including fines and mandatory divestiture of illegally acquired properties.
Economic Impact Mitigation:
Provide support and incentives for American citizens and businesses to purchase properties previously owned by foreign entities.
Encourage investment in affordable housing and agricultural development to ensure a smooth transition and minimize economic disruption.
National Security Measures:
Prioritize the prohibition of foreign ownership in areas of strategic importance, such as near military installations, critical infrastructure, and government facilities.
Collaborate with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to review and address any potential national security threats posed by existing foreign-owned properties that need to be sold faster than the 3-year mark.
No foreign company or foreign entity should have any ownership in any pipelines or major transportation needs or shipping companies in the US.
Public Awareness and Transparency:
Launch a public awareness campaign to inform citizens about the new regulations and their benefits.
Ensure transparency in the registration and monitoring process by making relevant data accessible to the public.
Conclusion: By ending foreign ownership of real estate in the United States, we can protect our national security, stabilize property markets, and prioritize the interests of American citizens. This proposal aims to create a fair and secure environment for property ownership, ensuring that the benefits of U.S. real estate remain within our borders.

If you are wondering what some of the National Security threats of foreign Nations owning in our country here is a list.

1.Strategic Land Acquisition
Espionage and Surveillance: Foreign entities could purchase land near sensitive military installations, government facilities, or critical infrastructure. This proximity could facilitate espionage activities, such as monitoring communications, movements, and operations, posing a direct threat to national security.

  1. Food Security Risks
    Control Over Food Supply: Foreign ownership of agricultural land could lead to control over significant portions of the U.S. food supply. In times of geopolitical tension, this control could be used to manipulate food availability, leading to shortages and increased prices.
    Diversion of Produce: Foreign owners might prioritize exporting produce to their home countries, reducing the availability of food within the U.S. and potentially causing shortages.

  2. Economic Manipulation
    Inflated Property Prices: Foreign investment can drive up property prices, making it difficult for local farmers and businesses to compete. This can lead to economic displacement and increased living costs for local communities.
    Rent Extraction: Foreign owners can extract rental income from U.S. properties and transfer these funds to their home countries. This reduces the economic benefits that would otherwise stay within the U.S. economy, potentially leading to a drain on local resources.

  3. Resource Control
    Water and Minerals: Foreign ownership of land with critical resources like water and minerals can lead to control over these resources. This could restrict access for local communities and industries, potentially leading to resource shortages and increased costs.
    Strategic Resource Management: Foreign entities might prioritize their own national interests over U.S. needs, potentially leading to resource allocation that benefits their home country at the expense of U.S. interests.

  4. Cybersecurity Threats
    Cyber Infrastructure: Properties owned by foreign entities could be used to establish cyber infrastructure that might facilitate cyber-attacks or data breaches against U.S. targets. This could compromise sensitive information and critical systems.

  5. Political Influence
    Local and State Government Influence: Large-scale land ownership can give foreign entities significant leverage over local and state governments. This influence can be used to sway political decisions, potentially undermining local governance and prioritizing foreign interests.
    Policy Manipulation: Foreign owners might lobby for policies that favor their interests, which could lead to regulatory changes that disadvantage local farmers and businesses.

  6. Supply Chain Vulnerabilities
    Disruption of Supply Chains: Foreign control over agricultural production could disrupt supply chains, especially during geopolitical tensions. This could affect the availability of essential goods and lead to increased prices.

  7. Economic Espionage
    Base for Espionage: Foreign-owned properties could serve as bases for economic espionage, targeting U.S. businesses and technological innovations. This could lead to the theft of intellectual property and competitive disadvantages for U.S. companies.

  8. Environmental Impact
    Unsustainable Practices: Foreign owners might prioritize short-term profits over environmental sustainability, leading to practices that could harm local ecosystems and long-term agricultural productivity.
    Land Degradation: In extreme cases, foreign owners could intentionally degrade the land (e.g., salting the earth), rendering it unusable for future agricultural purposes.

  9. Legal and Regulatory Challenges
    Enforcement Difficulties: Enforcing U.S. laws and regulations on foreign-owned properties might be more challenging, especially if the owners are based in countries with different legal systems. This could lead to regulatory loopholes and non-compliance.

Additional Threats to Farmland

Taking Farmland Out of Operation: Foreign owners could deliberately take farmland out of production, leading to reduced agricultural output. This could cause food shortages and drive up food prices in the U.S…

Conservation Easements: Foreign entities might place farmland into conservation easements, which can reduce local employment opportunities and lower property values. This could result in lower property taxes while the foreign owners collect federal incentives and payments for conservation.

Destruction of Land: In extreme cases, foreign owners could intentionally degrade the land (e.g., salting the earth), rendering it unusable for future agricultural purposes.

99 Likes
2

I’m on board with this. I think a good element to include would be to ban investment firms and large corporations from owning residential property and competing against families that want to buy a home.
This is my first day posting here and I’m hoping there are a lot more property related proposals.
I could go on and on about this one.

26 Likes
3

Many countries limit who can buy what in their country and we should never allow our frenemies or enemies the ability to own land in the US.

15 Likes
4

See these videos & sign the pledge!

5 Likes
5

Excellent presentation! My ideas:

3 Likes
6

Private equity ownership in the housing market is a complex issue with significant implications. Currently, private equity firms own about 574,000 single-family homes in the United States. If the government were to mandate that these firms sell their properties to address market distortions, the firms could simply create subsidiaries or holding companies to purchase the homes. This maneuver would allow them to comply with regulations while still maintaining control through parent companies. Additionally, they could claim tax deductions for any losses incurred from these forced sales.

This situation presents a serious problem. Even if the government found a constitutional way to prevent private equity firms from selling homes to their own subsidiaries, releasing 574,000 homes onto the market simultaneously could crash the housing market and devastate retirement accounts. Despite the negative perception of private equity firms like BlackRock, these companies manage many 401(k) plans, and their aggressive strategies can enhance retirement savings.

I’ve witnessed the impact of market crashes on retirement accounts firsthand. Imagine contributing $25 or $100 a month to your 401(k), with your employer matching contributions. This modest sum, combined with Social Security, can help you maintain a decent standard of living in retirement. However, a housing market crash could jeopardize this security, forcing retirees to compete for low-wage jobs.

The current trend of private equity firms buying up housing creates a cycle where lifetime renters face rising rents without corresponding increases in retirement income. One potential solution is to prohibit private equity from using foreign investments to purchase U.S. real estate and to prevent foreign investors from benefiting from U.S. properties. Additionally, local governments could implement owner-occupied zoning laws, which have been upheld in court. These laws encourage property upkeep and community investment, benefiting the entire community. Private equity buying up single family housing is a serious issue and it’s one that needs to be addressed. It is not a national security issue and it doesn’t quite fit with the issue I brought above. That’s not in any way saying that it shouldn’t be fixed we can fix them both, I’m afraid private equity probably has to be done on the state and local level through local zoning via owner occupied zoning.

6 Likes
7

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. However, as with many things, that we ever allowed this to happen is a travesty. “This” being corporate ownership of single family homes, along with retirement accounts being controlled by unions/corporations, and a laissez-faire attitude of a largely uneducated public when it comes to managing their investments. Plenty more to comment on there, but I don’t want this to end up too long to read.
Not trashing the general public so much, as I know we got here by trusting without verifying and generally trying to enjoy life.

4 Likes
8

I appreciate your input, but this particular post focuses on the national security threats posed by foreign nations owning U.S. real estate. The risks are clear and pressing.

While I understand your concerns about private equity, crafting a comprehensive proposal to address it is beyond my expertise. The complexities of private equity and the legal nuances involved require specialized knowledge and legal expertise.

On a local level, owner-occupied zoning can be a solution, but implementing such measures at the federal level is far more complicated. Proposals to restrict U.S. companies from owning real estate would need to withstand constitutional scrutiny and involve detailed legal frameworks, likely requiring forensic accounting to ensure compliance. Please remember my bio it says I am a farmer and an armchair political quarterback, because that’s what I am. I am not a lawyer.

Therefore, I can’t incorporate private equity into this discussion. Addressing it properly would necessitate the involvement of legal professionals who can navigate these intricate issues.

2 Likes
9

They’re having some kind of odd sign up error I tried signing up for multiple times it’s just not going through but I would appreciate it if you would share my proposal over there that one and the one on the pharmaceuticals because they’re especially important as they are National Security, I mean really if China wanted to go to war with us they wouldn’t have to put boots on the ground at all they could just stop producing pharmaceuticals antibiotics are life-saving they’re not just for earaches it would take our government every bit of 6 months to a year before they found a good legitimate new supplier

1 Like
10

Thanks for this. There is a lot here but I’d like to focus on a single part of it that is poignant to me personally.

Perhaps a solution to the housing market issue, which is that 574,000 homes are owned by corporations instead of occupants, is through tax policy that makes single family home assets a hot-potato that they must divest in a timely manner before their position shifts to a liability in future years. A property tax would be a direct tax and not feasible to implement without running afoul of the Constitution’s apportionment clause. However, a corporation’s very existence is a federal privilege, when they self-identify as a “domestic” corporation for tax purposes. Therefore, an excise tax could be imposed on their rental incomes. There is also the mainstay capital gains tax that kicks in whenever properties are sold. The loophole that allows avoidance of capital gains tax by reinvesting the recovered capital from the sale of a property within a short amount of time could be closed for only corporate entities.

These two taxes — capital gains on the sale of homes, and excise tax on rental incomes — imposed only on corporate entities, could be ramped up gradually and relentlessly over a 30 year period until either the tax rate reaches 100% or until the market comes back into balance. There will be an inflection point on the ramp where most properties shift suddenly from asset to liability, so the increases in rates must slow down at that point to keep the prices falling at a controlled rate so as not to discourage home buyers from buying a deflationary asset. But let’s get real — a home is a depreciating asset! People who became millionaires through the inflation of their home value can never permanently benefit from that inflation without paying the cost of leaving that home and moving to a far away cheaper market.

I think this proposal resolves the issue of transferring the wealth in a gradual way that doesn’t cause sudden instability.

However, we must get sober and realize that the retirement funds and the stock market are in an “everything bubble” and when artificial demand is removed from the property assets, however gradually, the prices of the properties and the funds that contain or used to contain them will fall together. The fact is that the stuff is over priced because it is overvalued because of artificial scarcity. The good news is that when prices fall, costs are also lower, so the smaller payouts from funds will not be as damaging as a sudden loss would be.

2 Likes
11

I’m all for this. Especially if this can reduce the risk of terrorism and provide more housing for our own American citizens, especially veterans.

1 Like
12

Dude did you read my road map proposal it’s all the way at the top or were you just reading the conversation between me and another guy? Because my roadmap proposal has nothing to do with private equity private equity is not even mentioned in it. The road map proposal that I wrote has to do with foreign governments and foreign entities buying real estate in the United States. I completely understand that private equity purchasing the single family homes is an issue I do, I do not know enough about it to write a road map proposal to stop it I am not an attorney and that one you would need a whole team of attorneys and forensic accountants to deal with I’m not going to try to write that I don’t know enough about it. If you want to write a road map proposal on that I will be happy to support you on it 100%. I agree it’s a problem but that problem is not what my post is about.

13

Only US citizens should be allowed to own land, property or a business in the US. If a foreign company wants to expand here, they should have to franchise to a US citizen. Too much foreign influence is diluting the America values and traditions and having too much influence over the officials who are supposed to put us first.

2 Likes
14

Thank you for such a well thought out proposal presentation. There were some topics included that I hadn’t even thought of. Well done! I voted for your proposal and I sincerely hope that it gets the attention it deserves and implementation in the very near future.

1 Like
15

You did mention Black Rock in your original proposal and that resonated with me more than everything else. I don’t believe the part about eminent domain in your proposal is appropriate because that would convert the property by confiscation from foreign private owned to foreign government owned (yes, the federal government is a foreign entity to you and to the state you live in just as the states are foreign to one another), and it seems a long shot that the feds would ever truly relinquish all interest in it. I’m sure they would entail it with some new federal property tax which would be extra bad. And eminent domain conversions can only be used for the permanent benefit of the public interest such as utility easements, roads, parks, etc. just doesn’t apply to housing.

So, I actually think your original policy proposal is more gnarly and would require a panel of international law experts to sort out for a problem that’s 1/10th the size of the problem of private equity ownership of homes, which can be solved with a couple simple tax reforms.

Would you consider changing the focus of your policy proposal?

16

I might have read the wrong thread!

1 Like
17

I agree. I may have missed it, but shouldn’t it also prohibit ownership by the named groups through any intermediary (group, entity, or individual) directly or indirectly through interlocking boards, directorships, non-profits, or controlling interest in any such groups, corporations, or entities? Otherwise, they will just hold it through a dummy corporation, string of paper entities, or some non-profit and hide it in a charity/trust/foundation—just a thought. I appreciate your efforts in laying this out.

1 Like
18

Thanks

19

I mentioned BlackRock and followed it with owner-occupied zoning, which ensures that the people buying this land have to live there. This makes it difficult for investment companies to purchase. Owner-occupied zoning has been court-tested.

Now, let me explain why I believe this is a serious national security threat. Although I despise eminent domain, it isn’t always constrained to the category you mentioned. We’ve seen instances where companies like Walmart have forced sales using eminent domain.

Currently, there are five states with a carbon capture pipeline being constructed, and eminent domain is being used to seize land for this purpose. This pipeline would remove such a minuscule amount of carbon that it offers no real benefit to the public, yet the federal government is providing tax credits for it.

This situation is alarming, but the real red flags are even more concerning. TPG has invested $300 million into this project, and the national security threat lies here: TPG’s anchor investor is the Chinese government, not just a Chinese businessman. The pipeline’s route raised my suspicions because it passes through two military installations and skirts within miles of five others.

A CO2 pipeline leak doesn’t result in a spill that needs cleaning up; instead, it releases a white plume of CO2 gas, which is heavy and sinks, displacing oxygen. Every living organism that breathes oxygen in the affected area would suffocate. Vehicles can’t operate in this environment due to the lack of oxygen. This pipeline is dangerously close to several military installations, schools and hospitals

China is essentially financing a bomb line that can kill all oxygen-breathing life forms without harming trees or buildings. This pipeline runs near military bases, ammunition plants, near hospitals and schools. They wouldn’t have to rule over ashes just clean up the bodies. Our government is providing tax credits for this project, using eminent domain to seize land. Where is the benefit to the people? This is why it is important that we cannot allow foreign ownership even if that foreign ownership is just an investor in it.
And if you want a map to see the pipeline route for yourself, or the proof of investments I will be happy to send it to you. I tried to keep my post above happyish because people have a tendency not to like to see the dark sides this is the dark side. They don’t have to rule over ashes they just have to clean up the bodies.

3 Likes
20

This one was just focused on the national security threat of foreign entities, foreign corporations, for an individuals owning real estate in the United States. There are real there are real National Security threats that are like glaring in that one. As far as US foreign equity buying up us real estate I’m not intelligent enough to write that road map proposal I don’t know enough about it. I don’t know much about the foreign ones buying but I can see the security threat. But as far as American companies doing it but I just I’m not smart enough to do that one. That’s why I kept it with foreign threats.