I agree, it would reduce the amount of homes available for rental. However, the goal here is to get people to own the houses, not rent them. According to Google the average 2-bedroom apartment where I live (city of 150k appx.) goes for $1,522 dollars. That is more than the mortgage payment on my 24-year-old four-bedroom home in that same city. With the proper incentives and structured lending I see no reason why these same people couldn’t be paying mortgages instead of rent.
Forced divestitures of private property happens all the time, bank foreclosures, unpaid taxes, etc. it’s hardly a new concept. I’m afraid if there is not a hard line on the ownership then large corporations will find a way to weasel around it and end up owning all the property again.
As for taxes, anything too excessive will be deemed “cruel and unusual.” And, as a mega-corporation, if I can pay a million dollar or 100 million dollar a year “tax fine” and still make 2 billion dollars in profit, I’ll just work it into my expense sheet (and raise rental fees to cover it).
In order for this act to be effective, I think the rules for ownership need to be simple and few.
How can we elevate this? Maybe even incorporate every related post into this thread; or at least link them.
It seems like you spent a good amount of time writing this up, and, IMO, it should serve well as a community endorsed starting point, if not draft legislation.
I don’t know if we can PM on this forum but, if we can, PM me and I’ll help in any way I can.
Only 38 votes in almost a year so I’m not encouraged. The idea of this kind of forum is great, but in practice I don’t think any of our legislators will/are paying it any attention.
Honestly? I think the best course of action is to send this directly to your Congressional representative and ask them to sponsor it. Or, come up with one of your own and ask them to sponsor that.
If enough people get into their mailbox with this same issue, perhaps we can get some movement on it before the 99% are all renting from the 1%.
What are your thoughts on adding/altering the line in Section 3 to include/read “all land purposed for dwellings?”
My reasoning is that due to un agenda 21 (30, 50, sustainable development goals), and it’s downstream entities and effects such as ABAG, ICLEI, zoning laws subsequently enacted that essentially remove 80% of all land available from the ability to be zoned for single family homes, in favor, of course, of high density housing.
I think that if this were enacted without closing that loophole we’d end up with 99% of all developable land zoned for high density and/or smart cities.
Land use (zoning, density, setbacks, etc.) has historically been a state and local power under the “police powers” reserved to states. That’s why cities and counties write zoning codes, not Congress.
I’m afraid that broad of scope would have deleterious consequences and give a real-world argument against its passage. Local zoning is very much a local issue, and beyond the scope of a federal enforcement. Local constituents need to hold local officials accountable, and replace those who push for nothing but “high density” zoning.
Speaking for myself, I want people (families) owning homes, not living in government-subsidized multi-family housing. What I can do, however, is modify Purposed Land definition slightly to account for ill-intentioned, or downright greedy, zoning implementations.
Current:
Purposed land for single-family dwellings: Any parcel of land that is zoned for, or currently used for, single-family dwellings, including but not limited to mobile home parks.
Proposed revision:
Purposed land for dwellings: Any parcel of land that is zoned, designated, or reasonably purposed for residential use, including single-family, multi-family, or mixed-use residential zoning. For purposes of this Act, no jurisdiction may wholly exclude single-family dwellings as a lawful residential use across all categories of residentially zoned land.
That means:
Section 4 (“Ownership Restrictions”) would then automatically apply to all residential land (not just the shrinking single-family subset).
HUD and courts would have a clear statutory definition to enforce if a jurisdiction tried to zone single-family out of existence.
I’ll need to tweak Section 2 slightly for alignment as well.
I agree. I wouldn’t want to broaden the scope so much that it would be immediately rejected/dismissed. and I like how you’ve written it up so far. And, BTW, thank you for writing it up to begin with! You are clearly skilled at doing so, and that’s a skill I lack.
I’ve read your initial post about 15 times now - just to make sure I’m not missing anything - and I’ll probably read it another 15 times, or more. This is an issue that is very important to me, and I’ll do anything I can to help bring it to fruition.
Just for grins, I ran it through AI. This is the result, which doesn’t look bad.
Analysis of the Single-Family Home and Land Ownership Protection Act
The Single-Family Home and Land Ownership Protection Act aims to address the growing concern over corporate ownership of single-family homes and the impact this has on affordable housing. Below is a detailed analysis of its key components, potential implications, and criticisms.
Key Components
Ownership Restrictions:
The Act restricts ownership of single-family homes and residential land to private citizens (U.S. citizens and legal foreign nationals). This aims to prevent corporate entities from acquiring residential properties, which is seen as a threat to affordable housing.
Mandatory Divestiture:
Entities currently owning single-family homes must divest their holdings within a specified timeline (1/3 within 12 months, 2/3 within 24 months, and full divestiture by 36 months). Failure to comply results in mandatory government auctions of the properties.
Government Auction Process:
Properties that remain in violation after the divestiture period will be auctioned, with a preference for selling to eligible private citizens, current tenants, and first-time homebuyers.
Enforcement and Penalties:
The Act includes provisions for civil penalties and property forfeiture for non-compliance, along with the authority for HUD to conduct investigations and inspections.
Exemptions:
Non-profit organizations focused on affordable housing can apply for exemptions, provided they meet specific criteria. There is also a grace period for entities involved in new construction to transfer ownership.
Potential Implications
Increased Access to Homeownership: By limiting corporate ownership, the Act could enhance opportunities for individual homebuyers, potentially stabilizing communities and promoting diversity.
Impact on Housing Market: The divestiture requirement may lead to a significant shift in the housing market, potentially increasing the availability of single-family homes for private citizens. However, it could also create market instability if entities are forced to sell quickly.
Administrative Burden: The enforcement of this Act may require significant resources from HUD and state agencies to monitor compliance, conduct auctions, and manage investigations.
Legal Challenges: The Act may face legal scrutiny regarding property rights and the constitutionality of restricting ownership based on entity type. Corporations may challenge the divestiture requirements and penalties.
Criticisms and Concerns
Market Distortion: Critics may argue that the Act could distort the housing market by artificially limiting ownership options, potentially leading to unintended consequences such as increased prices for remaining properties.
Impact on Investment: The prohibition on corporate ownership could deter investment in housing development, particularly from entities that contribute to affordable housing initiatives.
Implementation Challenges: The phased divestiture timeline may be difficult to enforce, and the auction process could be complicated, especially in areas with high demand for housing.
Potential for Abuse: There is a risk that non-profit exemptions could be exploited by entities seeking to circumvent the restrictions, necessitating robust oversight and enforcement mechanisms.
Conclusion
The Single-Family Home and Land Ownership Protection Act addresses a pressing issue in the housing market by aiming to preserve single-family homeownership for private citizens. While it has the potential to enhance access to affordable housing, it also raises significant concerns regarding market dynamics, enforcement challenges, and potential legal ramifications. Balancing the need for affordable housing with the rights of property owners and investors will be crucial in the implementation of this Act.
Any new law will always have pros and cons. In this case, i feel the pros outweigh any cons that might arise from “market dynamics” or potential abuse (assuming the watchdog portion of the Act is applied in good faith). Mostly because this Act:
Keeps homes in the hands of people, not Wall Street.
Preserves diversity of housing options and neighborhood stability.
Balances growth (multi-family, mixed-use) with the continued right to single-family ownership.
Provides a fair but firm framework: divest, auction, re-home — while avoiding sudden market shocks.
Bottom line, this Act ensures that homeownership remains accessible to ordinary Americans, not just institutional investors, while closing zoning loopholes that could otherwise erase single-family homes from the map.