As CBS News Atlanta previously reported, more than one in four single-family rental homes in metro Atlanta are owned by large corporate investors — more than 72,000 homes — giving the region one of the highest concentrations of institutional ownership anywhere in the United States.
Housing advocates have argued that those companies can outbid families with cash offers, reducing the number of homes available to first-time buyers while contributing to higher home prices and rents.
Warnock has repeatedly cited those trends in pushing the legislation, saying corporate investors have increasingly treated homes as financial assets instead of places for families to live.
That’s genuinely fantastic news.
The skeptic, pessimistic part of me now wants to know how BlackRock et al will get around this with creative corporate and financial shell games, because I’m absolutely sure they will try to do just that.
It’s actually not bad, prevents shell games, but still allows them to keep properties they already own and allows up to 350 new properties larger than single family.
A potential hack would be offering loans to businesses to buy 350, and if theyvreally want to push the limits they can try to buy the smaller companies which just so happens to transfer their properties.
An important distinction here is that BlackRock is not a PE firm. They are an asset management company. Now, that’s not to say they’re not in the business of buying up homes, just that they’re not PE. Blackstone is the PE firm which has been buying up single family homes. They’re different companies. Both evil though.
They’ll buy up property management companies who will then buy the houses to rent out.
The law actually does prevent shell games as written, but they can still buy larger homes and complexes and up to 350 at that.
Perhaps now we will see those Scifi Megastructures that eventually fall into anarchy and become ungovernable black markets lmao.
Change in the definition of what a single family home is in 3, 2, 1…
If there is no enforcement then why bother to write laws down?
I see an awful lot of non-enforcement of laws that are already on the books.
Blackrock splits into redrock, orangerock, yellowrock, etc.
All owned by rainbowrock (a blackrock® company).
Because it’s not a ban on private equity purchasing homes, it’s a limit of 350 going forward. Because as if that limit isn’t absurdly high (it should be more like 3) it’s also unlikely to hold up in court. They should have levied increasing taxes.
Frankly the limit should be 0 for private equity. The only exception should be for mortgage lenders (for obvious reasons) who should also not be ownable by PE or VC.
It should not be legal for corporations to own a residential property outside of the context of a mortgage. Any corporation (here, including banks) owning a residence for the purpose of rental income should be flat out illegal as well.
You mean it’s legal for mortgagerock?
How do you differentiate between private equity and regular corporate ownership though? Because building and operating apartment buildings takes a lot more money than the average individual has.
Yeah, so to me, that sounds like a great argument for public funding of housing. We don’t have to make them like old Soviet-bloc mega apartment complexes (I admit I am fond of some of the exterior aesthetics and building arrangements the Soviets tended to do, but the insides were more or less concrete shoeboxes (“to each according to their needs”, ostensibly, but imo in practice it was often far too minimal, and often not even truly meeting a given family’s needs)). And we don’t need and shouldn’t expect them to be massive profit generators (much like we don’t need and shouldn’t expect mass transit to be a massive profit generator). We could build quite comfortable public housing, pair it with substantially improved public physical and mental healthcare, and not only effectively solve homelessness overnight, but simultaneously make a long-term investment in the viability of American society (including but not limited to birth rates, happiness indices, GDP (more people doing well = more people able to contribute to the pool = gdp go up), education, residential ownership, diminishing crime… we can go on).
Oops, I slipped into “we should be more socialist” mode lol
Oops, I slipped into “we should be more socialist” mode lol
I dunno this plan sounds like it opens up a whole lot more Individual Freedoms ©️™️ 🦅 🇺🇸 for more individual people!. . . As a group demographic comprised of individuals, of course. 😉
(Y’know, for your upcoming campaign. Rooting for you!)
If it were me, I would have just passed a federal tax on property where whatever the local city, state, and county taxes are, there’s also a federal levy of property taxes of the exact same amount multiplied by the number of properties each taxpaying owner owns - 1.
So if you own one home, you pay no additional taxes.
If you and your spouse own two homes, you pay no additional taxes.
But if you own five 1 million dollar properties as a single person and the property taxes on each of those properties is $5,000, then instead of paying a total of $25,000 in property taxes as a single homeowner, you would pay
$5,000 * 4 * 4 + $5,000, or $85,000/yr.
That $60,000 a year difference for being a multiple homeowner would go into a fund specifically to provide grants and assistance for low-income renters and first-time homebuyers.
This would make it so that owning multiple homes becomes a sign of affluence.
And it would put a steep price curve on going over the limit of even moderately reasonable amounts of homes to own as a person.
Adding one additional $1 million home with a $5,000 property tax annual on it would actually add another $45,000/yr to the taxes that you would pay compared to someone who only owns that single home.
This is part of my pitch to become president in 2032 when I become eligible.
Oh, slight correction. Add the original taxes to the numbers I generated because the federal taxes are separate from the city, state, and local taxes.
So in the first example, $85,000 plus $25,000 equals $110,000 a year to own five $1 million properties at $5,000 a year property taxes.
And in the second example, $130,000 plus $30,000 equals $160,000 a year to own the sixth one.
A starter home where I live is almost 1 mil. The prices would go down if any real legislation passed but a 1 mil home isn’t the end all be all.
Yeah, what’s the gaping truck-sized loophole no one’s reporting on yet?
Probably simply that affiliated companies don’t count towards that total number. So they can make an infinite number of subsidiaries as long as they’re individually under 350 properties each.
Apparently PE was already getting out of the market? A how money works video said that they represented ~25% of recent home sales despite having ~7% of homes.
Are private equity firms, as defined in the bill, actually buying homes? Or is the private entity type doing that, not classified as an equity firm?
Rich people have nothing to do with their stolen money but buy up assets. It’s a runaway disaster for everyone. The rich are pricing people out of being alive and we act like we can’t do anything about it. At some point, perhaps gen Alpha, will have to do something about it or simply die.
In Canada, these houses are all being bought by Mom and pop Boomer investors, leveraging equity of houses they paid 12 acorns for.
Why are we still linking to CBS news? Can’t trust that shit.
I’m out of the loop, what’s wrong with CBS news?
CBS is officially a mouthpiece of the Conservative Propaganda Machine, along with Fox News. Their news is now directly promoting the MAGA agenda. Scott Pelley, a highly regarded investigative journalist quit after being pressured to included unsourced and unverified claims in his reports, which means those reporters who remain, are succumbing to those pressures to report MAGA lies
Further, MAGA propaganda is seeping into their programming. Law enforcement is always righteous, even when they break the rules to protect America. The enemies are always standard MAGA boogeymen like domestic terrorists from Portland, or Iranian terrorist sleeper cells, even though none of that has ever actually existed in America. And that’s just the stuff that is happening with existing shows, future shows will be much more direct.
CBS was bought by the Ellisons, who also own Oracle. Larry Ellison is the second richest man in the world, and a Sociopathic Oligarch with a vicious MAGA streak, and his son is chip off the old psychopathic block. He has a lifelong reputation as a proud and enthusiastic asshole, and LOVES to do damage and hurt people for profit. His son is just as arrogant, and as we’ve seen, the Nepo-Babies are often worse than their parents.
Now these people have bought CNN as well, one of the Right’s biggest targets, and they will start dismantling it, too. Now they want to buy Warner Bros, so they can start manipulating our heritage, and continue to manipulate public opinion through entertainment.
The silver lining is that MAGA is virtuosically incompetent, and they’ll eventually screw this up. If their arrogance doesn’t do them in, then their complete misunderstanding of what people find entertaining will. Conservative entertainment is ALWAYS heavy-handed, humorless, and boring. They will ultimately be brought down by their own bad personalities.
There are good reasons that MAGA is so despised, and they aren’t going to translate into entertainment programming.
Hoo boi, I’ve got some bad news.
Basically after a bunch of sales and crap, CBS is now also owned by the Ellisons, and also walking fascist self-contradiction Barri Weiss is heading CBS News.
Trump stooges, billionaires, accelerationist, anti-everyone, zionist types. . . And they’re buying up every major media outlet without being stopped. It’s pretty disgusting.
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/12/nx-s1-5537152/cbs-news-ellison-steps-appease-trump
Thanks, I had not heard about it.
Alternative to CBS.
I’ll note that this is happening as corporate owners are net sellers, not buyers. There are better uses for their money (they think) than holding onto houses now. This is good for the future, and nice in certain areas that were getting choked to death. But… corporate owners only have ~3-9% of the single-family home market (source). Every little bit helps, though we need cities to fix up zoning and increase density. (There’s incentives for them to do that now iirc, so push for density on the ballot this fall!)
They need to be forced to sell en mass and the limit needs to be was lower like 5 not 350
This won’t do anything people who read actual news know the private equity is a convenient boogeyman hiding the refusal of state government to do their job an remove local control and mandate zoning reform and more housing of all types and sizes. Also it’s 2026 and people are still posting tv news outlets to the internet.
deleted by creator
Wait, why does that “email” have three To’s and two CC’s (unless those three people share onn email address)
deleted by creator
Wat?
Have you ever seen an email thread?
Worked in any business ever?
Ok, sorry, I haven’t.
Here’s a simple way to think about how email address lines work for business emails:
To: The main audience. These are the people the message is intended for and who may need to respond or take action.
Cc (Carbon copy): People who should stay informed but are not the main audience. Think of this as an FYI list. If someone in Cc has information that would help everyone, they can use Reply All and join the conversation.
Bcc (Blind carbon copy): People who should receive the email without other recipients knowing they were included. Recipients in Bcc are hidden from everyone else and are not included in future replies unless someone adds them again. For instance, if you’re sending an announcement to a large group, you might put everyone in Bcc to keep their email addresses private and ensure that replies are sent to the original sender only. Another common use is keeping a manager informed without making them part of the ongoing email discussion.
how bout ban them in general, since they are ruining alot of companies.
So for every 350 homes they make a new LLC or shell company.
You didn’t expect this to actually fix the problem did you? Sorry, too much money to be made.
I mean any progress is a step in the right direction. It just seems that these days are Democrats are very performative. Most of their religious Lyon has no teeth and is just for show. Enforcement of any policies is basically none.
Sounds about right, most policies are passed on their performative aspects. When you really sit down and read the law you often find the performative reason that was cited isn’t even true.
Unfortunately both sides do something similar, It seems that modern legislative practices lead to incredibly broad and poorly written policy that can be interpreted and almost any direction. I think it’s like that by design. But it’s so watered down and meaningless that it’s just a feel good title with a bunch of bullshit stuffed into it.
Yes, I do believe this is done on purpose. This combined with shitty concepts like omnibus bills with riders ensures policy gets passed that should have never seen the light of the day.
I honestly can’t believe how much bullshit they stuff into the budget every year. I guess it’s just been accepted that every must pass tight Bill has to be stuffed chock full of the worst most vile stupid legislation ever. No politician wants to risk their career election campaign trying to pass some dystopian corporate bootlicker policies. So they just shove it every budget bill hoping that no one will read the thousands of pages to catch their loopholes.
deleted by creator
Great, now do apartments.
Does this not apply to at least some apartments? And a lot more now that it just became federal law?
The headline says it applies to single family homes.
Homes, not houses. An apartment can be a home.
I was more focused on the “single-family” part. But I have no idea what it really covers. I don’t think apartments are considered single-family homes since there are usually more than one unit.
No, I get that. People hear “single-family” and think that would only apply to a house, when single families often live in single, unit apartments. Just be glad you’ve never been so poor that you had to know about this. But tens of millions of families have never known anything other than this.
This bill is huge and convoluted, and covers rather a lot and a lot of different places
Canada needs to do this.
Its interesting the way legislation gets copied around the world - watching the cannabis reform was a great example.
Mamdani might also lead the way in a similar sense I’m hoping.
Hopefully both of these blaze some trails for the majority of us…
Are they stripping them of the ones they already have?
Hopefully they’re just being taxed at increased rates that make profit unviable and allows them to unload the houses normally. I don’t really know how the legislation works though.
This solution makes sense. They need to phase out the existing rules properly, no matter how wrong they were to begin with.
Tax them from 10% til 100% over 5 years, and let them sell off as they go through that time spand maybe?
deleted by creator
The only way we’re ever getting out of this mess is for increased density in urban areas and for people to grow out of this desire for a single family home with a yard and a driveway.
I’ve become so jaded that I’m sitting here thinking, “if this was actually going to work the private equity firms would’ve never let it pass.
They realize the market is at peak so they’re going to get out anyway.
Or, better theory, they’ve grandfathered in existing arrangements so it’s just keeping out additionally PE firms.
My first thought was “what is a private equity firm” really and does the law have provisions for firms that are owned by private equity.
If some numbered corporation in Delaware owns a house and private equity owns a controlling stake in that firm can it still own housing.
What I’m asking is what is the blood quantum of a cooperation.
I knew he’d do some good. :) I was hopeful when Georgia elected him. That hope wasn’t misplaced.
Private equity really the problem? In Canada, these are all mom and pop boomer investors.
Canada passed a law against foreign buyers but it did nothing because it was <3% of buyers, but it made everyone feel better.
Private equity really the problem? In Canada, these are all mom and pop boomer in
you know waht. its a start. We dont need to solve it all in one pass, but doing nothing isnt the solution
The thing is, the power is in the hands of existing home owners who financially benefit from a shortage of housing supply.
Solving the housing crisis and homeowners growing their equity are two goals totally at odds with one another.
No government in north america or the eu is ever going to tell the haves “good job paying off your mortgage, but I’m afraid the value of your home is now hundreds of thousands of dollars less than what you paid for it”.
As long as housing is considered an investment it will never be affordable.
But actually ignoring the real problem and making panacea laws doesn’t help anyone. You can pass a law banning intergalactic space travellers from buying houses, but is the point to do something, or just look like you are?
It’s a pretty high limit, so no impact on small investors.
I don’t see it making much difference, but maybe it’s just not as common where I live. It’s a start though. I don’t think there’s going to be a single fix but maybe enough small fixes will add up
