cross-posted from: https://discuss.online/post/42571735

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.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Now do fucking apartment complexes so we can get back to local ownership, thanks. If I have to fucking rent, can we at least not have it be these faceless corporations that you can only communicate with via their website and not a fucking human.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Corporations can still own up to 350 homes per investor group, and they can keep the ones they already own.

    • homes@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      No loophole. It’s just that the law, itself, is weaksauce bs and is mostly bluster that accomplishes little more than making politicians look good before the midterms. It’s mostly remarkable that such a huge piece of bs got passed by a supermajority and by such a hatefully divided congress, and that, right at the moment of triumph, Trump tried to sabotage it by holding it hostage to his Make Elections Corrupt Act, and refused to sign the bill.

      But, because it passed with a supermajority in both houses of congress, it just became law anyway without the president’s signature, making Trump look like an even bigger embarrassment than he already is, not to mention a bigger loser than he already is. That’s what makes it such a big deal. He’s the first president who’s ever thrown this big of a bitch fit over a congressional bill he didn’t like. And still lost the fight anyway.

      The bill, itself, has a few good things in it, but is mostly just meh.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 minutes ago

        But, because it passed with a supermajority in both houses of congress, it just became law anyway without the president’s signature,

        Um Ackshually, the bill would have become law without the President signing it regardless of the size of the majority. The Supermajority matters because that’s what it takes to override a veto.

        What probably happened is he wanted to veto it, but his advisors reminded him that Congress had enough votes to override it. And he couldnt let Congress have the last word on it. So, he decided that not signing it would be the best move, depriving Congressional Republicans of what might be their last chance for a major legislative signing photo-op. But while loudly complaining about his steal-all-elections bill, he could at least pivot the conversation back to where he wanted it. And then when the housing bill finally becomes law, there is no big ceremony or to-do about it, just a bunch of nerdy socialists talking about it on their social media…