Washington’s New Housing Bill Will Make Homes MORE Expensive
(00:01.032)
Expanding the size and scope of government is not going to solve our housing market issues. yeah. Republicans desperately in need of a populist win. Populist win. They need to be seen. Remember like Bill O’Reilly used to say, looking out for the folks. They need something to pass to get the public thinking that they are
walking out for the folks and this 21st century Road to Housing Act. No, no, honestly, it’s pretty much written by Elizabeth Warren. It pretty much was a her what she ran on when she was running for president for crying out loud. boy.
Bigger, badder, messier, Washington DC. Basically first and foremost, Subsidizes. What is a rule, folks? Anytime you subsidize something, you’re going to make the price of it go up. You’ve got multiple, multiple programs giving grants, loan programs for air quotes.
affordable housing. Right, right. Sure. Sure. Another thing it does. And this, this, I don’t have that much of problem with it. However, it’s how they’re doing it. I don’t like the whole corporate ownership, corporate ownership of housing.
The Wall Street Journal went after this today and they don’t even really get it right. They’re saying that, you know, it’s not an issue and actually corporate ownership of homes benefited the American people. They stepped in and swooped up and put a floor on homes after the 2008 housing crash. And I’m saying to myself, well, why was that good? Why would somebody looking to
(02:22.158)
purchase something want to see someone step in and put a floor when the prices are going down and they want to buy. The logic and reason behind the Wall Street Journal’s argument is ridiculous, quite frankly. You handle the corporate ownership bit the way that Ron Sanis is pushing right now.
You make it that much more expensive as far as taxes are concerned. Owner occupied homes, getting breaks on property taxes, also the various different real estate loopholes that are in there as far as corporate ownership concern. You eliminate all that nonsense.
You get rid of all of that. And it doesn’t make it more attractive. It doesn’t make it attractive for them to go ahead and get involved in the endeavor and they will get rid of the homes, which will again bring prices down, which we want to have happen. Other issue, zoning.
The federal government wants to be involved in local communities and giving grants based upon zoning and changing zoning laws. I don’t know about you, but the last thing in the world I want to have happen is have some jerk in Washington, D.C. tell me in my community, my neighborhood, how and what should be built.
This is the type of thing that makes you want to pull your hair out. Again, was actually an interesting story. It was the anniversary of the eminent domain Supreme Court case, the Kelo versus New London case from ages ago, where basically the Supreme Court ruled that, hey, yeah, government can declare eminent domain and they can give a house, real estate to a company because it’s going to benefit the community. And as it turned out that
(04:36.078)
property was never redeveloped. Different but same in many ways. The federal government has no business coming into states and local communities and telling them how areas should be zoned, none whatsoever. Also, it gives the Treasury Secretary of the United States
to issue rules to minimize market disruptions and mitigate to the extent possible negative impacts on consumers and communities. Treasury could also redefine large institutional investor, single family home and accepted purchase. None of this is good.
None of this is good. Treasury can be writing the rewriting that the Treasury Secretary of the United States basically changing law. We’re supposed to be getting away from this and taking power away from the executive branch of government and we’re going to hand it more.
I remind people that you may get somebody into a position of power that thinks differently than you do. That would love, love to put all sorts of housing projects in your neighborhood because they feel it’s the right thing to do.
No bueno, folks. You solve the housing problem in our country, obviously. Talk about supply issues, bringing more supply onto the market. You also talk about, quite frankly, getting people out of homes that they don’t want anymore. I’ve talked about golden handcuffs here on the program. It is a big problem. And that all can be done through the tax code, simplifying.
(06:37.326)
the tax code, getting rid of the cutouts, the giveaways. Ben, making property tax something that’s not gonna be an issue for someone who’s lived in a home for 30 years looking to move all of a sudden to have their yearly costs go up 10, 15, 20-fold even though they’re downsizing. Why would you do that? Why would anybody move if that’s the case?
allow for a lot more velocity when it comes to the housing markets and drive prices down. This does nothing of the sort.
This does nothing of the sort. quite frankly, the president made it perfectly clear he doesn’t want the price of homes to come down.
(07:28.056)
So what we’re going to do instead is we’re going to have all these gimmicks, gimmicks and grants and handouts and below market mortgages and all sorts of other BS.
Not gonna work. Watchdogonwallstreet.com.
