x.com/i/article/2028…

If you're a Republican who hates red tape and regulation, you should oppose this bill as amended. If you're a Democrat who values diversity in communities, you should oppose this bill as amended. If you're a YIMBY who wants more housing, you should oppose this bill as amended.

Anyone who thinks the big wave of "luxury" apartments doesn't benefit lower-income renters downstream isn't paying attention. Check out this chart. In any market above the red line, average rents (with concessions) are now affordable to renters at 60% area median income. That's

Housing expert John Burns on the ROAD to Housing Act: "The housing bill that will make affordability worse, not better."

Amazing. Warren is deliberating trying to choke off investment in the construction of *new* single-family rental properties. This is profoundly regressive. Why is it OK for large investors to build and rent out apartments but not single-family homes? Many working-class

So, if (when, IMHO) BTR AND for-sale starts substantially decline (for known/easily predictable 1st and 2nd order effects) after this ROAD to housing act is passed, can we fire every Senator/Congressperson who voted FOR it? Please?

*bans an entire category of housing*

With the Senate passing the ROAD to Housing Act today, political reporters not in tune with the housing beat seem to be interpreting the legislation for how its authors are spinning it, versus what housing experts and homebuilders say it would actually do.

Residential real estate owners who want prices and rents to rise should LOVE the new housing bill. People who want housing to be affordable enough for their kids to settle near them should HATE the new housing bill. You can own RE and still be in the second camp (I am).

EXACTLY THIS Slow sales/standing inventory is a housing developer's nightmare. Institutional investors provided another source of demand, which allow builders to take risk building more homes speculatively. Take that additional demand away, risk goes up, housing starts go down.

The affordable housing we need already exists. It's just currently occupied by people who, if given the opportunity, would move to a nicer, more expensive place. Good thing building new expensive housing doesn't need government subsidies. Oh wait, the government won't let us.

SLC needs rent control immediately or rents might stay low forever

x.com/i/article/2035…

Honored to join John Burns and other housing researchers in this open letter advocating for the ROAD to Housing Act to remove supply-crushing restrictions on build-to-rent constructions.

Who wants to be in the business of renting units just for a little while and then selling them to individual homeowners after some wear and tear? Where that pencils, it'll pencil better to sell immediately to buyers. As such, the provision would effectively end build-to-rent.

It's going to be interesting to watch the screams from politicians when rents on SFHs rise, benefitting large institutional investors, solely because those same politicians destroyed those investors' ability to add supply, which would have kept a lid on rents.

If the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act will raise rents, why are property owners opposed to it? Because policy makers will continue with the beatings until rents fall (rent control, BMRs, public housing, etc.), none of which will help. Everything EXCEPT allowing more supply.

Moses Kagan Bay Area New Liberals 🌐 There are law firms that specialize in this of course. Very lucrative practice area. -At year nine an atty will approach an HOA and proposes to conduct forensic testing for construction defects. -And oh, by the way, the atty has a forensic construction firm he works with. -If

Buffy Wicks I'm a developer who has done condo projects in other states. The reason: Lack of adequate pre-sale deposits as gated by state law. Pre-sales drive the condo business. No investor or lender will fund a condo project without substantial, forfeit-able pre-sale deposits if a

W-2, 1099, K-1