The major difference between the two bills is the Senate's introduction of a ban that would prevent any investor that owns at least 350 homes from buying more.
There are some exceptions to the bill's limits on institutional owners, such as **allowing investors to buy homes needing serious renovation in order to bring them up to code, and allowing investors to own new homes constructed for renting, **known as build-to-rent. But investors would be required to sell those homes after seven years, with the renter having first dibs to purchase.
In an open letter, 79 industry groups representing property managers like the Institute of Real Estate Management, as well as advocacy organizations pushing for more local housing construction, said they support new housing legislation but believe the Senate version should remove the sale requirement on build-to-rent homes. The letter warns that the provision "would effectively eliminate the production of Build-to-Rent (BTR) housing."
So basically the only provision in the BTR housing that is good for consumers is what they want removed so they can build and own an infinite number of forever to rent properties. And if its an already constructed property they can pay a goon to rough it up enough so it needs serious renovations to bypass their 350 home limit and acquire it cheaper.
The ease on regulations come in form of lowered quality of construction and less environmental safety during construction. No ease on regulation for zoning that would actually help create better communities.
"We put this bill together with the deep-seated belief that it is families who should live in homes and that's what homes are for," said Warren. "They're not there simply as investment vehicles for Wall Street private equity."
Eat shit Warren