Quote:

---

explain why it's ok for Blackrock to take the house

---

Is it just me, or is it hard for others to give a **** when the people complaining can't even reference the proper boogeyman corporation? It's like sports journalists not understanding the difference between the Texas Longhorns, the Texas Aggies, and the Texas Tech, and just posting whatever logo or using whatever name that sounds correct in their head.

Quote:

---

This is because people and society are topmost in priority, not corporations (though we confuse that a lot).

---

Negative, private property rights are topmost in priority.

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cef88 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Teslag said:

---

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

---

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.

---

You are making an emotional argument without giving thought to what you are really saying. That's what liberals do.

If I list my home for $500k and a young first time buying couple offer $505k plus need closing assistance and a corporate buyer offers $600k in cash that's an extra $100k for me. You would effectively use the power of government to institute a tax on me for $100k and then redistribute that to "less fortunate" to provide a "public good". You need to admit that's what it is and that you are okay with it. And then remember to be consistent the next time a liberal proposes they do the same with any other investment asset you have. Because at that point you've set the precedent that other people are entitled to a share of your investment assets because it's "good for society".

---

Now put yourself in the first time home buyers shoes instead of the seller and don't make an emotional argument why it's ok for Blackrock to take the house for 95K over your fair offer.

---

Because it's my ****ing house to sell to whomever want. Who are you tell me what is "fair" for my assets?

---

With that attitude, you are better off living in some remote area in Montana, like Ted Kaczynski. There, you can do whatever you want.

When you live in a community/society, everyone's actions must be in line with the long term good of the community. Here I pay for my local community college through my property taxes. I've never taken a class there in my life. But the deal is, if I want to live in this awesome town, I better pay for things I don't necessarily use. I get to use the library for free though. And schools.

This may piss you off but that is how the world should work. Laws cannot be made for some individual to benefit him/her self.

---

You are describing true public goods and services. My private property, especially my home, is not nor should never be.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

This is because people and society are topmost in priority, not corporations (though we confuse that a lot).

---

Negative, private property rights are topmost in priority.

---

By the people, for the people.

Not "for the corps".

If things work as you want it, we will not have a country in 20 years.

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

This is because people and society are topmost in priority, not corporations (though we confuse that a lot).

---

Negative, private property rights are topmost in priority.

---

By the people, for the people.

Not "for the corps".

If things work as you want it, we will not have a country in 20 years.

---

lol, what does this even mean?

Free market means free market. Who do you think those evil corps employ?

Teslag said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cef88 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Teslag said:

---

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

---

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.

---

You are making an emotional argument without giving thought to what you are really saying. That's what liberals do.

If I list my home for $500k and a young first time buying couple offer $505k plus need closing assistance and a corporate buyer offers $600k in cash that's an extra $100k for me. You would effectively use the power of government to institute a tax on me for $100k and then redistribute that to "less fortunate" to provide a "public good". You need to admit that's what it is and that you are okay with it. And then remember to be consistent the next time a liberal proposes they do the same with any other investment asset you have. Because at that point you've set the precedent that other people are entitled to a share of your investment assets because it's "good for society".

---

Now put yourself in the first time home buyers shoes instead of the seller and don't make an emotional argument why it's ok for Blackrock to take the house for 95K over your fair offer.

---

Because it's my ****ing house to sell to whomever want. Who are you tell me what is "fair" for my assets?

---

With that attitude, you are better off living in some remote area in Montana, like Ted Kaczynski. There, you can do whatever you want.

When you live in a community/society, everyone's actions must be in line with the long term good of the community. Here I pay for my local community college through my property taxes. I've never taken a class there in my life. But the deal is, if I want to live in this awesome town, I better pay for things I don't necessarily use. I get to use the library for free though. And schools.

This may piss you off but that is how the world should work. Laws cannot be made for some individual to benefit him/her self.

---

You are describing true public goods and services. My private property, especially my home, is not nor should never be.

---

It could be anything, your property or public goods. Laws are (or should) be made with long term interest of the people in mind. Not "rich people", not "CEOs".

Companies can collude and use a lot of tools to drive prices up and push people out. Example is unrestricted immigration in the Bay Area has pushed all the older residents out. It may be okay for you as you don't care.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

This is because people and society are topmost in priority, not corporations (though we confuse that a lot).

---

Negative, private property rights are topmost in priority.

---

By the people, for the people.

Not "for the corps".

If things work as you want it, we will not have a country in 20 years.

---

lol, what does this even mean?

Free market means free market. Who do you think those evil corps employ?

---

There is no free market in reality. You've been had. Gypped.

People just make up "free market" as long as it makes them money. Just like religion.

Quote:

---

Are you completely opposed to eminent domain and city zoning restrictions?

---

I'm okay with eminent domain as long as the seller is made whole. Which is what makes this different. You are outright advocating the theft of asset, with no return, in order to gift it to another buyer.

I don't mind zoning laws as long as existing owners are exempt. New buyers know what they are getting once they are established.

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cef88 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Teslag said:

---

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

---

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.

---

You are making an emotional argument without giving thought to what you are really saying. That's what liberals do.

If I list my home for $500k and a young first time buying couple offer $505k plus need closing assistance and a corporate buyer offers $600k in cash that's an extra $100k for me. You would effectively use the power of government to institute a tax on me for $100k and then redistribute that to "less fortunate" to provide a "public good". You need to admit that's what it is and that you are okay with it. And then remember to be consistent the next time a liberal proposes they do the same with any other investment asset you have. Because at that point you've set the precedent that other people are entitled to a share of your investment assets because it's "good for society".

---

Now put yourself in the first time home buyers shoes instead of the seller and don't make an emotional argument why it's ok for Blackrock to take the house for 95K over your fair offer.

---

Because it's my ****ing house to sell to whomever want. Who are you tell me what is "fair" for my assets?

---

With that attitude, you are better off living in some remote area in Montana, like Ted Kaczynski. There, you can do whatever you want.

When you live in a community/society, everyone's actions must be in line with the long term good of the community. Here I pay for my local community college through my property taxes. I've never taken a class there in my life. But the deal is, if I want to live in this awesome town, I better pay for things I don't necessarily use. I get to use the library for free though. And schools.

This may piss you off but that is how the world should work. Laws cannot be made for some individual to benefit him/her self.

---

You are describing true public goods and services. My private property, especially my home, is not nor should never be.

---

It could be anything, your property or public goods. Laws are (or should) be made with long term interest of the people in mind. Not "rich people", not "CEOs".

Companies can collude and use a lot of tools to drive prices up and push people out. Example is unrestricted immigration in the Bay Area has pushed all the older residents out. It may be okay for you as you don't care.

---

You don't get to hand wave away the distinctions between public goods and private property and assets.

infinity ag said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

This is because people and society are topmost in priority, not corporations (though we confuse that a lot).

---

Negative, private property rights are topmost in priority.

---

By the people, for the people.

Not "for the corps".

If things work as you want it, we will not have a country in 20 years.

---

lol, what does this even mean?

Free market means free market. Who do you think those evil corps employ?

---

There is no free market in reality. You've been had. Gypped.

People just make up "free market" as long as it makes them money. Just like religion.

---

There's no true free market currently because morons in our government keep inserting themselves in it. More government is never the answer. Sounds like you'd be happier in China.

And laws should be made to protect the lost freedom and liberty possible. Not corporations. Not the poor. And sure as **** not "society".

Huge problem. People have to work 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet. We bought and refinanced at 3% interest. No way we could buy something better when our mortgage is $500 less than a 1 BR apt.

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

This is because people and society are topmost in priority, not corporations (though we confuse that a lot).

---

Negative, private property rights are topmost in priority.

---

By the people, for the people.

Not "for the corps".

If things work as you want it, we will not have a country in 20 years.

---

I'm sure it'll be fine, Bernie. Corporations are associations of people, and we have a right of association in this country

tysker said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

This is because people and society are topmost in priority, not corporations (though we confuse that a lot).

---

Negative, private property rights are topmost in priority.

---

By the people, for the people.

Not "for the corps".

If things work as you want it, we will not have a country in 20 years.

---

I'm sure it'll be fine, Bernie. Corporations are associations of people, and we have a right of association in this country

---

Not to mention we have written laws and loads of case law that have long established corporations as the equivalent of a person.

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

cef88 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Teslag said:

---

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

---

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.

---

You are making an emotional argument without giving thought to what you are really saying. That's what liberals do.

If I list my home for $500k and a young first time buying couple offer $505k plus need closing assistance and a corporate buyer offers $600k in cash that's an extra $100k for me. You would effectively use the power of government to institute a tax on me for $100k and then redistribute that to "less fortunate" to provide a "public good". You need to admit that's what it is and that you are okay with it. And then remember to be consistent the next time a liberal proposes they do the same with any other investment asset you have. Because at that point you've set the precedent that other people are entitled to a share of your investment assets because it's "good for society".

---

Now put yourself in the first time home buyers shoes instead of the seller and don't make an emotional argument why it's ok for Blackrock to take the house for 95K over your fair offer.

---

Because it's my ****ing house to sell to whomever want. Who are you tell me what is "fair" for my assets?

---

With that attitude, you are better off living in some remote area in Montana, like Ted Kaczynski. There, you can do whatever you want.

When you live in a community/society, everyone's actions must be in line with the long term good of the community. Here I pay for my local community college through my property taxes. I've never taken a class there in my life. But the deal is, if I want to live in this awesome town, I better pay for things I don't necessarily use. I get to use the library for free though. And schools.

This may piss you off but that is how the world should work. Laws cannot be made for some individual to benefit him/her self.

---

You are describing true public goods and services. My private property, especially my home, is not nor should never be.

---

It could be anything, your property or public goods. Laws are (or should) be made with long term interest of the people in mind. Not "rich people", not "CEOs".

Companies can collude and use a lot of tools to drive prices up and push people out. Example is unrestricted immigration in the Bay Area has pushed all the older residents out. It may be okay for you as you don't care.

---

Your socialist politics of envy is still a really bad look.

Red Pear Realty said:

---

I own a lot of houses and consider myself a pretty "free markets" type of voter. The problem with our current situation is that corporations have access to cheaper capital than the average person, which gives the corporations an unfair advantage over the average home buyer. If that continues unchecked, your children and grandchildren will truly own nothing and like it.

---

Except H1B visa holders with sweetheart interest rate deals in north Texas neighborhoods.

A recent look at mortgage loans in Dallas found at least one lender offering a “H-1B SPECIAL PROGRAM” with specific rates. pic.twitter.com/4OMpQpzAZv

— Tony Ortiz (Current Revolt) (@CurrentRevolt) May 12, 2026

I think this is terrible. If it's a monopoly argument, make that one (there's not one). This is corporations are bad argument

Right next to SS, Medicare, daycare funding, SNAP, school lunch program, FANNIE/FREDDIE, SBA, USAID, US Institute of Peace, HUD, etc. You know, it's in the "unconstitutional clause"……

Teslag said:

---

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

---

Lord Blackrock thanks you.

Blackrock doesn't own or buy single family homes. Comments like yours show how ignorant most people are on this topic.

Quote:

---

The primary cause of America's growing housing affordability problem is a lack of sufficient new supply of housing, single-family owner-occupied units especially. That should be the focus of government policy, and this proposal fails to address that issue in a meaningful way. The institutional grade SFR sector is so small that it is hard to imagine a policy intervention targeting it that could do so. Recent research suggests that in the owner-occupied sector, only one-fifth of a single-family home is lost for every one purchased by an institutional investor for renting out. A net reduction in supply that small simply cannot be a major contributor to the worsening housing affordability conditions in the single-family housing sector over the past 10-15 years. In addition, there are costs to renters that must be considered by any good cost-benefit analysis. Other costs to consider include those associated with setting up the bureaucracy needed to enforce the new regulation. They will start with creating a precise definition of what an institutional investor is but will not end there. The country needs a healthy, balanced housing market that expands supply across both the rental and owner-occupied sectors, not policies that mostly reshuffle housing between households.

---

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-ripple-effects-of-banning-institutional-purchases-of-single-family-rentals/

oldarmy76 said:

---

I think this is terrible. If it's a monopoly argument, make that one (there's not one). This is corporations are bad argument

---

I think that's what this is boiling down to. The corporations are effectively acting as a monopoly and driving up the price of an item artificially that they do not have a real use for. This will push the eternal rent environment and make homeownership harder to achieve - not really a "free" market. Normally I would agree with the government staying out of property purchases but I think a limitation that residential property be sold to residents for that purpose is not too heavy of a restriction and will actually open the REAL free market up nicely.

Also it's rich to see all you boomers whining about not getting more money for your house when those 2 and 3 generations down from you are not even able to get a job with enough income or buy a house and saying they should "take emotion out of the equation." You are all cutting off your noses to spite your face.

Quote:

---

The corporations are effectively acting as a monopoly and driving up the price of an item artificially that they do not have a real use for.

---

Except the data has shown that they aren't.

Quote:

---

Also it's rich to see all you boomers whining about not getting more money for your house when those 2 and 3 generations down from you are not even able to get a job with enough income or buy a house and saying they should "take emotion out of the equation." You are all cutting off your noses to spite your face.

---

I'm not a boomer. I'm GenX, almost millennial. Private property rights shouldn't be beholden to generation demographics.

Quote:

---

corporations are effectively acting as a monopoly

---

What does this mean and how does it work?

Quote:

---

Also it's rich to see all you boomers whining about not getting more money for your house when those 2 and 3 generations down from you are not even able to get a job with enough income or buy a house and saying they should "take emotion out of the equation." You are all cutting off your noses to spite your face.

---

Fwiw, some of us have argued that the GFC bailouts largely supported boomers and their home prices. The continued low interest rates and the steady growth of their 401(k)s were just side benefits.

Trump shutting down the economy during covid then helicopter dropping cash into checking accounts while pressuring Powell to drop interest rates again, was the accelerant that we are now seeing the effects of

I wish there was a law that said you had to be a US citizen to own property in this nation. It concerns me how many foreign entities are buying up our land.

Quote:

---

The corporations are effectively acting as a monopoly

---

Then why is Trump wasting time on asking for laws to be passed?

Have the DOJ file an antitrust case.

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

corporations are effectively acting as a monopoly

---

What does this mean and how does it work?

---

Apparently when an entity (in this case institutional investors) owns 1 to 3% of the market it is a "monopoly".

Teslag said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

corporations are effectively acting as a monopoly

---

What does this mean and how does it work?

---

Apparently when an entity (in this case institutional investors) owns 1 to 3% of the market it is a "monopoly".

---

While I agree that 1 to 3% isn't a monopoly, institutional investors are still able to have an effect on local rental prices in certain metro areas.

Ridgeback85 said:

---

I wish there was a law that said you had to be a US citizen to own property in this nation. It concerns me how many foreign entities are buying up our land.

---

And they all have the blessings of every politician in the city and state they buy the property. Every one of them.

The percentage of rental units/homes owned is irrelevant to this discussion, one being about 1st time buyers needing to be able to buy a home, not rent one. If institutional investors owned 1% of single family homes, and those accounted for 100% of the single family rentals it wouldn't affect a 1st time buyer at all.

There is a ton of speculative interest in real estate, especially Texas, right now. The headlines are ubiquitous with every one and their damn dog, cat, and fish are moving here, including corporations.

I have been priced out of some markets looking for investment properties and a second residence.

If PE wants to pay these prices , then they can have at it!

Teslag said:

---

The percentage of rental units/homes owned is irrelevant to this discussion, one being about 1st time buyers needing to be able to buy a home, not rent one. If institutional investors owned 1% of single family homes, and those accounted for 100% of the single family rentals it wouldn't affect a 1st time buyer at all.

---

What about Oscar de la Renta homes?

Teslag said:

---

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

---

The government already tells you how much taxes you have to pay...even after paying off the loan.
The local HOA can limit how you use your house (in-home business, short term rentals, etc)

There are already some limits to our personal property. We as a society just have to determine where the line is we don't want to cross.