No Corporate Ownership of Single Family Homes
Having clear examples of public policy proposals and how they'll be enforced.
It's true that the homeless problem is fundamentally an issue of land ownership.
Companies like Blackrock can't use fractional reserve lending practices and give themselves the outrageously unfair advantage of having access to vast stores of theoretical capital, distorting market values and keeping potential homeowners on the rental market.
This would make more housing available for people to purchase a home without competing with investors
Many of these homes are going corporate due to the punishing policies of the Oakland City council that is pushing out the small local owners
YES!!! The LLCs, mostly based out of town, have bought up large swaths of Oakland with lining their pockets as their only interest. They could care less about who they displace, how folks can no longer afford to live here, etc. They need to be heavily regulated so regular folks can own what few homes are left.
When a home comes available for sale in a neighborhood, it should be sold to someone that needs to occupy it, not a corporation or foreign entity looking to expand their holdings or protect their wealth from government seizure. American families that are looking to purchase their first home should not have to compete with foreign investors that are just looking for a safe place to park their cash. Let's follow Canada's lead and restrict foreign and corporate ownership of single-family dwellings
Corporate owners don't actually own that much residential property, and this excludes homeowners who own more than 90% of single family homes, as well as corporate owners who don't own residential properties.
This is the American dream and will stabilize communities.
Back to group
Back to group
This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation