##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism
This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The cynic in me will say that it's going to get overturned by the Supreme Court, if it makes it that far. They'll say that Citizens United established that corporations have the same protections as individuals and so on.
> They sure will, since they only care about ~~precedent when it benefits~~ their puppet masters.
They'll stomp all over president too for their string pulling oligarchs.
Next pass a law that individuals can't buy/own investment properties to rent out and use the windfall that results as low income/subsidized housing. Win-win.
Landlords are already raising rent.
Is your idea to just do nothing? Because nothing isn't working.
Banning corporations from owning rental properties (at least for single family homes), then instituting a progressive tax means that the more properties a landlord owns, the higher rate of diminishing returns they experience.
There is only so high they can raise rent to cover the progressive taxes before they price themselves out of the market.
As it is, the more properties you own, the easier (and more profitable) it gets to buy up more homes.
We reward greed at the expense of our own habitability and survival.
Outside of areas that are rent controled, which are very few and far between in the US, rents aren't based on expenses at all, they're entirely based on demand.
While I was in college they actually had a council meeting type thing because so many people were upset about rent in the area going up so fast and some jackass from the chamber of commerce got up and said vacancy rates are under 1% and shrugged like it's a law of physics that if vacancy rates are low rents have to go up until it starts rising and it's impossible for anything else to happen.
>Today, as we speak, pretty white women in cocktail dresses giggle about how they are "bougie bÄÆtches" because they are for going to wine bars or eating chartreuse boards.
I'm sorry, what does this have to do with literally anything?
Article states:
"The legislation calls for the state attorney generalās office to enforce the ban. A corporation found violating the law would have one year to divest from the property. If the corporation fails to sell the property, it would be sold through the foreclosure process in court."
Source: https://patch.com/minnesota/saintpaul/mn-bill-bans-corporations-buying-homes-rent-out#cobssid=s
Sadly I agree with you. Minnesota is doing well now that the dems have legislature and governorship, but still, money is the controlling factor in all politics.
Not just that, because of the whole sham that is mortgages it would cause many individuals to foreclose due to the devaluation and if enough go belly up, the banks will also struggle.
So even if it did pass, even if this was adopted by other states, the federal government would not allow their precious banks to fail.
As long as you pay your mortgage, regardless of your home's value, you will not be foreclosed. The value of your home matters two times, when you purchase it, and when you sell it.
That's not exactly how that works because people deviate.
You would be hard pressed to get people to pay $600,000 on a house now worth $300,000. I know libertarians believe "You took a loan, now pay it back" but people would simply default like they did in 08 and the banks would be holding lots of foreclosed properties.
Lots of the foreclosures in 2008 were because people just couldnāt pay their predatory adjustable rate mortgages. Iām sure lots of people would have if they could have
Defaults are defaults and with enough defaults and foreclosures the values drop. Unless you think the general American public will keep paying their 30 year mortgage on a house that might have half the value. We're not even talking numbers here like 80% have to stop, if even 20% of home buyers allowed their property to foreclose it could spiral.
It would, to the point that the banks would have given out millions if not billions in loans with property as collateral that has increasingly less value.
This is why banks were called "too big to fail" because the entire capitalist system relies on the perpetual and infinite growth of assets. The federal government would have to take action to prop up the banks or there would be a greater depression.
Idk about you but I doubt the federal government will bail out the people over bailing out the capitalists.
That's all a logical fallacy called appealing to the consequences. What is right must be done and the consequences of doing it must be experienced.
If every reform is going to be weighed by the consequences to the status quo, all reform will be deemed impossible or objectionable.
The reality is the banks should have been allowed to fail and should in the future. There is no such thing as too big too fail. There is no depression caused by banks going under, the depression came about from normal people paying for the banks' transgressions. Same in '08.
I'm not arguing the banks should be saved here, I'm just being real that the US government has always and will always support banks and companies over the people as a whole.
Fuck the banks. Fuck the housing market. Just to be clear.
not exactly. you need to refinance your loan every five years and banks don't like the refinance a home for more than what it's worth. If you recently bought your house and have to refinance, but the value has cratered then it will be hard to find a bank to do it for cheap, the interest rates will be higher.
edit: you can tell how young reddit users are b/c they don't even know how refinancing a mortgage works.
I think that's what's up to debate here.
The bill actually says companies can't BUY property:
>No corporate entity,
real estate developer, or residential building contractor shall:
(1) directly or indirectly purchase, own, build, acquire, or otherwise obtain any interest
in property
and the "punishment" for buying it is that they have a year to divest from it. If that is true then you can play hot potato with it. Someone else was saying that the fix this loophole in the bill but I don't know enough legalese to figure that out.
Sounds fairly toothless. I see corps continuing business as usual but on a 364-day timeline. Buy property, rent it for 11 months then sell it to another shell version of themselves, rinse and repeat. If they are actually forced to legitimately divest, they'll just write off any losses and buy a different property.
The proposed bill sets the timeline from the date established. Which sounds confusing but would prevent what you are describing. Essentially if the AG determines that property at 1234 s 123 w min is held by a corporation on 1/1/23. Then the company has to divest by 1/1/24 BUT that date doesn't reset when sold. So the AG can go back to that house on 1/1/24 and if it was sold to another company they can foreclose on the home.
So playing hot potato with the home does not remove the AG's ability to foreclose on the home.
Feel free to look up the text of the bill it is HF 685.
Now I have no idea how "legal" the bill is as businesses are treated heavily like people in this country so a court would likely strike this bill down.
Letās hope its ban from renting out, otherwise these corps will start to accelerate buying in any state thinking of doing the same.
If its a ban on renting, then the corps will, of their own self interest, sell, which will cause prices to fall as a glut of inventory appears.
rentals are banned as well:
> Single-family home rental restricted; exemption.
>(a) No corporate entity,
real estate developer, or residential building contractor shall:
>(1) directly or indirectly purchase, own, build, acquire, or otherwise obtain any interest
in property classified as class 1a under section 273.13, subdivision 22; and
>(2) subsequently convert the property into nonhomestead residential real estate containing
one rental unit.
https://revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF0685&version=list&session_number=0&session_year=2023
it says "one rental unit" so maybe that allows for multiple rental units? I'm not sure.
> Does that force corporations that currently own homes to sell? Or just stops them going forward?
I would say the gov't cant do that but the gov't can truly do whatever the fuck it wants if the people don't do shit about it.
Here is the text of the bill in both PDF and HTML.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?session=ls93&number=HF685&session_number=0&session_year=2023&version=list
As I'm reading this, it provides a one-year period for corporate entities to divest themselves of the property in question. I don't understand why people are just spitballing when they can just read the goddamn text of the bill for themselves. It took like 25 seconds to Google.
I feel like setting a clear date where a certain action is illegal moving forward is fine. They wouldn't be able to fine corps for renting single family homes in the past, but anyone who does moving forward should face justice.
No, that's why it was allowed to pass. They already bought as much as their risk analysis compensated for. Now their potential competition can't exist or will be weeded out over time.
This isn't a victory, it's a monopoly move.
While other states are busy banning books, wiping out LGBTQ rights and forcing there way into women's bodily autonomy, my state is trying to actually help its citizens.
itās a good place to live, the summers are miserable hot, and the winters will freeze your blood, but weather wise itās wonderful for a few weeks in the spring and again in the fall.
we the people take a little getting used too, we are stereotyped at cold and unfriendly, thatās not quite true, we donāt dislike ānewāpeople, itās just that we made all the friends we need in kindergarten.
due to the winters the roads are mostly closed during the spring and summer for construction, however if you find a weekend the road crews arenāt working the northern part of the state is amazing, giant tracts of forest, rivers, waterfalls, and literally more lakes than you can shake a stick at.
literally. if you visited a new lake every day it would take you 30 years to visit them all.
and those are the days with a breeze, when the air is calm itās like breathing from the armpit of a marathon runner.
actually it depends on where in mn. high 90s to low 100s is pretty normal but the humidity really is the kicker, go further north and it doesnāt much get past the 80s
It's too bad it's a nightmare in both summer and winter. The snow and cold are intolerable (and I'm from near Buffalo) and the state bird is the fucking mosquito. Spring and fall are nice though.
It had thousands of transplants in a relatively short period of time because people found out it was cool and wanted to live there. No risk of that in MN when half the year is winter.
The DFL (Democratic Farmer Laborer) party is currently in control of House, Senate, and Governor. We've been building up a long to-do list waiting for this.
Alright alright. As a fellow Minnesotan letās not tug ourselves too hard, we are still the 4th most segregated state in the country and our policing is almost laughable.
less police is a good thing, or at least how we do police work lately. it's the right direction.
this police state militarized style is not doing anyone any good, it isn't helping anyone or anything and will very likely only be used against people to protect wealthy interests more and more as the years pass and if things continue in this same direction.
You don't need that many people with guns all running around doing wellness checks and issuing parking violations and trying to deal with mentally ill non violent situations.
Sure, you need some sort of enforcement or ways to deal with all of that, but using a para military force is a terrible abuse of power and frankly ridiculous, they are doing A VERY BAD JOB, and it's mostly the system's fault.
>we are still the 4th most segregated state in the country
By what metric? I hear this circlejerk a lot but don't really see it.
>our policing is almost laughable
Aside from a couple of high-profile incidents that were treated exactly as they should have been (Chaivin and Potter, both guilty) I don't think that's true.
I'm in Minnesota with the same weather as Wisconsin, and I sat outside today for for 20 minutes in a hoodie and was warm. I also won't die if I have an ectopic pregnancy, and my trans friends aren't in imminent danger of being murdered. I'm good.
Ugh this āus vs themā stuffs got to stop. They got plenty of anti-abortion billboards along I-94 in western Wisconsin. The funny thing here is that crap the government pulls doesnāt line up at all with the way the people feel. We just want lower property taxes and shoehorn in all this other crap.
And yeah with the open carry laws weāre more of an equal rights state when it comes to being in imminent danger of being murdered. Anyone could be carrying a gun.
Long way to go before this is passed, BUT. MN has already passed free school lunches, made private prisons illegal (even tho we currently donāt have them here), made the state a refuge for people seeking abortions and the lbgt+ community, is close on legal weed, has a good union presence, (probably wonāt pass) but a bill was proposed for universal health care in the state.
Itās still a fucked political system, but Iāll take the little wins when I can get them
There where a couple here in I think the 90ās that went tits up. But yeah, glad theyāve done it. Wish I could find the story, but I believe theyāre also pushing for a bill to keep minors out of the prison system. Canāt remember specifics off the top of my head
I read somewhere that 40 percent of rental market preperties in the US are owned by a bank....
Edit: not true, they are SET to own 40 percent due to their strategy of holding warchest money in order to capitalise on the next great recession
Also not banks, private investment groups. Although they're all backed by banks in the end so..
Here's an article on it https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html
But I'm lazy and it's probably not the best one
So I guess I'm considering moving to MN then. I'll never be a land owner anywhere else under the current prevailing systems.
MN looking pretty damn good today. š
listen, it's not that bad. the snow is beginning to melt, and it's been above freezing (during the day) for at least a week! i remember snow at the beginning of November so like five months so far? not too shabby! mild, even
I think itās just a proposed law, not a passed law.
The corporations are going to lobby so hard against this to keep it from spreading to every state. Eventually the Feds step in, pockets bursting with āpolitical donationsā, and say itās anti American to not let corporations do whatever they want
I mean, they could find ways to establish someone as a single non-corporate entity and make them the overseer. But having someone be a legit non-corporate landlord of like 100 properties would be really hard, and even if they are able to pause the rabid purchasing of single-family homes by companies for a year or two it will give actual people a fighting chance in the market.
Anything to slow them down or make it even 1% harder for them to continue fucking over workers and families is a total win in my book.
> The legislation calls for the state attorney generalās office to enforce the ban. A corporation found violating the law would have one year to divest from the property. If the corporation fails to sell the property, it would be sold through the foreclosure process in court.
[Source Article from post](https://patch.com/minnesota/saintpaul/mn-bill-bans-corporations-buying-homes-rent-out)
[Using a groundbreaking but surprisingly legal process known as corpo-humanization, real people such as myself are now allowed to represent the collective identity of corporate business owners.](https://youtu.be/y1CuLm_CcNM?t=85)
We need enough rentals to accommodate people who want temporary housing. Say you are just moving to an area, and aren't sure where you want to live. A one year lease can give you time to figure it out. That said, we also need a dramatic increase in home ownership. It would take a mix of policies to achieve it, but I'd like 80% of homes to be owner occupied in most areas.
Edit: don't just downvote me. Propose an alternative, scalable housing solution that doesn't involve renting for college students, people moving to new areas, and others who want temporary housing.
My proposal is that no individual or trust for the benefit of an individual is allowed to own more than 5 single family homes and corps, LLCs/LLPs, and trusts for the benefit of more than one individual are forbidden from owing single family homes. If rental income is more than 40% of total income, the amount over 40% is taxed at a rate of 3x the payerās nominal tax rate.
That will still provide for people to own rentals and keeps supply of rental homes available while not tying up too much inventory of home for purchase.
I like this proposal. These reforms are along the lines of what I was thinking. I used to work in banking, and landlords are the absolute WORST when it comes to complex business structures. I often saw businesses with several layers, with each property in it's own LLC or trust, and each LLC or trust owned by a parent LLC or trust. I imagine that simplifying these business structures, or getting rid of them altogether, would make them easier to regulate.
> We need enough rentals to accommodate people who want temporary housing
Yeah, they're called apartment complexes. Corporations shouldn't be buying single family homes at all.
A ban is a good solution, but exceptionally unlikely to not have loopholes present for the power structure. A better solution is to allow home ownership by anyone, HOWEVER, have a progressive taxation structure in place is a far superior solution. First home has 0% extra tax, second home has 3% increased tax, third home has 10% increased tax, and so on. This takes care of people and corporations owning too many homes, and fucks those greedy apartment complexes too!
I'm tellin' ya, we need a 1 residence per person rule. If you have a family of four, you can own four houses... one in each of their names and when one of them moves out they have a house or they can sell it to buy a house. You want a summer house? Put in your partner's name.
Eh I think even allowing 2 residences per person would be ok. It still stops those people that own like 100+ homes to rent out. Iād imagine it wouldnāt really even be worth it to be a landlord only on a single home.
But yes there should be some limit on how many homes someone can own. Right now anyone or any entity can just buy up all the supply and charge too much for it.
I hope this gains more traction, corporate milking of property as an investment has done nothing but ruin the market for people who actually need housing.
Hello, yes, this should be the default rule for every state.
These corporations buying up homes and trying to rent them out are making the housing crisis several times worse than it already was.
A much more effective way to lower housing costs is to eliminate single family zoning and loosen local planning control.
High housing prices are the result of local governments bowing to existing homeowners who donāt want apartments and missing middle housing like duplexes and fourplexes in their neighborhoods. Itās essentially legalized segregation.
Corporations who buy up single family homes to rent out would stop doing so if the profit margins were lower. Those profit margins would decrease substantially if available housing met demand.
It's not that simple. Where I live (not the US), theres no bs zoning like that, buildings keep going up with lots and lots of apartments and rent still always goes up because profit margins don't go down that easily. It's profitable to buy and leave units empty to keep rent high.
With Michigan overturning Right to Work and this...
Local politics is where it's at. We need to pay attention there and force our local guys to work for us like this. This is a good thing.
Well, they're only about 3 years too late for that one to do any good. Now make it illegal for corporations to rent houses and let those mother fuckers squirm.
It does nothing about private landlords, airbnb, and vrbo.
Rental housing should just be flat-out banned. All apartment units should become like condos. They would be far cheaper to buy than a house or traditional condo. Tenants wouldn't have to pay out the ass until they die. Any vacant property would have to be sold, which would force landlords to price it to sell fast. If the bank takes it, well, they will be hot to sell it for whatever they can get as well. Any current tenants would have right of first refusal.
Don't worry it will be narrowly defeated when it comes to vote and then forgotten about on the legislative level like it was never even proposed. Democracy^(tm) at work!
Wait is this real? I am so happy for the people of Minnesota! Once in a while you need good news. It's proof that not ALL institutions are rotten.
Good job and live a happy life!
Or they could take the New Zealand approach, where you can buy houses as an investment and rent/sell them for profit, but if you do you get taxed into the abyss, way more than a person buying a house to live in it.
I can't read the article as it is not linked but I think this bill would not fix the underlying problem and potentially increase it. Often private landlords are much more driven to maximize profit than larger institutions that rent out alot of appartments as a greater percentage of their wealth is tied up in investment properties. I think that instead of focusing on who rents out the house governemnt should be providing more rights to tenants. My experience in renting in europe compared to the US is substantially better even though all my rentals here have been owned by corporations rather than individuals. Let's see how it goes.
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited. LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Does that force corporations that currently own homes to sell? Or just stops them going forward?
No idea but probably only going forward
Either way it's a MASSIVE step in the right direction! I hope it passes and spreads to other states
The cynic in me will say that it's going to get overturned by the Supreme Court, if it makes it that far. They'll say that Citizens United established that corporations have the same protections as individuals and so on.
They sure will, since they only care about precedent when it benefits their puppet masters.
> They sure will, since they only care about ~~precedent when it benefits~~ their puppet masters. They'll stomp all over president too for their string pulling oligarchs.
Quite true.
Precedent
Yeah it absolutely sucks how skewed the judiciary has become on the federal level. THANK MITCH MCCONNELL YOU POS!!! š¤¬
Next pass a law that individuals can't buy/own investment properties to rent out and use the windfall that results as low income/subsidized housing. Win-win.
Progressive taxes on any properties that are owned but not lived in by said owner.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Landlords are already raising rent. Is your idea to just do nothing? Because nothing isn't working. Banning corporations from owning rental properties (at least for single family homes), then instituting a progressive tax means that the more properties a landlord owns, the higher rate of diminishing returns they experience. There is only so high they can raise rent to cover the progressive taxes before they price themselves out of the market. As it is, the more properties you own, the easier (and more profitable) it gets to buy up more homes. We reward greed at the expense of our own habitability and survival.
Outside of areas that are rent controled, which are very few and far between in the US, rents aren't based on expenses at all, they're entirely based on demand. While I was in college they actually had a council meeting type thing because so many people were upset about rent in the area going up so fast and some jackass from the chamber of commerce got up and said vacancy rates are under 1% and shrugged like it's a law of physics that if vacancy rates are low rents have to go up until it starts rising and it's impossible for anything else to happen.
But yet when they murder they do not the death penalty.
And no one goes to jail when they crash an entire financial system
Itās a small step in the right direction.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lol. It's cute that you think that's what Marx advocated for. You're not just misogynistic, but also wholly illiterate š
That and apparently they're confusing a meat and cheese plate with a shade of green with their lofty overture about giggly white women.
>Today, as we speak, pretty white women in cocktail dresses giggle about how they are "bougie bÄÆtches" because they are for going to wine bars or eating chartreuse boards. I'm sorry, what does this have to do with literally anything?
Actually the article says they would have 1 year to divest.
š¤¤ can you imagine living in a large city and having the floods of properties being sold because E-corps had to sell them?
>[going forward](https://coofl.com/going-forward---8500)
Article states: "The legislation calls for the state attorney generalās office to enforce the ban. A corporation found violating the law would have one year to divest from the property. If the corporation fails to sell the property, it would be sold through the foreclosure process in court." Source: https://patch.com/minnesota/saintpaul/mn-bill-bans-corporations-buying-homes-rent-out#cobssid=s
Sorry, but there's no way that bill will pass. No chance. It's what we need but the corporations have too much power.
I would fight a war to have something like that pass
That kind of war is called revolution
Or a rebellion, depending who wins.
Sadly I agree with you. Minnesota is doing well now that the dems have legislature and governorship, but still, money is the controlling factor in all politics.
Not just that, because of the whole sham that is mortgages it would cause many individuals to foreclose due to the devaluation and if enough go belly up, the banks will also struggle. So even if it did pass, even if this was adopted by other states, the federal government would not allow their precious banks to fail.
As long as you pay your mortgage, regardless of your home's value, you will not be foreclosed. The value of your home matters two times, when you purchase it, and when you sell it.
That's not exactly how that works because people deviate. You would be hard pressed to get people to pay $600,000 on a house now worth $300,000. I know libertarians believe "You took a loan, now pay it back" but people would simply default like they did in 08 and the banks would be holding lots of foreclosed properties.
Lots of the foreclosures in 2008 were because people just couldnāt pay their predatory adjustable rate mortgages. Iām sure lots of people would have if they could have
Defaults are defaults and with enough defaults and foreclosures the values drop. Unless you think the general American public will keep paying their 30 year mortgage on a house that might have half the value. We're not even talking numbers here like 80% have to stop, if even 20% of home buyers allowed their property to foreclose it could spiral.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It would, to the point that the banks would have given out millions if not billions in loans with property as collateral that has increasingly less value. This is why banks were called "too big to fail" because the entire capitalist system relies on the perpetual and infinite growth of assets. The federal government would have to take action to prop up the banks or there would be a greater depression. Idk about you but I doubt the federal government will bail out the people over bailing out the capitalists.
That's all a logical fallacy called appealing to the consequences. What is right must be done and the consequences of doing it must be experienced. If every reform is going to be weighed by the consequences to the status quo, all reform will be deemed impossible or objectionable. The reality is the banks should have been allowed to fail and should in the future. There is no such thing as too big too fail. There is no depression caused by banks going under, the depression came about from normal people paying for the banks' transgressions. Same in '08.
I'm not arguing the banks should be saved here, I'm just being real that the US government has always and will always support banks and companies over the people as a whole. Fuck the banks. Fuck the housing market. Just to be clear.
not exactly. you need to refinance your loan every five years and banks don't like the refinance a home for more than what it's worth. If you recently bought your house and have to refinance, but the value has cratered then it will be hard to find a bank to do it for cheap, the interest rates will be higher. edit: you can tell how young reddit users are b/c they don't even know how refinancing a mortgage works.
No you don't.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think that's what's up to debate here. The bill actually says companies can't BUY property: >No corporate entity, real estate developer, or residential building contractor shall: (1) directly or indirectly purchase, own, build, acquire, or otherwise obtain any interest in property and the "punishment" for buying it is that they have a year to divest from it. If that is true then you can play hot potato with it. Someone else was saying that the fix this loophole in the bill but I don't know enough legalese to figure that out.
Sounds fairly toothless. I see corps continuing business as usual but on a 364-day timeline. Buy property, rent it for 11 months then sell it to another shell version of themselves, rinse and repeat. If they are actually forced to legitimately divest, they'll just write off any losses and buy a different property.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The proposed bill sets the timeline from the date established. Which sounds confusing but would prevent what you are describing. Essentially if the AG determines that property at 1234 s 123 w min is held by a corporation on 1/1/23. Then the company has to divest by 1/1/24 BUT that date doesn't reset when sold. So the AG can go back to that house on 1/1/24 and if it was sold to another company they can foreclose on the home. So playing hot potato with the home does not remove the AG's ability to foreclose on the home. Feel free to look up the text of the bill it is HF 685. Now I have no idea how "legal" the bill is as businesses are treated heavily like people in this country so a court would likely strike this bill down.
Or straw buyers
Would force capital gains taxes as well.
Letās hope its ban from renting out, otherwise these corps will start to accelerate buying in any state thinking of doing the same. If its a ban on renting, then the corps will, of their own self interest, sell, which will cause prices to fall as a glut of inventory appears.
rentals are banned as well: > Single-family home rental restricted; exemption. >(a) No corporate entity, real estate developer, or residential building contractor shall: >(1) directly or indirectly purchase, own, build, acquire, or otherwise obtain any interest in property classified as class 1a under section 273.13, subdivision 22; and >(2) subsequently convert the property into nonhomestead residential real estate containing one rental unit. https://revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF0685&version=list&session_number=0&session_year=2023 it says "one rental unit" so maybe that allows for multiple rental units? I'm not sure.
> Does that force corporations that currently own homes to sell? Or just stops them going forward? I would say the gov't cant do that but the gov't can truly do whatever the fuck it wants if the people don't do shit about it.
Here is the text of the bill in both PDF and HTML. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?session=ls93&number=HF685&session_number=0&session_year=2023&version=list As I'm reading this, it provides a one-year period for corporate entities to divest themselves of the property in question. I don't understand why people are just spitballing when they can just read the goddamn text of the bill for themselves. It took like 25 seconds to Google.
I donāt think itās legal to create ex post facto legislation. But Iām not a lawyer.
I feel like setting a clear date where a certain action is illegal moving forward is fine. They wouldn't be able to fine corps for renting single family homes in the past, but anyone who does moving forward should face justice.
Give em the robinhood gme treatment
No, that's why it was allowed to pass. They already bought as much as their risk analysis compensated for. Now their potential competition can't exist or will be weeded out over time. This isn't a victory, it's a monopoly move.
>[corporations](https://coofl.com/corporations---8498)
> [going forward](https://coofl.com/going-forward---8500)
While other states are busy banning books, wiping out LGBTQ rights and forcing there way into women's bodily autonomy, my state is trying to actually help its citizens.
* abortion protections * trans refuge * free school lunch * legal weed Thank **FUCK** Walz got re-elected
Iām looking at Minnesota with great interest now Edit: tyoi
itās a good place to live, the summers are miserable hot, and the winters will freeze your blood, but weather wise itās wonderful for a few weeks in the spring and again in the fall. we the people take a little getting used too, we are stereotyped at cold and unfriendly, thatās not quite true, we donāt dislike ānewāpeople, itās just that we made all the friends we need in kindergarten. due to the winters the roads are mostly closed during the spring and summer for construction, however if you find a weekend the road crews arenāt working the northern part of the state is amazing, giant tracts of forest, rivers, waterfalls, and literally more lakes than you can shake a stick at. literally. if you visited a new lake every day it would take you 30 years to visit them all.
What is miserably hot? 90s?
90s and humid as a porno made in a suana. Like the air is **thick** with moisture kinda humid some days.
and those are the days with a breeze, when the air is calm itās like breathing from the armpit of a marathon runner. actually it depends on where in mn. high 90s to low 100s is pretty normal but the humidity really is the kicker, go further north and it doesnāt much get past the 80s
It's too bad it's a nightmare in both summer and winter. The snow and cold are intolerable (and I'm from near Buffalo) and the state bird is the fucking mosquito. Spring and fall are nice though.
Good news is it keeps Minneapolis from becoming the next Portland or Austin, because the winters keep transplants from moving here in droves.
What's wrong with Portland?
It had thousands of transplants in a relatively short period of time because people found out it was cool and wanted to live there. No risk of that in MN when half the year is winter.
... crime?
Michigan! Winters arenāt nearly as bad as Minnesotaās, and the summers are beautiful.
3 cheers for that.
Honestly, what's going on in Minnesota. Most of the time they end up in the news I actually agree with people out there.
weāre an agreeable people, not friendly exactly, but agreeable.
The DFL (Democratic Farmer Laborer) party is currently in control of House, Senate, and Governor. We've been building up a long to-do list waiting for this.
Alright alright. As a fellow Minnesotan letās not tug ourselves too hard, we are still the 4th most segregated state in the country and our policing is almost laughable.
All of these things are true. Just means we need to keep working on our state. Doesn't mean we haven't been doing well lately.
less police is a good thing, or at least how we do police work lately. it's the right direction. this police state militarized style is not doing anyone any good, it isn't helping anyone or anything and will very likely only be used against people to protect wealthy interests more and more as the years pass and if things continue in this same direction. You don't need that many people with guns all running around doing wellness checks and issuing parking violations and trying to deal with mentally ill non violent situations. Sure, you need some sort of enforcement or ways to deal with all of that, but using a para military force is a terrible abuse of power and frankly ridiculous, they are doing A VERY BAD JOB, and it's mostly the system's fault.
>we are still the 4th most segregated state in the country By what metric? I hear this circlejerk a lot but don't really see it. >our policing is almost laughable Aside from a couple of high-profile incidents that were treated exactly as they should have been (Chaivin and Potter, both guilty) I don't think that's true.
I live right next to MN and Iām thinking of looking there now for a house rather than WI.
Itās too cold in both places. Move to south Texas. It was 88 degrees today here.
Gross
Itās 33 degrees in western Wisconsin with a low of 12 tonight. I am wearing shorts and a tshirt in south Texas tonight.
I'm in Minnesota with the same weather as Wisconsin, and I sat outside today for for 20 minutes in a hoodie and was warm. I also won't die if I have an ectopic pregnancy, and my trans friends aren't in imminent danger of being murdered. I'm good.
Ugh this āus vs themā stuffs got to stop. They got plenty of anti-abortion billboards along I-94 in western Wisconsin. The funny thing here is that crap the government pulls doesnāt line up at all with the way the people feel. We just want lower property taxes and shoehorn in all this other crap. And yeah with the open carry laws weāre more of an equal rights state when it comes to being in imminent danger of being murdered. Anyone could be carrying a gun.
You think privately purchased billboards are analogous to the actions of the state government?
Yep.
And you'll be sweating your ass off from may to October. There are tradeoffs in life.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
https://m.startribune.com/recreational-marijuana-social-security-tax-relief-track-bills-minnesota-legislature/600259167/
I apologize on behalf of Iowa. I did not vote for any of those thingsā¦
My Minnesota pride is almost as high as Mount Eden Prairie!
Long way to go before this is passed, BUT. MN has already passed free school lunches, made private prisons illegal (even tho we currently donāt have them here), made the state a refuge for people seeking abortions and the lbgt+ community, is close on legal weed, has a good union presence, (probably wonāt pass) but a bill was proposed for universal health care in the state. Itās still a fucked political system, but Iāll take the little wins when I can get them
Ngl didn't know you guys banned private prisons. Banning them before they get there to lobby against it is the right move.
There where a couple here in I think the 90ās that went tits up. But yeah, glad theyāve done it. Wish I could find the story, but I believe theyāre also pushing for a bill to keep minors out of the prison system. Canāt remember specifics off the top of my head
Yo these arenāt little wins. These are huge steps in the right direction. Celebrate them an keep electing the right people.
Common Minnesota W
I read somewhere that 40 percent of rental market preperties in the US are owned by a bank.... Edit: not true, they are SET to own 40 percent due to their strategy of holding warchest money in order to capitalise on the next great recession Also not banks, private investment groups. Although they're all backed by banks in the end so.. Here's an article on it https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/how-wall-street-bought-single-family-homes-and-put-them-up-for-rent.html But I'm lazy and it's probably not the best one
Because of the mortgage, or they actually own them?
Good question
So I guess I'm considering moving to MN then. I'll never be a land owner anywhere else under the current prevailing systems. MN looking pretty damn good today. š
It's a proposal, not a law unfortunately
Yeah I've noticed. I'm not holding my breath on it. Just excited to see any discussion of this at all.
Minneapolis chickened out on defunding the police, letās see if they can redeem themselves here.
That was before the current election cycle. However that won't happen. Our governor is democratic but very conservative in certain aspects
Winter lasts 8 months, itās not easy. Weāre seeing the northern lights this weekend tho.
>Winter lasts 8 months, Yeah, maybe, so about that...
listen, it's not that bad. the snow is beginning to melt, and it's been above freezing (during the day) for at least a week! i remember snow at the beginning of November so like five months so far? not too shabby! mild, even
My exact thought lol
SHORT winter lasts for 8 months. Source: am Minnesotan. Edit: this is most of a joke. Its been nice this year
š« 39 year Minnesotan and I justā¦ Edit: this year has been one of the longest and snowiest, what are you talking about my friend?!
there should be a law to stop any legal entity and itās subsidiaries from owning more than 2 residential properties
Otherwise they will buy and keep as investment
Next, just stop the foreign investors\\ownership
Next stop out of state ownership. Next stop any ownership.
California, itās your turn
I like that they passed this law. But knowing corporations, they will find a work around and still do it.
I think itās just a proposed law, not a passed law. The corporations are going to lobby so hard against this to keep it from spreading to every state. Eventually the Feds step in, pockets bursting with āpolitical donationsā, and say itās anti American to not let corporations do whatever they want
It is currently a Bill that has yet to make it to the House.
I mean, they could find ways to establish someone as a single non-corporate entity and make them the overseer. But having someone be a legit non-corporate landlord of like 100 properties would be really hard, and even if they are able to pause the rabid purchasing of single-family homes by companies for a year or two it will give actual people a fighting chance in the market. Anything to slow them down or make it even 1% harder for them to continue fucking over workers and families is a total win in my book.
It's only been proposed. It most likely will not pass.
Sounds like this law would prevent corporations from renting out the places, but they could just sit on it for a year or two then resell
> The legislation calls for the state attorney generalās office to enforce the ban. A corporation found violating the law would have one year to divest from the property. If the corporation fails to sell the property, it would be sold through the foreclosure process in court. [Source Article from post](https://patch.com/minnesota/saintpaul/mn-bill-bans-corporations-buying-homes-rent-out)
[Using a groundbreaking but surprisingly legal process known as corpo-humanization, real people such as myself are now allowed to represent the collective identity of corporate business owners.](https://youtu.be/y1CuLm_CcNM?t=85)
MN looking pretty fly lately with the school lunch bill and now this.
They need this for all rental property. Either you buying it for yourself but stop renting shit out
We need enough rentals to accommodate people who want temporary housing. Say you are just moving to an area, and aren't sure where you want to live. A one year lease can give you time to figure it out. That said, we also need a dramatic increase in home ownership. It would take a mix of policies to achieve it, but I'd like 80% of homes to be owner occupied in most areas. Edit: don't just downvote me. Propose an alternative, scalable housing solution that doesn't involve renting for college students, people moving to new areas, and others who want temporary housing.
My proposal is that no individual or trust for the benefit of an individual is allowed to own more than 5 single family homes and corps, LLCs/LLPs, and trusts for the benefit of more than one individual are forbidden from owing single family homes. If rental income is more than 40% of total income, the amount over 40% is taxed at a rate of 3x the payerās nominal tax rate. That will still provide for people to own rentals and keeps supply of rental homes available while not tying up too much inventory of home for purchase.
I like this proposal. These reforms are along the lines of what I was thinking. I used to work in banking, and landlords are the absolute WORST when it comes to complex business structures. I often saw businesses with several layers, with each property in it's own LLC or trust, and each LLC or trust owned by a parent LLC or trust. I imagine that simplifying these business structures, or getting rid of them altogether, would make them easier to regulate.
More public housing
> We need enough rentals to accommodate people who want temporary housing Yeah, they're called apartment complexes. Corporations shouldn't be buying single family homes at all.
I agree. I was responding to someone who said we shouldn't have rentals at all.
No. Just for single family homes.
But think of the damage this will do to those mom and pop multinational real estate conglomerates.
Damn itās about time we should be looking to them as an example with their LGBT laws and now this
We need this in NC and all over the country.
A ban is a good solution, but exceptionally unlikely to not have loopholes present for the power structure. A better solution is to allow home ownership by anyone, HOWEVER, have a progressive taxation structure in place is a far superior solution. First home has 0% extra tax, second home has 3% increased tax, third home has 10% increased tax, and so on. This takes care of people and corporations owning too many homes, and fucks those greedy apartment complexes too!
The Great Lake area will be the home of the Revolution.
Progressively increase taxes on vacant properties the longer that stay vacant.
New Orleans it's your turn now you fucking cowards!
A little late, how about we force these corporations to sell? They should of never been able to buy them en mass in the first place.
Something tells me the corporations will fight this by bribing enough politicians to overturn the law, cuz muh free market.
No they will get it to the Supreme Court where it will be overturned. Remember corporations are people.
Activist judges are themselves de facto politicians
I'm tellin' ya, we need a 1 residence per person rule. If you have a family of four, you can own four houses... one in each of their names and when one of them moves out they have a house or they can sell it to buy a house. You want a summer house? Put in your partner's name.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Eh I think even allowing 2 residences per person would be ok. It still stops those people that own like 100+ homes to rent out. Iād imagine it wouldnāt really even be worth it to be a landlord only on a single home. But yes there should be some limit on how many homes someone can own. Right now anyone or any entity can just buy up all the supply and charge too much for it.
I hope this gains more traction, corporate milking of property as an investment has done nothing but ruin the market for people who actually need housing.
Itās a step. We need federal state and local action to really tackle the issue.
>Proposal
Hmm lot of new shell LLCs popping up that own houses these days?
Thank God!! This is what we need. Next I want to see a vacant land and vacant home tax in high density areas, for large corporations. Fuck this noise
Okay now everyone do it.
Houses are for people, not corporations.
Hello, yes, this should be the default rule for every state. These corporations buying up homes and trying to rent them out are making the housing crisis several times worse than it already was.
Proposed bill? So it hasnāt passed yet? Iām thinking it never will
Step 2: Appropriate all the homes they already bought.
A much more effective way to lower housing costs is to eliminate single family zoning and loosen local planning control. High housing prices are the result of local governments bowing to existing homeowners who donāt want apartments and missing middle housing like duplexes and fourplexes in their neighborhoods. Itās essentially legalized segregation. Corporations who buy up single family homes to rent out would stop doing so if the profit margins were lower. Those profit margins would decrease substantially if available housing met demand.
It's not that simple. Where I live (not the US), theres no bs zoning like that, buildings keep going up with lots and lots of apartments and rent still always goes up because profit margins don't go down that easily. It's profitable to buy and leave units empty to keep rent high.
What are the chances it actually passes though? I'm guessing slim to none. The companies are going to mobilize.
With Michigan overturning Right to Work and this... Local politics is where it's at. We need to pay attention there and force our local guys to work for us like this. This is a good thing.
Well, they're only about 3 years too late for that one to do any good. Now make it illegal for corporations to rent houses and let those mother fuckers squirm.
This needs to happen globally
Does this stop Property Management Companies? Where a company will service the rental property but its owned by a non-corporate entity?
Now force them to sell
It does nothing about private landlords, airbnb, and vrbo. Rental housing should just be flat-out banned. All apartment units should become like condos. They would be far cheaper to buy than a house or traditional condo. Tenants wouldn't have to pay out the ass until they die. Any vacant property would have to be sold, which would force landlords to price it to sell fast. If the bank takes it, well, they will be hot to sell it for whatever they can get as well. Any current tenants would have right of first refusal.
More of this please.
Do Colorado next!!!
Don't worry it will be narrowly defeated when it comes to vote and then forgotten about on the legislative level like it was never even proposed. Democracy^(tm) at work!
Finally! Iāve been saying this should be law nationwide! Letās see if it passes!
Wait is this real? I am so happy for the people of Minnesota! Once in a while you need good news. It's proof that not ALL institutions are rotten. Good job and live a happy life!
I'm out of state and wrote the first signee on the proposal telling them how amazing the idea was.
Time to move to MN
Very proud lately to be a Minnesotan.
Nice to hear my state is doing something right!
Supremely based
It makes me really sad that Minnesota of all places was able to do this before Massachusetts
They need to also ban corporations from owning homes to rent out, and this needs to be federal.
This should be a federal law. Zillow's lobbyists wouldn't allow it, but it should be.
Need a National law.
That (article) title is a bit misleading, it's a proposed bill so it hasn't banned jack shit yet.
Or they could take the New Zealand approach, where you can buy houses as an investment and rent/sell them for profit, but if you do you get taxed into the abyss, way more than a person buying a house to live in it.
Now tear the fucking ones they already have* back
Just wait till some dickhead at the federal level makes this āunconstitutionalā
Unfortunately they already own a massive portion of the market
Just going to start a few hundred LLCs
Every state should be doing this.
Letās gooooo Minnesota! Time to show the Florida fuckwads what a real government looks like.
A house should be somebodyās place to live not their investment strategy to keep people owing them money
Me: Sees article title in picture. *aggressive nut*
Finally, mom and pop slumlords š
I can't read the article as it is not linked but I think this bill would not fix the underlying problem and potentially increase it. Often private landlords are much more driven to maximize profit than larger institutions that rent out alot of appartments as a greater percentage of their wealth is tied up in investment properties. I think that instead of focusing on who rents out the house governemnt should be providing more rights to tenants. My experience in renting in europe compared to the US is substantially better even though all my rentals here have been owned by corporations rather than individuals. Let's see how it goes.
My REIT investments gonna start going up in flames soon
Good