https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/23/us/politics/congress-hous...

Archives having issues scraping nytimes lately. 381 page bill too.

“The measure prohibits corporate entities from owning more than 350 existing single-family homes, although it does not require them to sell homes purchased before the measure became law.”

They don’t mention anything about foreign investments but China is trying to rein in their own overseas spending to boost national investment.

Carve outs: - Investors may purchase homes owned by other investors.

- There are additional exceptions related to previous contracts and legal obligations, or if the purchase is part of a loss-mitigation strategy.

https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/21ST_Century_ROAD_Expl...

Partly because the federal governments leverage on local politics is very little but majorly because currently the interest rate and the labor/material costs is just too high especially on the coasts and none of that is regulatory burden. The Atlantic had a great breakdown [1].

Congress and/or state governments should work on a preferable interest rates for construction loans scheme and engineers need to bust through Moravecs paradox to get some productivity boosts in construction going, everything else is window dressing.

The ball has moved!

[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/2026/03/california-housi...

That works here in Switzerland sort of - prices are still super high but more because of local wealth, not Russians and Chinese buying everything. There are underdeveloped places where foreigners are allowed to buy - Andermatt for example is filled with rich Americans.

I need an LLM to start stripping out everything to do with this type of stupefying horse race discussion.

Eliminating Fannie mae/Freddie Mac would've done a whole lot more to lower house prices.