Say hello to your corporate landlords


And goodbye to your already strained budget:

JLL Income Property Trust waded deeper into the single-family rental trend, launching a new program that plans to acquire up to $500M in single-family homes over the next two years, alongside development and operating platform Amherst. JLL will hold a 95% ownership in the venture, with Amherst holding the remaining 5%.

"Single-family rental homes are one of our highest conviction property sectors given numerous tailwinds that should provide resilient demand and the potential for attractive rent growth within this carefully selected portfolio," JLL Income Property Trust President and CEO Allan Swaringen said in a press release.

Bolding mine, because that goes to the core of the problem with investor-owned residential properties: the constant drive to line the pockets of shareholders on the backs of families struggling to make ends meet. And it's no surprise they are giddy that Republicans are taking over the (US) House:

The level of investment by institutional investors in the SFR market has spurred legislative action, but changes in leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives may stifle any potential roadblocks in the works.

A bill introduced in October by California Democrats, dubbed the “Stop Wall Street Landlords Act,” is meant to reign in the corporate ownership of SFRs by targeting companies with $100M in assets with taxes on their transactions.

However, now that the Republicans have gained control of the House, speculation has grown over whether such a bill will even reach the floor, according to comments made to Business Insider by Green Street Senior Vice President Tyler Blue. Blue also noted that as the size of SFR investments continues to grow, the conversation about regulating the industry isn’t likely to stop anytime soon.

You're damn right it's not. Look, I don't have a problem with people owning multiple houses and renting out the ones they don't live in. I have several friends who do that, most of them former (or current) realtors. It comes with the territory, especially older and smaller houses that don't move quickly, or are perpetually underbidded. Others buy them for income tax purposes. But most of those folks don't charge an arm and a leg for rent, they just want to cover costs, and generate a modest monthly income.

But these investment fund managers will squeeze as much out of renters as they can, and hire some regional management company to monitor things. In other words, if you have a problem with your $2,500 per-month "home," good luck getting anybody to do anything about it.

But aside from ripping off tenants (who can afford that much), these corporate purchases just exacerbate the housing shortage for those wanting to purchase a home. Which drives up prices across the board, leaving those earning below the median with few (if any) options.

The market won't fix this, it will take public policy. National, state, and local.



Retiring from the Planning Board

After 8 years, most of that time as Chairman. We've got new housing developments in progress all the way around our town, and I was involved in most of them as far as zoning is concerned.

Most of the citizens who came to meetings opposed these new developments, for one reason or another. But the more expensive the new houses (or townhomes) were going to be, the less angry the villagers. We only have one (out of nine or so) development that is/will be selling properties for under $250,000.

Is that affordable? I don't even know anymore...

Mixed feelings...

I definitely won't miss the stress. Walking through a packed house to my seat, and then smiling and making eye contact with each person looking at me. It sounds manipulative, but I do that so they will be more comfortable, whether they want to come up and speak or not. And if they do, giving them enough time to say what's on their mind. Even if I don't agree with them.

But that takes a lot out of you. I need a break.