Tim Scott defends ban on large investors buying houses against industry criticism
This is performative politics again.
EXCLUSIVE — Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) is defending a provision in bipartisan housing legislation that would ban large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes, noting a number of carveouts and exceptions in the bill.
The White House has made such a ban a priority, and it was added to the legislative bill, which the Senate is expected to vote on this week. But one particular aspect of the ban has faced backlash from some conservatives and industry groups, namely that it would require investors who own build-to-rent homes, which are otherwise exempt from the ban, to sell those homes within seven years.
The Washington Examiner spoke to Scott, who authored the legislation with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), during a Tuesday phone interview. He highlighted President Donald Trump’s desire for the ban to be a final legislation.
“I can say that the president’s priority on the large institutional investors came over from the White House, and what we’ve tried to do is work to massage some of it — and the seven-year provision is one of the areas that we actually have worked heavily on, trying to make it more digestible,” he said.
MAJOR HOUSING BILL GETS INDUSTRY PUSHBACK OVER BAN ON PURCHASES BY LARGE INVESTORS
The inclusion of the seven-year provision has rankled homebuilders, who argue that it would make investing in housing uneconomical and amount to a soft ban. The National Association of Home Builders, long a supporter of the bipartisan legislation, is threatening to withdraw its support for the bill, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.
“As the Senate takes up debate on the housing package, we wanted to alert you that absent efforts to improve the institution investor provisions … to truly exempt built to rent construction, we plan to oppose the overall legislation and will consider designating a key vote in opposition,” the group told congressional offices last week.
Scott, though, defended the seven-year provision, noting that it comes with major caveats. He said that, for instance, if the large institutional investor is unable to sell the property within the first 60 days it is on the market, the seven-year provision no longer applies.
He also said it doesn’t apply to Real Estate Investment Trusts and “a number of other programs that are designed for home ownership as an outcome.”
“Additionally, it gives the Treasury more discretion that if any of these provisions seems to slow down the actual sale of …
This is performative politics again.
EXCLUSIVE — Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) is defending a provision in bipartisan housing legislation that would ban large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes, noting a number of carveouts and exceptions in the bill.
The White House has made such a ban a priority, and it was added to the legislative bill, which the Senate is expected to vote on this week. But one particular aspect of the ban has faced backlash from some conservatives and industry groups, namely that it would require investors who own build-to-rent homes, which are otherwise exempt from the ban, to sell those homes within seven years.
The Washington Examiner spoke to Scott, who authored the legislation with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), during a Tuesday phone interview. He highlighted President Donald Trump’s desire for the ban to be a final legislation.
“I can say that the president’s priority on the large institutional investors came over from the White House, and what we’ve tried to do is work to massage some of it — and the seven-year provision is one of the areas that we actually have worked heavily on, trying to make it more digestible,” he said.
MAJOR HOUSING BILL GETS INDUSTRY PUSHBACK OVER BAN ON PURCHASES BY LARGE INVESTORS
The inclusion of the seven-year provision has rankled homebuilders, who argue that it would make investing in housing uneconomical and amount to a soft ban. The National Association of Home Builders, long a supporter of the bipartisan legislation, is threatening to withdraw its support for the bill, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.
“As the Senate takes up debate on the housing package, we wanted to alert you that absent efforts to improve the institution investor provisions … to truly exempt built to rent construction, we plan to oppose the overall legislation and will consider designating a key vote in opposition,” the group told congressional offices last week.
Scott, though, defended the seven-year provision, noting that it comes with major caveats. He said that, for instance, if the large institutional investor is unable to sell the property within the first 60 days it is on the market, the seven-year provision no longer applies.
He also said it doesn’t apply to Real Estate Investment Trusts and “a number of other programs that are designed for home ownership as an outcome.”
“Additionally, it gives the Treasury more discretion that if any of these provisions seems to slow down the actual sale of …
Tim Scott defends ban on large investors buying houses against industry criticism
This is performative politics again.
EXCLUSIVE — Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) is defending a provision in bipartisan housing legislation that would ban large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes, noting a number of carveouts and exceptions in the bill.
The White House has made such a ban a priority, and it was added to the legislative bill, which the Senate is expected to vote on this week. But one particular aspect of the ban has faced backlash from some conservatives and industry groups, namely that it would require investors who own build-to-rent homes, which are otherwise exempt from the ban, to sell those homes within seven years.
The Washington Examiner spoke to Scott, who authored the legislation with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), during a Tuesday phone interview. He highlighted President Donald Trump’s desire for the ban to be a final legislation.
“I can say that the president’s priority on the large institutional investors came over from the White House, and what we’ve tried to do is work to massage some of it — and the seven-year provision is one of the areas that we actually have worked heavily on, trying to make it more digestible,” he said.
MAJOR HOUSING BILL GETS INDUSTRY PUSHBACK OVER BAN ON PURCHASES BY LARGE INVESTORS
The inclusion of the seven-year provision has rankled homebuilders, who argue that it would make investing in housing uneconomical and amount to a soft ban. The National Association of Home Builders, long a supporter of the bipartisan legislation, is threatening to withdraw its support for the bill, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.
“As the Senate takes up debate on the housing package, we wanted to alert you that absent efforts to improve the institution investor provisions … to truly exempt built to rent construction, we plan to oppose the overall legislation and will consider designating a key vote in opposition,” the group told congressional offices last week.
Scott, though, defended the seven-year provision, noting that it comes with major caveats. He said that, for instance, if the large institutional investor is unable to sell the property within the first 60 days it is on the market, the seven-year provision no longer applies.
He also said it doesn’t apply to Real Estate Investment Trusts and “a number of other programs that are designed for home ownership as an outcome.”
“Additionally, it gives the Treasury more discretion that if any of these provisions seems to slow down the actual sale of …
0 Comments
0 Shares
48 Views
0 Reviews
