Category: Housing

RER White Paper Raises Constitutional Concerns With Senate Housing Bill’s Section 901

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) this week released a white paper authored by Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy, PLLC, adding significant constitutional concerns to the growing case against Section 901 of Title IX of the Senate-passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (H.R. 6644). While the broader legislation contains several constructive provisions to help boost housing supply, the Senate bill’s restrictions on certain institutional investors would undermine new development, disrupt the build-to-rent (BTR) market, and raise serious legal questions. (White Paper, April 14)

Why It Matters

  • The Senate provision would apply to corporate entities that own more than 350 single-family homes. It would largely prohibit those entities from purchasing additional single-family homes and require them to sell newly constructed single-family rentals (SFR) after seven years.
  • The investor “purchase ban” on single-family homes and the “forced sale” of new single-family rentals would amount to an unprecedented federal intervention in housing markets at a time when the country needs policies that encourage development—not deter it.

What the White Paper Says

  • The white paper released by RER argues that the forced-sale requirement for build-to-rent housing raises serious constitutional problems under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. (White Paper, April 14)
  • The paper concludes government cannot force one private owner to sell its homes to another without trampling on the Constitution’s “public-use” and “just-compensation” requirements. Furthermore, the Senate’s bill provides no mechanism for the government to pay just compensation to investors whose homes would be taken.
  • The paper also raises equal protection concerns by singling out a narrow category of corporate owners for special burdens.
  • While Congress has broad authority to regulate economic activity, the paper notes that it cannot arbitrarily target a specific class of property owners—particularly where the ownership and disposition of private property are at stake.
  • In addition, the paper argues that the proposal departs from the traditional state and local roles in land use and housing policy, raising broader federalism concerns.

Roundtable Advocacy

  • RER has consistently supported policies that expand housing availability, reduce barriers to development, and improve affordability.
  • At the same time, RER has warned that Section 901 would do the opposite by discouraging new investment in housing and weakening a growing source of supply.
  • RER shared the white paper with members of Congress in a letter urging lawmakers to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing Title IX.
  • Since the Senate passed its version of the bill, progressive and conservative groups alike have cited numerous benefits that SFR owners and builders deliver for U.S. housing markets, in terms of increasing supply, maintenance, and upkeep of units, and providing opportunities for families to live in communities with strong education systems, where they can’t afford to buy. (Progressive Policy Institute, February 2026; Competitive Enterprise Institute, February 2026)

  •  As lawmakers work to address the housing shortage, the focus should remain on expanding supply and lowering barriers to development—not on punitive restrictions that threaten new investment, weaken build-to-rent housing, and make affordability challenges worse.

The constitutional concerns surrounding Section 901, and the broader policy debate over how best to expand housing supply, will be part of the discussion at RER’s Spring Roundtable Meeting (Roundtable-level members only) next week in Washington.

White House Economic Report Underscores Supply Gap as ROAD to Housing Act Stalls

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

Congress returned to Washington this week after a two-week recess with little visible movement on the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, even as House Financial Services Committee staff continued work on a bipartisan response to the Senate-passed bill.

State of Play

  • House and Senate lawmakers remain at odds over how to reconcile the competing housing packages, with the Senate bill’s treatment of institutional investment in single-family housing still one of the biggest sticking points. (Politico, April 14)
  • RER and other housing advocates continue to press lawmakers to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing language that could reduce rental housing production and discourage new investment.

Why It Matters

  • The report says that if single-family homebuilding had continued at its historical pace after 2008, the U.S. would have “10 million or more additional single-family homes today”—a striking measure of the nation’s housing shortfall and the scale of lost supply. (CRE Daily, April 14)
  • White House economists reached that figure by asking how many homes would exist today if construction had continued at its pre-2008 pace, making the estimate as much about lost capacity as current demand. (Propmodo, April 13)
  • The findings reinforce that improving affordability will require more building, more investment, and fewer barriers to supply—and that policies constraining new housing production could worsen affordability rather than improve it.

New Research

  • Updated research continues to undercut the argument that institutional ownership is the main source of today’s affordability challenges.
  • An AEI report released last week says large institutional investors own less than 1 percent of the nation’s single-family homes and concludes that Section 901 of the Senate’s bill would reduce the supply of newly constructed and rehabilitated homes while burdening low- and middle-income renters. (AEI, April 10)
  • Separate Realtor.com research published in March also found that the institutional investor footprint has been shrinking from its 2022 peak. (Politico, April 14 | Realtor, March 13)
  • Recent market data points in the same direction. If institutional investment were the main cause of the nation’s housing affordability problems, the markets with the heaviest investor activity would be consistently posting the strongest price growth. (Roundtable Weekly, April 10 | GAO Report, April 6 | GAO Report, 2024)
  • The latest Case-Shiller data show the opposite pattern: Chicago and New York led annual home-price gains in December 2025, while several Sun Belt metros where institutional investors have been more prominent—including Tampa, Phoenix, Dallas, and Miami—saw prices decline. That divergence reinforces the broader point that supply constraints, not institutional investment alone, are the bigger force shaping affordability. (S&P Global, December 2025 | Realtor, October 2025)

New Housing Legislation Introduced

  • Separate from the House-Senate standoff, Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) this week introduced the Freedom to Build Act, a proposal backed by The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) that would create a HUD “Freedom to Build” certification for localities adopting pro-supply policies such as faster approvals, regulatory streamlining, and other measures to expand housing construction. (Sen. Hagerty Press Release, April 14)
  • The bill is intended to incentivize deregulation, expand housing supply, and make homes more affordable by aligning existing federal incentives with communities that reduce barriers to building.
  • Jeffrey D. DeBoer, President & CEO of RER said, “This legislation would be a meaningful step toward expanding housing supply and improving affordability for working families. The Freedom to Build Act would align federal incentives with local decision-making to help unlock private capital, enhance housing supply, and support long-term economic growth. The Real Estate Roundtable has long supported policies that promote housing affordability—for renters and homeowners—and strengthen the connection between housing, jobs, and transportation.”

Sen. Hagerty will also be a featured guest at RER’s upcoming Spring Roundtable Meeting next week (Roundtable-level members only), where housing supply, affordability, and related policy developments will be among the topics discussed.

New GAO Data, Rising Cost Pressures Undercut Case for Build-to-Rent Restrictions

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

As the Senate-passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act awaits House action, new federal data and rising development cost estimates are reinforcing a key point in the housing debate: affordability challenges are driven by supply constraints, and federal policy should not make it harder or more expensive to build. (Washington Post, April 6)

What the Data Shows

  • At the center of the debate is Section 901, which would force large institutional investors to sell certain newly built single-family rental homes after seven years—a provision that could undermine build-to-rent housing and reduce supply. (Roundtable Weekly, April 3)
  • A new GAO report found that institutional investor ownership of single-family rental homes increased in six metro areas from 2018 to 2024, but still accounted for a very small share of all single-family homes in those markets—ranging from less than 1 percent to 3 percent. (GAO Report, March 24 | Highlights, March 24)
  • The findings add new weight to the argument that institutional ownership is not the main driver of the nation’s affordability challenges.
  • The Washington Post noted this week that forcing build-to-rent homes to be sold within seven years would weaken a fast-growing source of new single-family housing. (Washington Post, April 6)
  • A separate February report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) reached a similar conclusion, finding that institutional investors own less than 1 percent of all single-family homes nationwide and account for less than 2 percent of all home purchases, and concluding that the broader affordability problem is rooted in supply-demand imbalances rather than investor concentration. (Progressive Policy Institute, February 2026)
  • The reports undercut the argument that restricting institutional investment is likely to meaningfully improve affordability, particularly when housing shortages, financing costs, regulatory barriers, and construction expenses remain the primary constraints on supply.

Market Impact

  • As Barron’s reported this week, Section 901’s proposed restrictions on institutional investors are already having a chilling effect on investments in single-family housing, with investment managers indicating that pension funds and other large investors may pause or reconsider deals until there is greater clarity around housing policy. (Barron’s, April 7)
  • Research from John Burns Research & Consulting suggests the Senate bill has “already paralyzed” the build-to-rent development industry, with new development slowing and capital “now frozen,” impacting project viability “from day one, not just in seven years.” (Barron’s, April 7)

Tariffs & Construction Costs

  • A new Cushman & Wakefield report found that tariff rates in effect as of April 7 would raise construction materials costs by 6.0 percent relative to a 2024 baseline and increase total project costs by roughly 3.0 percent, adding more pressure to housing and commercial real estate development. (Cushman & Wakefield, April 8)

RER & Industry Advocacy

  • RER and broad housing coalitions have consistently emphasized that housing affordability is driven by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels—and that restricting institutional capital would only make it harder to meet the nation’s growing housing needs. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 | Jan. 23 | Feb. 27 | March 6 | March 13 | March 20 | March 27 | April 3) (Letter, March 5 | Letter, March 13)
  • Research continues to show that restricting institutional capital is unlikely to improve affordability and could create new supply constraints. The PPI report, for example, notes that build-to-rent development is becoming an increasingly important source of new housing supply. (Progressive Policy Institute, February 2026)

What’s Next

  • Congress returns next week with a robust agenda. The Senate is set to return April 13 and the House on April 14, with unresolved DHS funding, a possible new reconciliation push, and the administration’s budget request all competing for floor time and political attention.
  • That packed schedule could make it harder for housing legislation to advance quickly.

The Senate-passed ROAD to Housing Act and broader housing policy will be a major focus at the upcoming Spring Roundtable Meeting April 20-21 in Washington, D.C. (Roundtable-level members only).

Research Continues to Reinforce Case Against Build-to-Rent Provision in Housing Bill

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

As the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act remains in limbo in the House, new research is strengthening the case for removing the Senate bill’s build-to-rent (BTR) provision. The findings suggest the provision could curb housing supply without improving affordability.

State of Play

  • At the center of the debate is Section 901, which would require newly built single-family rental homes developed by large institutional investors to be sold to after seven years. (Roundtable Weekly, March 27 | The Atlantic, March 30)
  • Industry groups, researchers, and The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) warn that the mandate would disrupt a growing source of housing supply, raise serious constitutional concerns, and potentially trigger years of litigation involving property owners, tenants, and the federal government. (Roundtable Weekly, March 13 |  CNBC, March 29)

New BTR Research

  • Other recent studies are reinforcing concerns about the provision. A new AEI analysis found the bill’s investor restrictions could reduce supply and hurt lower-income families. (AEI study, March 27)
  • An Urban Institute case study found that single-family rental investors have developed renovation and property-management capabilities that could help rehabilitate more homes and expand the supply of affordable housing. (Urban Institute Case Study, March 30)

Roundtable & Industry Advocacy

  • RER and a broad real estate coalition have spent weeks urging lawmakers to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing or revising Section 901, warning that the seven-year sale requirement would effectively eliminate build-to-rent housing production. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 |  Jan. 23 | Feb. 27| March 6 | March 13 | March 20 | March 27) (Letter, March 5 | Letter, March 13)
  • That case was reinforced again last week in an open letter from housing researchers, who said the mandate would undermine a growing source of supply and is especially unworkable because many BTR communities are not designed to be sold unit by unit. (Letter, Mar. 26 | MultifamilyDive, Mar. 31)

New Cost Pressures

  • Rising aluminum prices are adding new strain to an already challenging development environment, pushing construction costs higher and threatening project viability.
  • “The conflict in the Middle East is further driving up materials prices and making construction that much less affordable and many projects that much less financially viable,” said Anirban Basu, the chief economist for Associated Builders and Contractors. (PoliticoPro, March 27)
  • The pressure comes on top of elevated rates, tariff uncertainty, and labor shortages that have already slowed homebuilding and weighed on new investment. (PoliticoPro, March 27)

What’s Next

  • Congress is in recess until April 13, leaving the package’s next steps uncertain for now.

RER will continue urging Congress to protect the bill’s supply-focused provisions while removing language that would make it harder to build rental housing.

House Weighs Next Move on ROAD to Housing Act

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

The bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act remains in limbo in the House, where lawmakers are still weighing how to reconcile the Senate-passed package with the chamber’s own housing bill. The Senate approved its version two weeks ago after combining House priorities with the upper chamber’s broader housing agenda, but House members have raised concerns about several provisions added or revised in the Senate package—most notably the bill’s treatment of build-to-rent (BTR) housing.

State of Play

  • The House and Senate remain at odds over how to advance the housing package after the Senate passed its bill with overwhelming bipartisan support earlier this month. (PoliticoPro, Mar. 23)
  • House Financial Services Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA) urged House Democrats this week to support a formal conference committee, arguing that the final bill should restore House priorities and address stakeholder concerns—an apparent reference to the Senate bill’s restrictions on large institutional investors in single-family housing.
  • Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) said Wednesday that Senate Banking and House Financial Services leaders need to meet to resolve key differences between the two packages.
  • Rep. Flood identified three major House concerns with the Senate bill: the need to preserve but revise the provision restricting institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes, the omission of environmental review changes for certain affordable housing programs, and the Senate’s inclusion of a temporary rather than permanent restriction on a Federal Reserve central bank digital currency. (PoliticoPro | Watch Rep. Flood Remarks, Mar. 25)

Build-to-Rent

  • The biggest sticking point remains the Senate bill’s requirement that rental homes developed by large investors be sold to individual homebuyers after seven years. (The Urban Institute, Mar. 17)
  • House Republicans have raised concerns that the provision could undercut new rental housing production, disrupt financing, and introduce significant long-term uncertainty into the market.
  • The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) has warned that the bill’s forced-sale structure raises serious constitutional concerns and could trigger years of litigation involving property owners, tenants, and the federal government.

New BTR Research

  • Based on a March 19 discussion with 146 BTR executives, developers, and capital partners, the firm reported this week that the Senate bill’s seven-year disposal requirement has already frozen capital and halted new development ahead of enactment. Some capital will not return even if the bill is altered, reflecting ongoing concerns about future policy risk. (John Burns Research & Consulting, Mar. 24)

RER Advocacy

  • RER and a broad real estate coalition have spent weeks urging lawmakers to preserve the housing bill’s supply-focused provisions while removing language that would force large investors to sell newly built single-family rental homes after seven years. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 |  Jan. 23 | Feb. 27| Mar. 6 | Mar. 13 | Mar. 20)
  • In March, RER joined a series of coalition letters urging senators to remove or revise Section 901, warning that the seven-year sale requirement would effectively eliminate the production of BTR housing. (Roundtable Weekly, Mar. 20) (Letter, Mar. 5 | Letter, Mar. 13)
  • That message was reinforced again this week in an open letter from housing policy researchers, who warned that the Senate-passed ROAD to Housing Act would undermine BTR housing, which represents a growing source of new supply in markets where housing is already out of reach for many households. (Letter, Mar. 26)
  • The researchers said BTR has helped expand the housing stock, particularly for middle-income renters seeking single-family-style housing, and cautioned that the bill’s seven-year sale mandate would disrupt the model’s economics and reduce future production.
  • The letter also noted that many BTR communities are not structured to be sold off unit-by-unit, making the requirement especially problematic in practice.

What’s Next

  • The House and Senate are out on recess and do not return to Washington until April 14, leaving the future of the broader housing package uncertain. (NYT, Mar. 25)

Whether lawmakers pursue a formal conference or a narrower compromise, RER will continue urging Congress to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing language that would reduce rental-housing production and make it more difficult to meet the nation’s growing housing needs.

House Weighs Next Steps on ROAD to Housing Act as White House Issues Housing Executive Orders

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

The Senate’s overwhelming passage of the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act last week has shifted attention to the House, where lawmakers are weighing how to reconcile the Senate bill with the House-passed housing package approved in February.  (PoliticoPro, March 17 | Politico, March 19)

State of Play

  • The House and Senate remain at odds over how to advance the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, with House Republicans threatening a formal conference to force negotiations while Senate leaders hope the House will ultimately accept the Senate-passed bill.
  • The Senate passed the bill 89-10 on March 12. They then sent it back to the House, which had already passed its own bipartisan housing package—the Housing for the 21st Century Act—by 390-9 on February 9.
  • The Senate-passed bill preserves much of the prior ROAD to Housing bill’s framework and includes several provisions intended to boost housing supply.
  • The Senate version also includes Section 901, which would restrict additional single-family home acquisitions by institutional investors that directly or indirectly own at least 350 homes and require owners to sell build-to-rent (BTR) homes within seven years or face an onerous penalty. The Section also provides unusually broad regulatory authority to the Treasury Department to address “market disruptions” and other situations that could create troubling future regulatory actions. (Roundtable Weekly, March 13 | Forbes, March 17)
  • House Financial Services Chairman French Hill (R-AR) told CNBC’s Squawk Box he is optimistic the House and Senate can work through differences in their housing bills, but stressed that the Senate text contains “some real problems” that need to be corrected. He pointed specifically to the build-to-rent provision requiring homes to be sold within seven years, which he said would undermine efforts to increase housing supply. (Watch Squawk Box CNBC, March 18)

Executive Orders – Housing

  • President Trump issued two executive orders aimed at boosting housing construction and expanding mortgage access, as the House and Senate work through differences over the ROAD Act. (EO Construction | EO Mortgage, March 13)
  • The administration said the orders are intended to reduce regulatory burdens, increase supply, and improve credit access for qualified borrowers. (WSJ, March 13)
  • The construction order, “Removing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Home Construction,” directs federal agencies to revise or eliminate requirements related to environmental reviews, energy conservation standards for manufactured and federally financed housing, and historic preservation, while directing HUD and the White House Domestic Policy Council to develop best practices for state and local governments to increase housing supply and affordability. (EO Construction, Mar. 13)
  • The mortgage order, “Promoting Access to Mortgage Credit,” is intended to expand access to mortgage credit, particularly through community banks and smaller lenders. (EO Mortgage, March 13)
  • The EOs reinforce the administration’s broader housing message and overlap with parts of both congressional bills focused on cutting red tape, supporting community banks, and expanding supply. (PoliticoPro, March 13)

RER & Industry Advocacy

  • In March, RER joined a series of coalition letters urging senators to remove or revise Section 901, warning that the seven-year sale requirement would effectively eliminate the production of BTR housing. (BisNow, March 12) (Letter, March 5 | Letter, March 13)
  • Last week, RER President and CEO Jeffrey D. DeBoer sent senators an analysis warning that the bill’s forced-sale provision raises serious constitutional concerns and would likely trigger years of litigation. (RER Analysis, March 10)
  • DeBoer stated, “RER supports many provisions in the Senate-passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act that would help expand housing supply and reduce barriers to homeownership. But the bill’s forced-disposition provision for build-to-rent would discourage investment in new rental housing and raise serious constitutional concerns. As the House takes up the bill, RER urges lawmakers to remove that language and keep the focus on increasing housing supply and affordability. (NMHC & NAA Statement | NAHB Statement, March 12)

RER will continue urging lawmakers to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing language that would reduce rental housing production and chill the capital formation needed to address the nation’s housing shortage.

Senate Passes ROAD to Housing Act as Industry Urges Changes to BTR Language

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

The Senate passed the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act on Thursday in an 89-10 vote, advancing one of the most significant federal housing packages in years and setting up the next phase of negotiations with the House. (Multi-Housing News, March 13 | BisNow, March 12)

State of Play

  • The Senate-passed bill preserves much of the prior ROAD to Housing bill’s framework and includes several provisions intended to boost housing supply. (Politico, March 12)
  • The package would streamline project reviews, raise FHA multifamily loan limits, support manufactured housing, and encourage additional housing development in designated Opportunity Zones. (Roundtable Weekly, March 6)
  • The final Senate text includes Section 901, which would restrict additional single-family home acquisitions by institutional investors defined as entities that directly or indirectly own at least 350 homes. (Multifamily Dive, March 12)
  • It also includes a seven-year forced disposition requirement that would require owners to sell build-to-rent (BTR) homes they develop to another private party or pay an onerous penalty. (PoliticoPro, March 10)
  • Real Estate Roundtable (RER) President and CEO Jeffrey D. DeBoer stated, “RER supports many provisions in the Senate-passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act that would help expand housing supply and reduce barriers to homeownership. But the bill’s build-to-rent forced disposition provision would discourage investment in new rental housing and raise serious constitutional concerns. As the House takes up the bill, RER urges lawmakers to remove that language and keep the focus on increasing housing supply and affordability. (NMHC & NAA Statement | NAHB Statement, March 12)
  • RER has warned that the bill’s treatment of BTR housing raises significant concerns under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause and the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London. (RER Analysis, March 10 | WSJ, March 9)
  • A federal law compelling one private party to sell property it owns directly to another private party, without government initiation of eminent domain proceedings, would be without precedent.
  • If enacted, the BTR language would almost certainly invite years of constitutional litigation involving property owners, renters, and the federal government.

Congressional Concerns

  • House Financial Services Chairman French Hill (R-AR) called the Senate vote an “important step,” while cautioning that lawmakers still need to “get the details right” and address concerns raised by House members. (Politico, March 12)
  • Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) criticized the investor language on the Senate floor, calling it a “drafting error” and warning it could undermine housing production. (Watch Schatz Speech, March 11)
  • “I will stipulate that there are a lot of good things in this bill that are kind of on the pro-housing supply side, but what we are about to do is essentially ban a specific kind of housing,” said Sen. Schatz. (Barrons, March 11 | NBC News, March 12)
  • Sen. Schatz also said the bill could interfere with LIHTC projects, including affordable single-family developments, if the language is not revised.
  • Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) has also warned that the Senate bill’s BTR provision could “crush an industry” that produces roughly 50,000 homes a year. (PoliticoPro, March 11)

What the Research Shows

  • Analysis has reinforced the concern that restricting institutional capital may do little to improve affordability while creating new supply problems.
  • RER has consistently emphasized that expanding housing supply is the most effective path to improving affordability, as research shows affordability pressures are driven primarily by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16)
  • Recent analysis from AEI and Cato indicated that driving institutional capital out of housing is unlikely to improve affordability and may instead reduce investment, shrink supply, and leave Treasury with broad discretion over favored and disfavored forms of housing investment. (AEI, March 10 | CATO Institute, March 4)
  • According to analysis by The Pew Charitable Trusts, Section 901 could sharply curtail build-to-rent housing, which has recently added 70,000 to 130,000 homes annually, by undermining the financial viability of those projects, displacing renters, and reducing new single-family construction starts by 100,000 or more homes a year. (Pew, March 10)

RER & Industry Advocacy

  • In March, RER joined a series of coalition letters urging senators to remove or revise Section 901, warning that the seven-year sale requirement would effectively eliminate the production of BTR housing. (PoliticoPro, March 10 | BisNow, March 12; Letter | Bisnow | Politico, March 5; Letter, March 9)
  • This week, RER President and CEO Jeffrey D. DeBoer sent senators an analysis warning that the bill’s forced-sale provision raises serious constitutional concerns and would likely trigger years of litigation. (RER Analysis, March 10)
  • In a letter sent today to House leadership, RER and other national organizations thanked the House for advancing landmark housing legislation while urging lawmakers to amend Section 901 before final passage. (Letter, March 13)
  • The letter warns that the Senate-passed language would effectively eliminate the production of BTR housing and take critically needed new housing units off the table at a time of severe affordability and supply pressures. (Letter, March 13)
  • The coalition also argued that BTR homes expand rental choices for families seeking more space and flexibility, and that forcing providers to sell those homes would displace renters, reduce supply, and undermine the bill’s broader pro-housing goals.

What’s Next

  • The House would need to pass the Senate’s version or convene with the upper chamber to combine the bills into one piece of legislation before it heads to the president’s desk. (Politico, March 12)
  • “If the White House wants the House to pick up the bill and pass it, they’ll probably have to make that argument to the House leadership,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said Thursday. (Politico, March 12)

RER will continue urging lawmakers to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing language that would reduce rental housing production and chill the capital formation needed to address the nation’s housing shortage.

Senate Housing Package Advances as Investor Ban Draws Opposition

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

The Senate this week moved forward with the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. This sweeping bipartisan package combines House and Senate housing provisions with the Trump administration’s push to restrict large institutional investors from buying single-family homes. (BisNow, March 3 | March 6 | RER Statement, March 4)

State of Play

  • The measure cleared an initial procedural vote, 84-6, after Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott (R-SC) and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) released updated legislative text. A second vote on Wednesday, 90-8, moved the package closer to final action.  (Politico, March 2)
  • The latest Senate text largely preserves the prior ROAD to Housing framework, while adding a new provision to limit additional single-family home purchases by large institutional investors. The bill defines a large institutional investor as a company that owns 350 or more homes and incorporates exemptions, including for build-to-rent housing.
  • The White House said President Trump’s advisers would recommend signing it in its current form. (BisNow, March 3)
  • The broader package also encompasses provisions to streamline reviews for projects, raise FHA multifamily loan limits, support manufactured housing, and encourage additional housing development in Opportunity Zones. (BisNow, March 3)
  • Several senators had not reviewed the updated legislative text before Monday’s vote because it was released shortly beforehand. (Politico, March 2)

Congressional Opposition

  • Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said he was not supportive of the investor provision if it mirrors the administration’s earlier crackdown, warning it would move policymakers “further away from producing affordable housing.”
  • Today, House Financial Services Committee Chair French Hill (R-AR) warned that his chamber is not prepared to support the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. “There are members in the House whose provisions and views were not accounted for in the current iteration of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act,” Hill said. (Punchbowl News Vault, March 6)
  • Hill is “optimistic” that those concerns can be addressed. Absent that, Hill said “further negotiations, including a possible conference, may be needed.” (Punchbowl News Vault, March 6)

What the Research Shows

  • Analysis has reinforced the concern that restricting institutional capital may do little to improve affordability while creating new supply problems.
  • The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) has consistently emphasized that expanding housing supply is the most effective path to improving affordability, as research shows affordability pressures are driven primarily by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16)
  • A recent Brookings analysis concluded that banning large institutional purchases of single-family rentals would yield only a very small increase in homes available for purchase, while leading to higher rents for families who need or prefer renting. (Brookings Institute, Feb. 23)
  • The same analysis warned that unexpected limits on investor activity could reduce future capital commitments to the sector and weaken property rights in ways that discourage new supply. (Brookings Institute, Feb. 23)
  • A Cato Institute analysis similarly argued that the proposed Section 901 provision in the bill would give the Treasury Department broad discretion to distinguish among favored and disfavored forms of housing investment. (CATO Institute, March 4)

Industry & RER Advocacy

  • RER and broad housing coalitions have been making the same supply-focused case for weeks. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 |  Jan. 23 | Feb. 27)
  • “On one hand, it undermines the whole idea of the [ROAD to Housing Act] if the purported idea of [the bill] was to help us build more housing and reduce barriers to building, and then you create this legal structure that makes it effectively impossible to build and finance in this very important sector,” said Sharon Wilson Géno, president of National Multifamily Housing Council. (PoliticoPro, March 4)
  • RER member Sean Dobson ( Chairman, CEO and CIO, Amherst) echoed that argument in an op-ed this week, that restricting single-family rental supply does not erase the financial barriers that keep many households from buying; it simply reduces housing options for families who are structurally constrained from homeownership by income, credit, and down payment hurdles. (Fortune, March 5)
  • In a March 5 coalition letter to Senate leaders and the Banking Committee, RER and dozens of national housing organizations warned that Section 901, as drafted, “would effectively eliminate the production of Build-to-Rent (BTR) housing.” (Letter, March 5) (Bisnow, March 5 | Politico, March 5)
  • “It doesn’t prohibit it, but it greatly discourages build-to-rent activities,” RER President & CEO Jeffrey DeBoer told Bisnow in an interview Friday. (Bisnow, March 6)
  • “These projects take years to get through the development process, the zoning process, the funding process,” he added. “Requiring any private business or citizen to sell any kind of asset in a certain time is highly unusual, and I think a lot of people would say it’s unconstitutional.”
  • The letter notes that the bill’s seven-year disposition rule would chill investment across the BTR supply chain, even with nominal exemptions. It urges the Senate to amend the bill to fully exempt BTR housing. (PoliticoPro, March 5)
  • DeBoer also issued a statement earlier this week, following the release of the bill’s updated legislative text, “The Real Estate Roundtable supports many provisions in the ROAD to Housing Act and the Housing for the 21st Century Act, both of which take important steps toward expanding housing supply.  Expanding housing supply requires significant capital investment.  However, the institutional investor provisions under consideration in the Senate bill would be counterproductive. These provisions would discourage the capital investments that are needed to develop, redevelop, and modernize the nation’s owner-occupied and rental housing stock. In particular, the provision to force institutional owners of rental housing to sell the homes that they build within a specified 7-year timeframe would discourage investment in home construction, could actually result in rent increases in many markets, and would no doubt face substantial constitutional challenges. While much of the housing bill now before the Senate is properly focused, the institutional investor provisions should be dropped.” (RER Statement, March 4)

What’s Next

  • The Senate bill still must clear final passage and be reconciled with the House before it can reach the president’s desk. There is speculation that a vote on final passage of the package could happen as early as next week. (PoliticoPro, March 4)

RER will continue advocating for policies that expand housing supply and protect the capital formation needed to build and preserve housing, rather than measures that risk constraining investment without solving the underlying shortage.

RER Statement on the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

Statement by Real Estate Roundtable (RER) President and CEO Jeffrey D. DeBoer

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) — “The Real Estate Roundtable supports many provisions in the ROAD to Housing Act and the Housing for the 21st Century Act, both of which take important steps toward expanding housing supply.  Expanding housing supply requires significant capital investment.  However, the institutional investor provisions under consideration in the Senate bill would be counterproductive. These provisions would discourage the capital investments that are needed to develop, redevelop, and modernize the nation’s owner-occupied and rental housing stock.  In particular, the provision to force institutional owners of rental housing to sell the homes that they build within a specified 7-year timeframe would discourage investment in home construction, could actually result in rent increases in many markets, and would no doubt face substantial constitutional challenges.  

Addressing housing affordability challenges facing families across the country requires a greater supply of housing.  While much of the housing bill now before the Senate is properly focused, the institutional investor provisions should be dropped.”

Senate Takes Up House Housing Bill as White House Seeks Limits on Institutional Investors

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

President Donald Trump used his State of the Union address on Tuesday to renew his call for Congress to codify limits on large institutional investors buying additional single-family homes, as lawmakers work to merge bipartisan House and Senate housing packages into a final deal set for a vote next week. (Axios | PoliticoPro, Feb. 25)

State of Play

  • “We want homes for people, not for corporations,” Trump said as he urged Congress to make the policy permanent. (PoliticoPro, Feb. 25)
  • House Republicans met this week with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as lawmakers explore legislative language tied to the housing package. Trump and Bessent have said that any final legislation must include language banning large investors from purchasing single-family. (Reuters, Feb. 19 | PoliticoPro, Feb. 26)
  • Some lawmakers and analysts have argued that investor bans do not address the core affordability driver—a persistent housing supply shortage. Goldman Sachs estimates the U.S. would need to build up to 4 million additional homes beyond the normal pace to reduce the deficit. (CBSNews, Feb. 25 |Washington Examiner, Feb. 26)

What’s Next: Bipartisan Housing Bill Vote

  • Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) filed cloture Thursday on the House-passed  Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 6644), setting up a Monday vote on the motion to proceed as leadership uses the House bill as the vehicle for a version of the Senate Banking Committee’s ROAD to Housing Act. (PoliticoPro, Feb. 26 |Roundtable Weekly, Feb. 13)
  • The House passed the bipartisan bill earlier this month with broad support, and the Senate advanced its bill in October. The two sides are now negotiating a final package. (PoliticoPro, Feb. 26 | Roundtable Weekly, Oct. 17)
  • Senate aides said the Senate package could include some provisions from the House’s bill, including measures to expand manufactured and affordable housing and protect borrowers. The Senate measure wouldn’t include the House version’s community banking provisions. (PoliticoPro, Feb. 26)
  • House Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-AR) welcomed Majority Leader Thune’s move but urged a final product that reflects “shared priorities of the House, Senate, and White House,” as the administration continues to press for some form of large-investor purchase restriction to be included in any final bipartisan housing deal. (Press Release, Feb. 26)

White House Proposal

  • In a memo sent to lawmakers last week, the administration proposed banning institutional investors who own more than 100 single-family homes from buying any new ones. (CNBC, Feb. 24)
  • The proposal would continue to allow build-to-rent developments, where investors construct new single-family homes specifically for rental use. (WSJ, Feb. 26)
  • Government entities and community land trusts would be exempt altogether, and the Treasury Department would retain authority to approve other transactions deemed to expand homeownership opportunities, giving regulators flexibility to avoid unintended consequences for buyers and renters.
  • Treasury’s forthcoming definitions of “large institutional investor” and “single-family home” are expected to shape scope and compliance, including what property types are captured and how thresholds are applied. (GlobeSt., Feb 26)
  • The ban would apply only to future purchases—without forcing investors to sell existing holdings—and would take effect 180 days after enactment. (CoStar, Feb. 20)

By the Numbers

  • A recent American Action Forum analysis found that large institutional investors have expanded the much-needed supply of rental homes, improved housing quality, and added liquidity in under supplied markets. (AAF Study, Feb. 12)
  • A Chandan Economics review of Census Bureau data finds individual investors—not institutions—own the largest share of U.S. single-family rentals (SFRs). The analysis draws on the Census Bureau’s 2024 Rental Housing Finance Survey (data collected June-November 2024), a comprehensive snapshot of rental-property mortgage financing. (Chandan Economics, Feb. 19 |GlobeSt., Feb. 25)

RER Advocacy

  • The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) has consistently emphasized that expanding housing supply is the most effective path to improving affordability, as research shows affordability pressures are driven primarily by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16)
  • RER President & CEO Jeffrey DeBoer said, “Evidence shows that policy attacks on institutional investment in housing or other real estate are misguided.  Institutional investors actually expand the supply of rental homes, thus driving down rents. Their investments enable financially constrained families to move into neighborhoods that previously had few rental units, and these investments tend to improve the quality of the existing housing stock. While politically popular, restricting capital into housing will not address the housing problem.  Instead, policy should, as the bulk of the House and Senate bills do, intensely focus on expanding the supply of housing.”
  • In a Feb. 10 comment letter to House Financial Services Committee leadership, RER and national real estate trade groups cautioned against limiting institutional capital in the housing market, including SFR assets. (Comment Letter, Feb. 10 | Roundtable Weekly, Feb. 13)

New Senate Legislation Introduced

  • On Tuesday, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and 16 other Senate Democrats introduced the American Homeownership Act. The bill would prevent companies with more than 50 single-family homes for rent from taking deductions for housing value depreciation and mortgage interest payments. Corporations would also be barred from getting federally backed mortgages. (Bill text | Bill fact sheet | Press Release, Feb. 24)
  • The bill would provide a temporary carve-out for companies building new multifamily housing or rehabilitating properties that would otherwise be uninhabitable. (CNBC, Feb. 24)
  • Edward Pinto, co-director of the AEI Housing Center at the American Enterprise Institute, said a more effective proposal would meet three specific criteria: reducing land costs, allowing homes to be built on smaller parcels, and lowering construction costs. (CBS News, Feb. 25)

RER will continue advocating for policies that expand housing supply and protect the capital formation needed to build and preserve housing—rather than measures that risk constraining investment without solving the underlying shortage.