Today, the median sales price of a single-family home in the United States is just over $410,000, while the median household income is around $80,000. At this rate, if the average American family spent nothing on food, utilities, transportation or other necessities, it would take more than five years to afford a stable single-family home. Over the last decade, housing prices have nearly doubled nationwide. Inflation accounts for roughly half of this increase, but what drives the rest is the growing role of large corporations buying residential properties.
In 2015, only about 8% of all American homes were purchased by investors and large corporations. Today, that figure has quadrupled to nearly 27%. Estimates suggest that within the next 50 years, more homes in the United States could be owned by private investors and corporations than by families. By then, the average person might need to spend half of their life’s income just to purchase a home. History teacher Jennifer Bauer said, “I feel housing prices have slowed a bit since COVID, but I am also worried about the next few years and how things will be affected.”
Opponents of limiting corporate housing ownership argue that restricting such acquisitions would destabilize the housing market. They claim that forcing large investors to sell properties could trigger widespread economic consequences. Critics also point out that corporations like BlackRock, which own major shares in the top 100 largest American companies, could react to restrictive legislation by liquidating other assets, potentially impacting the broader economy.
These corporations have even threatened the U.S. government directly, warning that they could sell major stakes in dozens of large American companies, such as Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Google, if lawmakers pass laws limiting corporate housing ownership. Others attempt to influence policy through political action committees, donating large sums of money to ensure favorable laws are passed while bills restricting corporate purchases are blocked. These actions place enormous pressure on politicians to act in the corporations’ interests rather than in the public’s interest.
This is not unprecedented. For example, the CREATES Act was originally proposed on February 5, 2019, to lower drug prices by reducing barriers for generic manufacturers. The bill faced massive opposition from pharmaceutical companies and never passed in its original form. Intense lobbying forced Congress to include much weaker CREATES provisions in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, which became law on December 20, 2019. This demonstrates how powerful corporations can influence lawmakers to block legislation that would significantly impact their profits.
However, this approach is unnecessary if lawmakers design regulations thoughtfully. By implementing a slow, phased plan over several years and providing gradual government compensation for the revenue these corporations would lose, lawmakers can remove the incentive for corporations to threaten the broader economy. Corporations would no longer feel compelled to manipulate or pressure policymakers in order to protect themselves. A measured approach ensures that corporations remain financially stable while families gain better access to housing. This method effectively prevents any “corruption” pressure on lawmakers or destabilizing moves in the stock market.
These concerns are also overstated when housing regulations are applied gradually and locally. Rather than enforcing a nationwide mass sale, legislation can target specific high-concentration areas and require slow, phased reductions. Controlled sell-offs, spread over years, would allow markets to adjust naturally without a crash. “It is definitely an issue in this country. It has become nearly impossible for people to buy homes now,” government teacher Keith Yanity said.
In addition to protecting first-time buyers, a local and gradual approach ensures that corporations remain financially stable while returning housing opportunities to families. Restricting bulk purchases in concentrated ZIP codes and offering priority to individual buyers can slow corporate expansion without disrupting the broader market. Data shows that when corporations control large shares of a neighborhood, rents rise and affordability declines, demonstrating the need for local enforcement.
Ultimately, stricter corporate housing regulations address a growing affordability crisis and preserve the opportunity for families to build wealth through homeownership. By phasing in limits and prioritizing family buyers, lawmakers can reduce the influence of large investors while avoiding sudden market shocks. “The number of houses owned by private companies is just too much. It makes it much harder for people to actually get to own a house,” Bauer said.
Without action, housing may become an investment commodity rather than a place to live. The question remains: how long will families wait before their chance at homeownership disappears entirely?
