SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
corporate landlords
Biden DOJ Sues Major Landlords Over Algorithmic Price Fixing
"If you mess with the price of rent, be prepared to meet the DOJ on the other side of that scheme!" wrote the American Economic Liberties Project.
Jan 07, 2025
The U.S.Justice Department on Tuesday announced that it has added six landlords as defendants in an antitrust lawsuit that the agency initially filed against the real estate software company RealPage, which the DOJ accused of engaging in a price fixing scheme that allows reduced competition between landlords so they can increase rents.
At the center of the case is RealPage's "algorithmic pricing software," which generates rent price recommendations using software based on their and their rivals' "competitively sensitive information," which they submit to RealPage, according to an August statement from the Department of Justice regarding the initial complaint.
The new complaint alleges that the six companies—Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC; Blackstone's LivCor LLC; Camden Property Trust; Cushman & Wakefield Inc and Pinnacle Property Management Services LLC; Willow Bridge Property Company LLC; and Cortland Management LLC—"participated in an unlawful scheme to decrease competition among landlords in apartment pricing, harming millions of American renters," according to a Tuesday statement from the Department of Justice.
The landlords collectively operate more than 1.3 million units in 43 states and the District of Columbia, according to the agency.
The Department of Justice alleges that in addition to using RealPages's "anticompetitive pricing algorithms," the companies coordinated in a number of ways, including "communicating with competitors' senior managers about rents, occupancy, and other competitively sensitive topics" and participating in "user groups" hosted by RealPage, during which landlords would discuss, for example, how to modify the software's pricing methodology and the companies' own pricing strategies.
"While Americans across the country struggled to afford housing, the landlords named in today's lawsuit shared sensitive information about rental prices and used algorithms to coordinate to keep the price of rent high," said Doha Mekki, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, in the Tuesday statement.
Two states, Illinois and Massachusetts, have also joined the suit as plaintiffs.
The American Economic Liberties Project, a group that urges government to confront corporate concentration, touted the updates to the lawsuit, writing Tuesday, "If you mess with the price of rent, be prepared to meet the DOJ on the other side of that scheme!"
Tony Carrk, executive director of the watchdog Accountable.US, said in a Tuesday statement that "corporate landlords like Camden Property Trust, one of the landlord companies included in today's complaint, have reaped hundreds of millions in profits while using RealPage's algorithm, and that's just the tip of the iceberg."
According to the Tuesday release from the Department of Justice, pending a consent decree which must be approved by the court, the DOJ may resolve its claims against one of the landlords, Cortland, which would then cooperate with the Justice Department's investigation and litigation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Struggling Tenants Tell Our Next President: Here is How You End Our Housing Crisis
The situation is dire. The good news is that there is a serious, detailed plan that our next president and Congress can implement to address the needs of our clients and the millions of others like them. It comes from the tenants themselves.
Nov 01, 2024
There is an outstanding plan for the next Presidential administration to fix our housing crisis. This plan would go a long way toward helping the nine million households behind on their rent and nearly 700,000 people living unhoused. But the plan does not come from either of the two major presidential candidates.
It is not that Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are ignoring housing. They are well aware that three-quarters of swing-state voters say that housing costs are the biggest economic stressor in their lives, and that young voters rank housing costs as their number one issue. So both candidates have housing plans.
Of the two, Harris’s is far better, of course. Trump, who has a long and sordid history of discrimination and unlawful behavior as a landlord, mostly uses the housing crisis as a platform for demonizing immigrants, pledging that his plan of mass deportation will reduce housing demand and costs.
The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan for another Trump presidency proposes catastrophic housing ideas like privatizing public housing, gutting the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and undermining fair housing protections.
Harris’s plan features proposals to increase the supply of housing through expanded and new tax credits and relaxing regulations on home building. Harris also proposes down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers and limiting tax breaks now enjoyed by corporate landlords.
That’s all OK, as far as it goes. The problem is that it doesn’t go very far.
Every week, my students and I represent low-income tenants being forced from their homes in Indianapolis eviction courts. Building more market-rate housing, especially since most of that new building is focused on higher-end housing, doesn’t help them at all. They are facing eviction because low wages, disability, family crises, child care obligations, etc. mean they already can't afford market rate housing.
This is true across the country. “The most effective housing assistance for low-income households is not found in building more units but in helping low-income households afford the units that already exist,” Alex Schwartz, New School professor and author of the seminal Housing Policy in the United States, and Kirk McClure, professor emeritus in urban planning at the University of Kansas, have written. Alan Mallach, senior fellow at the Center for Community Progress and the National Housing Institute, agrees, bluntly titling one of his articles, “Rents Will Only Go So Low, No Matter How Much We Build.”
The good news is that there is a serious, detailed plan that our next president and Congress can implement to address the needs of our clients and the millions of others like them. It comes from the tenants themselves. Specifically, the plan is provided by the national Tenant Union Federation, which includes local unions like Bozeman Tenants United, the Louisville Tenants Union, and KC Tenants, the latter of which is currently engaged in an historic rent strike.
As Tara Raghuveer, Tenant Union Federation director says, “We can build, build, build as much as we want, but without federal rent caps and protections for tenants, people will continue to be priced out of their homes and the economy will continue to suffer.”
Social movement historians would not be surprised that tenants are taking the lead. Time and again, the most impactful reforms are the ones pushed not by elected officials but by those directly affected by the targeted injustice.
So the tenant union proposal for the next presidential administration, a twelve-page, 59-footnote Tenant Policy Agenda supported by three dozen other housing advocacy organizations, includes:
- Building and preserving twelve million units of permanently affordable housing
- Rent caps imposed as a condition of landlords receiving federal financing
- A Tenant Bill of Rights to guarantee both safe and healthy housing conditions and tenants’ rights to organize
- Reinvestment in existing public housing and the Section 8 voucher program
These needed housing reforms won’t be cheap, but the Tenant Union Federation rightly points out that we already use our tax code to generously reward corporate landlords, speculative homebuying practices, and uber-wealthy home purchasers. The next iteration of Washington leaders can change that. “Congress should ensure that the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share while raising significant revenue for robust public investments in permanently affordable, decommodified, climate resilient housing,” the Agenda states.
One hundred million people in the U.S. live in renting households. We can tell you first-hand that many of them are struggling right now. For now, the most complete and compelling plan to address that struggle is coming from the tenants. But hopefully the plan will be embraced by the next president.
“Tenants need a fighter in the White House who will champion tenants’ rights and usher in a new era of housing stability,” the Tenant Union Federation agenda states. “With record homelessness, unaffordability and coordinated rent gouging rampant in the rental market, it’s high time for the most pro-tenant administration in American history.”Keep ReadingShow Less
Meet the Billionaire Investors Behind the US Housing Affordability Crisis
This is not your grandparent’s gentrification, but rather a hyper-gentrification fueled by concentrated wealth driving up land and housing costs, expanding short-term rentals, and treating housing like a commodity to speculate on or a place to park wealth.
Oct 23, 2024
The housing affordability crisis – and how to solve it – has become a major focus during election season, for good reason. Millions of American families struggle to afford and keep a roof over their heads, find themselves unsheltered, or have become frustrated in the hope of owning their own home.
The over-focus on expanding housing supply through for-profit development misses a key contributor to the housing crisis: the concentration of wealth and power. The challenges of the U.S. housing crisis go beyond supply or fixing local land use regulations. The billionaire class and billionaire-backed private equity investors have become a driving force in the U.S. housing crisis.
A new report, Billionaire Blowback on Housing: How concentrated wealth disrupts housing markets and worsens the housing affordability crisis, coauthored by the Institute for Policy Studies and Popular Democracy, examines the myriad ways that billionaire investors are harming local housing markets and diminishing the supply of affordable housing.
With roughly 800 billionaires in the U.S. with combined wealth of $6.2 trillion (and 2,781 billionaires globally with over $14.2 trillion), ultra-wealthy investors tend to diversify their holdings across multiple kinds of assets. A huge amount of this billionaire wealth is invested in property, land, and housing. Billions and possibly trillions of dollars are sucked into predatory investment practices and luxury housing schemes — where global billionaire investors park vast quantities of wealth in U.S markets.
This is not your grandparent’s gentrification, but rather a hyper-gentrification fueled by concentrated wealth driving up land and housing costs, expanding short-term rentals, and treating housing like a commodity to speculate on or a place to park wealth. The billionaires are displacing the millionaires, and the millionaires are disrupting the housing market for everyone else.
Estimates of hidden wealth are as high as $36 trillion globally, with billions parked in U.S. land and housing markets.
Our report found that billionaire-backed private equity firms have wormed their way into different segments of the housing market to extract ever-increasing rents and value from multi-family rental, single-family homes, and mobile home park communities. For instance, Blackstone has become the largest corporate landlord in the world, with a vast and diversified real estate portfolio. It owns more than 300,000 residential units across the U.S., has $1 trillion in global assets, and nearly doubled its profits in 2021.
Global billionaires have purchased billions in U.S. real estate to diversify their asset holdings, driving the creation of luxury housing that functions as “safety deposit boxes in the sky.” Estimates of hidden wealth are as high as $36 trillion globally, with billions parked in U.S. land and housing markets.
Wealthy investors are acquiring property and holding units vacant, so that in many communities the number of vacant units greatly exceeds the number of unhoused people. Nationwide there are 16 million vacant homes: that is, 28 vacant homes for every unhoused person. These investors are also buying up a large segment of the short-term rental market, preventing local residents from living in these homes, in order to cash in on tourism. These are not small owners with one unit, but corporate owners with multiple properties.
The focus on expanding housing supply by giving incentives to for-profit development has failed to add to the stock of permanently affordable housing. For five decades, U.S. taxpayers have subsidized private for-profit investors and developers to build tens of thousands of temporarily affordable units of housing. Federal programs give for-profit investors wasteful tax breaks, but only require the units to remain affordable for 30 years or less, so many have been converted to market-rate housing.
Policy makers should expand the social housing sector of community-controlled or publicly owned housing that is outside the speculative market, such as quality public housing and other forms of nonprofit-owned housing like community land trusts or resident cooperatives. New investment in social housing should come from taxing billionaires, levying mansion taxes, and regulating harmful practices.
Instead of waiting for action from the federal government, local communities can protect residents in existing affordable housing and generate revenue for affordable housing.
Policymakers should require ownership transparency, so community members know who is buying up neighborhoods. They should institute limitations on corporate ownership of housing and pass ordinances giving tenants the right to “first option to buy” apartments and mobile home parks when they come up for sale; and public funding as well as support structures to make these buy-outs possible.
Levying taxes on luxury real estate transactions (known as “mansion taxes”), on speculation, on vacancy, and on the rich, can generate funds that should be dedicated to expanding the supply of nonprofit and social housing.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular