It's Brian Schatz ("D"-HI) who has gone to extremes to suck up to big money lobbyists.
Yeah, that's gonna win elections.
As my colleague Bob Kuttner explains, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tim Scott (R-SC) have moved through a bipartisan housing bill supported by President Trump that if signed would represent the most (only?) progress of the second Trump term. The bill passed 89-10, reflecting awareness that housing affordability is a critical subject to loosen public anger over an economy that doesn’t work for most of them. The bill mostly adds funding to build housing, tackles land use rules, and lifts restrictions on manufactured housing that could lower costs of construction.
But on Wednesday, there was apparently only one provision worth talking about on the shambling mound that used to be Twitter: a requirement that investment companies that build single-family homes in order to rent them out (a strategy that has advanced over the past decade known as “build-to-rent”) and have over 350 properties sell them after seven years of rent collection. This was the subject of forceful objection by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), the heir apparent to Chuck Schumer in the Senate Democratic leadership.
Schatz called this particular measure “positively Soviet,” described it as “an effort to demonize people who want to build rental housing for folks,” and claimed it was a “drafting error,” presumably to embarrass its authors into a fix. “There is literally no reason to do it this way, and it would take like a two-line fix. But what we were told last week was, I’m sorry, the bill is closed,” he said.
………
That’s because this wasn’t about a policy change, but a signal to the people who actually do build-to-rent for mass amounts of properties, who aren’t families or pension funds as Schatz intimated, but private equity firms. They have been the ones loudly objecting to this measure. He was effectively telling the industry that he was on their side, and in opposition to their most hated opponent, Sen. Warren.
His vote did not matter. It was not needed. He could have told Private Equity that there was no point in his voting no with this much support.
He didn't because he wants to demonstrate his slavish fealty to them.









