Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8603

Bill Overview

Title: To direct the President to take such actions as may be necessary to prohibit the purchase of public or private real estate located in the United States by an foreign governments.

Description: This bill requires the President to take actions necessary to bar foreign governments from purchasing public or private real estate in the United States.

Sponsors: Rep. Cawthorn, Madison [R-NC-11]

Target Audience

Population: People influenced by the ownership changes in US real estate market due to foreign government restriction

Estimated Size: 400000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Real Estate Agent (New York City, NY)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • As a real estate agent in NYC, a large part of my income comes from international buyers, including foreign governments.
  • I'm concerned about decreased demand for luxury properties if this policy limits foreign investments.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 5 7
Year 10 5 7
Year 20 6 7

Retired (Miami, FL)

Age: 67 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I've seen my property value rise due to foreign interest, particularly from Latin American governments and investors.
  • A decrease in foreign buyers could stabilize prices, which might not be bad long-term, but could affect my property value now.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 6 8
Year 10 6 8
Year 20 7 8

Tech Executive (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think stabilizing the market might be beneficial, but as a homeowner, I'm worried about the potential drop in property value.
  • Couldn't foreign investment regulations lead to a more affordable market in the broader sense?

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 8 8

Renter (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's been hard to find anything affordable with such competition, including by foreign governments buying properties.
  • This could give local buyers like me a better chance in the market.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 7

Commercial Developer (Houston, TX)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Our projects rely on a mix of local and international investors, and this change could affect those dynamics.
  • However, it might also lead to new opportunities if funds are re-allocated domestically.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Data Analyst (Seattle, WA)

Age: 39 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Limiting external influence might stabilize residential housing prices.
  • Could make housing more affordable over time.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Landlord (Boston, MA)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Foreign investments can sometimes increase property values, which might not directly benefit me as much during this regulation.
  • On the other hand, it could lead to a more stable rental market if prices are less volatile.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

University Professor (Denver, CO)

Age: 62 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could serve as a valuable case study on international influence on national real estate markets.
  • Interested to see how domestic prioritization affects urban development.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Real Estate Developer (Chicago, IL)

Age: 41 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Foreign investment sometimes aids project financing, so limits here might require new financing strategies.
  • However, it could make local partnerships more robust.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

Environmental Scientist (Portland, OR)

Age: 30 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could pave the way for more locally-inspired green development projects.
  • Might see more community-driven initiatives.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)

Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)

Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)

Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)

Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)

Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)

Key Considerations