Bill Overview
Title: Protecting our Land Act
Description: This bill requires the President to direct federal agencies to promulgate rules and regulations to prohibit foreign adversaries or state sponsors of terrorism from purchasing real estate located in the United States.
Sponsors: Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]
Target Audience
Population: People from foreign adversaries or state sponsors of terrorism looking to purchase real estate in the U.S.
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill affects real estate transactions involving foreign adversaries or state sponsors of terrorism in the U.S.
- Foreign entities categorized as 'foreign adversaries' or 'state sponsors of terrorism' will be directly impacted.
- Individuals or corporations from these foreign nations looking to invest in U.S. real estate will be affected.
- The bill aims to enhance national security by preventing potential threats from obtaining land within the U.S.
Reasoning
- The population that this policy directly affects includes foreign entities from adversarial nations as well as some players in the American real estate industry.
- This policy could indirectly affect a broader swath of the U.S. population by altering the real estate market environment, potentially influencing real estate prices and local economic activity.
- Budget constraints suggest targeted enforcement and implementation strategies, possibly focusing on high-risk transactions or areas with higher foreign real estate interest.
- Individuals not connected to real estate or residing in common areas where foreign investment is low are less likely to see any impact from this policy.
- The economic ramifications could be modest in the broader context, with more notable changes in specific urban or high-profile regions.
Simulated Interviews
Real Estate Agent (Santa Monica, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the intent behind protecting national security, but I worry about losing business.
- International transactions are a big part of my income, and this could mean a decrease in sales.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Corporate Lawyer (New York, NY)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a sensible move from a security perspective.
- Despite some clients potentially leaving, I think the market will adjust.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Financial Advisor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy restricts some investors I work with, thus narrowing opportunities.
- However, I believe it's necessary for national security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Tech Startup Employee (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy affects me much as I'm not looking to buy and don't deal with international anything.
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 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel a bit safer knowing there's some control over foreign purchases.
- Wonder how this might affect property values here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Property Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could limit some of our international project partners.
- We'll need to rethink strategies, but I focus on innovation to navigate these changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Environmental Consultant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While it's good to regulate certain deals, I focus more on sustainable practices rather than who owns the land.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Realtor (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This limits opportunities for foreign investments, but might increase business with local buyers.
- Market might see some rebalancing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's fascinating how government policy steers economic markets.
- Indirectly, this may lead to new research opportunities in my field.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This doesn't directly impact me.
- I doubt small scale local properties deal much with foreign adversaries.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The primary impact will be administrative costs for enforcement and oversight.
- Impact on real estate and associated sectors could lead to short-term economic disruptions.
- Long-term national security benefits might be realized, but are difficult to quantify financially.
- Potential resistance from foreign entities previously involved in the real estate market could arise.