Skip to main content

Schumer sponsors bill to bail out housing industry by selling temporary visas to immigrant investors; wouldn't this distort the market (and maybe even help AY)?

Apparently, essentially selling green cards through the questionable EB-5 program--under which prospective immigrants must create ten purported jobs with their $500,000 investment--was only the start.

Now Congress is considering selling three-year residence visas to foreigners who invest $500,000 in the housing market, and co-sponsor Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) somehow thinks "it won't cost the government a nickel."

Schumer doesn't seem familiar with opportunity cost, the notion that we might choose a different alternative that could prove more beneficial.

For example, immigration analyst David North of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies thinks EB-5 investors should also have to buy a $50,000 U.S. bond for each visa issued. So why not ask prospective home purchasers do more than bail out the housing industry in exchange for those visas?

Schumer's proposal could have major unintended consequences, such as rising prices in prime areas (Hello, Brooklyn) while little impact on foreclosed subdivisions in, say, suburban Las Vegas. (See similar skepticism from a law firm involved in EB-5.)

But this bill, which requires investors to pay cash, will surely gain support from FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate), the pillars of New York City's uneven economy and, not coincidentally, Schumer campaign support. The founder of the Toll Brothers firm is already on board.

Heck, it just might goose demand for Forest City Ratner's unbuilt luxury condos in the Atlantic Yards project. After all, if the developer wants to sell condos in 2015 for $1217/sf--more than double nearby Atlantic Terrace, it sure helps if buyers care more about visas than price.

A sponsor's justification

Co-sponsor Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) issued a press release:
To confront the housing crisis, the legislation would provide, for the first time, a three-year residential visa for foreign nationals who invest at least $500,000 in residential real estate in the United States. At least $250,000 must be spent on a primary residence where the visa holder will reside for at least 180 days out of the year while paying taxes to the U.S.  Applicants would still be subject to standard criminal and national security background checks and, once approved, would not be able to receive government benefits such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  The program would not serve as a path to citizenship for foreign nationals.
Lee later called it more of a "travel visa." So this would differ from EB-5, which, as noted below, may suffer in comparison, though only the latter is a path to citizenship.

In a remarkable piece of doublespeak, Lee stated:
The purpose of this bill is to support a free market method of increasing demand for housing at a time when so many working-class Americans are underwater on their homes are desperate for prices to rise again and big-government programs have failed to work.
From the Journal

Most coverage yesterday derived from a single article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, headlined Foreigners' Sweetener: Buy House, Get a Visa. (The reporter on the piece observed unwisely, in a video interview, "What's not to like about this?") After

After Schumer held a conference call with reporters, other coverage ensued, including this Times blog post.

From the Journal:
The reeling housing market has come to this: To shore it up, two Senators are preparing to introduce a bipartisan bill Thursday that would give residence visas to foreigners who spend at least $500,000 to buy houses in the U.S.

The provision is part of a larger package of immigration measures, co-authored by Sens. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Mike Lee (R., Utah), designed to spur more foreign investment in the U.S.

...To fuel this demand, the proposed measure would offer visas to any foreigner making a cash investment of at least $500,000 on residential real-estate—a single-family house, condo or townhouse. Applicants can spend the entire amount on one house or spend as little as $250,000 on a residence and invest the rest in other residential real estate, which can be rented out.

The measure would complement existing visa programs that allow foreigners to enter the U.S. if they invest in new businesses that create jobs. Backers believe the initiative would help soak up an excess supply of inventory when many would-be American home buyers are holding back because they're concerned about their jobs or because they would have to take a big loss to sell their current house.

"This is a way to create more demand without costing the federal government a nickel," Sen. Schumer said in an interview.
Some skepticism

While the Journal found industry analysts who welcome the bill, some didn't:
But other industry executives greeted the proposal with skepticism. Foreign buyers "don't need an incentive" to buy homes, said Richard Smith, chief executive of Realogy Corp., which owns the Coldwell Banker and Century 21 real-estate brands. "We have a lot of Americans who are willing to buy. We just have to fix the economy."
The measure may have a more targeted effect in exclusive markets like San Marino, Calif., that have become popular with foreigners. Easier immigration rules could be "tremendous" because of the difficulty many Chinese buyers have in obtaining visas, says Maggie Navarro, a local real-estate agent.
From the comments

The comments on the Journal site include some pointed criticism along the lines noted above, though some saw it as a ploy to increase tax revenues if the Internal Revenue Service can reach the new residents' worldwide incomes.

Distorting the market:
Ok, increase the average value of housing. Lets think about that for a second. Obvious losers: anyone who wants to buy a home in their life time who does not currently own one.
Obvious winners: anyone trying to liquidate (half) million dollar homes. Maybe some people who have several million dollar homes to sell..... BECAUSE THEY JUST FORCLOSED ON HUNDREDS OF THEM.

The main benefactors of this bill will be the banks who have foreclosed on over leveraged homes. I'm no OWS hippy, I'm a banker. Discussing this bill as immigration policy is downright criminal. 
Bad landlords:
Do you really want to encourage a wave of real estate speculators looking to buy rental properties when they otherwise plan to remain overseas? It is my experience that the best scenario is when the land lord lives within or near the community so they can personally keep an eye on the state of the property or be held accountable if they are neglecting it.
The impact on EB-5:
The EB-5 program already does what you want and it forces the foreign investor to create 10 jobs as part of the $500,000 investment. The Shumer bill may be bipartisan, but it is stupid if you know this field. As part of the EB-5 investment more than 90% of my clients buy houses in the United States anyway. There will be no "boom" in the real estate market. In fact, you will be withdrawing $1.3 billion from the United States real estater market because the EB-5 investors invest primarily in commercial real estate and healthcare projects. EB-5 works and has worked well for nearly 20 years. I find amusing that politicians looking for headlines throw these ideas against the wall even when, in the end, they will clearly hurt the US economy versus the system we already have. EB-5 has exploded int he past 4 years and to cut the legs out from it would destroy commercial real estate and abandon the 26,000 american jobs created last year.
A supporter:
Why can't folks read an article and actually understand the merits of a proposal. This bill is not giving a green card--or path to citizenship--to anyone. It is basically a retiree's visa. It is saying, if you have $500,000 in cash, and can live in the United States without working here, we will allow you to live here in retirement and spend your money here instead of somewhere else as long as you buy housing here (which will have the incidental affect of helping to stabilize housing prices).

Comments

  1. As a recent immigrant to the US (from Canada) I think critics of the bill have grossly underestimated the spinoff benefits of this proposed program.

    As a previous "snowbird" we came for years and rented. Now as a resident we not only bought a home, we also have bought a portfolio of rental properties. We have also bought vehicles, furniture, and have become part of the tax paying system.

    All of the properties we bought required substantial repairs and we now employ full time contractors to renovate and maintain our homes.

    As Warren Buffet said, "imagine if 500,000 investors like us brought our capital here. "

    Until the US fixes it's real estate problems which are the root of the economic downturn, this recession isn't going away any time soon.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.