Policies to Balance Corporate Real Estate Progress with People’s Right to Housing
A HomePit Policy Brief
The United States is facing a structural housing imbalance. On one side, real estate innovation—Wall Street capital, large institutional portfolios, automated management systems, and algorithmic pricing—has reshaped the market with speed and efficiency. On the other, Americans are increasingly struggling with affordability, displacement, opaque billing systems, and corporate practices that override long-standing tenant protections.
Balancing these forces is not anti-market—it is pro-stability, pro-transparency, and pro-community. A modern housing system can support corporate investment without sacrificing people’s fundamental right to safe, fair, and affordable housing.
This article lays out a comprehensive framework for achieving that balance through zoning reform, corporate regulation, tenant protection, oversight of algorithmic systems, and support for vulnerable populations.
1. Increasing Housing Supply: Reforming the Rules of the Built Environment
A major driver of housing scarcity is restrictive zoning. To lower prices and expand options, policymakers must allow more homes to be built—both through large-scale development and incremental density in existing neighborhoods.
Key Supply-Side Reforms
Zoning Reform
- Legalize ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) statewide or citywide
- Eliminate single-family-only zoning, enabling duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes
- Reduce minimum lot sizes, allowing small parcels to host multiple homes
- Abolish parking minimums, which raise construction costs and limit density
- Expand Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) to cluster new homes near transit
- Streamline permitting with predictable, by-right approvals
Examples of Success
- California: 80,000+ ADUs permitted since 2017
- Minneapolis: Ended single-family zoning; rent increases flattened relative to the state
- Houston: Smaller lot sizes fueled a townhouse boom
- San Diego: Affordable housing proposals increased fivefold after easing parking rules
- Los Angeles: 46,000+ units produced via adaptive reuse of commercial buildings
These reforms reduce scarcity and create more pathways into the housing market.
2. Innovative Housing Types: Missing Middle, Micro-Units, and Tiny Home Communities
Reforming zoning unlocks new design possibilities that reflect how people actually want to live.
Missing Middle Housing
- Courtyard apartments
- Townhomes and rowhouses
- Stacked flats and duplexes
These forms increase density without requiring high-rise buildings, naturally stabilizing rents by adding more entry-level units.
Tiny Homes & Micro-Living Options
Tiny homes (generally under 400 sq. ft.) maximize functionality with lofts, deck space, and multi-use layouts. They differ from RVs because they are built for permanent, high-quality residential living.
Why People Want Them
- Affordability
- Eco-friendly living
- Minimalism and downsizing
- Community-oriented “pocket neighborhoods”
Zoning Changes Needed
- Define “tiny homes” separately from RVs
- Remove minimum home size restrictions
- Allow tiny homes as ADUs
- Create tiny home overlay districts or Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)
- Reduce setbacks and lot-size minimums
- Permit both foundation-based and THOW (on wheels) models as full-time homes
Allowing these communities diversifies housing stock and reduces reliance on institutional landlords.
3. Regulating Corporate Investor Behavior: Leveling the Playing Field
Supply alone will not fix affordability if new inventory is immediately absorbed by large corporate buyers. Policymakers must ensure that communities—not just financial institutions—benefit from growth.
Fair Tax Policy
- Eliminate investor tax advantages (e.g., accelerated depreciation) for mega-landlords
- Impose transfer taxes on large corporate single-family acquisitions
- Use tax revenue to fund affordable housing and down-payment assistance
Ownership Safeguards
- Caps on the number of homes a single corporate entity may own in a ZIP code
- Right of First Refusal (ROFR) for cities, nonprofits, or tenants
- Restrictions on bulk purchases of entry-level homes
- Waiting periods to give individual families a fair chance to make an offer
Transparency Requirements
Corporate ownership is often hidden behind LLC layers.
Require disclosure of:
- beneficial owners
- eviction and fee practices
- rent increases
- algorithmic pricing tools
Transparency supports enforcement and competition.
4. Oversight for Algorithmic Landlords: The New Frontier of Housing Regulation
The rise of automated systems—billing, rent-setting, tenant screening, payment platforms—means housing outcomes are increasingly determined by proprietary algorithms rather than human decision-makers.
This creates risks that traditional laws never anticipated.
What’s Going Wrong
- Automated billing errors that multiply or backdate charges
- Systems that override federal rules, as in the Stuart v. Brookfield case
- Payment portals that lock out tenants
- Algorithms coordinating rent hikes across competitors (e.g., RealPage)
- No human with authority to fix accounting mistakes
Policy Solutions
- Algorithm Transparency Act: Regulatory access to pricing logic and billing code
- Mandatory certification of landlord billing systems before accepting subsidized tenants
- 72-hour deadlines to correct verified errors
- Human oversight requirement: A designated corporate representative must respond to regulators
- Penalties for phantom balances or backdated fees
Algorithmic landlords cannot be allowed to operate with no accountability.
5. Protecting Tenants and Vulnerable Populations
Corporate landlords have scale, automation, and legal teams; most tenants do not. This imbalance becomes severe in subsidized housing, where federal law strictly governs rent amounts.
Critical Protections
- Right to Counsel in eviction court
- Just-Cause Eviction standards
- Uniform billing ledgers governed by standard accounting rules
- Prohibitions on junk fees and unauthorized charges
- Required correction of billing errors before eviction can proceed
- Clear appeals process when automated systems malfunction
Special Protections for HUD-VASH and Section 8 Tenants
Federal law prohibits landlords from:
- charging more than the approved tenant portion
- demanding back rent due to their own errors
- evicting for nonpayment of the PHA’s portion
- ignoring case manager inquiries
Yet automated billing systems frequently violate these rules.
The Stuart v. Brookfield case shows what happens when automated systems collide with federal housing law:
backdated charges, fabricated balances, payment system errors, and eviction threats—all directly contradicting HUD contracts.
This is not a theoretical problem—it is happening nationwide.
6. Why Supply, Innovation, Corporate Regulation, and Tenant Protections Must Work Together
Some argue that increasing supply alone will fix affordability. Others argue that restricting corporate activity is the key. The truth is that both are necessary, because markets distort when any single force dominates.
Balanced Housing Ecosystems Require:
- More homes built faster
- Guardrails on large corporate monopolization
- Transparency for algorithms and automation
- Tenant protections in line with modern technology
- Legal support for vulnerable renters
- Opportunities for small landlords and homeowners
- Community-oriented alternatives like tiny homes and missing-middle forms
This “balanced system” keeps the market competitive, innovative, and fair.
7. Why This Matters Now: Courts and Policymakers Are at a Crossroads
Across the U.S., courts and lawmakers face a fundamental question:
Will Wall Street–backed corporate landlords and their proptech systems obey our housing laws—or rewrite them through automation and scale?
- Federal antitrust agencies are prosecuting rent-setting algorithms.
- Cities are exploring ownership caps.
- States are modernizing zoning.
Courts, like the 101st Judicial District Court in Dallas County, are hearing cases such as Stuart v. Brookfield, which expose how billing automation can be weaponized against tenants—including disabled veterans protected under federal law.
These cases will shape the future of housing enforcement and corporate responsibility.
Conclusion: Building a Fair, Innovative, and Human Housing System
Housing is both a market and a human necessity.
Real estate innovation—technology, data, modular construction, institutional investment—can make housing better, faster, and more efficient. But without safeguards, corporate systems can create widespread harm, especially for tenants who rely on stability the most.
A balanced framework does not pick winners—it ensures fairness:
- Communities get more housing.
- Families keep access to homeownership.
- Landlords compete on equal terms.
- Technology is used responsibly.
- Vulnerable residents are not left behind.
America can embrace progress without sacrificing the right to a safe, stable home.
This is the future a balanced housing policy must deliver—and the future HomePit will continue fighting for.
Michael Stuart is one of the extraordinarily rare individuals who sits at the intersection of military discipline, real-estate insight, advanced technology expertise, corporate executive experience, and lived understanding of HUD-VASH housing systems.
Because of this unique blend, he can identify system gaps that neither agencies, landlords, nor software vendors see — but which harm vulnerable populations nationwide.