SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
rent
We're Renting Our Lives Away to Enrich Tech Lords and Wall Street Oligarchs
In the new, out-of-control rental economy, the product is often just bait. The real commodity, the real profit center, the real source of unending corporate cash flow is you.
Dec 30, 2025
On Sunday, both President Donald Trump and his secretary of Housing and Urban Development told us that 50-year home mortgages may soon be a thing. While seemingly insane (you could end up paying more than three times the cost of the house and never escape the burden of debt before you die), this is just the latest iteration of one of American businesses’ most profitable scams: the rental economy.
It’s a growing threat to the American middle class that rarely gets named, even as it reshapes our lives every day. Over the past two decades, it’s snuck in quietly, disguised as convenience, efficiency, and “innovation.”
As a result, nothing is “ours” any more. Instead, we’re renting our lives away.
There was a time when you bought things.
It’s become a never-ending extraction of money and personal data from each of us, every month, every year, time after time, over and over again until we’re financially exhausted.
You bought a house, a book, a record, a car, a word processing program. You paid once, took it home or lived in it, and it was yours. If the company went out of business, your stereo still worked. If the manufacturer didn’t get their annual payment, your computer didn’t lock you out of your own words. You could read books on your phone or pad without an internet connection to “confirm your purchase.”
That America is disappearing.
Today, almost everything that used to be a purchase has become a rental.
Take Microsoft Word. Decades ago, you bought it once and used it for years. Now it’s a monthly fee. Stop paying, and you may not even be able to open documents you wrote yourself. Adobe did the same thing. So did music, movies, and television. At first, it felt like convenience; a few dollars a month didn’t seem like a big deal.
Even the latest versions of the two major computer operating systems are essentially spyware, constantly tracking everything you do while demanding that you put all your personal information on their “cloud” servers.
Instead of buying homes, people are renting because, in part, massive New York hedge funds and foreign investors are purchasing as many as half of all the homes that come available for sale in some communities, and then flipping them into rentals. Renters can end up on the hook for their entire lives.
Even the means to get a good job—a college education—has become something you must pay for over a period of decades or even a lifetime instead of the pay-as-you-go model my generation had before Ronald Reagan gutted federal aid to higher ed. We now have almost $2 trillion in student debt—the only developed nation in the world that does this to its students—and I regularly get calls into my radio program from people in their 70s still paying off their student debt.
But this change was never really just about money. It has morphed over the past decades into a new form of corporate control over our lives and our wealth. It’s become a never-ending extraction of money and personal data from each of us, every month, every year, time after time, over and over again until we’re financially exhausted.
When you own something, you decide how it’s used. When you rent, someone else makes that choice. They can raise prices, change terms, remove features, track everything you do with it, or shut it off entirely. Your “choice” becomes compliance.
The billionaire Tech Bros and Wall Street are hoping we’ll all just roll over, sign up, and let them ding our credit cards until our dying day.
That same model has spread everywhere.
Cars used to be machines you owned. Now they’re rolling computers with features like heated seats, remote start, or performance upgrades locked behind monthly fees. Similarly, cars are increasingly leased instead of purchased. Miss your payment this month and the lender will remotely disable “your” vehicle. Your car doesn’t just take you places anymore: It reports on you.
Phones are even worse. They’re not just devices; they’re gatekeepers. Apps can be removed. Accounts can be banned. Services can disappear overnight. And because so much of modern life runs through that phone—banking, work, navigation, healthcare—being cut off isn’t an inconvenience. It’s a functional exclusion from society.
This extends from major things like our cars and homes to simple things like apps. Louise loves to play Scrabble on her phone, and would gladly pay a one-time fee for an app that doesn’t throw ads at her, track and sell her information, or demand constant interaction. Instead, since the old Scrabble app she’s used for years went to a rental model, she’s gone through a half-dozen apps, each worse than the last at demanding her interactions or throwing ads.
And to add insult to injury, layered on top of this rental business model is a vast, multibillion-dollar industry harvesting our personal information.
Every website you visit. Every app you download. Every product you register just to make it work. Your location, habits, preferences, relationships, and even emotional responses are tracked, analyzed, packaged, and sold. Most often without meaningful consent, and almost always without real alternatives.
This is not how American capitalism worked for over 250 years.
The question business leaders used to ask was simple: “What unmet needs do people have that our company can satisfy with a new product or service?” You built something useful, people bought it, and that was the deal.
Today, the question has changed: “How do we make our product so essential that people can’t function without it, then crush or buy out our competitors so there’s no real consumer choice, then charge a monthly fee forever, all while extracting user data we can sell for even more profit?”
That’s not innovation. It’s parasitism.
If everything we touch is leased, freedom is just another fee.
In this model, the product is often just bait. The real commodity, the real profit center, the real source of unending corporate cash flow is you.
And because the billionaire “Tech Bros” and Wall Street oligarchs control the products, the data, and increasingly our nation’s news and social media, they also control the content and algorithms that shape public opinion.
As a result, social media and even our news (think CBS, the Washington Post, the LA Times, Fox “News”) increasingly doesn’t just reflect reality, they engineer it to get us to think of this new rental economy as normal, as innovative, as The Way Things Should Be.
In addition to profitably amplifying outrage, profitably distorting truth, and polishing the public image of this new rental economy—all to create billions in ongoing month-after-month profits—America’s billionaire tech lords and the right-wing politicians they bankroll (thanks to five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court) are manufacturing our consent (to apply Noam Chomsky’s phrase).
Thomas Jefferson warned that people are inclined to suffer evils while they are sufferable rather than abolish the forms to which they’ve grown accustomed. The billionaire Tech Bros and Wall Street are hoping we’ll all just roll over, sign up, and let them ding our credit cards until our dying day.
It’s gotten so bad that apps—which also acquire and then sell our data—have emerged that track our “subscriptions” so we can try to get it all under control. They’re advertising them on TV every day: Get this app to find out what apps are secretly extracting your cash because you long ago forgot you clicked on that link.
None of this was inevitable.
The solution is not to smash technology or retreat into the past. It’s for government to once again work for the 99% instead of the 1%. That means once again regulating money in politics, private equity, social media, data harvesting, and the out-of-control rental economy that has replaced ownership.
It means breaking monopolies, restoring regulatory independence, making education affordable, supporting home and car ownership, and reaffirming that democracy—not billionaires—sets the rules of the road.
Technology should serve human freedom, not manage it. Markets should reward service and quality of content, not extraction. People should be able to choose to pay or not to pay for things from apps to the functionality of your car or home’s HVAC system.
Nothing is ours any more. Not the road, not the floor. If everything we touch is leased, freedom is just another fee.
If we don’t act to regulate this out-of-control rental economy, we may one day realize we didn’t lose our wealth and even our democracy all at once: We simply rented our way out of it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Just After Settling With Trump DOJ, RealPage Sues New York Over Ban on Algorithmic Rent-Setting
"As if we need any more evidence the settlement is BS," wrote one antitrust advocate.
Nov 26, 2025
After securing a corporate-friendly settlement with the Trump Justice Department earlier this week, the real estate software company RealPage on Wednesday turned its attention to the state of New York, suing to block a recently enacted law aimed at preventing algorithmic rent-setting that has helped drive up housing costs nationwide.
The law in question prohibits software companies like RealPage, which is owned by a private equity firm, from enabling landlords to collude and push up rents. Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the measure into law last month, making the state one of the first in the nation to combat algorithmic price-fixing.
In a legal challenge filed Wednesday in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, RealPage argues the state law is "a sweeping and unconstitutional ban on lawful speech specifically intended" to outlaw RealPage's software.
On the third page of the lawsuit, RealPage cites its pending settlement with the US Justice Department in an effort to bolster its case against New York's law, which advocates hailed as a major victory for renters.
"Especially because RealPage offers [revenue management software (RMS)] that does not reference any competitor’s non-public information when a customer is using the software, there is no plausible basis to conclude that RealPage’s RMS can be used to facilitate any form of collusion among RealPage customers," the lawsuit states. "In fact, this version of the software is specifically permitted by the U.S. Department of Justice under its proposed antitrust consent decree with RealPage."
"As if we need any more evidence the settlement is BS," replied Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project.
With sky-high housing costs a central focus in New York—particularly the successful New York City mayoral campaign of Zohran Mamdani—and across the country, RealPage and management companies that use its software have drawn heightened scrutiny. Last week, nine states reached a $7 million settlement with Greystar, the largest landlord in the US, in a lawsuit over the company's use of RealPage software to raise rents.
As part of the state settlement, Greystar agreed to no longer use rent-setting software that relies on private data from other landlords.
Late last year, during the presidency of Joe Biden, the Justice Department sued RealPage over the company's alleged "unlawful scheme to decrease competition among landlords in apartment pricing."
“RealPage contracts with competing landlords who agree to share with RealPage nonpublic, competitively sensitive information about their apartment rental rates and other lease terms to train and run RealPage’s algorithmic pricing software,” said the Biden DOJ. “This software then generates recommendations, including on apartment rental pricing and other terms, for participating landlords based on their and their rivals’ competitively sensitive information.”
On Monday, the Trump Justice Department announced a proposed settlement with RealPage that the company openly welcomed, characterizing the deal as an effective endorsement of the legality of its product. The settlement, in which RealPage does not admit to any wrongdoing, still must be reviewed and approved by a court.
According to a report published last year by the Biden White House, algorithmic price-setting cost renters across the US nearly $4 billion in 2023 alone.
The American Prospect's David Dayen noted Wednesday that RealPage previously "promised landlord clients that it would generate 'revenue lift between 3% to 7%' by feeding rental data in a metro area into an algorithm that recommended price increases."
"Then, RealPage agents would tell landlords that they risked losing access to the platform if they didn’t comply with hiking rents," Dayen wrote. "This was a case of classic price-fixing."
"Not having to pay a nickel or admit wrongdoing is lenient enough," Dayen added, referring to the DOJ settlement. "But there are several loopholes even in the restrictions. RealPage can continue using past data to train AI models, which will inform future price recommendations. Public data can be aggregated and used for this purpose. And RealPage can continue using an 'auto-accept' feature for price recommendations, as long as clients can reconfigure it to opt out. We know from most of digital age history that opt-outs don’t work well."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Terrible for Renters': Trump DOJ Settles Price-Fixing Case With RealPage
"Far from stopping illegal practices," said one critic, "it gives a green light to algorithmic price-fixing across the economy."
Nov 25, 2025
The Trump Justice Department on Monday announced a settlement with the real estate software giant RealPage, which the federal government and multiple states accused of illegally facilitating collusion between landlords to drive up rents.
The settlement, which must be reviewed by a court, would require RealPage to "cease having its software use competitors’ nonpublic, competitively sensitive information to determine rental prices," among other mandates.
Abigail Slater, head of the DOJ's Antitrust Division, cast the agreement as a win for competition and for renters. But RealPage downplayed the settlement's impact on its business model, saying the deal's terms "bless the legality of RealPage’s prior and planned product changes"—alluding to the company's voluntary decision last year to let its customers remove nonpublic data when using the software to calculate recommended rents.
The company emphasized that the settlement does not include any financial penalties or admissions of guilt.
"What a total farce," Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project, said in response to the DOJ announcement. "This sham settlement violates the first thing we tell every lawmaker: Fixing prices based on public data sets is still price fixing!"
"This is lipstick on a pig and terrible for renters," Hepner added.
The Justice Department initially sued RealPage last year under the Biden administration, accusing the company of running an "unlawful scheme to decrease competition among landlords in apartment pricing and to monopolize the market for commercial revenue management software that landlords use to price apartments."
"RealPage contracts with competing landlords who agree to share with RealPage nonpublic, competitively sensitive information about their apartment rental rates and other lease terms to train and run RealPage’s algorithmic pricing software," the Biden DOJ said. "This software then generates recommendations, including on apartment rental pricing and other terms, for participating landlords based on their and their rivals’ competitively sensitive information."
The DOJ complaint used RealPage's own words against it, citing the company's description of its products as "driving every possible opportunity to increase price."
A White House report released late last year estimated that the kind of algorithmic pricing that RealPage enables cost renters across the US a total of nearly $4 billion in 2023 alone. The report characterized that estimate as conservative.
Basel Musharbash, managing attorney at Antimonopoly Counsel, warned following Monday's settlement announcement that "far from stopping illegal practices, it gives a green light to algorithmic price-fixing across the economy."
The states that joined the DOJ lawsuit were not listed on the settlement.
Last week, California, North Carolina, and other states announced a separate settlement with the apartment management giant Greystar, one of the companies that used RealPage software to set rents.
Under the state deal, Greystar agreed to pay $7 million in penalties and stop using RealPage’s software or similar products for pricing.
"Whether it's through smoke-filled backroom deals or through an algorithm on your computer screen, colluding to drive up prices is illegal,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Families across the country are staring down an affordability crisis. Companies that intentionally fuel this unaffordability by raising prices to line their own pockets can be sure I will use the full force of my office to hold them accountable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Win for Mamdani Is a Win for Renters Everywhere
Mamdani is the antidote to the corporate landlord dominance we see in cities across the US. He doesn’t just speak on behalf of rent-stabilized tenants; he is one.
Nov 12, 2025
Zohran Mamdani, a tenant who lives in a rent-stabilized apartment and made affordable rent the primary issue in his campaign, has been elected mayor of New York City.
To be clear, a win for Mamdani is a huge win for renters—not just in New York, but across the country. Mayor-elect Mamdani has shown that a populist mayoral candidate with a bullhorn can ground a winning campaign in issues that impact constituents just trying to get by and have a decent place to live.
During the campaign, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo repeatedly attacked Mamdani for living in a rent-stabilized apartment and supporting a rent freeze. It was a display of character and courage that Mamdani never backed down. Instead, he doubled down. And the attacks against him continued through the last mayoral debate, where Mamdani stated emphatically, “You’ve heard it from Andrew Cuomo that the number one crisis in this city, the housing crisis, the answer is to evict my wife and I. He thinks you address this crisis by unleashing my landlord’s ability to raise my rent. If you think that the problem in this city is that my rent is too low, vote for him. If you know the problem in this city is that your rent is too high, vote for me.”
Mamdani understands the debate comes down to a very basic question: With rents so high, where are people supposed to live? The Starbucks barista, McDonald's worker, and Lyft driver are experiencing what most candidates are afraid to talk about—that they are one rent increase away from losing their apartment.
With over 2.3 million renters in New York City, it’s about time they elected a mayor who would put affordable rents front and center.
Too often, the dialogue around rent has been dominated by investors and corporate landlords. They seemingly have a bottomless pit of money to get their message out and line the campaign coffers of candidates who offer them carte blanche to raise rents and undermine tenants. As Mamdani stated during the race, “The same landlords who said they didn’t have enough money to freeze the rent, gave Cuomo $2.5 million dollars, the single largest check in this entire race.”
Mamdani is the antidote to the corporate landlord dominance we see in cities across the US. He doesn’t just speak on behalf of rent-stabilized tenants; he is one. And that makes all the difference.
Rent control is not new. It has been around since 1919. As real estate became more corporatized, multi-family buildings became a commodity—a line on a balance sheet. It’s less about the people and more about the building as an asset whose value is based on rents. In the 1990s, Apartment Associations led a nationwide campaign to curtail or ban altogether rent control. Currently, 37 states have banned it and states like California only allow rent control in buildings built in 1996.
Cash-strapped tenant organizations have done their best to move the needle on rent stabilization efforts, but they often face a deluge of money from the real estate industry, expensive lawsuits, and elected officials willing to reverse their progress.
Mamdani’s win as mayor signals new hope for campaigns that address the need to control skyrocketing rents. It sets in motion a new model nationwide centered on the needs of constituents, rather than corporate-dominated policies that have no tangible benefit to constituents and fail to improve the quality of life for low-income people.
With over 2.3 million renters in New York City, it’s about time they elected a mayor who would put affordable rents front and center.
Leaders across the country are watching what is happening in New York. The rents are so high that even someone working two full-time jobs can still be rent-burdened, paying over 30% of their income in rent. That is not sustainable.
New Yorkers reached a tipping point and found in Mamdani a leader who provided a platform of solutions, not more excuses for why they cannot get the relief they need. And hopefully, other cities will follow suit, attracting candidates that want to solve problems rather than kowtow to rich donors.
Let’s face it: Stabilizing housing costs is a reasonable practice, which is why most homeowners pay the same amount every month in mortgage payments. Mortgages don’t go up 17% every year to line the pockets of lenders. That would be ridiculous, and it is for renters too. Giving renters stability is not just a reasonable ask; it is a necessity.
As a lifelong renter, I believe we are on the precipice of policy change in the US. Renters and low-income communities are rising up to demand that the government acts in their interest.
Mamdani serving as mayor of America’s largest city, while living in a rent-stabilized apartment, is a game changer. More of this in other cities is desperately needed.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sen. Gillibrand, New Yorkers Counting on Affordable Housing Need Your Support
We need Sen. Gillibrand to come meet with us, listen to our stories, and then take them back to the negotiating table in Washington.
Oct 07, 2025
The cost to keep a roof over our heads is the highest recurring expense for every family. Yet, the primary source of support for people who need help with housing is on the chopping block in Congress right now.
When Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) launched her presidential campaign, she attended our Follow Black Women town hall with 100 Black women. At the time, the rent was already too damn high, and homeownership was already out of reach. Fast-forward five years and rent is up nearly 20% overall, with some boroughs in the city seeing twice that increase. It has been over five years since we last heard from her. But given what’s happening in the federal government right now, it’s urgent that she come home and hear from us right away.
Community Voices Heard (CVH) member Fabiola is a mother of two who has lived in Housing and Urban Development-funded housing in Newburgh, New York for more than 20 years. She has dealt with health issues that are exacerbated by black mold, poor ventilation, and years of disrepair. She stays because there is literally nowhere else she can afford in Newburgh. She is not alone.
In 2023, the New York State comptroller reported that 2.9 million New York households were cost burdened, spending 30% or more of their income on housing costs. The NYC comptroller found in January 2024 that over half of all renter households—52.1%—were rent burdened.
We need each elected official at every level—DC, Albany, and City Hall—to get the message and prioritize housing policy that centers affordability, dignity, and opportunity for all Americans.
CVH member Dolores has lived in Wagner Houses in East Harlem since 2000. Before that, she was illegally evicted from her apartment in Washington Heights with her 6-year-old, and ended up homeless for nearly four years. NYC Housing Authority Section 9 has provided her and her son safe housing for 25 years. That's now under threat. She is not alone.
The number of New Yorkers aged 55 and older in the city's shelter system increased by approximately 250% between 2004 and 2017. As of 2024, more than 520,000 New Yorkers are on a wait list for affordable senior housing. Across the country, the national population of people over 65 experiencing homelessness is projected to triple by 2030. Regardless of who we voted for in 2024, I’m sure none of us voted for our seniors to spend their golden years on the streets.
Gillibrand is the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies. She knows better than anyone that Republican congressional leaders have been working nonstop to unleash hell on working families. First they passed a 10-year budget plan that steals our healthcare, safety net, and public dollars and gives everything we’ve got away to greedy billionaires and corporations. And now they’re coming for the roofs over our heads—forcing us into homelessness if we can’t pay more, just to lock us up when we’re left with no choice but to sleep in cars or camp on sidewalks.
This isn’t a tall tale. It’s where we are headed—unless Gillibrand proposes a different path and uses her position to turn things around. For years, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has helped get and keep Americans with low and fixed incomes housed. Donald Trump’s White House pushed for a 43% cut to rental assistance and housing vouchers. Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) House of Representatives passed an appropriations budget that cuts HUD’s fair housing activities by 67%. These nightmarish proposals are the starting point for negotiating a final appropriations budget. So we need Sen. Gillibrand to come meet with us, listen to our stories, and then take them back to the negotiating table in Washington.
Around 74% of Americans believe the current economic situation is making housing less affordable. And the current economic situation is hitting some of us especially hard. Black women lost 319,000 jobs in the public and private sectors between February and July, more than any other group. Yet despite being hit with the worst of it, Black women overwhelmingly want solutions for everyone. Regardless of race, gender, or zip code, we know that more affordable housing means stronger, safer, more stable communities.
We need each elected official at every level—DC, Albany, and City Hall—to get the message and prioritize housing policy that centers affordability, dignity, and opportunity for all Americans. That said, it’s long past time for Sen. Gillibrand—who ran for president on a platform revolving around a Family Bill of Rights—to step it up.
If she doesn’t fight for us today, it won’t matter if she comes calling to ask for a donation, an endorsement, or a vote tomorrow, because we will have lost our homes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Landlord Doublespeak and the Rise of the 'Housing Provider'
What drives the preference of landlords to call themselves “housing providers” is a desire to euphemize the landlord-tenant relationship and to obscure some of its basic and most important features.
Jul 30, 2025
Landlords want to be called “housing providers.” Industry organizations in California, Washington, Rhode Island, and elsewhere are proudly claiming the label. Equal to this craving to be called “housing providers,” it seems, is the wish among landlords to no longer be called landlords. The term is antiquated, they say, and has a negative stigma that doesn’t reflect reality. The industry is not particularly secretive about these desires or the reasons behind them, which have to do with image and narrative.
The dictionary definition of landlord is precise enough, however, and, in fact, couldn’t be plainer: “The owner of property (such as land, houses, or apartments) that is leased or rented to another,” according to Merriam-Webster.com. The definition identifies the essential feature of any residential landlord—that they engage in a financial transaction to lease living space. This seems straightforward enough and noncontroversial. The motivation of the industry is thus not related to any mismatch between our common understanding of the word and its most essential attribute.
Instead, what drives the preference of landlords to call themselves “housing providers” is a type of Orwellian doublespeak intended to euphemize the landlord-tenant relationship and to obscure some of its basic and most important features. What does the phrase obscure? For one, it elides the basic extractive nature of landlording, the fact that landlords expect, in fact, rely upon the relationship to be monetarily profitable to them. This is the critical fact of landlording, that it is done in the main to make a profit.
Granted there are some instances of landlords renting to family members or others without expectations of profit, but these exceptions are merely that—exceptions. The English language routinely makes distinctions between services rendered for a fee and those provided on other bases. The difference between “housing provider” and landlord is the difference between a date and a paid escort or sex worker, it is the difference between the volunteer and the mercenary, between a financial gift and an interest-bearing loan. The English language is not unique in containing words that make clear the monetary exchange and profit that define some relationships. We use these words because the information they contain is consequential.
If the landlord industry truly wants to do something to burnish its public image, it might consider publicly rejecting or sanctioning members of its community who hiked rents in Los Angeles County by 20% in the aftermath of the fires of January 2025.
This attempt to obscure the profit motive in landlording is all the more problematic because those who would call themselves “housing providers” in one breath, will, in the next, argue against rent stabilization, tenant protections, and other regulations on the basis that these policies make their business unprofitable, or less profitable than they would prefer. This is wanting it both ways—attempting to hide the profit motive while simultaneously insisting on it.
“Housing provider” is also meant to conceal the power dynamics of the landlord-tenant relationship, one in which landlords hold the privileges associated with property ownership, the ability to define the terms of acceptable behavior and limits of property use available to tenants, and the ultimate power of eviction. Moreover, at a time when corporate landlords are extending their reach into the market, and we see the spread of price-fixing algorithms to maximize rents and profit, AI-driven tenant screening algorithms to perform background checks, and greater concentration and market power at the industry scale, the insistence on the phrase “housing provider” is an obvious attempt at happy-faced distraction.
Just as important as the attempt to disguise profit motive and landlord power is the effort to dodge whatever negative connotations attach to the term landlord. “Housing provider” is meant to avoid images of rapaciousness and greed, or to conjure images of benevolence and even charity, or to do both. The use of the phrase is, in other words, an attempt, acknowledged by the industry, to control a narrative. As such it is a political act, an effort to persuade and to establish a particular understanding of who landlords are and what they do, all in the service of influencing public debate and public policy. This is not to argue that tenants don’t also try to influence the public narrative; of course they do. It is merely to note that this phrase, “housing provider,” is a calculated bid to construct meaning in a highly contested policy area and it needs to be recognized as such. Those who choose to adopt the phrase choose to adopt the narrative.
If the landlord industry truly wants to do something to burnish its public image, it might consider publicly rejecting or sanctioning members of its community who hiked rents in Los Angeles County by 20% in the aftermath of the fires of January 2025. It might help to police property owners who evicted tenants during the pandemic in violation of federal and local laws. It might take action to address sexual harassment of low-income women by landlords, or address any of a number of discriminatory or exploitative practices that haunt the industry. Those wishing to hide behind the “housing provider” label will argue that not all landlords are bad, which is of course true. They will say only a portion of landlords engage in the practices that give landlord its stigma. But, if the only response by the industry is to stop using the word landlord, it betrays a self-serving concern that does little to improve negative public perceptions and, in fact, largely confirms them.
We don’t call Exxon an “oil provider,” nor do we call GM an “automobile provider.” We don’t even call the corner mom-and-pop store a “grocery provider.” There is no reason to accept the kind of politically motivated doublespeak behind the rise of “housing provider.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Betrayal': Colorado's Democratic Governor Vetoes Bill Targeting Algorithmic Rent-Setting
The veto, said one critic, "sends the devastating message that corporate landlords can keep using secret price-fixing algorithms to take extra rent from people who have the least."
May 30, 2025
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat seen as a potential 2028 presidential contender, used his veto pen on Thursday to block legislation aimed at banning rent-setting algorithms that corporate landlords have used to drive up housing costs across the country.
The bill, known as H.B. 1004, would have prohibited algorithmic software "sold or distributed with the intent that it will be used by two or more landlords in the same market or a related market to set or recommend the amount of rent, level of occupancy, or other commercial term associated with the occupancy of a residential premises."
A report issued late last year by the Biden White House estimated that algorithmic rent-setting cost U.S. renters a combined $3.8 billion in 2023. According to the Biden administration's analysis, Denver tenants have been paying an average of $1,600 more on rent each year because of rent-setting algorithms. The approximate monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment in the city is $1,600.
Pat Garofalo, director of state and local policy at the American Economic Liberties Project, called Polis' veto "a betrayal" that makes "his priorities clear."
"Governor Polis had a simple choice: stand with working Coloradans or side with corporate landlords using secretive algorithms to allegedly price-fix rents," said Garofalo. "The governor talks a big game about affordability and abundance, but when given the chance to take real action—at no cost to taxpayers—he protected profiteers and let families keep paying a 13th month of rent. It's a betrayal of the values he claims to champion, and Colorado renters won't soon forget it."
"Governor Polis vetoed the most meaningful legislation we had to lower costs for renters."
Sam Gilman, co-founder and president of the Denver-based Community Economic Defense Project, said that the governor's veto "sends the devastating message that corporate landlords can keep using secret price-fixing algorithms to take extra rent from people who have the least."
"At a time when costs keep rising for working people and Republicans in Washington are attacking the social safety net," Gilman added, "Governor Polis vetoed the most meaningful legislation we had to lower costs for renters."
In a letter explaining his veto, Polis voiced agreement with the bill's supporters that "collusion between landlords for purposes of artificially constraining rental supply and increasing costs on renters is wrong." But he warned the bill could have the unintended effect of banning software that helps "efficiently manage residential real estate."
The governor's reasoning did not assuage critics.
"It stood up to corporate power," Gilman said of the legislation. "It promised to bring apartments back online. And it took on economic abuse that steals $1,600 a year from renters."
State Rep. Steven Woodrow (D-2) said it is "unfortunate that someone who claims to care so deeply about saving people money has chosen the interests of large corporate landlords over those of hard-working Coloradans."
State and local legislative efforts to rein in algorithmic rent-setting have gained steam in recent years following an explosive ProPublica story in 2022 detailing RealPage's sale of "software that uses data analytics to suggest daily prices for open units."
"RealPage discourages bargaining with renters and has even recommended that landlords in some cases accept a lower occupancy rate in order to raise rents and make more money," the investigative outlet reported. "One of the algorithm's developers told ProPublica that leasing agents had 'too much empathy' compared to computer-generated pricing. Apartment managers can reject the software's suggestions, but as many as 90% are adopted, according to former RealPage employees."
The Denver Post reported Thursday that the vetoed bill "essentially targeted RealPage," which lobbied aggressively against a similar measure that died in the Colorado Legislature last year.
Polis also used his veto authority on Thursday to tank legislation that would have "limited how much ambulance services can charge for transporting patients and required health insurance companies to cover the cost, minus deductibles or copays," The Colorado Sun reported.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Need a Shared Working-Class Agenda to Overcome Economic Hardship and Defeat Trump
If we resist getting caught up in the endless drama, divisions, and distractions—and work together to further our own slate of issues—we have the power to create meaningful change.
Jan 30, 2025
As Trump creates crisis and chaos, testing the limits of his authority and driving the news cycle, it’s critical we keep returning to what matters most to the American people. By focusing on our shared priorities and working together, we can stay grounded during the turmoil and build the power to drive positive change.
At the top of Americans' concerns is economic hardship and inequality. Ninety percent of voters told Gallup the economy was a top influence on their 2024 votes. The rising cost of housing and everyday expenses was cited as the most critical issue by both Trump voters (79 percent) and the broader electorate (56 percent).
These concerns reflect real struggles. According to the Federal Reserve, more than one-third of American adults lack the resources to handle a $400 emergency without borrowing. Families face crushing costs—median childcare runs $1,100 monthly, matching typical rent payments. Natural disasters have financially impacted nearly one in five adults.
By focusing on the issues that affect the lives of millions of Americans, we can build common ground for organizing and advocacy.
The ALICE framework helps us understand this crisis. These Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed families—now 42 percent of all U.S. households—often work multiple jobs yet still struggle to cover basics. They are our neighbors, many of them working nearby in businesses, medical facilities, and factories living paycheck to paycheck, while caring for children and elders. Many are forced to choose between rent, food, gas for the car, and paying the power bill.
Millionaire and Vice President JD Vance said at the recent “March for Life” rally in Washington, D.C., that he wished more young people would have children. Yet over half of parents surveyed said that they suffer anxiety due to not having enough money to support their family.
It is not unusual to find people living in their cars or in tent encampments, going to work at multiple jobs but unable to afford rent. The numbers of these ALICE families have grown by 23 percent since 2010 and now make up 42 percent of American households.
Meanwhile, America's billionaire class has accumulated unprecedented wealth—$6.72 trillion among 813 individuals, growing by $1 trillion in just that last nine months of 2024, according to the Institute for Policy Studies. This concentration of wealth translates directly into political power that even many wealthy Americans recognize as wrong. The Patriotic Millionaires group, representing 500 wealthy individuals, has called for higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy, warning that extreme wealth concentration is corroding democracy.
In spite of his populist language, the Trump administration’s millionaires and billionaires show few signs of being interested in addressing the economic hardship of American families. The president’s true priorities were on display as the billionaires lined up to kiss the royal ring with large donations for the inauguration and were seated in the most prestigious seats at the events.
What can be done? How can ordinary people build sufficient power to put the wellbeing of ordinary families first?
The American people understand these challenges and 89 percent of them recognize that excessive political influence by the wealthy drives inequality, according to the Pew Research Center. Two-thirds believe our economic system needs major reform. Even wealthy Americans largely share these concerns, polling just 9 points lower in their worry about inequality.
With MAGA Republicans dominating Congress and the Executive Branch, national reform is tough. But if we resist getting caught up in the endless drama and distractions, and work together to further our own agenda. we have the power to create change.
- We can remind elected officials at all levels of government that their constituents expect support for child care, healthcare, education, minimum wage increases, and housing policies for working families;
- We can support state and local initiatives to tax wealth and invest in communities;
- We can keep economic hardship and inequality at the center of public discourse; and
- We can join organizations, like the Working Families Party, and build coalitions around shared economic concerns.
By focusing on the issues that affect the lives of millions of Americans, we can build common ground for organizing and advocacy. Instead of being distracted, divided, and overwhelmed, we can set our own agenda, build power together for positive change, and insist that our elected leaders act on our shared priorities.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Michigan Lawmakers Have a Chance to Protect People From Predatory Landlords
In the midst of an affordable housing crisis, the protections in SB486-492 and HB 5157-5163 would interrupt the cycle of corporate greed that leaves hundreds of thousands of Michigan manufactured home residents like me and my wife struggling.
Dec 01, 2024
My wife and I have lived in North Morris Estates, a manufactured housing community in Genesee County, Michigan, for 15 years. I love my home. I love my community. But since 2021, it feels like my community doesn’t love me back.
That year Homes of America, an affiliate of hedge fund Alden Global Capital, bought North Morris Estates. Since then our home has felt more like a battleground than a refuge.
We, like most residents, can’t move our home. The choices are fight back or give up. Anyone who knows us knows we aren’t giving up.
For too long Michiganders living in manufactured housing parks have been subject to the profit-driven whims of predatory, absentee corporate landlords like Homes of America and Alden Global Capital.
When Homes of America took over, they increased our rent by $100 a month over two years. We had proof our rent was always timely and our checks cashed, but they tried to evict us for unpaid rent and 19 late charges going back two years. We quickly learned to send our rent via certified mail and demand receipts.
They left dozens of homes empty and rotting, creating dangerous conditions and blight. When we, like others, requested repairs to make our community safer, we were either told to pay for the work ourselves or faced retaliation. They ignored requests for basic infrastructure repairs, and our community pool and clubhouse have been closed since 2022 due to lack of maintenance.
To get a sense of the retaliation we face, consider our butterfly garden. With permission from the previous owner, we established a nationally registered Monarch Waystation on vacant lots. It was a small victory for residents and a source of pride. After we reported Homes of America’s unpermitted construction, they bulldozed our beloved Monarch Waystation and left a pile of dirt and uprooted flowers. They even took photos, as if it were a trophy. These people prefer blight to beauty!
They often shut off water without notice, leaving us unable to finish a shower, wash dishes, or clean. We’ve resorted to keeping a full bucket in the tub to flush during shutoffs. Even when it’s on, it’s not uncommon for brown, putrid water to come out of our taps.
In November the state denied the renewal of North Morris Estates’ operating license due to violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In January the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) issued a violation notice, and Thetford Township took the unprecedented step of obtaining a court injunction to halt park operations. This led to the first-ever criminal charges in Michigan against the owners of a mobile home park for operating without a license, an alleged violation of the Michigan Mobile Home Commission Act.
I’m glad the law is finally beginning to hold Homes of America accountable. But the current law didn’t prevent any of this—the blighted homes, the dirty water, the junk fees. It took hundreds of hours of research, calls, emails, meetings, documentation, and police investigations to get the wheels of justice just starting to turn for residents.
That’s why it’s critical that the Michigan legislature passes SB 486-492/HB 5157-5163. They would create basic protections for residents. They would prevent park owners from renewing their licenses if they have a history of unjustified rent hikes, require more frequent and stringent inspections, create a searchable public database of park owners, and prevent overcharging on utilities. The bills would also update outdated tax incentives that encourage landlords to keep landlord-owned homes off the market.
For too long Michiganders living in manufactured housing parks have been subject to the profit-driven whims of predatory, absentee corporate landlords like Homes of America and Alden Global Capital. In the midst of an affordable housing crisis, the protections in SB486-492 and HB 5157-5163 would interrupt the cycle of corporate greed that leaves hundreds of thousands of Michigan manufactured home residents like me and my wife struggling.
These bills are essential to protect people like us—because no one should feel like a prisoner in their own home.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Analysis Shows Embracing Bold Renter Protections Can Help Democrats Win in 2024
"Tenant protections aren't just good policies—they're good politics," said one housing justice campaigner.
Jun 18, 2024
An analysis released Tuesday bolsters an argument that progressive lawmakers and organizers have been making with growing urgency in the lead-up to the critical November elections: Housing should be at the top of the Democratic Party's—and President Joe Biden's—agenda.
The research brief, authored by Russell Weaver of the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations (ILR) Buffalo Co-Lab, shows that tenants are a "large, untapped political base" that can be mobilized by candidates who offer bold solutions to the housing crisis and support the rights of renters against the predatory landlords squeezing them for profit.
While homeowners typically turn out to vote at a far higher rate than tenants, Weaver noted, the "owner-renter turnout gap is nearly cut in half when candidates run on renter-friendly platforms." Renters in New York state (NYS)—the focus of the new analysis—are more likely than homeowners to be registered as Democrats or members of the Working Families Party.
Analyzing the results of New York's statewide general election in 2022, Weaver found that NYS tenants "might have been relatively motivated to turn out for candidates who were vocal supporters or co-sponsors of the 2022 state-level Good Cause Eviction bill, which protects renters against rent hikes and evictions."
"In NYS Senate races that did not feature such a candidate, the average turnout rate among likely renters was roughly 29% (after adjusting for race-ethnicity and political party)," Weaver wrote. "In races that included Good Cause proponents, however, average renter turnout was more than five percentage points higher, at 34.1%—a statistically significant difference."
Weaver said in a statement that his analysis underscores that "candidates who campaign on housing affordability and tenant protections have the potential to significantly boost renter turnout, which could be decisive in tightly contested races."
"An organized tenant voting bloc could be the key to jump-starting a statewide housing policy agenda that works for all New Yorkers," said Weaver.
The findings could also have implications for national races as rent remains high across the country, leaving roughly half of U.S. tenants unable to afford their monthly payments as corporate landlords and billionaire investors gobble up rental properties and drive up costs. The Federal Reserve is also making the crisis worse by keeping interest rates elevated.
"This brief tells us what we already know: Renters are a powerful voting bloc that will determine the 2024 election," Katie Goldstein, a housing justice organizer at the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD), said of Weaver's analysis. "We can't leave these votes on the table."
"Tenant champions who run on these issues will be rewarded at the ballot box—and politicians who fail to do so will be voted out of office."
CPD, Right to the City Action, and HIT Strategies released survey data earlier this month showing that 87% of U.S. voters believe the "cost of rent and housing is a major or big problem in their state" and that 70% said they are "more likely to vote for someone who supports rent stabilization policies."
The new research brief and polling data strengthen the case for making housing a top priority for an incumbent president and Democratic lawmakers hoping to defeat their Republican opponents in November.
"Tenant protections aren't just good policies—they're good politics," said Esteban Girón, member of the Tenants PAC Board. "Candidates have the opportunity to win big by committing to keep rents affordable and protect tenants from displacement."
At a gathering in Los Angeles in early April, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) joined Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and other lawmakers at the national, state, and local levels in imploring Democrats to elevate bold housing policies and tenant protections such as federal rent control to the top of the party's agenda.
"This is the richest country on Earth. We're not a poor country," Sanders said at the event. "Can we build affordable housing that we need? Can we protect? And the answer is of course we can. But it will require a massive grassroots effort to transform our political system to do that."
Politico reported earlier this year that Biden has privately expressed "increasing concern" that housing costs are putting his reelection hopes in jeopardy.
"The White House is now pushing a range of bulked-up tax credits to incentivize existing homeowners to sell their starter homes, as well as expand rental assistance and extend help for lower-income buyers with their down payments," the outlet noted. "Yet all those ideas require legislation. And while the White House has publicly argued the crisis affects red states just as much as blue states, aides privately acknowledge any movement is a long shot in an election year. Indeed, Republicans have been quick to pan Biden's housing push."
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, meanwhile, has not released a housing agenda as he vies for another four years in the White House. During his first term as president, Trump repeatedly pursued steep cuts to federal housing programs and assailed affordable housing initiatives.
Brahvan Ranga, political director of For the Many, said Tuesday that it is "critical we elect legislators who will enact policies that expand tenants' rights, create and maintain affordable green social housing, and affirm housing as a guaranteed right."
"The housing crisis is front of mind for tenants as they head to the polls—both in Democratic primaries and general elections. As housing costs continue to rise and working families struggle to stay in their homes, corporate real estate and greedy landlords are raking in record profits," said Ranga. "Tenant champions who run on these issues will be rewarded at the ballot box—and politicians who fail to do so will be voted out of office."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy