Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Market Ownership topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers debate curbs on corporate purchases of single‑family homes; committee report upheld
Summary
Legislation to bar or limit corporate purchases of single‑family homes drew extended personal testimony and national data in the New Hampshire House; the majority committee report that the bill is inexpedient to legislate was adopted on the floor.
House Bill 6 23, which would prohibit corporations and other non‑natural persons from purchasing single‑family homes for a defined period, prompted extended floor debate on Thursday over market impacts, enforcement, and unintended consequences.
Representative Murray, speaking in favor of tabling the bill so a floor amendment could be drafted, said corporate purchases have surged and are pricing out first‑time buyers. Murray recounted personal experience of being outbid by institutional buyers and cited national research showing rapid growth in investor purchases.
Opponents argued the bill as drafted was overly broad and would create significant unintended consequences. Representative Cole said the bill’s definition of ‘‘corporation’’ would sweep in LLCs and nonprofits, slow transactions, and impose unfunded administrative costs on municipalities. Cole also cited statistics offered in committee testimony that institutional ownership in New Hampshire is small (noting speakers disputed national vs. state figures on corporate ownership rates).
The House considered a motion to table the bill and later voted on the majority committee report recommending the bill be designated inexpedient to legislate (ITL). The committee report was adopted on the floor (committee report adopted by recorded vote). Proponents of further study said they planned a floor amendment or a study option if tabling failed; opponents said the bill would burden property owners and slow housing transactions.
The floor record shows speakers referenced large institutional investors such as Blackstone and Invitation Homes and cited national reports about the growth of single‑family rental ownership by institutional investors. Representative Murray said a floor amendment is in preparation that could convert the proposal into a study committee; the majority committee report that the bill is ITL was accepted by the House, effectively halting the bill as drafted.
The outcome means no immediate statutory change; proponents may continue work on alternative approaches or study options outside the current bill language.
