Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Institutional Ownership topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor seeks to limit institutional purchases of single‑family homes; opponents cite constitutional and market concerns
Summary
Representative Alessandra Murray introduced HB 623 to prevent non‑natural persons (corporations, LLCs) from buying single‑family homes for a set initial period, citing investor buyers pricing out families; realtors and constitutional experts warned of legal and market consequences and urged further study.
Representative Alessandra Murray told the committee she introduced House Bill 623 to slow large institutional purchases of single‑family homes that she and constituents said priced local buyers out of the market. Murray described personal experience: after being told to move by a landlord, her family was outbid repeatedly by investor buyers paying cash. Murray said the bill would prohibit non‑natural persons from buying single‑family homes for an initial listing period (her draft proposes a 90‑day window) to give resident families first opportunity to purchase.
Supporters described a national trend of corporate institutional buying that they say inflated prices and reduced ownership opportunities. Witnesses cited national figures showing investor share growth in some markets and pointed to examples where institutional landlords later charged higher rents or fees. Representative Murray and supporters argued the bill’s intent is to prioritize opportunities for local households to buy homes and to slow out‑of‑state investor accumulation.
Opponents — including the New Hampshire Association of Realtors and several property‑sector witnesses — said institutional ownership of single‑family homes is very small in New Hampshire and that the bill’s broad ban on all non‑natural persons (including local LLCs, trusts or nonprofit entities) could impede legitimate owner structures and essential private investment in rental and workforce housing. Matt Bacon of NHAR noted national data and argued New Hampshire’s institutional investor share is low; he warned the bill could de‑incentivize development of multifamily and workforce housing. Legal witnesses and others flagged constitutional takings and other legal exposure if the statute effectively transfers or forces resale of property and the difficulty of enforcement.
Committee members discussed tradeoffs among homeowner access, developer incentives, and constitutional limits. The committee did not vote at the hearing; after subsequent executive session the committee voted to retain the bill for summer work rather than advance it, with proponents and opponents asked to provide technical drafting options and data on the scale of investor purchases in New Hampshire.
Why it matters: The measure addresses a politically salient concern about investor purchases and housing affordability but raises complex constitutional, property‑rights and housing‑production questions that committee members and stakeholders said require careful drafting and more state‑level data.
