Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Nevada Senate fails to advance limit on corporate home purchases; leaders move to reconsider

3518731 · May 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senators debated SB 391, a bill that would cap corporate purchases of residential property at 100 units per year and require a registry; it failed to reach the two-thirds threshold but was later set aside for reconsideration and placed on the secretary's desk.

CARSON CITY, Nev. — The Nevada Senate on May 26 failed to secure the two-thirds vote needed to advance Senate Bill 391, a measure that would limit corporate investorsto 100 residential units purchased in a calendar year and require the Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of State to create and maintain a registry of such entities.

The bill failed to receive the required two-thirds majority after a roll call produced 13 "yes" votes and 8 "no" votes, and President declared SB 391 "dead" for lack of the supermajority. Later in the day, Senator Cannizzaro moved to reconsider that vote; the motion to reconsider carried, and Cannizzaro's subsequent motion to take SB 3 91 from general file and place it on the secretary's desk also carried.

Supporters said the bill is intended to protect first-time homebuyers and communities from large-scale corporate purchases that they said reduce opportunities for individual buyers. Senator Neal described the bill as limiting, "with certain exceptions, the total aggregate number of units of residential property in the state that may be purchased in 1 calendar year. It limits that number to 100." He also said the measure would require the form and contents for instruments filed with a registry maintained by the securities division.

Opponents warned of constitutional and practical problems. Senator Hanson, who said he ultimately voted no, argued the policy rationale but raised constitutional concerns and practical limits on enforcement. "The American dream, which everybody knows is to own a home, is being taken away…

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to keep reading

Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.

  • Unlimited articles
  • AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
  • Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
  • Follow topics and more locations
  • 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
30-day money-back on paid plans