Senate bill would curtail private-equity purchases of Maryland single‑family homes and levy steep taxes on large investors

Senator Shanika Henson (District 30) introduced Senate Bill 582, the "Hedge Fund Control of Maryland Homes Act of 2025," proposing multiple measures to limit purchases of single‑family homes by large real‑estate investors and to direct new revenue toward state programs.

Henson told the Budget and Taxation Committee the bill would: create a 30‑day window after a home is listed during which an individual, nonprofit or small investor would have priority to purchase; raise the transfer tax for covered real‑estate enterprises from 0.5% to 15%; impose an excise tax equal to 50% of a home's fair market value on qualifying large investors; and establish a down‑payment and settlement‑expense loan program as a subset of the existing Maryland Mortgage Program.

Why it matters: Witnesses and the sponsor framed the proposal as an effort to protect homebuying opportunities for residents and to capture revenue from large investment purchases. Supporters said hedge funds and private equity firms buying blocks of single‑family homes can drive up prices, displace potential owner‑occupants and sometimes operate rental portfolios with reduced property maintenance. Opponents warned the bill’s definitions and tax mechanics could sweep in small developers or shift costs to sellers and renters.

Supporters and testimony: A representative of the Public Justice Center, speaking in favor, described patterns seen among Baltimore tenants — rising rents and more difficulty saving to buy — and cited research showing investor‑owned properties were more likely to face eviction filings and housing‑condition complaints. Mayor Cross (virtual; Glen Arden) and other municipal testimonies remarked the problem is not limited to Baltimore City and urged support.

Opposition: Alex Andelsmann of the Maryland Building Industry Association and Lisa May of Maryland REALTORS testified in opposition. They argued the bill’s definition of "real‑estate enterprise" could unintentionally include small developers; the 30‑day purchase restriction would delay transactions and reduce competition; the mechanism to determine whether a buyer owns less than 3% of county housing is not specified; and a transfer tax rise to 15% (the sponsor framed the rate as applying to investor entities) could be passed through to consumers or force low offers with sellers absorbing the cost.

Committee questions and fiscal note: Committee members asked about projected revenue. Staff who drafted the fiscal note declined to estimate revenue potential, instead detailing implementation costs and calling potential revenue "not specified." The sponsor acknowledged the fiscal‑note writers were hesitant to speculate on total receipts.

Process status: Testimony concluded with the committee moving on to the next bill; no formal committee action or vote on SB 582 was recorded in the transcript.

Context and limits: The article reports statements made in the hearing and does not assert outcomes beyond what was presented. Specific eligibility thresholds, enforcement language and drafting details of the bill were discussed conceptually in testimony; those details would be determined by the bill text and potential amendments not detailed verbatim in the hearing transcript.

Ending: With both municipal officials and tenant advocates urging action and trade groups warning of unintended consequences, SB 582 drew a contested hearing but no recorded committee vote in the transcript.