Krasnow introduces bill to curb institutional buying of single‑family homes and alter tax rules
Loading...
Summary
Representative Emily Krasnow introduced H607 to impose a 90‑day waiting period on institutional purchases of listed single‑ and two‑family homes and to remove certain depreciation and interest tax deductions for covered properties, aiming to keep homes affordable for local buyers; committee members asked about definitions, data gaps and potential loopholes.
Representative Emily Krasnow introduced H607 on Jan. 14, a bill she described as “grounded in a simple but urgent principle: Home should first and foremost be homes, not financial instruments.” The measure would impose a 90‑day waiting period after a property is publicly listed before large institutional real‑estate investors could purchase single‑ or two‑family homes, and would eliminate depreciation and interest deductions for covered properties held by those investors, with exemptions for sales to owner‑occupants and nonprofit affordable‑housing providers.
Krasnow told the House General & Housing Committee the bill is meant to preserve opportunities for first‑time buyers, working families and local residents to compete before well‑capitalized institutional buyers step in. She said the tax changes are designed to align incentives so it is not more profitable to hold homes as long‑term rental assets than to sell them to families. Krasnow said the proposal is modeled after a New York law and broader national efforts but tailored to Vermont’s scale and legal framework.
Committee members pressed for details. Several asked whether the waiting period applies only to publicly listed sales or also to direct negotiations between owners and investors; Krasnow acknowledged potential loopholes (private, off‑market sales) and said the bill’s definition section will be critical and could be tightened in committee. Members also asked how the bill would determine which entities count as “institutional investors” and whether Vermont has data on the scope of institutional ownership locally. Krasnow said Vermont lacks finely tuned state data on the specific entities covered by the proposal and that she will bring in state data analysts and municipal testimony if the committee takes the bill up.
Speakers also raised concerns about manufactured and mobile‑home communities, where homeowners sometimes face financial and financing barriers even when state law affords a right of first refusal for park purchasers. One member recounted a local case in St. Johnsbury where new ownership neglected building maintenance after purchase, underscoring committee interest in concrete examples in testimony.
Krasnow said the bill does not ban institutional investment outright, and it preserves nonprofit and owner‑occupant transactions. She asked the committee to treat H607 as a conversation starter and indicated she is open to refining definitions and carve‑outs in consultation with commerce and finance stakeholders. The committee did not vote; Krasnow and members discussed possible joint hearings with the Commerce Committee and potential testimony from the Department of Financial Regulation and municipal housing officials.
Next steps: Krasnow said she would work with committee staff, data analysts and stakeholders to refine definitions and present supporting evidence if the committee takes up the bill for hearings.
