Committee hears bill to exempt public and conservation buyers from 'we-buy' real-estate rules
Loading...
Summary
Senate committee heard House Bill 2624 to expand an exemption for public entities, Indian tribes and nonprofit nature‑conservancy corporations from the state’s solicited-real-estate protections; sponsors say conservation purchases have longer timelines and special appraisal needs; small‑forest landowner groups warned of possible predatory outcomes if outreach is incomplete.
The Senate Business, Trade and Economic Development Committee on Feb. 18 heard House Bill 2624, a measure to expand an existing exemption in the state’s solicited‑real‑estate transaction law so that any public entity, an Indian tribe or a nonprofit nature‑conservancy corporation may solicit and acquire unlisted property without triggering certain owner protections.
Committee staff told members the current law gives solicited property owners rights including an appraisal, notice of the appraisal and the ability to cancel certain purchase contracts without penalty; the statute already exempts transactions when a buyer or seller is represented by a licensed real‑estate agent and when a public entity acquires property for transportation purposes. "This bill expands that public entity exemption," staff said.
Representative Brandy Donaghy, the bill’s prime sponsor, said conservation and tribal acquisitions generally use a different, lengthier purchasing process and specialized appraisers that can greatly increase transaction time and cost. "With nature conservancies and such, they go through a completely different purchasing process...appraisers have to use a special type of certified appraiser," Donaghy said, adding such appraisals can cost "up to around $15,000."
Opponents told the committee they were not consulted and raised consumer‑protection concerns. Elaine O’Neil of the Washington Farm Forestry Association said small forest landowners often receive unsolicited offers and feared the exemption could create a loophole that would allow organizations to buy land from vulnerable sellers at below‑market prices. "We regularly receive unsolicited offers...and we hear horror stories when people finally realize they've been taken to the cleaners," O’Neil said.
Bill Clark of Trust for Public Land, which supports the legislation, disputed that characterization and said the conservation purchases the organization handles are lengthy, public and often subject to additional appraisal and agency approvals. "The transactions we do occur over a number of months...they already have existing appraisal requirements," Clark said, urging the committee to distinguish conservation practice from predatory 'we buy' business models.
The bill passed the House 57–38 and proponents said there is no appropriation associated with the measure. Committee members discussed the differing perspectives and the potential for stakeholder dialogue; no committee vote was recorded during the hearing.
What happens next: the committee completed public testimony on the bill and did not take a committee vote during the session. Further stakeholdering between conservation organizations and small‑forest landowner representatives was suggested.
