Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Market Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears 'Buyers Before Billionaires' bill; debate centers on enforcement and coverage thresholds
Summary
House Bill 4128 would impose a 90‑day waiting period before the largest institutional investors can buy single‑family homes listed for sale; supporters said it protects first‑time buyers, while real estate trade groups warned a private right of action could create opportunistic lawsuits and the rental housing industry flagged definitional problems.
Supporters told the committee that House Bill 4128 — nicknamed the Buyers Before Billionaires Act — aims to prevent large institutional investors from outbidding Oregon families for for‑sale single‑family homes by imposing a 90‑day waiting period for covered entities and carving out exemptions for tenant‑occupied properties and homes already offered as rentals.
Representative Ben Bowman, the bill’s sponsor, described the measure as a narrow, preventive tool. “Oregonians should not be competing against Wall Street to buy a home,” Bowman said, explaining that the dash‑2 amendment adds a private right of action so consumers can enforce the rule if the Department of Justice lacks resources.
Co‑sponsor Representative Dacia Graber and Senator Courtney Naron Mislan urged support, with Graber describing personal experience of being priced out of homeownership and arguing the bill preserves opportunities for working families.
Opponents focused on the dash‑2 enforcement mechanism and on coverage thresholds. Jeremy Rogers of Oregon Realtors said the private right of action deputizes private parties to seek damages and could foster opportunistic litigation; he warned the amendment would require the DOJ to post investor names and addresses and could chill investment. “This is not the type of thing that should be enforced through a bounty hunter law,” Rogers said. Jonathan Clay of Multifamily NW said the dash‑2’s definitions could capture smaller, local investors unintentionally and urged clarification of the covered‑entity thresholds and whether multiple affiliated LLCs could trigger coverage.
Committee members asked technical questions about how covered entities are defined (examples in testimony described thresholds such as ownership of 2,500+ single‑family residences or managing $1 billion+ in assets) and about the reach of a private right of action; sponsors said the bill targets the largest institutional actors and excludes small landlords, nonprofits and community land trusts. The committee closed the hearing without taking final action.
