Committee adopts amendment to limit private-equity purchases and cap corporate ownership of single-family homes
Loading...
Summary
Members debated House File 2687, which the committee amended to bar private equity from buying single-family homes and to cap corporate/partnership ownership at 50 single-family homes with enforcement through the attorney general; the DE was adopted and the bill was laid over for further hearings.
The House Finance and Policy Committee took up House File 2687, a bill intended to limit large-scale corporate ownership of single-family homes. The committee adopted a DE amendment that, according to the author, "limits private equity companies from buying single-family homes completely" and caps corporations and partnerships from owning more than 50 single-family homes, with enforcement to be handled through the attorney general's office.
Representative Araceli Baje, the bill author, said the narrowed measure is targeted at the "largest of the large" actors in the single-family market and described it as a first step to return owner-occupancy to working Minnesotans. "Homeownership in Minnesota is something that continues to be out of reach for people of color and working Minnesotans," she said, arguing corporate ownership is one factor pushing prospective buyers out of neighborhoods.
Testimony included research and resident accounts. Ellen Saleh, president of the Family Housing Fund, summarized data showing portfolio-size effects on renter experience and said large owners (more than 20 units) are associated with worse outcomes; the DE focuses on investor owners of more than 50 units, she said. Paul Edgar of the Minnesota Realtors warned that market prohibitions can produce unintended consequences, pointing to market cycles and situations where investor purchasers enable timely sales and rehabilitation.
A virtual witness, Rachel Jones of Minneapolis, gave a personal account of renting from HavenBrook and described repeated habitability failures, including a flooded basement that remained for days and management reticence; Jones urged the committee to consider the human impact of corporate ownership.
Members pressed the author for details about enforcement and remedies. Representative Nash asked whether the attorney general could be empowered to force divestiture; Representative Baje said the DE is forward-looking and that remedies would be shaped in subsequent committee stops, noting previous drafts included more prescriptive divestiture language. The author also confirmed the bill's effective date is set for Aug. 1, 2026, and that the current language would not apply retroactively to holdings acquired before that date.
The committee laid HF 2687 over for further consideration and indicated its path would include Judiciary (and possibly Commerce) as it is refined.
