HB 4128
Prohibits covered entities from purchasing, acquiring or offering to purchase or acquire a single-family residence unless the residence has been listed for sale to the general public for at least 90 days.
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Sign in to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Sign in to take actionPublic sentiment
Support
81%
Oppose
19%
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
This bill aims to prevent large entities, such as real estate investors, from quickly purchasing single-family homes in Oregon. It requires these entities to wait at least 90 days after a property is listed for sale to the public before making an offer. The bill also mandates that these entities provide notice to the seller and the Department of Justice, allowing for potential enforcement actions and penalties for non-compliance.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
Primary sponsors
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
Testifiers generally support HB 4128 as a measure to promote fair access to homeownership in Oregon's housing market. They argue that large corporations and private equity investors are profiting at the expense of individuals, driving up prices, and pushing out working families. The proposed 90-day waiting period would allow single-family homes to be made available to the general public before being sold to institutional buyers, thereby promoting access to homeownership for low- and moderate-income families, as well as first-time buyers in communities of color. By restricting large-scale private equity investors from buying homes before Oregon residents can compete, proponents believe this legislation aims to level the playing field and address housing affordability concerns, particularly in districts where median home values are high and household incomes are low.
Source: Testimony Summaries
Arguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
Opponents of the bill express concerns about its potential impact on smaller housing providers, citing the need for clarification in the definition of covered entities. They argue that the current language could unfairly target and burden smaller multifamily properties, potentially leading to unintended consequences and increased regulatory burdens. Furthermore, opponents believe the bill's provisions would infringe on personal freedom and property rights, setting a precedent for further government intervention in private sector matters.
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.