Committee advances bill capping corporate ownership of single-family homes after tight votes on three amendments

The Housing Committee voted 9–8 on Feb. 24 to report Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5,496, a measure that limits homeownership by corporate or investment entities, advancing the bill to the next legislative stage after a contentious committee debate and three failed amendment attempts.

The bill as presented would treat certain investment entities as business entities subject to a 100-property limit for single-family residential properties in Washington State, clarify the application of that limit to properties owned in Washington, and create multiple narrowly defined exemptions (for example, noncontrolling interests, properties that were rentals for 12 months prior to acquisition, and properties listed for more than 180 days unless subject to a binding sales agreement). The bill text as discussed also requires that a judgment be final and nonappealable before civil penalties are assessed.

Ranking Member Lowe moved amendment Morey 364, a clarifying amendment addressing the investment-entity definition and exemptions. The committee rejected that amendment on a voice vote. Representative Engel then moved amendment Voss 265, which would have set an adjusted cap equal to the number of single-family residences a business already owned on the bill’s effective date—allowing large providers to continue tenant-to-homeownership programs without shrinking local stock. Representative Thomas opposed Voss 265, saying establishing and funding a registry to implement such an adjustment would be expensive; the amendment was not adopted. Representative Connors moved Morey 366 to narrow the statutory definition of single-family residential property to freestanding homes only; Representative Thomas again raised concerns about ambiguity around accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and the amendment failed.

Opponents argued the bill could make it harder for private providers to offer rental housing and suggested it might reduce sellers’ opportunities and market liquidity. Representative Dufo raised a constitutional objection, saying the bill may violate Article I, Section 12 of the Washington State Constitution by improperly granting or denying privileges to a class of entities; that claim was not resolved in committee. Supporters said the measure is a preventive step to keep a robust market for family homeownership and to guard against outsized institutional purchasing that can reduce first‑time-buyers’ access.

The clerk recorded the roll call with the following votes: Peterson, Hill, Entenmann, Gregerson, Licanoff, Reid, Thomas, Timmons and Zahn voting yes; Richards, Lowe, Jacobson, Manjaras, Barkis, Connors, Dufo and Engel voting no. The clerk announced a tally of 9 ayes and 8 nays and the bill was reported out of committee with a due-pass recommendation.

Committee members flagged implementation questions—including how exemptions would be tracked, whether a registry would be necessary to enforce adjusted caps, and how ADUs fit into the bill’s definition—and urged further work before the floor. The measure now moves forward to the next legislative step where those implementation issues may be addressed.