Arkansas 2025 Regular Session

Arkansas Senate Bill SB91

Introduced
1/23/25  
Refer
1/23/25  
Refer
2/17/25  
Report Pass
2/27/25  
Engrossed
3/4/25  
Refer
3/4/25  
Report Pass
3/19/25  
Enrolled
4/1/25  
Chaptered
4/7/25  

Caption

To Provide That Local Governmental Units Shall Have No Authority To Regulate Or Control The Amount Charged For A Rental Application Fee Or Rental Deposit For Private Residential Or Commercial Property.

Impact

The implications of SB91 are significant in terms of local governance and property management. It establishes a clear preemption against local ordinances that would otherwise restrict the amounts charged for rental applications and deposits. As such, it affects landlords, property owners, property managers, tenants, and real estate companies operating within Arkansas. The bill permits local governments to continue managing their properties but restricts their authority to impose additional regulations on rental pricing, thereby centralizing control at the state level.

Summary

Senate Bill 91 aims to prevent local governmental units in Arkansas from regulating or controlling the amount charged for rental application fees and rental deposits on private residential and commercial properties. By amending existing laws, this bill establishes a statewide standard that effectively limits local authorities' ability to impose restrictions on these fees, promoting a more uniform approach across the state. This change is positioned to simplify rental processes for landlords and property managers while offering a clearer financial framework for tenants and prospective renters.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SB91 appears to be mixed. Supporters argue that the bill promotes greater market consistency, removes bureaucratic hurdles for landlords, and encourages a business-friendly environment that may stimulate property investment and development. Conversely, opponents of the bill express concerns that it undermines local autonomy and the ability of municipalities to address specific housing market issues that may arise in their areas. This division is reflective of broader tensions between state authority and local control in policymaking.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the potential negative impact on renters who may find themselves subject to the unregulated market dynamics, leading to higher costs without any local protective measures. Critics argue that without the ability to regulate these fees, local governments cannot effectively respond to the unique economic pressures facing their communities, particularly in areas with high demand for rentals. The bill's passage suggests a shift toward a more laissez-faire approach to rental pricing, which could exacerbate affordability issues for certain groups.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB1317

Asset forfeiture: human trafficking.

TX SB360

Relating to regulatory takings.

TX SB1201

Relating to regulatory takings.

MI HB4121

Property tax: other; locally adopted cap on a local unit's own authority to levy a property tax millage; prohibit. Amends 1893 PA 206 (MCL 211.1 - 211.155) by adding sec. 34f.

IN SB0354

Search and seizure.

AR HB1754

To Create The Private Property Protection Act; And To Prohibit Certain Property Use Restrictions By Governmental Entities.

MT SB117

Revise government entity limitations on property tax increases

TX HB402

Relating to the use of eminent domain authority.