Single-family dwelling units: bundled sales.
The introduction of AB 1333 is expected to have significant implications for the state’s real estate market. By placing restrictions on the sale of single-family homes to institutional investors, the bill aims to preserve opportunities for individual buyers, particularly first-time homebuyers. This move is seen as a protective measure against the trend of big investors purchasing large quantities of residential properties, which can drive up market prices and limit availability for local families. Additionally, the bill establishes a means for enforcement through civil action brought by the Attorney General or district attorneys, who can impose penalties for violations.
Assembly Bill 1333, introduced by Assembly Member Ward, addresses the sale of single-family dwelling units in California, specifically focusing on bundled sales. The bill seeks to prohibit developers from conducting bundled sales of residential properties—selling two or more units in a single transaction to institutional investors—if certain conditions are met. These regulations aim to ensure that residential properties are not sold en masse to large investment entities, which may limit access for individual homebuyers and exacerbate housing shortages. The bill is set to take effect for contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2025.
The sentiment around AB 1333 is generally supportive among housing advocates and individuals concerned about the impact of institutional investment on the housing market. Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary step toward maintaining housing accessibility and preventing the commodification of personal residences. However, there is some contention regarding the implications for developers, who may see this as an infringement on their business practices. Opponents suggest that such restrictions could complicate the housing market further and may deter investment in home building.
Notable points of contention regarding AB 1333 include concerns about the balance between protecting homeowners and preserving a free market for real estate development. Critics argue that overly restrictive measures could hinder the ability for developers to respond to market demands efficiently. Furthermore, the requirement for developers to secure affidavits from buyers to certify they are not institutional investors raises questions about the feasibility and enforcement of such provisions. The tension between promoting homeownership opportunities and allowing market fluidity remains a focal point of discussions surrounding the bill.