Bill to create corporate homeowner registry draws mixed testimony; implementation costs flagged

Senate Bill 5580 would create a corporate homeowner registration program in the Office of the Secretary of State, requiring entities that own 20 or more single-family homes or condominium units to register and report ownership and contact details. The bill also sets up a Corporate Homeowner Transparency Account to fund administration and allows the Secretary of State to set a registration fee by rule.

Sponsor testimony (Senator Orwall) said the measure seeks "adding transparency and gathering information around corporate ownership of single family homes" and framed the policy as a way to protect homeownership opportunities and understand investment impacts. The sponsor cited research showing corporate buyers accounted for a rising share of purchases in recent years and said the bill’s 20-unit threshold could be adjusted in stakeholdering.

Witnesses supporting the bill included condo and HOA advocates who linked registration to foreclosure prevention and community protection, and national researchers who described structural challenges in tracking private-equity ownership through LLCs and shell companies. Jordan Ash of the Fair Housing Equity Stakeholder Project urged the registry, describing how private equity owners often use many LLCs, which can obscure patterns of conduct and complicate enforcement.

Opponents included the Building Industry Association of Washington and Washington Realtors, which said the registry alone might not prevent investor activity they characterize as creating "artificial scarcity" and preferred approaches that directly limit purchases by large investors. The Office of the Secretary of State signed in as "other" and warned that the bill would create a new book of business requiring substantial systems work; the office estimated approximately $2.2 million per year in system modernization costs over two years to implement the registry, and said it has no independent enforcement authority to compel registration beyond annual renewal notices.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about whether existing research centers could fulfill components of this work and about intended uses of the registry. The vice chair reported five pro, 19 con, and two other sign-ins for the bill’s hearing.