The federal government should imminent domain all residential rentals across the nation. Pay the current landlords a fair price and then take over the units to cut the greedy landlords out of the equation. Then the Govt can ensure that those most deserving get the affordable housing close to where they work and family. It would stop all evictions and everyone would have a safe place to live. Just my 2 cents.
so take the property give it to those who cannot afford or has bad credit a house? how long do you think the new owner will be able to afford taxes insurance and upkeep? they cant pay it the house goes into foreclosure and by the time it is back on the market it will be in bad shape. there is a reason some people with low credit scores must rent. imminent domain is for public use not private use. I am all for people having housing. low income should be able to have a place, but government is the problem not the solution.
@@rosesmith6208 The Government [HUD] would own the property, maintain it and it would be exempt from any property taxes. They could rent it out to whoever was most deserving of the property on a sliding scale based on income. That way blue collar and service workers could afford to live in the cities where they work. Its not fair that a Barista or Retail worker has to commute 2 hrs each way to get to work while finding affordable housing in the outskirts. Government actually provides solutions to most social problems.
For one landlords don't owe nobody a place to live. And landlords are not greedy. If you feel that way toward landlords you don't need to rent from anybody. I hope you own your own home.
@@ShonTolliverMusic They push out the small landlords so that the only game in town are the huge corporations. You know, the one's that own the politicians making the laws.
I have never sold a property with a tenant living there. So, it has almost no affect on anyone. In 99% of cases, you have the tenant move out after the end of the lease, fix up the property and list it for sale.
@@check-yoo-self-l8y Oh yes. This is standard. A landlord can sell a house at any time, even if there are tenants inside. Many purchasers do not want to deal with somebody else's tenants, so they get rid of them before they sell.
That law has been in effect in Washington DC for about over forty years. In DC it is called Right of First Refusal. It hasn't caused any negative effects on their market. If the owner decides to sell the tenant is given the first opportunity to buy. They would do the same as a random customer. Try to negotiate the price or accept the price asked or declines to purchase. The tenant is notified in writing and told based upon law that they have a certain time period to respond.
@@johnniebeavers4003 When you want to sell a house, the main reason is usually to make money. And it doesn't matter if its the Smiths, Jones or Gonzalez that pays the asking price. But no you dont have to wait for the current tenants to make an offer (imo), but as a courtesy inform them that you are selling. Then they can make an offer or move :P
@@dennisoestermann1880 If you're selling the house and can get the asking price from the current tenant you sell to them. Reason: putting a house on market costs money.
As long as the owner is not required to sell the house to the tenant at a lower price. I don’t have a problem with that. I have one exception: when an owner has a tenant but would rather sell to a family member after the tenant’s lease is up in order to keep the property in the family. I am against the government interfering with that.
This law makes no sense. If tenants could afford to buy, they wouldn't be tenants. And when a property is listed, they have just as much chance to put an offer in on it as anybody. All this will do is slow the sales process to a slower crawl then it already is, cost owners lost opportunity from actual buyers who can buy the property, and possibly have tenants use it to stall sales while they continue to rent. Besides, all new sales still have to abide by the leases in force anyway. Another law for a problem that doesn't exist.
Every law does not make sense for everyone. Every tenant is not an HCV participant who cannot afford to buy a home. In those cases, the rent they can afford to pay is equivalent to the mortgage they can afford to pay. They are are simply not motivated, financially savvy or confident enough to pursue homeownership.
The tennants have the ability as much as anyone else to buy the property. Why do they need first refusal other than to try to mess up any deal their landlord is trying to make?
The law is to allow a tenant to purchase the house they live in if it goes up for sale. Nothing more or nothing less. They get no special price or anything else! What's the problem?
Because historically certain landlords would exclude their certain tenants from buying even though said tenant could afford the home. It would then push those certain people out and create a de facto land covenant whereby which only certain people could live in certain areas.
Thank you for this information. Our government does help banks when they go into default in your opinion do you think the government would take over the properties as a social project and give them to the illegal immigrants?
@@patriciaannfoy5476 Banks don’t decide who is buying a property. If the property is underwater with the mortgage the bank can allow a short sale but is not obligated to do so. The only thing a bank decides is what the obligations of the seller are, if there is a mortgage and what they are willing to lend to the buyer for the purchase of the property.
@@patriciaannfoy5476 Not happening, since Covid government has been doing more to harm property owners than help them and the government does not care if the properties are sold at discount prices to big money donors to the Democratic Party including Chinese companies.
I lived in Baltimore City over 20 years ago and this was the law then, this is nothing new. The landlord had to offer to sell it to the tenant and they had the right of first refusal. A landlord doesn't care who they sell it to. What seller really cares about who they are selling it to? Most people who are renting can't afford the property anyway.
Agreed, but if I have been paying rent for 14 years, I have technically brought the house almost twice, the landlord, having made 3 times his investment should be willing to sell to his tenant as handing down the baton to contribute to homeownership. But to displace someone who has rented from you for over a decade is petty and selfish, And it shouldn’t go on credit rating because paying rent for all those years should vouch as credit worthy.
If their credit is poor the whole deal could take up time just to have the loan denied, while the landlord loses good prospects. The tenants need to be preapproved for a loan before a contract is ratified.
@@johnniebeavers4003 well then do not do business in Maryland, but laws like this spread like a virus. You still haven’t addressed any issues that rise to any valid unconstitutional practice. No one has here.
@@stevengoldstein114 I want because I live in the red states. Lucky where I live we don't have this problems. and the reason I say these things I hope most of this stuff is made up. I have never been to Maryland. But if I did decide to sell my rentals property. I would not just make my tenants move without a place to live. I would ask them first if they wanted to buy the place before I put it up for sell. I have good tenants that do pay their rent. I'm not a monster. and I don't believe all these story's I hear on RUclips.
@@johnniebeavers4003 Doesn't matter what state you live in, or do business, you still haven't provided the constitutional basis for your comment. Since the passage of the 14th amendment. And the story you wrote has no means to verify it.
I don’t live in MD, and my personal opinion is that housing should not be used as a business to make others money. Why are we seeing so many corp landlords like BR that raise the rent to the max every year to get returns for investors. That is why these laws are popping up, tenants are being bled dry financially and will never have a chance to own.
I got my start in Maryland in the landlord business. I live in another state now but was a landlord here and with all the new laws, glad I got out. Remember when they tried to bring in rent control where I had property and smart landlords had to preempt the new law, me I evicted all tenants on paper by not renewing leases, then signed new leases at a much higher price but with a temporary discount. All that effort for something that didn't pass at that time, what a head ach.
Landlords will not only retaliate if a tenant wants the first right of refusal, they will increase the rent substantially force the tenant out and then sell the property to whoever they want.
Its because landlords when they buy their property and rent them out its a business. I think the best thing for landlords to do is just sell or leave them empty. People that gripe about landlord has proved they can buy their own place to live. I think everybody that grips about landlords should buy their own place and see how much it coast to keep a place up. Sometimes they grip about having to wait on the heating and air when the landlord has to wait also to get it fixes. Heating and air people when they get called to fix a unit they have to take the orders in order they are received. Just because somebody is a landlord they are not their only customers. A landlord when they are called to fix something they have to have time to fix things. If they have to order a part or buy a part or even have to call a repair man to fix things sometimes they landlord has to wait till who ever they call to fix things.
This will hurt your chances of selling the house in a good condition (if you have petty tenants) bc if THEY couldn't afford or qualify to buy it, why should they make it easy for anyone else? This law just adds to the stress of your tenant moving & you selling.
I don't see A problem with that. Let the tenants who live there have first shot at buying it first. If they can't afford it than the next person who can buy it will buy it instead.
There should be a strict time limit for right of first refusal, probably a day or two. After that, it's bidding and listing as usual. However, it's a bad law, because tenants will use it to prevent or hold up the sale in one way or another. Tenants already have the right to bid on the property. No new law is needed.
Arent there real estate laws that forbid a seller to pick and choose who they sell to? Think secregation. When i sold my rental, the tenant wanted to buy ..and did. Win win
There's an article in money wise from yesterday about a Louisville Kentucky man who led his friends stay in the garage overnight and now they're claiming squatter rights and have a restraining order so he can't even stay in his own home. The man's name is Daniel toma.
I’m a landlord, I’ll decide when I sell my property and to whom. Just because I rent my property to someone doesn’t entitle them to purchase my house if I want to sell it. Being a landlord is a business not a charity. I own houses, not apartments for a reason. This makes little sense, it is turning an apartment complex into individually owned apartments. Who would manage the common property. Chaos.
@@stevengoldstein114 no -you’re rights don’t die. There are ways around this unfair law. Sell it to relative get the person that’s in there out and then the relative sells it back to you and you can sell your property to whoever you want.
First right of refusal was used by me to buy my first property in Washington, D.C. in the 1980's. The landlord and the tenants of the 13-unit apartment building were thrilled. It's a good thing.
This law will allow renters to make a business out of getting a low price for a property with first refusal, then selling it on, on thee open market, more than likely at a profit, without any of the restrictions that the landlord had, and then moving on to the next property as a renter and do the same thing over and over again. WITHOUT RESTRICTION
Most properties in the DC area are sold for more than the asking price, sometimes $50,000 over the asking price. This law would allow tenants to steal from landlords.
Wait you didn't read the news from Redfin Washington, DC Housing Market Trends ; What is the housing market like in Washington, DC today? In August 2024, Washington, DC home prices were down 1.2% compared to last year, selling for a median price of $618K. On average, homes in Washington, DC sell after 55 days on the market compared to 49 days last year. There were 465 homes sold in August this year, down from 663 last year. and the news from Urban Turf " The 10-Year Trajectory of DC-Area Home Prices in 4 Charts; February 16th" "Home prices in the DC area peaked at a record of $600,000 in the spring of last year before dropping in the last two quarters as homebuyer demand fell. Despite the drop, the median home price of $562,750 in the area at the end of 2023 represented a 40% increase compared to 2014 when the median home price in the region was $403,000. "
@@carlknibbs2849 They don't get sold then, because no one will pay for it. Haven't you seen the data from Maryland Department of Assessment and Taxation? in 2020 there were 65,417. 2021 it was 89,340,. In 2022 the peak it was 92,241. In 2023 it was 63,572 and the current year reports 39,062. Which means there were less sold by 40% then prior to the pandemic. This is in no way going to keep the market afloat. Even if listed prices are higher, you don't get them sold.
This is a brilliant idea. I was a renter when I was looking to buy a home. Before I left the owner said he was selling the house. I told him if he had told me I would have bough the house. Would have saved us both time and money. The landlord can put the house up for sale and when he gets an offer he can then go to the tenant and ask if he can match or beat the price. Offering to sell to someone first does not mean for less.
That's exactly what happened in California here with my son's home after dealing with deadbeat and destructive tenants. He listed it and a " bidding war" developed, ended up getting $40,000. over the asking price. A large and very nice family pooled their resources to buy it. One less rental on the market!
i've been thinking about getting out of the landlord business and if I do, I'll certainly give the existing tenants an opportunity to buy the house they're living in. However, there's no moral justification for this law. It is the landlord's property, he should be able to dispose of it how he sees fit. Plus I suspect only 5% of my tenants would be able to afford it (and even fewer would be able to maintain and keep it up after they bought it). Plus this just gives a malicious tenant yet another way to harass the landlord. It basically guarantees anyone thinking about selling their properties will not renew the lease and let it sit empty long enough to get around any claims. Thus reducing the number of properties available and driving the cost of housing up even further.
You already cleared up the issue! Most tenants, if not all, will not be able to purchase the property. If y'all would just stop and understand the intent of the law maybe you would stop making up stuff. The law simply is trying to give folk the opportunity to purchase the house where they live when it goes up for sale! Seller list for whatever they want! Tenant has to show ability to purchase in short order. Nothing more...nothing less! Some of you sound evil...not necessary!
Other comments: in situations like this where the ability to remove a tenant or have only one month security deposit, the landlord will get even stricter in their screening services. They may even charge less rent for a highly qualified tenant just to have less hassle. So, those with less than stellar credit and personal histories may find themselves homeless. Wow, that law REALLY benefits tenants, doesn't it?
There is a “supply” issue in the housing market; they *are* making residential property a bad investment so landlords will sell the houses, increasing the supply, which will force the prices of houses down. That’s pretty much the end goal I predict.
Here's how this will work if the tenant has the right of first refusal: -Buyers' agents will avoid showing rented properties to their buyers, because they know that this law will get in the way of a potential sale. Neither agent nor buyer will want to engage in the negotiation and work necessary to close a deal with this hanging over their heads.
@stevengoldstein114 you misunderstand how the real world works, government has screwed up zoning so bad that a fraction of houses that are needed are built and are not affordable for most people. The government federal and state and local have screwed up so bad for so long it will take decades to recover
@@jonathanjones3126 Really? The fact was that the Reagan Admin sold privatization as a means to make housing cheaper, and as we all know the so called "supply side" economics intentionally underproduces in order to make the existing stock more valuable. And remember the DOJ has a case against landlords under RealPage?
@stevengoldstein114 your silly, government regulations, permits, impact fees more and more and more. Plus labor and materials has made housing extremely expensive. A good portion of the extra costs are just to increase goverment employee wages
@@jonathanjones3126 Again what does this have to do with the price of Tea in China? The reality was the Reagan Admin scammed the public. The private sector is supposed to kill off inefficient competitors, and this is the problem with Mom and Pops. They are not efficient, and keep on demanding they get special privilege's in the market. Thus it is time for the correction to hit and hit HARD.
Maryland is passing a lot of nonsensical laws recently. This is far from the worst of it. It was a really nice state but I fear what it’s going to look like in 15-20 years.
They are talking about state law. Presidents have no control over state law. You might want to educate yourself on the "separation of powers" between state and federal governments. Perhaps a middle schooler who is taking a civics class can assist in your understanding.
@@nateh3441However a federal law establishing every renters rights in a uniform process will not be challenged based on any constitutional basis. And you know that too.
This is a scaled-down version of the DC TOPA Law. Basically you just simply have to ask your tenant if they'd like to buy the house first, at fair market value. They have to get pre-qualified just like everybody else and if they can't qualify then you move on to the next person. Asking if they'd like to buy it gives them notice and keep it pushing to the next person or sell it on market.
I think it is one thing to require meaningful notice, so they can submit an offer, but I think it goes wrong when you get into dictating the terms e.g. price, time to close, financing, inspections, allowing public offers, etc. I just got done with a house buy process, and everyone focuses on price. However, there were a couple houses we submitted offers higher than the end sale price, so the other terms matter as well.
@@sylviagoodman6008 , if you have exact details of the first right of refusal please share, I have only been able to find rough details about a 30 day notice were tenant can submit offer prior to it being opened to the public. If this is indeed correct, the whole not having it open to the public is one of the items I listed. Also, if I was the owner of a property in Maryland subject to this, I would counter any offer considerably higher than the comps given the closed nature of the negotiation process, which drives prices up.
If the landlord wants to sell the property for a certain amount, who cares who purchases the property? Also, if corporate companies are buying up personal property and only selling it to other rental owners and that lowers the supply.
Lets do a market cap test of Maryland regarding sales of homes and median prices, in 2020 reporting 2019 sales it was 65417 sales and the median price was $300,000 a total values of $19,625,100,000.00 in 2024 it was reporting 39062 sales and the median price was $430,000 a total values of $16,796,660,000.00 and if you compare them the Market Cap of Maryland lost 14.5% or a total of $2,828,440,000.00 . You really think that is good market statistics?
This will go to court and be overturned at the higher levels. The main reason it was created was to create a new state agency for enforcement and compliance!
One made the crazy theory, list your prices $50,000 higher than the price you are willing to sell for. This is crazy talk when the market in Maryland is tanking look at the data right here No one will pay for it. Haven't you seen the data from Maryland Department of Assessment and Taxation? in 2020 there were 65,417. 2021 it was 89,340,. In 2022 the peak it was 92,241. In 2023 it was 63,572 and the current year reports 39,062. Which means there were less sold by 40% then prior to the pandemic. This is in no way going to keep the market afloat. Even if listed prices are higher, you don't get them sold.
Wrong, the *inventory* of homes for sale is down. According to the Maryland Board of Realtors, the average residential property that hits the market in 2024 is sold within *7 days*. It isn't that " no one is buying" it is that no one is selling. In other words, it's actually a seller's market.
@@californiadreamer2580 Show us proof, I was able to prove that not only is the market cap crashing because the total sales volume time the average price is so low. But even the news is indicating that realtors are having to go out of business. By the way there is no Maryland Board of Realtors it is a private trade group called the Maryland Association of Realtors And the so called Board of Realtors you are talking about is another Trade group not an agency of the State or Local Governments. Do you really think they would tell the public the truth?
I'm okay with it. Less corporate landlords. The property will be passed down to the beneficiary or the tenant can buy it and be an owner occupier. Developers can buy or build apartment complexes .
Im a landlord and an investor in CA. Im voting YES on everything AGAINST LANDLORDS. I want all the WRONG laws to pass. LET SEE WHAT THE TENANTS WILL ASK THEIR COMUNIST GOVERNMENT TO DO.
Vivillager made a crazy claim that the free market is doing very well for the real estate industry and he is a good used car sales professional. Actually the scary part is the market is going through a major downturn. Baton Rouge Business Report had the story "Slow US housing market has real estate agents leaving the field in droves" and the Washington Post reported "Real estate agents are fleeing the field. Is that good for homebuyers?" and also ABC News San Francisco reported "Biggest shakeup in a century set to hit real estate agents this week" Newsweek reported "Realtors 'Running Out of Money' as Housing Market Struggles" And being a Used Car Dealer? They do not have a good reputation especially when i bought a so called certified pre owned car a 2013 Focus with a known bad transmission, and it was not disclosed to me prior to purchase and the dealership knew because it bought it at auction from the original dealership that had to take it back .
If tenants can buy a house, they will eventually. Many renters rent until they can improve their credit or save up for a down payment or they might be trying out the area before they buy, etc. I’ve seen people who were turned down by the bank for $1,500/month mortgage payment (PITI) so they had to pay $2,000 in rent. (I don’t know the whole story, but that’s fouled up)
The tenant doesn’t have the “right” to buy at any price. They have the right to refuse an offer. This is to prevent the transfer of boomer wealth to anyone other than Wall Street.
I disagree with telling anyone what to do with their property, but I don't see the big issue here. How many renters will be able to buy a while multi-unit property? Not many at all.
Nothing here will hurt the landlord. They won't care who they sell to, as long as they pay the asking price. And because they are renters. They won't be able to buy anyway. Ignorance is not a good thing.
The landlord could get hosed if he has a cash buyer ready to transact, but the tenant needs to try to round up financing and ends up failing. Meanwhile the cash buyer goes elsewhere or interest rates jump and everybody decides to wait a while for a better investment climate. Or as someone elsewhere noted, the tenant could simply assert a desire to buy and then just drag their feet to gum up the works and extort concessions from the landlord in order to get the transaction completed.
@@cymeriandesigns Nope. The landlord can tell the tenant, but he does not have to put the house up for sale until he knows the tenant is qualified to buy or not. He would also have the tenant rental history, work history, credit report etc. So the seller would already know if they can afford to buy or not.
Land lords will have to make sure to have renters insurance and require the tenants to be in a credit building and saving plan, so the tenant could always be buyer ready.
As I have tried to point out, this law is simply constitutional and enforceable. Yes it will remove all competitive bidding on a property if the initial price listed is met by either a tenant or tenant group. The simple reality is that this law unless proven to be a taken by a court case is NOT a taking. And litigation has already established it is not a taking. The law clearly states "HB 693 stipulates that landlords must extend the opportunity to purchase rental properties to their tenants before they are listed on the open market. This entails presenting bona fide offers to tenants, enabling them to match the terms proposed by external buyers." The law also does "Establishing the Office of Tenant and Landlord Affairs in the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide certain educational resources and information to tenants; requiring the Office to develop and publish a Maryland Tenants' Bill of Rights; requiring the most recently published version of the Maryland Tenants' Bill of Rights to be included as part of a residential lease; limiting the maximum security deposit required by a residential lease to 1 month's rent, except under certain circumstances; etc." The law requires at least 30 days notice to the tenant or group of tenants. Maryland has a public mortgage program with the Department of Housing and Community Development. that tenants can access, along with others. To me it looks like the tenants can in effect stop the inflation of housing costs because of this law. So if any landlord attempts to list the property in any way prior to the laws requirements, it will be very painful.
If an asking price is met and the buyer is able to provide the funds, it doesn't matter who buys. First Right of Refusal is subject to meet that set price. Also, it could be a neighbor. Better yet if its a FSBO and the tenant is a repeat leaser (which means that he or she is a solid citizen for the community... if you as a landlord have done the due diligence)... then, is a direct sale! And you save on commissions that are not earned. I'm a landlord and real estate agent who manages properties for landlords... and believe me... the best possible buyers are the good tenants... but usually they don't save. If you don't want to sell to the tenant... wait for the lease to expire to market the property. Anyway, is best to show the property clean and free of humans to a prospective buyer. NOW, if the protectionist law restricts you in how to market, or what price to ask or who you accept money from for the purchase.... then...
I rented a place the owner decided to sell. He said this is the price do you want to purchase it? I said no. That was the end of that story. He sold it to someone else. There was no bidding war and all this other stuff you all are talking about.
Not sure about your interpretation. What us wrong with right of first refusal. It allows people to maintain their home. Why not sell it to people who've been there other than those who gentrify neighborhoods
The government doesn't want private property owners/tenants anyway. Big corporations can do as they wish!! They want all ownership to be either government, the mega wealthy or corporations. Normal hard working taxpayers aren't anyone they support having any financial security through property investment.
Maybe it has something to do with who the people in MD are voting for. It is interesting that these types of laws are going up in states with certain similarities.
Most small mom and pop offerings affordable housing their tenants probably can’t afford to buy. As long as it doesn’t interfere with family wealth which it doesn’t so it’s not a big issue. Prices can’t be inflated because all lending requires appraisals.
I'm sure this will not be a popular opinion but I like this idea. There are still places in America that certain races of people are good enough to rent in the community but they only allow a handful of them to buy so this helps eliminate this unfair practice.. however creative people will still find away to circumvent the law
@@stevengoldstein114 I don’t want anything in return. I’ve been buying properties for decades to someday give to my grandchildren- I already gave houses to my 3 sons. I a 70 year old grammy now so won’t be much longer. I wasn’t born rich. I had no dad and my mom was on welfare. I put myself through college working and going to school at the same time. I started buying houses when I was 19. I would buy the worst junkiest house and fix it up for a profit. I would take the profit and by the next house and make more money on that. It was fun. Things were different back then that’s almost impossible to do now yet. I did buy a house for $50,000 4 years ago and totally renovated it and now I’m renting it.
It's 5 minutes of hassle for the seller. Don't be doing shady sht and it won't matter who you sell it to. The only thing it might do is cause rents to go up, especially if the owner wants to sell. Month to month lease. Sorry, price is going up. Tenants can't pay , move, owner sells empty house.
@sylviagoodman6008 , just as i described. If the owner didn't want to sell to whomever was in the place they could just raise the rent and forcing the tenant out. Or, the tenant stays and pays higher rent. Rent goes up.
That's a really hard problem but for certain more housing needs to be built! There used to be projects for low income folk. I think that needs to come back for starters. Not really sure why that fell out of favor.
What are you talking about, Does the landlord worried about if the tenant or some random person buys the property if the tenant is buying it at the price. It might make for an easier sale don't have to get the tenant out. Inspections probably the tenant knows what issues there are and etc. And judging from the comments this isn't all that new and many contracts have right of first refusal. And no, it doesn't mean the owner can only sell to the tenant it only means they are offered the property first. And there is no force a bit of clickbait here.
They should’ve had this law when redlining was rampant. Yet they want to implement these restrictions to the state with the wealthiest Black community where they are flourishing the most. 🤨
This is a brilliant idea. I was a renter when I was looking to buy a home. Before I left, the owner said he was selling the house. I told him if he had told me I would have bough the house. Would have saved us both time and money. The landlord can put the house up for sale and when he gets an offer he can then go to the tenant and ask if he can match or beat the price. Offering to sell to someone first, does not mean for less.
@@ArabellaPottery The big question is would you have been the highest bidder, because the owner should be able to get the highest market value when he sells just as you would want when you sell.
@@charlesphilhower1452 I don't know. That's the point. I wasn't given the chance to bid. And what if I was the highest bidder he would have lost some money. I did pay $80,000 more than the sale price he got for the home I bought.
Tony needs to look at his market Haven't you seen the data from Redfin state of Nebraska sold from Aug 2020 to July 2021 there were 25,600. In 2022 it was 25,200, in 2023 it was 20,600 in 2024 it was 20,150 and the current year reports 39,062. Which means there were less sold by 22%. The market cap peaked in 2021 sales of 25,200 and an average price of $250,000 coming to $6,300,000,000.00 but last year the market cap was 20,150 in sales and an average price of $295,000 coming to $ $ 5,944,250,000.00 A market cap loss on 6 % in the state. There is no way the market in Nebraska is doing well
all of the complaining here is getting nowhere, the ridiculous use of this echo chamber of less than 20 k people is amazing. Just follow the law or provide a better solution. You have no solution you have nothing to complain about.
They're stealing from the property owners. A right of 1st refusal is a product that the property owner has a constitutional right to bring to market. The state or federal government has no right to abolish this constitutional right by forcing the property owner to hand it out for free anymore than they have the right to force the property owner to hand out the right to rent the property itself for free.
Based on what case law? or any constitutional basis? The 5th amendment only says the property cannot be taken by the state without just compensation. You are way out of line here. A private tenant or even a private tenant union is not the government.
@@stevengoldstein114 I think you answered your own question. Right of 1st refusal is a product that a property owner can sell. In this case the government took that right away without paying anything for it & gave it to the tenants for free. Just like choosing to rent property out in the 1st place is a right, by that logic the government can just take that away for free too?
@@ImThePronounPolice I think you missed the point. Right of 1st refusal itself is a product that you typically have to pay for. Just like rent, or rent to own, or purchase, etc. If the government comes in and says property owners have to hand out free rights of 1st refusal, then theoretically they can do that to anything property owners charge for. Be it rent, options to buy, or even selling the property.
Tenant has to match the price and terms. It really is irrelevant as most won’t have the deposit or ability to match. It is a give them an offer to match and then move on rather quickly.
This has been the law in Baltimore city for decades. I am a former landlord and it is a non issue. It only gives the tenant the option to purchase where they live when the property is being sold! Tenant gets no price breaks or extended time to qualify! Seller gets the highest bid and if the tenant can match that... then all is well! I truly don't understand all the crazy comments where folk clearly don't know what they are talking about!
Why do you care who buys it as long as you get your asking price? Additionally, just because they are the current tenant and get first dibs at purchasing said property doesn't mean a bank will approve lending them the money to purchase the property. That's the problem with America. Your attitude and concern sound like some racist bs. You'll rent to them, but not sell to them. Gtfoh!
The reason people are tenants and not owners is because they can't afford and/or qualify to buy! There is no other reason! I had a tenant ask me if they could buy it a while ago...I asked if he had $200,000 and his eyes got real big. I think he thought somehow I was just going to float the loan for him.
You are assuming they can't get credit , government grants and crowdfunding. Very poor thinking. Especially if Harris can pass federal grants to tenant buyers .
@@stevengoldstein114 I know they can't, I'm not assuming. If they could, why the fuck would they rent? I see how they make their payments every month, I know their credit score, where they work, and how much money they make. They would not be paying me so much if they could just buy a house. I don't think you understand what a grant is or how it works.
@@ryanroberts1104 there are many good reasons to rent rather than own. And you know it. That poor assumption is amazing. So maybe you need to address that first.
@@stevengoldstein114 Nope. They have to pay me 3x what it would cost to have a mortgage on the same thing. Unless they aren't qualified. Most tenants are not. There are no good reasons to pay 3x the cost of anything for anything.
@@ryanroberts1104 this is ridiculous, my hopes are this law spreads like a virus, and at the least covers half the country like some of the biggest markets, like Ca , NY, and so on. Either com0,y with the law or quit.
If you jack up the price to sell your property to your friend, the tax authorities will be using that figure to calculate the new assessed value for property taxes, so your friend will get screwed not just on the price but on taxes forever after.
@@ryanroberts1104it is presume to be in every state that the tax base is the sales price. And if you get the property reassessed downward and you change the official value, you better pay cash only, any lender will take the property if the value goes down.
@@stevengoldstein114 Totally wrong. Tax appraisals are always far less than the actual value of the house. Nothing goes on "sale price". Not a single state does this fucking dipshit! You clearly have never owned a home, never will, and have no job. You're just a pathetic drain on society that likes to make an idiot of himself.
@@ryanroberts1104 Because it is the truth, And you know it Look at the website Consumers Credit Union "6.3.24 How Property Taxes Change When A Home Is Sold" and it states clearly "When a home is sold, property taxes for the new homeowner are calculated in part based on the sales price. This is the formula: Property Taxes = Taxable Value / 1,000 x Your Local Millage Rate. This is so well known. You are being a fool to try to claim otherwise.
Listen, you're saying all of this but you haven't given me the specific details of the law to let me decide for myself who's benefiting and who's not. I am biased but I do have discernment to know when a law is bad or not and for what party or not.
@@ryanroberts1104 if you read (or heard from the video) the exclusions, properties placed in a trust or moved to an LLC are excluded from this mandate.
Everything is political to republicans! If you took the time to read the law, maybe you would make sensible remarks! Clearly, you don't have a clue about the law!
The federal government should imminent domain all residential rentals across the nation. Pay the current landlords a fair price and then take over the units to cut the greedy landlords out of the equation. Then the Govt can ensure that those most deserving get the affordable housing close to where they work and family. It would stop all evictions and everyone would have a safe place to live. Just my 2 cents.
Lol!!!!!
so take the property give it to those who cannot afford or has bad credit a house? how long do you think the new owner will be able to afford taxes insurance and upkeep? they cant pay it the house goes into foreclosure and by the time it is back on the market it will be in bad shape. there is a reason some people with low credit scores must rent. imminent domain is for public use not private use. I am all for people having housing. low income should be able to have a place, but government is the problem not the solution.
@@rosesmith6208 The Government [HUD] would own the property, maintain it and it would be exempt from any property taxes. They could rent it out to whoever was most deserving of the property on a sliding scale based on income. That way blue collar and service workers could afford to live in the cities where they work. Its not fair that a Barista or Retail worker has to commute 2 hrs each way to get to work while finding affordable housing in the outskirts. Government actually provides solutions to most social problems.
Please step away from the crack pipe!
For one landlords don't owe nobody a place to live. And landlords are not greedy. If you feel that way toward landlords you don't need to rent from anybody. I hope you own your own home.
The law is not for the tenant's benefit. This is a land grab. It is a roundabout way to transfer property to the 1%.
Bingo.
How?
@@ShonTolliverMusic They push out the small landlords so that the only game in town are the huge corporations. You know, the one's that own the politicians making the laws.
@@mrwonkwonk Bullshit.
Exactly, 😅
I have never sold a property with a tenant living there. So, it has almost no affect on anyone. In 99% of cases, you have the tenant move out after the end of the lease, fix up the property and list it for sale.
It just shows how stupid the people making laws and voting are. They have no idea what reality is.
Not anymore... they dont have it on paper like that.. saying that they can sell property with people in it..
@@check-yoo-self-l8y Oh yes. This is standard. A landlord can sell a house at any time, even if there are tenants inside. Many purchasers do not want to deal with somebody else's tenants, so they get rid of them before they sell.
That law has been in effect in Washington DC for about over forty years. In DC it is called Right of First Refusal. It hasn't caused any negative effects on their market. If the owner decides to sell the tenant is given the first opportunity to buy. They would do the same as a random customer. Try to negotiate the price or accept the price asked or declines to purchase. The tenant is notified in writing and told based upon law that they have a certain time period to respond.
It happened to me. Sold it then the jacked up the rent from 595 to 1200 for a 1 bedroom in the hood.
I dont mind giving the tenants the possibility to buy the house, but as the owner you still decide the asking prices.
That is a wonderful idea. Being a landlord nobody wants anybody to be homeless.
@@johnniebeavers4003 When you want to sell a house, the main reason is usually to make money. And it doesn't matter if its the Smiths, Jones or Gonzalez that pays the asking price.
But no you dont have to wait for the current tenants to make an offer (imo), but as a courtesy inform them that you are selling. Then they can make an offer or move :P
Yeah, I don't really care, the price is the price no matter who you are. But we don't need silly shit like this on the books...
But you know that the state won’t allow market prices.
@@dennisoestermann1880 If you're selling the house and can get the asking price from the current tenant you sell to them. Reason: putting a house on market costs money.
As long as the owner is not required to sell the house to the tenant at a lower price. I don’t have a problem with that. I have one exception: when an owner has a tenant but would rather sell to a family member after the tenant’s lease is up in order to keep the property in the family. I am against the government interfering with that.
This law makes no sense. If tenants could afford to buy, they wouldn't be tenants. And when a property is listed, they have just as much chance to put an offer in on it as anybody. All this will do is slow the sales process to a slower crawl then it already is, cost owners lost opportunity from actual buyers who can buy the property, and possibly have tenants use it to stall sales while they continue to rent. Besides, all new sales still have to abide by the leases in force anyway. Another law for a problem that doesn't exist.
Every law does not make sense for everyone. Every tenant is not an HCV participant who cannot afford to buy a home. In those cases, the rent they can afford to pay is equivalent to the mortgage they can afford to pay. They are are simply not motivated, financially savvy or confident enough to pursue homeownership.
The tennants have the ability as much as anyone else to buy the property. Why do they need first refusal other than to try to mess up any deal their landlord is trying to make?
The law is to allow a tenant to purchase the house they live in if it goes up for sale. Nothing more or nothing less. They get no special price or anything else! What's the problem?
Because historically certain landlords would exclude their certain tenants from buying even though said tenant could afford the home. It would then push those certain people out and create a de facto land covenant whereby which only certain people could live in certain areas.
@@sylviagoodman6008 What if the tenants damaged the home and there was hositiality between them.
This guy is ridiculous. I’m done.
🤖 CRAZY 💯 Just as property taxes prove property ownership is a myth, this only adds another layer.
If banks can choose who buys the house why not the seller
Banks take over when lender fails, thus they will not be subject to this law.
Thank you for this information. Our government does help banks when they go into default in your opinion do you think the government would take over the properties as a social project and give them to the illegal immigrants?
You need to look at your own issues!
@@patriciaannfoy5476 Banks don’t decide who is buying a property. If the property is underwater with the mortgage the bank can allow a short sale but is not obligated to do so. The only thing a bank decides is what the obligations of the seller are, if there is a mortgage and what they are willing to lend to the buyer for the purchase of the property.
@@patriciaannfoy5476 Not happening, since Covid government has been doing more to harm property owners than help them and the government does not care if the properties are sold at discount prices to big money donors to the Democratic Party including Chinese companies.
WOW. This does not affect the big boys and girls like Black Rock.
I lived in Baltimore City over 20 years ago and this was the law then, this is nothing new. The landlord had to offer to sell it to the tenant and they had the right of first refusal. A landlord doesn't care who they sell it to. What seller really cares about who they are selling it to? Most people who are renting can't afford the property anyway.
Agreed, but if I have been paying rent for 14 years, I have technically brought the house almost twice, the landlord, having made 3 times his investment should be willing to sell to his tenant as handing down the baton to contribute to homeownership. But to displace someone who has rented from you for over a decade is petty and selfish, And it shouldn’t go on credit rating because paying rent for all those years should vouch as credit worthy.
If their credit is poor the whole deal could take up time just to have the loan denied, while the landlord loses good prospects. The tenants need to be preapproved for a loan before a contract is ratified.
The landlord should be able to chose who he sells to. The tenants may not be the highest bidder.
They offered the listing price, case closed. If you are not serious about selling at that price, do not sell it then.
I think landlords should not have to offer the tenant first. I'm a landlord and I will offer the tenant first if I do decide to see mine.
@@johnniebeavers4003 well then do not do business in Maryland, but laws like this spread like a virus. You still haven’t addressed any issues that rise to any valid unconstitutional practice. No one has here.
@@stevengoldstein114 I want because I live in the red states. Lucky where I live we don't have this problems. and the reason I say these things I hope most of this stuff is made up. I have never been to Maryland. But if I did decide to sell my rentals property. I would not just make my tenants move without a place to live. I would ask them first if they wanted to buy the place before I put it up for sell. I have good tenants that do pay their rent. I'm not a monster. and I don't believe all these story's I hear on RUclips.
@@johnniebeavers4003 Doesn't matter what state you live in, or do business, you still haven't provided the constitutional basis for your comment. Since the passage of the 14th amendment. And the story you wrote has no means to verify it.
I don’t live in MD, and my personal opinion is that housing should not be used as a business to make others money. Why are we seeing so many corp landlords like BR that raise the rent to the max every year to get returns for investors. That is why these laws are popping up, tenants are being bled dry financially and will never have a chance to own.
Don't build in Maryland. Go to the state next door and build there.
I suggest PA, VA is tired of DMV folks that aren't VA.
@@smoothdahustla9729 West Virginia is also nice
@@smoothdahustla9729that’s not nice Virginia is so nice though 😂😂😂
I got my start in Maryland in the landlord business. I live in another state now but was a landlord here and with all the new laws, glad I got out. Remember when they tried to bring in rent control where I had property and smart landlords had to preempt the new law, me I evicted all tenants on paper by not renewing leases, then signed new leases at a much higher price but with a temporary discount. All that effort for something that didn't pass at that time, what a head ach.
You can run but it follows you. Running g doesn't work
Landlords will not only retaliate if a tenant wants the first right of refusal, they will increase the rent substantially force the tenant out and then sell the property to whoever they want.
In the most largest counties in Maryland they have rent controls. So that will not work.
Its because landlords when they buy their property and rent them out its a business. I think the best thing for landlords to do is just sell or leave them empty. People that gripe about landlord has proved they can buy their own place to live. I think everybody that grips about landlords should buy their own place and see how much it coast to keep a place up. Sometimes they grip about having to wait on the heating and air when the landlord has to wait also to get it fixes. Heating and air people when they get called to fix a unit they have to take the orders in order they are received. Just because somebody is a landlord they are not their only customers. A landlord when they are called to fix something they have to have time to fix things. If they have to order a part or buy a part or even have to call a repair man to fix things sometimes they landlord has to wait till who ever they call to fix things.
@@johnniebeavers4003 what does this have to do about the Maryland law?
@@stevengoldstein114 A lot.
@@johnniebeavers4003 Explain it. We need proper evidence and demonstrated logic.
Do we ever get to why it's bad?
How is this forcing landlords to sell? The law only requires the landlord to give the tenant first dibs at purchasing (which seems fair).
Thank you!
Cannot understand all the evil rhetoric! No one ever said the tenant would pay less or not match the highest bid!
Some folk are just nasty!
This will hurt your chances of selling the house in a good condition (if you have petty tenants) bc if THEY couldn't afford or qualify to buy it, why should they make it easy for anyone else? This law just adds to the stress of your tenant moving & you selling.
I don't see A problem with that. Let the tenants who live there have first shot at buying it first. If they can't afford it than the next person who can buy it will buy it instead.
There should be a strict time limit for right of first refusal, probably a day or two. After that, it's bidding and listing as usual. However, it's a bad law, because tenants will use it to prevent or hold up the sale in one way or another. Tenants already have the right to bid on the property. No new law is needed.
I don't understand. how they could tell somebody how to sell their property.
Try reading the law..you might get a clue about the subject!
Arent there real estate laws that forbid a seller to pick and choose who they sell to? Think secregation. When i sold my rental, the tenant wanted to buy ..and did. Win win
There's an article in money wise from yesterday about a Louisville Kentucky man who led his friends stay in the garage overnight and now they're claiming squatter rights and have a restraining order so he can't even stay in his own home. The man's name is Daniel toma.
That's crazy! My garage would unfortunately catch fire when they leave...then noone would live there.
Never call the police when this happens. Call a few bar bouncers.😂
I’m a landlord, I’ll decide when I sell my property and to whom. Just because I rent my property to someone doesn’t entitle them to purchase my house if I want to sell it. Being a landlord is a business not a charity. I own houses, not apartments for a reason. This makes little sense, it is turning an apartment complex into individually owned apartments. Who would manage the common property. Chaos.
simply put you own the property, but when you want to sell it, your rights to it die.
@@stevengoldstein114 no -you’re rights don’t die. There are ways around this unfair law. Sell it to relative get the person that’s in there out and then the relative sells it back to you and you can sell your property to whoever you want.
@@ImThePronounPolice omg this is more crazy thinking. Why are people just trying to be argumentative and not face the facts.
@@stevengoldstein114 Your butthole is leaking again.
@@ryanroberts1104it always gets to be nothing but a name calling baiting game with you. You can never stay on topic or deal with reality.
First right of refusal was used by me to buy my first property in Washington, D.C. in the 1980's. The landlord and the tenants of the 13-unit apartment building were thrilled. It's a good thing.
This law will allow renters to make a business out of getting a low price for a property with first refusal, then selling it on, on thee open market, more than likely at a profit, without any of the restrictions that the landlord had, and then moving on to the next property as a renter and do the same thing over and over again. WITHOUT RESTRICTION
Not if there is a stipulation such as a 10 yr live in home before selling.
It's sad when folk who don't have a clue act like they know it all!
Read the law. None of what you said makes any sense!
It is time not to be a landlord. So much less hassle in the stock market.
Definitely something a tenant would say. Just because you can't handle it doesn't mean everybody else can't.
As a former landlord, I agree... but you're right some folk can handle it.
Most properties in the DC area are sold for more than the asking price, sometimes $50,000 over the asking price. This law would allow tenants to steal from landlords.
Wait you didn't read the news from Redfin Washington, DC Housing Market Trends ; What is the housing market like in Washington, DC today?
In August 2024, Washington, DC home prices were down 1.2% compared to last year, selling for a median price of $618K. On average, homes in Washington, DC sell after 55 days on the market compared to 49 days last year. There were 465 homes sold in August this year, down from 663 last year. and the news from Urban Turf " The 10-Year Trajectory of DC-Area Home Prices in 4 Charts; February 16th" "Home prices in the DC area peaked at a record of $600,000 in the spring of last year before dropping in the last two quarters as homebuyer demand fell. Despite the drop, the median home price of $562,750 in the area at the end of 2023 represented a 40% increase compared to 2014 when the median home price in the region was $403,000. "
Price the property at 50k more then, problem solved
@@carlknibbs2849 They don't get sold then, because no one will pay for it. Haven't you seen the data from Maryland Department of Assessment and Taxation? in 2020 there were 65,417. 2021 it was 89,340,. In 2022 the peak it was 92,241. In 2023 it was 63,572 and the current year reports 39,062. Which means there were less sold by 40% then prior to the pandemic. This is in no way going to keep the market afloat. Even if listed prices are higher, you don't get them sold.
This is a brilliant idea. I was a renter when I was looking to buy a home. Before I left the owner said he was selling the house. I told him if he had told me I would have bough the house. Would have saved us both time and money. The landlord can put the house up for sale and when he gets an offer he can then go to the tenant and ask if he can match or beat the price. Offering to sell to someone first does not mean for less.
That's exactly what happened in California here with my son's home after dealing with deadbeat and destructive tenants. He listed it and a " bidding war" developed, ended up getting $40,000. over the asking price. A large and very nice family pooled their resources to buy it. One less rental on the market!
i've been thinking about getting out of the landlord business and if I do, I'll certainly give the existing tenants an opportunity to buy the house they're living in. However, there's no moral justification for this law. It is the landlord's property, he should be able to dispose of it how he sees fit. Plus I suspect only 5% of my tenants would be able to afford it (and even fewer would be able to maintain and keep it up after they bought it).
Plus this just gives a malicious tenant yet another way to harass the landlord. It basically guarantees anyone thinking about selling their properties will not renew the lease and let it sit empty long enough to get around any claims. Thus reducing the number of properties available and driving the cost of housing up even further.
You already cleared up the issue! Most tenants, if not all, will not be able to purchase the property. If y'all would just stop and understand the intent of the law maybe you would stop making up stuff.
The law simply is trying to give folk the opportunity to purchase the house where they live when it goes up for sale! Seller list for whatever they want! Tenant has to show ability to purchase in short order. Nothing more...nothing less!
Some of you sound evil...not necessary!
Other comments: in situations like this where the ability to remove a tenant or have only one month security deposit, the landlord will get even stricter in their screening services. They may even charge less rent for a highly qualified tenant just to have less hassle.
So, those with less than stellar credit and personal histories may find themselves homeless. Wow, that law REALLY benefits tenants, doesn't it?
Y'all really need help! Read the law! It has nothing to do with the sale price! Please!
If I choose to not sell to a big corporation, that’s my choice. I saw where Maryland was going when I left in 77
There is a “supply” issue in the housing market; they *are* making residential property a bad investment so landlords will sell the houses, increasing the supply, which will force the prices of houses down. That’s pretty much the end goal I predict.
Another new law in
Maryland. The
Orioles must not
win a playoff
game.
Here's how this will work if the tenant has the right of first refusal:
-Buyers' agents will avoid showing rented properties to their buyers, because they know that this law will get in the way of a potential sale. Neither agent nor buyer will want to engage in the negotiation and work necessary to close a deal with this hanging over their heads.
too bad, the market needs price correction anyway. Since the record low inventory and sales is proving the prices are too high.
@stevengoldstein114 you misunderstand how the real world works, government has screwed up zoning so bad that a fraction of houses that are needed are built and are not affordable for most people. The government federal and state and local have screwed up so bad for so long it will take decades to recover
@@jonathanjones3126 Really? The fact was that the Reagan Admin sold privatization as a means to make housing cheaper, and as we all know the so called "supply side" economics intentionally underproduces in order to make the existing stock more valuable. And remember the DOJ has a case against landlords under RealPage?
@stevengoldstein114 your silly, government regulations, permits, impact fees more and more and more. Plus labor and materials has made housing extremely expensive. A good portion of the extra costs are just to increase goverment employee wages
@@jonathanjones3126 Again what does this have to do with the price of Tea in China? The reality was the Reagan Admin scammed the public. The private sector is supposed to kill off inefficient competitors, and this is the problem with Mom and Pops. They are not efficient, and keep on demanding they get special privilege's in the market. Thus it is time for the correction to hit and hit HARD.
Hey Tony, your smile is addictive 😀
Maryland is passing a lot of nonsensical laws recently. This is far from the worst of it. It was a really nice state but I fear what it’s going to look like in 15-20 years.
live in this state and too liberal of voters
If landlords don't want to offer their property to tenants for some reason, this sounds like it will provide a powerful incentive to evict them.
If Kamala gets in, this is what landlords have to look forward to.
They are talking about state law. Presidents have no control over state law. You might want to educate yourself on the "separation of powers" between state and federal governments. Perhaps a middle schooler who is taking a civics class can assist in your understanding.
@@nateh3441However a federal law establishing every renters rights in a uniform process will not be challenged based on any constitutional basis. And you know that too.
@@nateh3441Be kind.😅😅😅😅
President Kamala will do a great job.
This is local state law. Has nothing to do with the President.
This is a scaled-down version of the DC TOPA Law. Basically you just simply have to ask your tenant if they'd like to buy the house first, at fair market value. They have to get pre-qualified just like everybody else and if they can't qualify then you move on to the next person. Asking if they'd like to buy it gives them notice and keep it pushing to the next person or sell it on market.
I think it is one thing to require meaningful notice, so they can submit an offer, but I think it goes wrong when you get into dictating the terms e.g. price, time to close, financing, inspections, allowing public offers, etc. I just got done with a house buy process, and everyone focuses on price. However, there were a couple houses we submitted offers higher than the end sale price, so the other terms matter as well.
First right of refusal has nothing to do with the selling price! Read the law!
@@sylviagoodman6008 , if you have exact details of the first right of refusal please share, I have only been able to find rough details about a 30 day notice were tenant can submit offer prior to it being opened to the public. If this is indeed correct, the whole not having it open to the public is one of the items I listed. Also, if I was the owner of a property in Maryland subject to this, I would counter any offer considerably higher than the comps given the closed nature of the negotiation process, which drives prices up.
Never heard of such! Some people's brains are wack. What's in the water?!
If the landlord wants to sell the property for a certain amount, who cares who purchases the property? Also, if corporate companies are buying up personal property and only selling it to other rental owners and that lowers the supply.
Lets do a market cap test of Maryland regarding sales of homes and median prices, in 2020 reporting 2019 sales it was 65417 sales and the median price was $300,000 a total values of $19,625,100,000.00 in 2024 it was reporting 39062 sales and the median price was $430,000 a total values of $16,796,660,000.00 and if you compare them the Market Cap of Maryland lost 14.5% or a total of $2,828,440,000.00 . You really think that is good market statistics?
This will go to court and be overturned at the higher levels. The main reason it was created was to create a new state agency for enforcement and compliance!
based on what case law? The US Supreme Court keeps turning you down.
Landlords will be fine. This will mostly hurt the renters.
You don't know that landlords will be fine not all landlords are rich.
How? I am just dying to hear the answer! You clearly don't know what the law is?
The landlord will just find a way around it just like every other law. In the end the law will just hurt everyone.
One made the crazy theory, list your prices $50,000 higher than the price you are willing to sell for. This is crazy talk when the market in Maryland is tanking look at the data right here No one will pay for it. Haven't you seen the data from Maryland Department of Assessment and Taxation? in 2020 there were 65,417. 2021 it was 89,340,. In 2022 the peak it was 92,241. In 2023 it was 63,572 and the current year reports 39,062. Which means there were less sold by 40% then prior to the pandemic. This is in no way going to keep the market afloat. Even if listed prices are higher, you don't get them sold.
Wrong, the *inventory* of homes for sale is down. According to the Maryland Board of Realtors, the average residential property that hits the market in 2024 is sold within *7 days*. It isn't that " no one is buying" it is that no one is selling. In other words, it's actually a seller's market.
@@californiadreamer2580 Show us proof, I was able to prove that not only is the market cap crashing because the total sales volume time the average price is so low. But even the news is indicating that realtors are having to go out of business. By the way there is no Maryland Board of Realtors it is a private trade group called the Maryland Association of Realtors And the so called Board of Realtors you are talking about is another Trade group not an agency of the State or Local Governments. Do you really think they would tell the public the truth?
@@californiadreamer2580 Yep, same here in NC.
You will own nothing, and we will force you to smile and be 'happy'!
I'm okay with it. Less corporate landlords. The property will be passed down to the beneficiary or the tenant can buy it and be an owner occupier. Developers can buy or build apartment complexes .
Im a landlord and an investor in CA. Im voting YES on everything AGAINST LANDLORDS. I want all the WRONG laws to pass. LET SEE WHAT THE TENANTS WILL ASK THEIR COMUNIST GOVERNMENT TO DO.
Tenants have jobs and labour is worthy of their meat(food, water, shelter, etc )
Vivillager made a crazy claim that the free market is doing very well for the real estate industry and he is a good used car sales professional. Actually the scary part is the market is going through a major downturn. Baton Rouge Business Report had the story "Slow US housing market has real estate agents leaving the field in droves" and the Washington Post reported "Real estate agents are fleeing the field. Is that good for homebuyers?" and also ABC News San Francisco reported "Biggest shakeup in a century set to hit real estate agents this week" Newsweek reported "Realtors 'Running Out of Money' as Housing Market Struggles" And being a Used Car Dealer? They do not have a good reputation especially when i bought a so called certified pre owned car a 2013 Focus with a known bad transmission, and it was not disclosed to me prior to purchase and the dealership knew because it bought it at auction from the original dealership that had to take it back .
If tenants can buy a house, they will eventually. Many renters rent until they can improve their credit or save up for a down payment or they might be trying out the area before they buy, etc.
I’ve seen people who were turned down by the bank for $1,500/month mortgage payment (PITI) so they had to pay $2,000 in rent.
(I don’t know the whole story, but that’s fouled up)
The tenant doesn’t have the “right” to buy at any price. They have the right to refuse an offer. This is to prevent the transfer of boomer wealth to anyone other than Wall Street.
I disagree with telling anyone what to do with their property, but I don't see the big issue here. How many renters will be able to buy a while multi-unit property? Not many at all.
Nothing here will hurt the landlord. They won't care who they sell to, as long as they pay the asking price. And because they are renters. They won't be able to buy anyway. Ignorance is not a good thing.
The landlord could get hosed if he has a cash buyer ready to transact, but the tenant needs to try to round up financing and ends up failing. Meanwhile the cash buyer goes elsewhere or interest rates jump and everybody decides to wait a while for a better investment climate. Or as someone elsewhere noted, the tenant could simply assert a desire to buy and then just drag their feet to gum up the works and extort concessions from the landlord in order to get the transaction completed.
@@cymeriandesigns Nope. The landlord can tell the tenant, but he does not have to put the house up for sale until he knows the tenant is qualified to buy or not. He would also have the tenant rental history, work history, credit report etc. So the seller would already know if they can afford to buy or not.
Cash buyer? Come on now
You're clueless... Contract law!
@@sylviagoodman6008 You're clueless...Contract law!
Land lords will have to make sure to have renters insurance and require the tenants to be in a credit building and saving plan, so the tenant could always be buyer ready.
What are you talking about? Read the law!
A issue already exists. The government already has been giving tax breaks to landlords and builders.
If you've got a 3-unit building, what are you supposed to do if more than one tenant wants to buy it?
They form union and team up
LOL!
@@stevengoldstein114possible, but not very probable, unless the tenants are all related. Sounds more like wishful thinking.
@californiadreamer2580 why not costs half the price each and get another unit. They could operate it as an airbnb
Sell to the highest bidder! Y'all sure can complicate something that's simple!
As I have tried to point out, this law is simply constitutional and enforceable. Yes it will remove all competitive bidding on a property if the initial price listed is met by either a tenant or tenant group. The simple reality is that this law unless proven to be a taken by a court case is NOT a taking. And litigation has already established it is not a taking. The law clearly states "HB 693 stipulates that landlords must extend the opportunity to purchase rental properties to their tenants before they are listed on the open market. This entails presenting bona fide offers to tenants, enabling them to match the terms proposed by external buyers." The law also does "Establishing the Office of Tenant and Landlord Affairs in the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide certain educational resources and information to tenants; requiring the Office to develop and publish a Maryland Tenants' Bill of Rights; requiring the most recently published version of the Maryland Tenants' Bill of Rights to be included as part of a residential lease; limiting the maximum security deposit required by a residential lease to 1 month's rent, except under certain circumstances; etc." The law requires at least 30 days notice to the tenant or group of tenants. Maryland has a public mortgage program with the Department of Housing and Community Development. that tenants can access, along with others. To me it looks like the tenants can in effect stop the inflation of housing costs because of this law. So if any landlord attempts to list the property in any way prior to the laws requirements, it will be very painful.
If an asking price is met and the buyer is able to provide the funds, it doesn't matter who buys. First Right of Refusal is subject to meet that set price. Also, it could be a neighbor. Better yet if its a FSBO and the tenant is a repeat leaser (which means that he or she is a solid citizen for the community... if you as a landlord have done the due diligence)... then, is a direct sale! And you save on commissions that are not earned.
I'm a landlord and real estate agent who manages properties for landlords... and believe me... the best possible buyers are the good tenants... but usually they don't save.
If you don't want to sell to the tenant... wait for the lease to expire to market the property. Anyway, is best to show the property clean and free of humans to a prospective buyer.
NOW, if the protectionist law restricts you in how to market, or what price to ask or who you accept money from for the purchase.... then...
In addition, most tenant occupied property is sold for investment. Having a paying tenant is a plus! But if tenant can purchase...why not?
What's the time limit for tenants right to first refusal? Is there a seller document(s) specifically for tenants?
People will lose house due to the price. Then come the smart cities where you will own nothing and be happy. Yeah Right.
This actually sounds like one step backward from a housing/home-ownership solution or having a free market by adding another layer of red tape.
Wait for the woman with 4 kids, getting assistance, while she asks her cousin for a few thousand for the down payment. 2 months later...?
That's not true...tenant has to show can qualify for the mortgage in short order!
Stop making up stuff...you sound evil!
@@sylviagoodman6008 ?
I rented a place the owner decided to sell. He said this is the price do you want to purchase it? I said no. That was the end of that story. He sold it to someone else. There was no bidding war and all this other stuff you all are talking about.
It doesn't say what the price has to be. If the tenant can't buy it for your price then sell it to another buyer.
That's too easy for these folk!
Not sure about your interpretation. What us wrong with right of first refusal. It allows people to maintain their home. Why not sell it to people who've been there other than those who gentrify neighborhoods
The government doesn't want private property owners/tenants anyway. Big corporations can do as they wish!! They want all ownership to be either government, the mega wealthy or corporations. Normal hard working taxpayers aren't anyone they support having any financial security through property investment.
Maybe it has something to do with who the people in MD are voting for. It is interesting that these types of laws are going up in states with certain similarities.
I think it's not a bad idea, if they can come up with the dough and close the deal it shouldn't matter.
I would bet the vast majority of renters can't get a mortgage
No, it's bad because they are not paying the going price for the house since there is no bidding on the property.
@@carolr7823 the listed price is the going rate, and you know it.
@@stevengoldstein114 there still should be bidding on it.
Where is that written?
Most small mom and pop offerings affordable housing their tenants probably can’t afford to buy. As long as it doesn’t interfere with family wealth which it doesn’t so it’s not a big issue. Prices can’t be inflated because all lending requires appraisals.
So then if you don't want to sell your house, don't rent out space.
Really! What are you talking about?
I'm sure this will not be a popular opinion but I like this idea. There are still places in America that certain races of people are good enough to rent in the community but they only allow a handful of them to buy so this helps eliminate this unfair practice.. however creative people will still find away to circumvent the law
What if you want to give your property to your children?
that is not a sale, it is a gift, so you are protected. But you get nothing in return l
@@stevengoldstein114 I don’t want anything in return. I’ve been buying properties for decades to someday give to my grandchildren- I already gave houses to my 3 sons. I a 70 year old grammy now so won’t be much longer. I wasn’t born rich. I had no dad and my mom was on welfare. I put myself through college working and going to school at the same time. I started buying houses when I was 19. I would buy the worst junkiest house and fix it up for a profit. I would take the profit and by the next house and make more money on that. It was fun. Things were different back then that’s almost impossible to do now yet. I did buy a house for $50,000 4 years ago and totally renovated it and now I’m renting it.
Then it's not for sale! Got it?
It's 5 minutes of hassle for the seller.
Don't be doing shady sht and it won't matter who you sell it to.
The only thing it might do is cause rents to go up, especially if the owner wants to sell. Month to month lease. Sorry, price is going up. Tenants can't pay , move, owner sells empty house.
Please tell me how this has anything to do with rents going up?
@sylviagoodman6008 , just as i described. If the owner didn't want to sell to whomever was in the place they could just raise the rent and forcing the tenant out. Or, the tenant stays and pays higher rent. Rent goes up.
Democracy in action. This is liberalism!
I’d say the tenant can have whatever right they want, but they will have to pay the price I’m asking or you’re not buying it.
Who told you it was otherwise? Read the law!
What is your recommendation to address the extremely high cost of housing and homelessness?
That's a really hard problem but for certain more housing needs to be built! There used to be projects for low income folk. I think that needs to come back for starters. Not really sure why that fell out of favor.
What are you talking about, Does the landlord worried about if the tenant or some random person buys the property if the tenant is buying it at the price. It might make for an easier sale don't have to get the tenant out. Inspections probably the tenant knows what issues there are and etc. And judging from the comments this isn't all that new and many contracts have right of first refusal. And no, it doesn't mean the owner can only sell to the tenant it only means they are offered the property first. And there is no force a bit of clickbait here.
They should’ve had this law when redlining was rampant. Yet they want to implement these restrictions to the state with the wealthiest Black community where they are flourishing the most. 🤨
yeah......I would be discouraged in selling.
@@julietewing4847 Depends on the market and that hopefully the offers go way above what the tenant can afford.
@@charlesphilhower1452 I can agree and then imagine politicians placing laws against that.
This is a brilliant idea. I was a renter when I was looking to buy a home. Before I left, the owner said he was selling the house. I told him if he had told me I would have bough the house. Would have saved us both time and money. The landlord can put the house up for sale and when he gets an offer he can then go to the tenant and ask if he can match or beat the price. Offering to sell to someone first, does not mean for less.
@@ArabellaPottery The big question is would you have been the highest bidder, because the owner should be able to get the highest market value when he sells just as you would want when you sell.
@@charlesphilhower1452 I don't know. That's the point. I wasn't given the chance to bid. And what if I was the highest bidder he would have lost some money. I did pay $80,000 more than the sale price he got for the home I bought.
Housing is not a human right. It's about property rights.
N.W.O.+W.E.F.= FEW OWN
Tony needs to look at his market Haven't you seen the data from Redfin state of Nebraska sold from Aug 2020 to July 2021 there were 25,600. In 2022 it was 25,200, in 2023 it was 20,600 in 2024 it was 20,150 and the current year reports 39,062. Which means there were less sold by 22%. The market cap peaked in 2021 sales of 25,200 and an average price of $250,000 coming to $6,300,000,000.00 but last year the market cap was 20,150 in sales and an average price of $295,000 coming to $ $ 5,944,250,000.00 A market cap loss on 6 % in the state. There is no way the market in Nebraska is doing well
Why do you keep shitting in the dishwasher?
How is this stuff getting through?
either by legislation of by voters ballot measure, if you do not have anything better to offer to voters or the legislators, you lose.
Leftist Democrats (an Oxymoron). It's a one party state.
@@donchoq well if that is your offer, voters refuse.
From the comments I have read...it's not!
all of the complaining here is getting nowhere, the ridiculous use of this echo chamber of less than 20 k people is amazing. Just follow the law or provide a better solution. You have no solution you have nothing to complain about.
They're stealing from the property owners. A right of 1st refusal is a product that the property owner has a constitutional right to bring to market. The state or federal government has no right to abolish this constitutional right by forcing the property owner to hand it out for free anymore than they have the right to force the property owner to hand out the right to rent the property itself for free.
Based on what case law? or any constitutional basis? The 5th amendment only says the property cannot be taken by the state without just compensation. You are way out of line here. A private tenant or even a private tenant union is not the government.
The right of first refusal does not give the tenant the property for free. He has to pay the price that the landlord stipulates.
@@stevengoldstein114 I think you answered your own question. Right of 1st refusal is a product that a property owner can sell. In this case the government took that right away without paying anything for it & gave it to the tenants for free. Just like choosing to rent property out in the 1st place is a right, by that logic the government can just take that away for free too?
@@ImThePronounPolice I think you missed the point. Right of 1st refusal itself is a product that you typically have to pay for. Just like rent, or rent to own, or purchase, etc. If the government comes in and says property owners have to hand out free rights of 1st refusal, then theoretically they can do that to anything property owners charge for. Be it rent, options to buy, or even selling the property.
@@zakuzeon7382 you are dead wrong, the tenant gets the first right to buy it, meaning it is not free. Why make such foolish claims?
Tenant has to match the price and terms. It really is irrelevant as most won’t have the deposit or ability to match. It is a give them an offer to match and then move on rather quickly.
This has been the law in Baltimore city for decades. I am a former landlord and it is a non issue. It only gives the tenant the option to purchase where they live when the property is being sold! Tenant gets no price breaks or extended time to qualify! Seller gets the highest bid and if the tenant can match that... then all is well!
I truly don't understand all the crazy comments where folk clearly don't know what they are talking about!
Why do you care who buys it as long as you get your asking price? Additionally, just because they are the current tenant and get first dibs at purchasing said property doesn't mean a bank will approve lending them the money to purchase the property. That's the problem with America. Your attitude and concern sound like some racist bs. You'll rent to them, but not sell to them. Gtfoh!
The reason people are tenants and not owners is because they can't afford and/or qualify to buy! There is no other reason!
I had a tenant ask me if they could buy it a while ago...I asked if he had $200,000 and his eyes got real big. I think he thought somehow I was just going to float the loan for him.
You are assuming they can't get credit , government grants and crowdfunding. Very poor thinking. Especially if Harris can pass federal grants to tenant buyers .
@@stevengoldstein114 I know they can't, I'm not assuming. If they could, why the fuck would they rent? I see how they make their payments every month, I know their credit score, where they work, and how much money they make. They would not be paying me so much if they could just buy a house.
I don't think you understand what a grant is or how it works.
@@ryanroberts1104 there are many good reasons to rent rather than own. And you know it. That poor assumption is amazing. So maybe you need to address that first.
@@stevengoldstein114 Nope. They have to pay me 3x what it would cost to have a mortgage on the same thing. Unless they aren't qualified. Most tenants are not.
There are no good reasons to pay 3x the cost of anything for anything.
@@ryanroberts1104 this is ridiculous, my hopes are this law spreads like a virus, and at the least covers half the country like some of the biggest markets, like Ca , NY, and so on. Either com0,y with the law or quit.
If you jack up the price to sell your property to your friend, the tax authorities will be using that figure to calculate the new assessed value for property taxes, so your friend will get screwed not just on the price but on taxes forever after.
Taxes are based on a different appraisal done by the local jurisdiction. Not sale price. Usually this tax appraisal is lower than actual value.
@@ryanroberts1104it is presume to be in every state that the tax base is the sales price. And if you get the property reassessed downward and you change the official value, you better pay cash only, any lender will take the property if the value goes down.
@@stevengoldstein114 Totally wrong. Tax appraisals are always far less than the actual value of the house. Nothing goes on "sale price". Not a single state does this fucking dipshit!
You clearly have never owned a home, never will, and have no job. You're just a pathetic drain on society that likes to make an idiot of himself.
@@stevengoldstein114 Totally wrong. Sale price is never used for taxes. Why do you say such stupid shit that you clearly don't understand?
@@ryanroberts1104 Because it is the truth, And you know it Look at the website Consumers Credit Union "6.3.24 How Property Taxes Change When A Home Is Sold" and it states clearly "When a home is sold, property taxes for the new homeowner are calculated in part based on the sales price. This is the formula: Property Taxes = Taxable Value / 1,000 x Your Local Millage Rate. This is so well known. You are being a fool to try to claim otherwise.
Listen, you're saying all of this but you haven't given me the specific details of the law to let me decide for myself who's benefiting and who's not. I am biased but I do have discernment to know when a law is bad or not and for what party or not.
How did this make it into law in the first place?
please you don't mean you can't leave it to your children
So the tenant can flip it for a profit after closing the deal.
Just move the property into a trust or LLC (which you should do anyway). Simple.
And what is it you think that is supposed to do?
@@ryanroberts1104 if you read (or heard from the video) the exclusions, properties placed in a trust or moved to an LLC are excluded from this mandate.
I have seen some of the stupidest comments regarding something these folk clearly don't have a clue about!
BUREAUCRACY!
Yeah, that’s sure to help the housing problem. Sound like socialism to me.
More ‘progressive’ blue state laws 🤣
Everything is political to republicans! If you took the time to read the law, maybe you would make sensible remarks!
Clearly, you don't have a clue about the law!