President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this year “to protect the American dream” and curb corporations from owning single-family homes.
But the proposals to make this a reality were dismissed by the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature.
The Own Something and Be Happy Act, proposed by GOP Arizona state Rep. Nick Kupper to mirror Trump’s housing priority, didn’t get taken up in committee. It capped investors from owning more than 50 single-family homes.
On March 11, Arizona House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos revived this proposal by offering an amendment to a Republican-led tax bill.
De Los Santos’ provision would have installed corporate ownership caps, like the ones in Kupper’s original bill.
What is the Arizona GOP focused on?
Arizona Republicans advanced three other housing bills that prioritize reducing fees and cutting down on red tape for new developments.
That includes HB2946, which targets “government imposed development fees” on homebuyers. It reins in local development costs “by capping fees on accessory dwelling units, locking in rates for builders for 24 months, and closing a loophole that allowed municipalities to shift new growth costs onto existing ratepayers through inflated water and wastewater rates.”
Another bill, HB2100, advocates for single-family homeownership “by giving counties a path to approve small subdivisions and bring more lots to market, reducing land scarcity and cost pressure.”
Meanwhile, the HB2426 proposal would direct the State Land Department to develop a five-year plan to sell state trust lands suitable for development near incorporated areas, helping unlock additional land supply and ease one of the biggest drivers of new home costs.
As House Majority Leader Michael Carcone pointed out, lawmakers are focused on affordability for Arizona families, and housing is a big piece of that puzzle.
“As rents rise, home prices climb, and fewer attainable single-family options remain on the market, more Arizonans are being priced out of the communities they call home and further away from the dream of homeownership.”
The median age of the average first-time American homebuyer has increased to 40 years.
Kupper has voiced that some guardrails are important to protect Arizonans and that Republicans need to step up to reform property rights instead of shying away.
Rep. Jeff Weninger, who chairs the House Commerce Committee, said last month that while he commended his colleague Kupper for prioritizing new homebuyers, he thought that “the 50-home cap seemed premature without more data on effects like supply and investment.”
Earlier this year, Trump, during the State of the Union address, said, “We want homes for people, not for corporations,” as he called on Congress to pass his plan to cap corporate ownership at 100 single-family homes.
The concerns over corporate homeownership caps
Last week, the U.S. Senate, in an 89-10 vote, passed a measure for affordable housing. It caps investor ownership at 350 homes.
But some experts say this isn’t enough to solve the housing crisis, especially when large investors, with more than 100 homes, own only 3% of the single-family rental stock market nationwide, according to The Hamilton Project. This report does note that “the investor share of single-family rentals is quite high in some markets,” like Phoenix, where more than 35% of such rental units are corporate-owned.
As Axios reported, institutional investors bought nearly 7% of Arizona homes sold in the first quarter of 2025.
A Brookings Institution report notes that concentrated holdings in certain areas can allow investors to set higher rents than what is expected in a market with diverse ownership. Although market forces can mitigate risk, the report suggests antitrust authorities should address these specific cases. It recommended against broad bans on such purchases.
The report responds to the president’s statement on housing, saying, “People sometimes rent rather than own the homes in which they live. Preventing large institutional investors from supplying the rental market will lead to higher rents, harming existing renters as well as some new families that would want to or must rent.”
“This cost should be explicitly considered in any evaluation of the president’s proposal.”