An act to amend Sections 65852.21, 65852.28, 66411.7, and 66499.41 of the Government Code, relating to land use.
SB 1090 would add a new Civil Code chapter restricting certain real estate investment activity in wildfire-affected areas. It defines an “institutional investor” as any individual or entity that owns, directly or indirectly, 75 or more single-family properties, and defines an “unsolicited offer to purchase” as a purchase offer made by text, email, phone, mail, or similar communication when the owner has not publicly indicated a willingness to sell. Under the bill, such institutional investors would be barred from making unsolicited offers to buy real property located in an area affected by a wildfire disaster for which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor or the President.
The prohibition would last for five years starting on the date the wildfire emergency is proclaimed. The bill applies broadly to lots, parcels, and homes in the affected area, but it does not prohibit purchases where the owner has already publicly listed or advertised the property for sale. The measure also includes a severability clause, so if part of the law is invalidated, the remainder can still stand.
The bill’s practical effect would be to create a temporary post-disaster cooling-off period in which large-scale property owners and investors cannot cold-call or otherwise directly solicit wildfire survivors to sell damaged or vulnerable property. It would amend the Civil Code and affect institutional real estate investors, homeowners in wildfire disaster zones, and potentially brokers or acquisition teams acting for large property portfolios. The bill is not designated as an appropriation measure and is not described as creating a local program.
Overall sentiment appears generally favorable, as reflected by the committee vote of 11-2 for “do pass as amended.” That vote suggests broad support for the bill’s consumer-protection and disaster-relief purpose, while the amendments indicate lawmakers were refining its scope and definitions. No committee transcript was provided, so the record does not show detailed floor or committee debate.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between protecting wildfire-affected homeowners from aggressive investor solicitation and limiting the ability of property owners to market or transfer real estate in a disaster area. Critics could view the bill as an intrusion on real estate market activity or a restriction on investor speech and transactions, while supporters would likely argue it prevents predatory acquisition of distressed property after a wildfire. The 75-property threshold and the five-year duration are the key limiting features that appear designed to narrow the bill to large institutional buyers rather than ordinary purchasers.
SB 1090 would add Chapter 4 to Title 3 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code, creating a new state-law restriction on unsolicited purchase offers by large property owners in wildfire disaster areas. It would define “institutional investor” and “unsolicited offer to purchase,” prohibit covered investors from making such offers in areas under a proclaimed wildfire emergency, and make the restriction last for five years from the emergency declaration. The bill would directly affect institutional real estate investors and property owners in wildfire-impacted communities, while leaving ordinary market listings and publicly advertised sales outside the prohibition.
The available voting history suggests the bill was received positively, with a 11-2 committee vote to pass as amended. That margin indicates substantial support for the bill’s goal of shielding wildfire survivors from unsolicited investor pressure, while also showing some reservations. Because no committee transcript is available, the specific arguments for and against the measure are not documented in the provided materials.
The likely controversy centers on whether the state should restrict unsolicited purchase offers by institutional investors after a wildfire. Supporters would emphasize consumer protection, disaster recovery, and preventing opportunistic acquisitions of damaged homes and lots. Opponents may argue the bill limits legitimate market activity, could reduce liquidity for property owners who want to sell quickly, and may raise concerns about how broadly “institutional investor” and “unsolicited offer” are defined. The five-year ban and the 75-single-family-property threshold are the main policy lines that appear intended to narrow the restriction, but they also mark the bill’s most debatable features.