HB 1471, titled the "Keep Floridians Housed Act," is a broad housing and landlord-tenant overhaul. It would create a new Department of Housing and Tenant Rights and direct that department to study the costs and benefits of an empty homes tax. The bill also rewrites major parts of Florida’s residential landlord-tenant law, including rental agreement requirements, rent increase notice rules, security deposit rules, eviction procedures, and landlord maintenance obligations.
The bill would require rental agreements to be in plain language, provide tenants copies of the agreement, and include several new tenant protections such as a right of first refusal before certain sales, limits on no-cause nonrenewals, and restrictions on terminating tenancies during a declared emergency. It would cap security deposits at one month’s rent, require installment payment options for deposits, prohibit many application and junk fees, and strengthen notice and refund rules. It also adds protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual violence, and stalking, including early lease termination, lock changes, confidentiality protections, and anti-retaliation rules.
HB 1471 would also change eviction and court-record rules by allowing certain eviction defendants and mobile home occupants to seek sealing of records and substitution of their names on dockets, and by requiring removal of some eviction filings from credit reports when a tenant prevails. It would make “good cause” the standard for most terminations, extend notice periods for tenants with children or pregnant tenants, and require landlords to inspect units for code compliance at the start of a tenancy. The bill further creates a tenant opportunity-to-purchase process before sales or demolition, and it bars certain large owners from buying single-family homes for nonresidential purposes once they own 100 or more rental single-family homes.
Beyond landlord-tenant regulation, the bill includes several housing supply and affordability tools. It authorizes local governments to impose a gentrification-related impact fee on developers, creates municipal community land bank programs with right-of-first-refusal rules and deed restrictions for affordable housing, and imposes a higher documentary stamp tax on residential property purchases by private equity firms and large corporations, with revenue directed to the Florida Affordable Housing Trust Fund. It also creates tax incentives and financing programs for converting shopping centers into workforce housing and for providing construction loans for affordable homes.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s structure is strongly pro-tenant and pro-affordable-housing, with extensive regulation of landlords and real estate investors. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct recorded debate to gauge support or opposition. However, the breadth of the bill, especially its rent controls, fee bans, purchase restrictions on investors, and new taxes and fees on developers and private equity, suggests likely contention from landlord, property owner, and development interests. The bill ultimately died in the State Affairs Committee.
The bill would substantially revise Chapter 83, Florida Statutes, by adding new tenant rights, landlord duties, eviction procedures, and prohibited practices, while also creating new causes of action and remedies. It would also add new provisions to Florida’s tax and housing statutes, including a documentary stamp tax on certain private-equity purchases, a new tax credit program for retail-to-residential redevelopment, and a new affordable housing construction loan program. Local governments and special districts would gain new authority to adopt gentrification-related impact fees, and municipalities could establish community land bank programs with detailed affordability and resale requirements. The bill would also create a new state department and shift responsibility for housing and tenant-rights policy into that agency.
The bill’s overall tone is strongly supportive of renters, housing affordability, and anti-displacement measures. Its provisions favor tenant protections, limit landlord discretion, and impose new obligations on property owners and investors, indicating a policy direction aimed at reducing housing insecurity and speculative ownership. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included, the public and legislative sentiment cannot be measured directly from debate history, but the bill’s failure to advance suggests it did not secure enough support to move through the committee process.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s extensive regulation of landlords and investors, including the cap on security deposits, bans on many fees, mandatory good-cause termination standards, longer notice periods, and restrictions on private-equity and large-scale single-family home acquisitions. Property owners and real estate industry stakeholders would likely object to the new compliance burdens, potential revenue losses, and limits on leasing and sale practices. Developers and local governments may also have concerns about the new impact fee authority, land bank requirements, and tax changes, while tenant advocates would likely support the bill’s stronger protections against displacement, eviction, and domestic violence-related housing instability.