Governor Joe Lombardo has exercised significant influence in Nevada by issuing 75 vetoes during the 82nd Legislative Session, a historic number that underscores his role in shaping state laws. Each veto carries substantial implications for residents and the broader economy.
One of the most notable vetoes is that of Senate Bill 395 (SB395). This article examines the bill's intent, Governor Lombardo’s rationale for vetoing it, and its potential impacts on Nevada.
Senator Dina Neal introduced SB395 to impose restrictions on corporate acquisitions of residential real estate in Nevada. The bill proposed capping the number of units corporations could purchase annually at 1,000 and establishing a registry within the Secretary of State’s Securities Division to track these transactions. Proponents argued that this measure would make it easier for Nevadans to buy homes without competing against large corporate buyers. However, opponents, including the Henderson Chamber of Commerce and the Nevada Home Builders Association, raised concerns about its potential impact on public freedoms and questioned its legality.
“The central public purpose of this bill is to allow families to purchase homes without having to bid against investors,” Senator Neal stated during a Senate Judiciary bill hearing. “The idea is to limit the amount of transactions that happen within a year, to free up property so that individuals can actually go and purchase property.”
Governor Lombardo's decision to veto SB395 was based on several considerations. He described the 1,000 properties limit as arbitrary and argued it would worsen Nevada’s struggles with residential availability.
“This bill would remove millions of dollars in commerce tax revenue from businesses engaged in the sale of real estate, detrimentally affect blue-collar trades by decreasing demand for new construction, and chill interest from Nevadan lessors during a period when renters are in desperate need of greater residential availability,” he wrote in his veto message.
The governor emphasized that while promoting homeownership is commendable, strict limits on corporate acquisitions could reduce housing supply and increase costs elsewhere. He also expressed concerns about the administrative burden of the proposed registry.
If SB395 were enacted despite Lombardo’s veto, it could decrease demand and potentially lower property values due to reduced corporate investments. Corporate investments play a crucial role in job creation and community development through construction, property management, and maintenance activities.
Neal argued that states have the authority to enact such legislation for legitimate purposes. However, opponents like the Henderson Chamber of Commerce warned that such measures could materially affect economic development and freedom within Nevada.
Governor Lombardo’s veto reflects a careful evaluation of SB395’s potential impacts on Nevada’s housing market and economy. While acknowledging the bill's goals, he concluded that there are more effective ways to achieve them without imposing restrictive measures. Instead, he stressed fostering an environment that encourages responsible investment while addressing housing affordability through economic growth and expanded housing supply.
Understanding Governor Lombardo’s rationale behind his vetoes is crucial for Nevadans interested in participating in legislative processes. It highlights policymaking complexities and emphasizes balanced approaches considering both short-term goals and long-term sustainability.
Residents are encouraged to stay informed, engage with elected officials, and support policies promoting inclusive economic growth and housing affordability by visiting Nevada Policy’s Action Center.