HB 2028
In CommitteeHouse
Farmland purchases
Preserving Washington farmland by limiting purchases by certain entities.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill bans large investment and business entities—including private foundations and land trusts—from buying or holding agricultural land in Washington to protect local farmers and stabilize food prices. It also imposes penalties and forced sales for violations and removes special tax benefits for land held in violation.
- Prohibits business entities (including private foundations and land trusts) and investment entities (like real estate investment trusts) from purchasing or acquiring agricultural land in Washington.
- Makes land owned in violation of the ban ineligible for the open space taxation act, meaning it would no longer qualify for special tax treatment.
- Authorizes civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation, and up to $125,000 per year for failure to sell the land within one year of a court order.
- Requires violators to sell the land to a qualified buyer within one year of final judgment; failure to do so triggers additional penalties.
- Declares violations of the law as unfair or deceptive practices under the consumer protection act, allowing private lawsuits in addition to state enforcement.
Who is affected
- Large investment and business entities — Large investment and business entities (including private foundations and land trusts) would be prohibited from buying or acquiring agricultural land in Washington; existing owners in violation would face penalties and forced sale.
- Investment entities — Entities managing pooled investor funds (like real estate investment trusts) would be barred from purchasing agricultural land and face penalties if they do.
- Existing owners of agricultural land in violation — Current owners of agricultural land who are business or investment entities would lose eligibility for special tax treatment (open space taxation) and face civil penalties if they fail to sell within one year of a court order.
- Local farmers and ranchers — Local farmers and ranchers may benefit from reduced competition for land and potentially more stable land prices, improving their ability to afford and retain farmland.
- Washington consumers — Washington consumers may see long-term effects on food prices if the bill stabilizes local farmland ownership and reduces corporate land acquisition.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
By restricting corporate and investment acquisition of farmland, the bill reduces competitive pressure on local farmers seeking to buy or expand operations—potentially improving affordability and access to land for small- and mid-scale producers who lack access to institutional capital.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), (2); Sec. 4(2)(b)Classifying violations as unfair/deceptive practices under the Consumer Protection Act strengthens enforcement tools, enabling private lawsuits and state action to deter predatory land acquisition—helping protect local food systems and community stability.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(a), (b); Sec. 4(1)Removing open space tax eligibility for land held in violation restores fair market-based taxation, increasing local property tax revenue that counties can use for essential services—including schools, roads, and emergency response—in rural areas.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3By limiting foreign or distant corporate ownership of agricultural land, the bill aims to preserve local food production capacity and reduce vulnerability to external market shocks—supporting long-term food affordability and supply resilience for Washington households.
food securityPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (Findings); Sec. 2(1), (2)The requirement that violators sell to a “qualified buyer” (interpreted as individuals or entities engaged in active farming) may help keep land in local hands and prevent speculative flipping—supporting rural community continuity and preventing displacement of longtime residents.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
The ban on business and investment entities acquiring agricultural land may reduce liquidity and investment in farmland, potentially limiting capital availability for farm expansion, modernization, or succession planning—especially for farmers seeking to buy out retiring owners through structured seller-financing arrangements involving LLCs or trusts.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), (2); Sec. 4(2)(b)Enforcement mechanisms—including forced sales within one year and steep penalties ($100K–$125K/year)—create significant legal and financial risk for entities attempting legitimate farmland transitions (e.g., intergenerational transfers using family LLCs or conservation entities), potentially disrupting established estate and land-stewardship plans.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(b); Sec. 4(2)(a)While loss of open space tax eligibility may increase county property tax revenue, the bill does not allocate those funds to support agricultural infrastructure, conservation, or farmer assistance programs—meaning local governments may face increased tax revenue without new resources to address the underlying challenges of farmland affordability.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3The carve-out for timberland (i.e., land not zoned for agricultural use or qualifying as timberland under RCW 84.34) means the policy does not address corporate acquisition of forested land that could be converted to agriculture, potentially shifting investment pressure to non-agricultural land and undermining long-term land-use coherence.
EnvironmentRef: Sec. 2(3)The one-year forced-sale deadline could trigger fire-sale scenarios or distressed sales if qualified buyers are scarce, potentially depress land values temporarily and destabilize rural property markets—especially in counties with limited local buyer pools.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(2)(b)
Who Is Most Affected
Local farmers and ranchers are the primary intended beneficiaries: reduced competition for land, more stable prices, and stronger enforcement tools may improve affordability and tenure security—especially for small- and mid-scale operations without access to institutional capital.
Large investment and business entities—including REITs, private equity, and corporate land investors—face direct prohibition and penalties; existing holders must divest or face steep fines, reducing their ability to use farmland as a speculative or tax-advantaged asset.
Private foundations and land trusts that currently hold agricultural land (e.g., for conservation or charitable purposes) lose eligibility for open space taxation and may be forced to divest—potentially disrupting well-intentioned stewardship models that rely on tax-advantaged structures.
Rural counties may see increased property tax revenue from loss of open space exemptions, but also face administrative burdens in enforcement and potential short-term market instability during forced divestments.
Consumers may benefit from long-term food price stability if the bill successfully curbs corporate land acquisition and preserves local production—but short-term disruptions to land markets could temporarily affect supply chain efficiency.