HB 2665
In CommitteeHouse
Less restrictive alt. prop.
Requiring owners of properties used as less restrictive alternatives for sexually violent predators to make certain disclosures.
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 requires property buyers who plan to use their property as a less restrictive alternative for sexually violent predators to notify local and state officials before closing on the sale. It also sets specific information that must be included in the notice and creates a civil penalty for noncompliance.
- Property buyers must provide written notice to local and state officials before closing on a property they intend to use as a less restrictive alternative for sexually violent predators.
- The notice must include the planned start date, the maximum number of residents allowed, and (if known) the names of any sexually violent predators who will live there.
- Notice must be given after entering escrow but before closing on the property sale.
- Failure to provide the required notice is a class 1 civil infraction, which can result in a fine up to $250 per violation.
Who is affected
- Property buyers (individuals or entities) — Property buyers who intend to use their purchased property to house sexually violent predators under court-ordered supervision must now notify local and state officials before closing on the sale.
- County and local government officials — County officials (sheriffs, county administrators, and commissioners or councils) receive advance notice of properties being used for this purpose, helping them prepare for potential community safety concerns.
- State legislators (senators and representatives) — State legislators representing the district where the property is located are informed about planned use of properties in their district for housing sexually violent predators.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (3)
Advance notice to local officials—including sheriffs, county administrators, and legislators—enables coordinated community preparedness, risk assessment, and resource allocation (e.g., increased patrols, public information campaigns), reducing surprise and potential community alarm when a less restrictive alternative opens.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (2)Requiring disclosure of maximum occupancy and resident names (if known) allows local governments to verify compliance with capacity limits and assess whether the facility meets staffing, safety, and supervision standards—enhancing accountability and reducing risk of overcrowding or inadequate supervision.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b), (c)The bill clarifies which local officials must be notified, reducing ambiguity and administrative confusion for counties—though it adds a new duty, the scope is narrow and limited to a specific type of property use, minimizing broader administrative burden.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(d)
Potential Concerns (4)
The requirement to notify officials only *after* entering escrow but *before* closing creates a narrow window for meaningful oversight, potentially allowing properties to be purchased and closed on before authorities have time to assess community impact or coordinate safety planning—reducing the effectiveness of the notice requirement in preventing community harm.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (4)The $250 civil infraction penalty is modest and non-criminal, but may disproportionately burden small property buyers or nonprofit providers (e.g., community-based residential facilities) that lack legal compliance infrastructure—especially if multiple violations occur across multiple properties—creating administrative friction without meaningful deterrence for larger entities.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)Requiring disclosure of names of sexually violent predators before closing may violate due process or privacy rights of individuals who have completed their sentences and are under court-ordered supervision—especially if names are disclosed prematurely or inaccurately, potentially exposing them to vigilante action or stigma before legal eligibility is confirmed.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c)The timing requirement (notice after escrow but before closing) may delay or complicate property transfers for legitimate providers of community-based alternatives, especially if escrow timelines are tight—potentially disrupting housing placements for individuals transitioning from institutional settings, thereby undermining the goal of less restrictive alternatives.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Property buyers who are licensed residential providers (e.g., community residential facilities) must now navigate an additional disclosure step before closing, potentially delaying placements for individuals exiting incarceration or institutions—though the requirement aims to improve transparency, it adds procedural complexity for small operators.
Local sheriffs gain early awareness of planned facilities, enabling proactive community safety planning—but they may face increased demand for verification and monitoring without additional funding, straining existing resources.
Legislators gain visibility into housing plans in their districts, potentially improving oversight—but they may face political pressure or constituent concerns without access to the full clinical or risk-assessment data needed to make informed judgments.
Sexually violent predators subject to court-ordered supervision may face increased stigma or risk of community backlash if their names are disclosed prematurely—especially if the facility is approved only after closing, or if names are misreported.
Neighborhood residents may benefit from increased transparency and early warning, reducing fear and misinformation—but may also experience heightened anxiety or opposition if the notification triggers NIMBY mobilization before full vetting of the facility’s compliance.