‘Takes away rights': Mass. realtors upset with new law meant to help first-time homebuyers
Every buyer is worried about finding expensive problems after all the paperwork has been signed.
A new state law goes into effect regarding the use of home inspectors on Friday.
Supporters of the measure believe it will help home buyers, particularly those in the market for the first time.
Some real estate professionals feel it will put unworkable limits on both buyers and sellers.
The new law comes at a time when it has never been more challenging for first-time homebuyers in eastern Massachusetts.
The Greater Boston Association of Realtors says the median price for a single-family home in the region is now $988,000.
It's a frustrating situation for people like Tina Shukar. She has unsuccessfully been trying to buy her first house for several years now.
She has a good career in sales.
'The problem is that I am competing against companies that do home flips, and they use cash to buy properties, and skip inspections and all that.'
The new law will make it against the law to condition the sale of property on a waiver of an inspection, said State Senator Will Brownsberger (D-Suffolk/Middlesex).
This law is part of the Affordable Homes Act, which was signed by Governor Maura Healey last August.
It's one of about 50 housing initiatives in the $5 billion dollar plus law.
Brownsberger was part of the Senate conference as the bill went through the legislature.
'The first-time homebuyers, the people we are trying to help in the housing market, are especially disadvantaged by that market dynamic of private equity... Coming into the local real estate market and snapping up properties.'
Brownsberger says those types of buyers are better suited to handle the risks of foregoing an inspection.
One reason the senate got involved was because of a wide scale problem with concrete in central Massachusetts.
25 Investigates first reported on how concrete was compromised with pyrrhotite and was susceptible to crumbling.
'We recognize that rules can have unintended consequences, so we left the details of this bill to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to put out some regulations.'
'What happened here isn't right,' said Anthony Lamacchia, the CEO and also a broker, at The Lamacchia Companies. 'It takes away rights from buyers and sellers and it's a real problem.'
Lamacchia isn't opposed to home inspections. In fact, he often thinks they're a good idea.
But it's the part of the new law that really bothers him.
It would prohibit the sale of a property, or 'accepting an offer if the seller has been informed in advance that the prospective buyer intends to waive their right to an inspection.'
Lamacchia added, 'It is literally going to prohibit realtors from doing things that they are supposed to do. You are supposed to convey what a buyer is trying to achieve. You are supposed to advocate for the advantages of the seller taking your buyer's offer. Now if a seller hears that or a listing agent hears that, they're not supposed to accept that offer. It doesn't make sense.'
Brownsberger believes it will help 'remove some of the advantages that those cash buyers have.'
Lamacchia said, 'Listen, this is capitalism, and in capitalism, there are highs and lows in all kinds of ways.'
The Housing Office will report out their final regulations, and they will become law, on June 6th.
Senator Brownsberger said it's common for the legislature to approve of an outline of their intentions and then have the appropriate agency fill in the specifics.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
Congress Won't Block State AI Regulations. Here's What That Means for Consumers
After months of debate, a plan in Congress to block states from regulating artificial intelligence was pulled from the big federal budget bill this week. The proposed 10-year moratorium would have prevented states from enforcing rules and laws on AI if the state accepted federal funding for broadband access. The issue exposed divides among technology experts and politicians, with some Senate Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the move. The Senate eventually voted 99-1 to remove the proposal from the bill, which also includes the extension of the 2017 federal tax cuts and cuts to services like Medicaid and SNAP. Congressional Republican leaders have said they want to have the measure on President Donald Trump's desk by July 4. Tech companies and many Congressional Republicans supported the moratorium, saying it would prevent a "patchwork" of rules and regulations across states and local governments that could hinder the development of AI -- especially in the context of competition with China. Critics, including consumer advocates, said states should have a free hand to protect people from potential issues with the fast-growing technology. "The Senate came together tonight to say that we can't just run over good state consumer protection laws," Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, said in a statement. "States can fight robocalls, deepfakes and provide safe autonomous vehicle laws. This also allows us to work together nationally to provide a new federal framework on artificial intelligence that accelerates US leadership in AI while still protecting consumers." Despite the moratorium being pulled from this bill, the debate over how the government can appropriately balance consumer protection and supporting technology innovation will likely continue. "There have been a lot of discussions at the state level, and I would think that it's important for us to approach this problem at multiple levels," said Anjana Susarla, a professor at Michigan State University who studies AI. "We could approach it at the national level. We can approach it at the state level, too. I think we need both." Several states have already started regulating AI The proposed moratorium would have barred states from enforcing any regulation, including those already on the books. The exceptions are rules and laws that make things easier for AI development and those that apply the same standards to non-AI models and systems that do similar things. These kinds of regulations are already starting to pop up. The biggest focus is not in the US, but in Europe, where the European Union has already implemented standards for AI. But states are starting to get in on the action. Colorado passed a set of consumer protections last year, set to go into effect in 2026. California adopted more than a dozen AI-related laws last year. Other states have laws and regulations that often deal with specific issues such as deepfakes or require AI developers to publish information about their training data. At the local level, some regulations also address potential employment discrimination if AI systems are used in hiring. "States are all over the map when it comes to what they want to regulate in AI," said Arsen Kourinian, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown. So far in 2025, state lawmakers have introduced at least 550 proposals around AI, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In the House committee hearing last month, Rep. Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California, signaled a desire to get ahead of more state-level regulation. "We have a limited amount of legislative runway to be able to get that problem solved before the states get too far ahead," he said. Read more: AI Essentials: 29 Ways to Make Gen AI Work for You, According to Our Experts While some states have laws on the books, not all of them have gone into effect or seen any enforcement. That limits the potential short-term impact of a moratorium, said Cobun Zweifel-Keegan, managing director in Washington for IAPP. "There isn't really any enforcement yet." A moratorium would likely deter state legislators and policymakers from developing and proposing new regulations, Zweifel-Keegan said. "The federal government would become the primary and potentially sole regulator around AI systems," he said. What a moratorium on state AI regulation would mean AI developers have asked for any guardrails placed on their work to be consistent and streamlined. "We need, as an industry and as a country, one clear federal standard, whatever it may be," Alexandr Wang, founder and CEO of the data company Scale AI, told lawmakers during an April hearing. "But we need one, we need clarity as to one federal standard and have preemption to prevent this outcome where you have 50 different standards." During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in May, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, that an EU-style regulatory system "would be disastrous" for the industry. Altman suggested instead that the industry develop its own standards. Asked by Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, if industry self-regulation is enough at the moment, Altman said he thought some guardrails would be good, but, "It's easy for it to go too far. As I have learned more about how the world works, I am more afraid that it could go too far and have really bad consequences." (Disclosure: Ziff Davis, parent company of CNET, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.) Not all AI companies are backing a moratorium, however. In a New York Times op-ed, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called it "far too blunt an instrument," saying the federal government should create transparency standards for AI companies instead. "Having this national transparency standard would help not only the public but also Congress understand how the technology is developing, so that lawmakers can decide whether further government action is needed." A proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI laws is now in the hands of the US Senate, where its Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has already held hearings on artificial intelligence. Nathan Howard/Bloomberg via Getty Images Concerns from companies, both the developers that create AI systems and the "deployers" who use them in interactions with consumers, often stem from fears that states will mandate significant work such as impact assessments or transparency notices before a product is released, Kourinian said. Consumer advocates have said more regulations are needed and hampering the ability of states could hurt the privacy and safety of users. A moratorium on specific state rules and laws could result in more consumer protection issues being dealt with in court or by state attorneys general, Kourinian said. Existing laws around unfair and deceptive practices that are not specific to AI would still apply. "Time will tell how judges will interpret those issues," he said. Susarla said the pervasiveness of AI across industries means states might be able to regulate issues such as privacy and transparency more broadly, without focusing on the technology. But a moratorium on AI regulation could lead to such policies being tied up in lawsuits. "It has to be some kind of balance between 'we don't want to stop innovation,' but on the other hand, we also need to recognize that there can be real consequences," she said. Much policy around the governance of AI systems does happen because of those so-called technology-agnostic rules and laws, Zweifel-Keegan said. "It's worth also remembering that there are a lot of existing laws and there is a potential to make new laws that don't trigger the moratorium but do apply to AI systems as long as they apply to other systems," he said. What's next for federal AI regulation? One of the key lawmakers pushing for the removal of the moratorium from the bill was Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican. Blackburn said she wanted to make sure states were able to protect children and creators, like the country musicians her state is famous for. "Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can't block states from standing in the gap to protect vulnerable Americans from harm -- including Tennessee creators and precious children," she said in a statement. Groups that opposed the preemption of state laws said they hope the next move for Congress is to take steps toward actual regulation of AI, which could make state laws unnecessary. If tech companies "are going to seek federal preemption, they should seek federal preemption along with a federal law that provides rules of the road," Jason Van Beek, chief government affairs officer at the Future of Life Institute, told me. Ben Winters, director of AI and data privacy at the Consumer Federation of America, said Congress could take up the idea of pre-empting state laws again in separate legislation. "Fundamentally, it's just a bad idea," he told me. "It doesn't really necessarily matter if it's done in the budget process."
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Democrats pick fight over how GOP's SNAP change hits states
Republicans are defending recent legislation aimed at incentivizing states to fight erroneous payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — but Democrats are picking a fight over a last-minute change they argue encourages states to have higher error rates. Legislation passed out of the GOP-led Congress on Thursday that could see some states pay a share of benefit costs for SNAP, also known as the food stamps program, for the first time. The federal government currently covers the cost of benefits, but under the plan that's been tossed around by congressional Republicans over the past few months, some states would have to cover anywhere between 5 percent and 15 percent of the benefits costs if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent — which factors in over-and-underpayments. However, changes were made to the text that allowed delayed implementation for the cost-share requirements for states with the highest error rates shortly before its passage in the Senate this week. GOP leadership sought to lock down support from Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, whose state had the highest payment error rate in the country in fiscal year 2024. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans made the change to comply with chamber rules. 'You have to give those states time to adjust because about all they're going to do is get down to that midrange, and then they're still going to have to pay a penalty because they're so high,' he said. 'So, it's about giving states a fair chance to adjust.' Under the plan that was greenlit by Congress on Thursday, some states would begin contributing a share of benefit costs in fiscal year 2028, depending on their payment error rate. But the plan also allows for delayed implementation for two years for states with payment error rates if they reach around 13.34 percent or higher — an effort Republicans say is aimed at providing states like Alaska with much higher rates to bring them down. Hoeven said the GOP-led agriculture committee, which crafted the SNAP pitch, 'came up with a lot of proposals' trying to comply with restrictive rules governing a special process that Republicans used to approve the plan in the upper chamber without Democratic support. Under the rules, Hoeven said, 'they always said you got to give states time to adjust in order to meet the test.' Republicans say the overall proposal is aimed at incentivizing states to reduce erroneous payments. But Democrats have sharply criticized the plan, arguing it would encourage states with higher error rates to continue making erroneous payments. 'The most absurd example of the hypocrisy of the Republican bill: they have now proposed delaying SNAP cuts FOR TWO YEARS ONLY FOR STATES with the highest error rates just to bury their help for Alaska: AK, DC, FL, GA, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OR. They are rewarding errors,' Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, wrote this week as she sounded off in a series of posts on X over the plan. In another swipe at the plan, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote on X that he had to text his state's governor that 10 states with 'the MOST ERRORS in administering the program' are 'exempt from food assistance cuts,' at that Hawaii is not exempt because the governor has done 'good work in reducing the error rate by 15 percent.' The comments come as Democrats and advocates have argued the measure could lead to states having to cut benefits because of the shift in cost burden. Recent figures unveiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) showed Alaska's payment error rate hit 24.66 percent in fiscal year 2024. The national average was 10.93 percent. Murkowski said after the vote that she didn't 'like' the bill but sought to 'to take care of Alaska's interests.' But she also said she knew 'that, in many parts of the country, there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill.' 'I don't like the fact that we moved through an artificial deadline, an artificial timeline to produce something, to meet a deadline, rather than to actually try to produce the best bill for the country,' she said. 'But when I saw the direction that this is going, you can either say, 'I don't like it and not try to help my state,' or you can roll up your sleeves.' Republicans also criticized Democrats for challenging a previous GOP-crafted SNAP provision that sought to provide more targeted help to Alaska, as GOP leadership sought to win Murkowski's support for the bill, which ultimately passed the Senate in a tie-breaking vote. However, Democrats opposed previously proposed waivers for the noncontiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii, decrying 'special treatment.' In remarks on Wednesday, House Agriculture Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) the Senate 'had to add something to get to address that challenge that Alaska has.' 'The goal is, from a functionality perspective, they need to get their error rate down as soon as possible, because when the time comes, and they have to start to pay, they don't want to be that high error rate that you're coming in now,' he said. 'In most states, Alaska would be a challenge, I think, but most states have been under 6 percent at one time in past years,' he said. However, he also wasn't 'crazy about' work requirements exemptions for some Indigenous populations in the Senate's version of Trump's megabill that didn't appear in the House bill, as Republicans seek to tighten work requirements. 'It's what the Senate had to do,' he said, though he noted that 'economic conditions are challenging on those sovereign lands and in high unemployment, high poverty.' It's unclear whether the carve-outs were the result of talks Alaska senators had with GOP leadership around SNAP in the days leading up to the Senate passage. The Hill has reached out to their offices for comment. The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development said Alaska has 'one of the largest indigenous populations in the nation,' with Alaska Natives representing 17 percent of the state in 2010. At the same time, the Senate bill nixed temporary exemptions that had been preserved in the House bill for former foster youth, homeless individuals and veterans. Despite being preserved in the House plan, Thompson criticized the carve-outs, which were secured as part of a previous bipartisan deal in 2023. 'It cheats all those individuals from having access to that to us funding their SNAP Employment and career and technical education, because the whole goal here is to raise these people out of poverty if they're struggling in poverty, because that's how you qualify for SNAP,' he said. 'And the fact is, they were made ineligible for the really great benefits.' Other proposals in the party's SNAP plan seek to limit the federal government's ability to increase monthly benefits in the future, changes to work requirements and include a chunk of farm provisions. The plan comes as Republicans sought to find ways to generate north of $1 trillion in savings of federal dollars over the next decade as part of a major package that also advances President Trump's tax agenda, which is estimated to add trillions of dollars to the nation's deficits. Republicans say the proposed spending reductions, which are achieved also through changes to programs like Medicaid, are aimed at rooting out 'waste, fraud and abuse' in the federal government. But preliminary research released this week by the Urban Institute found that just the SNAP changes could affect about 22 million families, who researchers said could be at risk of 'losing some or all of their SNAP benefits' under the plan. Asked if last-minute changes to the plan to help other states and not his bothered him, Sen. Jim Justice ( who ultimately voted for the plan, told reporters this week, 'Yes and no.' 'But at the same time, I think they probably had more severe need and so I think it'll be fine,' Justice, a former governor, said Tuesday. 'If it's like any business deal that I've ever seen in my life, you know, the parties of a good business deal walk away after they get something done, and they walk away, and they're probably holding their nose a little bit, and they're probably regretting certain things and saying, 'Doggone, we didn't do good on this and that and everything,' That's a good deal.'
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Musk's primary threats pose danger for Republicans
Elon Musk is threatening to primary Republicans who voted for President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' posing a challenge for the president and his allies as they look to defy midterm headwinds. Musk vowed earlier this week that Republicans who supported Trump's megabill 'will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth' as the Tesla CEO has reignited his feud with Trump in recent days. Republicans see the comments as unhelpful, with some saying if the threats come to fruition, it could risk diverting resources away in an election environment that historically hasn't been kind to the president's party in power. 'One of the most destructive behaviors that we've had in cycles where we've been unsuccessful in Senate races … are those in which we have expended massive resources in intraparty warfare,' said one Republican consultant who's worked on Senate races. Ever since Musk ended his stint at the White House, the billionaire has been a vocal critic of Trump's major policy bill, taking particular issue with the projected trillions of dollars multiple analyses say will add to the deficit. The House narrowly passed the final version of the bill on Thursday, and Trump signed it Friday evening at a White House Fourth of July event. But Musk's frustrations reached a new point on Monday when he said he would back challengers to Republicans who supported Trump's agenda-setting legislation, while saying he would also look to protect Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a prominent opponent of the bill who has drawn Trump's ire. The Tesla CEO also suggested it was time for a new political party. 'It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country — the PORKY PIG PARTY!! Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people,' he said on the social platform X, which he owns. Some lawmakers have sought to brush off Musk's threat. 'I'll take President Trump's endorsement over Elon's any day of the week, back home,' Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) said in an interview with Just the News's Nicholas Ballasy regarding the potential primary challenge. Marshall said his Republican colleagues were 'ignoring' Musk. Trump, meanwhile, left the door open this week to deporting Musk, who was born in South Africa and became a naturalized U.S. citizen. He also suggested Musk's advisory Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could be turned against the billionaire and his companies. 'I think what's going to happen is DOGE is going to look at Musk. And if DOGE looks at Musk, we're going to save a fortune,' Trump said while in Florida on Tuesday. 'I don't think he should be playing that game with me.' The White House and a representative for Musk did not respond to requests for comment for this story. Some Republicans expressed skepticism that Musk would actually follow through in launching primary challenges against GOP incumbents, while others didn't view the billionaire's remarks as an immediate threat. 'I think the president is much more popular with the base right now than Elon Musk, and I think our elected representatives are also more popular,' said Mark Jefferson, a former executive director for the Wisconsin GOP. 'I don't take the threat all that seriously, because how do you primary hundreds of people?' asked Georgia-based Republican consultant Brian Robinson. Unlike Musk, Trump has a history of trying to oust Republicans with whom he's been at odds, with varying degrees of success. And Trump's allies have already signaled this cycle they're not afraid to go after holdouts and members of the party they see as stymieing the president and his agenda. A pro-Trump super PAC has already been created with the goal of 'firing' Massie. 'Unless and until Musk can start lining up some A-team candidates or credible people or people in the same wing of the party, he's going nowhere,' said top GOP donor Eric Levine, who described Massie as 'fringe.' Other Republicans suggest it may not be long before Trump and Musk are back on good terms again. While it's too soon to say how serious Musk might be about his primary threats, the moves would be an unnecessary obstacle for the party. 'I hope that he doesn't, obviously, because I think that primary fights normally don't do anything but strengthen the opposition,' said longtime GOP donor Bill Bean. Bean acknowledged that Musk 'has a point' about the GOP legislation raising the deficit, but he also voiced concern that Musk's primary challenges against members of Congress could force Republicans to divert resources from areas where the party might not otherwise have been concerned. 'I think that his money would be much better spent instead of primarying conservative Republicans who maybe aren't 100 percent as conservative or 100 percent agree with him to go out and win elections in swing districts,' Bean said. 'I guarantee you, if we had a 30-seat majority in the House and a 12-seat majority in the Senate, the bill right now going through would be a lot closer to what he would like to see,' he added. Musk's remarks represent a noteworthy shift from just months ago, when he was considered one of Trump's biggest allies. His America PAC spent tens of millions of dollars alone supporting the president during the 2024 election, and he was a critical donor for Wisconsin Republicans earlier this year as they looked to narrow the spending gap against Democrats in the high-stakes state Supreme Court race. Even while Musk has opened up old wounds with Trump over Republicans' major policy bill, it hasn't stopped him from offering some praise for the president. He lauded the president last week over his handling of foreign affairs, writing Wednesday in a post on X: 'Credit where credit is due. @realDonaldTrump has successfully resolved several serious conflicts around the world.' Meanwhile, some Republicans have a warning for Musk, should he follow through on his threats. 'Musk is deeply hated among Democrats. For now, he maintains good standing among Republicans, but if he follows through, he will lose them as well and be a man without a country,' said Michigan-based GOP strategist Jason Cabel Roe in an email to The Hill. 'That will sabotage any political or business initiatives he's involved in.'
