Category Archives: City Politics

dc roofs

5 DC Housing Bills to Watch in 2018

2018 is an election year for the DC Council, which means some bills will languish while others suddenly sprint ahead. Here are five bills that affordable housing advocates should keep an eye on. To subscribe to updates on any of these bills, click the link and then hit the orange “Subscribe” button at bottom right!

Home Purchase Assistance Program

Home Purchase Assistance Program Amendment Act of 2018 (B22-0682)

Introduced February 6th, 2018
Co-introduced/co-sponsored by: the entire Council

This bill would increase the size of HPAP in two ways. (If you need a quick explainer on what HPAP is, click here.)

First, the bill would increase the maximum income a household can have and still be eligible for the program from 110% of the Area Median Income (AMI) to 120% AMI. For a family of four, that’s an increase from about $120,000 to $130,000. Second, it would increase the loan amount that each income category is eligible for by about $20,000. That would make the maximum loan $100,000 and the minimum loan $32,000.

There’s a case to be made for each of these increases, but they come with a big price tag. Given that the program is already set to run out of money this year without the changes, the Council will need to drastically increase HPAP’s $17 million budget if they want these two expansions to have the desired impact. This bill is currently waiting for a committee hearing.

Condo/Co-op Ownership

Common Interest Communities Remedial Funding Act of 2017 (B22-0273)

Introduced May 2nd, 2017
Co-introduced/co-sponsored by: Councilmembers Anita Bonds (At-Large), Brianne Nadeau (Ward 1), Trayon White (Ward 8), Robert White (At-Large), Elissa Silverman (At-Large), Brandon Todd (Ward 4), and Vincent Gray (Ward 7)

Across the city, low-income condo and co-op associations are struggling to keep up with needed maintenance for aging buildings. This bill would help those associations with a one-time grant of up to $30,000, along with training for board members.

At a hearing for the bill in November, residents testified that a program like this could be a great help to their associations. However, many also suggested that $100,000 would be a more appropriate grant size for rehab work on a multi-unit building. The bill is now waiting for committee mark-up.

Housing Production Trust Fund

Housing Production Trust Fund Guarantee Funding Amendment Act of 2017 (B22-0226)

Introduced April 4th, 2017
Co-introduced/co-sponsored by: Councilmembers Bonds, Kenyan McDuffie (Ward 5), T. White, R. White, Nadeau, and Gray

The Housing Production Trust Fund is DC’s biggest source for building and preserving affordable housing. It has made and saved homes for thousands of Washingtonians, and Mayor Bowser and the Council have done historic work by funding the trust fund at $100 million each year since the Mayor took office.

But each year, the trust fund is subject to political fights about its funding. If a new Council or Mayor loses the political will, the trust fund could quickly be on the chopping block. What’s more, $100 million isn’t what it used to be.

This bill would guarantee the Housing Production Trust Fund at $120 million each year, keeping it from sinking below that level of funding no matter the political will of the moment. It is currently waiting for a committee hearing.

Rent Control

Rental Housing Affordability Stabilization Amendment Act of 2017 (B22-0025)

Introduced January 10th, 2017
Co-introduced/co-sponsored by: Councilmembers Bonds, Mary Cheh (Ward 3), Silverman, Gray, David Grosso (At-Large), and T. White

Today, the thousands of units protected by DC’s rent control law see a modest increase in their rent each year: the rate of inflation, plus an extra 2 percent. Last year that increase would have been about 3 percent total—not a big deal. But tenants note that the additional 2 percent adds up quickly. Over the course of a decade, rent control units’ prices can easily increase by more than a third.

What’s more, rents can increase by up to 30 percent immediately when a unit becomes vacant. Not only does that undermine rent control, but it also incentivizes landlords to evict tenants without cause. This bill would cap the vacancy increase at 5 percent, and limit the annual rent increase to just inflation. It had a hearing last June and is now waiting for committee mark-up.

Preservation of Affordable Rent Control Housing Amendment Act of 2017 (B22-0100)

Introduced February 7th, 2017
Co-introduced/co-sponsored by: Councilmembers Bonds, R. White, Silverman, Cheh, and T. White

This bill deals with another problem facing rent control: voluntary agreements. Voluntary agreements are supposed to be a way for landlords and tenants to come together on rent increases outside of rent control. They’re helpful when tenants need something done (e.g., expensive rehab work) that otherwise the landlord couldn’t afford.

But recently, landlords have been enticing tenants to sign voluntary agreements that only affect future tenants’ rents. If you could get needed benefits for yourself by signing away someone else’s cheap rent, would you do it? This bill says you shouldn’t have to make that choice.

It prohibits voluntary agreements that have different effects for current and future tenants. The bill had a hearing last June, and it’s currently waiting for committee mark-up.

Have another bill you think should be included here? Let us know in the comments!

DC_neighborhoods_map

Trump might cut low-income lending. Here’s how DC needs to respond.

In November of 2017, DC Councilmember David Grosso (At-Large) introduced a bill that would likely increase affordable housing investments and low-income lending by banks that do business with the District government. That bill—and the work it looks to accomplish—have always been important. But recent moves by the Trump administration have made its passage more important than ever.

What’s in the bill?

The bill is actually an update to an earlier responsible banking law, the Community Development Amendment Act, or CDAA. The CDAA set standards for banks that do business with the District government, as well as making their past commitment to low-income lending a part of their score when applying for District contracts. If a bank is benefitting from DC tax dollars, the thinking goes, then that bank needs to be benefitting all DC taxpayers.

But that law, passed in 2014, has never had the impact that its supporters hoped. A loophole in the way the law was written allows DC’s Chief Financial Officer to renew District banking contracts without putting banks through the evaluations specified in the law. That means that as long as DC doesn’t change banks, the CDAA’s responsible banking requirements are meaningless.

The new bill from Councilmember Grosso, entitled Strengthening the CDAA, would close this loophole by requiring that any bank up for a contract renewal be put through the full evaluation process. It also adds to the CDAA by raising the importance of a bank’s past lending activity when that bank is applying for a District contract. The bill was introduced with the support of Councilmembers Bonds (At-Large), Robert White (At-Large), Trayon White (Ward 8), Gray (Ward 7), and Silverman (At-Large).

With this kind of evaluation in place, banks that want to compete for District contracts will have more incentive to serve all of DC’s neighborhoods. Banking services in certain parts of the city, especially Wards 7 and 8, are scarce. Residents have few options when looking for a loan, and many are forced to turn to predatory payday lenders. Getting access to non-predatory home loans and other financial services is a crucial part of increasing racial equity in DC.

One of the ways that both the current law and the new bill evaluate banks is their score from the Community Reinvestment Act. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed by Congress in 1977 as an antidote to decades of racist lending policies. It scores banks on their lending in low income communities and allows community advocates to point out racist lending patterns that exist to this day.

Banks care about their score on this test because it determines their ability to do big money-making deals like mergers with other banks. (The Community Reinvestment Act is worth its own blog post, and you should read the one linked above!) The CDAA and Councilmember Grosso’s new bill both bring extra leverage to the work that the Community Reinvestment Act does.

Why this matters now more than ever

As with most programs that support low-income Americans and people of color, the Community Reinvestment Act is under threat by the Trump White House. Reports emerged earlier this year that the Trump administration is planning to significantly weaken the Community Reinvestment Act, allowing banks to get away with less lending to deserving low-income individuals.

That could create even bigger gaps in access to mortgages and other lending in low-income communities. And those communities are already hurting. Reports from last year indicated that banks were already starting to further limit their lending in low-income communities, even before rumors of a Community Reinvestment Act rollback started.

Local governments will need to fill the hole created by lost Community Reinvestment Act lending, and Councilmember Grosso’s bill to strengthen the CDAA is a great step in that direction. If the DC government really wants to support access to lending for all Washingtonians, Strengthening the CDAA is a must.

The next step for this bill is a hearing in Councilmember McDuffie’s Committee on Business and Economic Development. You can reach Councilmember McDuffie at 202-724-8028, kmcduffie@dccouncil.us, or on twitter at @CM_McDuffie .

dc-office-of-planning-office

How could public campaign financing change DC housing?

In a move that would have been unthinkable just a decade ago, the DC Council voted unanimously last week to approve public financing for local elections. For a city that has suffered from the perception of pay-to-play politics almost since its inception, this move could cause major changes to how housing development is seen in the District.

The bill, which needs a second council vote and the Mayor’s approval or a council override, would use public funds as a multiplier for small-dollar donations that council and mayoral candidates receive. Any donations candidates receive before they are on the ballot would be matched by a multiple of two. After they’re on the ballot, that increases to a multiple of five. Candidates also receive a lump sum from the city ($160,000 for mayor, $40,000 for council) after they’ve hit a minimum number of small dollar donations.

The program is voluntary, but by agreeing to be a part of it, candidates limit the maximum contribution they can accept. For mayor, that drops from $2,000 to $200 per individual. For a Ward-based councilmember, that drops all the way down to $50.

Despite the bill’s unanimous support from the Council, the Mayor has expressed opposition to public financing for elections. She says that funding (estimated to be around $5 million per year) could be better spent on other projects.

But it could be a small price to pay to remove the longstanding perception that development in DC depends on donations to the right candidates. A 2013 review by WAMU found that from 2003 to 2013, more than a third of the $1.7 billion in District subsidy for development went to the ten developers who donated the most to political campaigns.

That same report found that less than 5 percent of subsidy went to Wards 7 and 8, where investment is most needed. Although that picture has changed with Mayor Bowser’s yearly commitment of $100 million to the Housing Production Trust Fund, which provides funding for affordable housing across the city, disparities remain.

This matches with data from a 2016 report by Demos that shows that while white residents make up less than 40 percent of the District’s population, they represent more than two-thirds of local donors. Similarly, although only one in four District residents earn more than $100,000, those earners make up 60 percent of all campaign contributions.

Public financing and its emphasis on small dollar donations could bring more attention the needs of all District residents in campaigning and crafting policy. Just as importantly, it could also help bring transparency to the city’s development process and remove any lingering doubts about the fairness of how subsidy is awarded.

cambridge-66714_1280

Sign the Petition: Schedule a hearing for the HPTF Guarantee Funding Act!

The Housing Production Trust Fund is DC’s best tool for building and preserving affordable housing–it has made and saved homes for thousands of Washingtonians. Mayor Bowser and the Council have done historic work by funding the HPTF at $100 million each year since the Mayor took office.

Sign the petition here!

But each year the trust fund is subject to political fights in the budget process. We can’t count on always having a Council and a Mayor this committed to affordable housing. That’s why we need to make funding the HPTF an automatic part of the DC budget. What’s more, DC’s affordable housing crisis is still getting worse, and President Trump’s disastrous leadership is threatening affordable housing dollars across the country.

Councilmember Anita Bonds (At-Large) has introduced a bill to guarantee funding for the trust fund at $120 million each year. Getting this bill passed would be the biggest win for affordable housing in years! Read the petition below, and add your voice urging Councilmember Bonds and Chairman Phil Mendelson to schedule a hearing for this important legislation!

 

DC zoning

How DC’s Comp Plan Promotes Segregation… And What We Can Do About It

“Development [near transit] must not compromise the integrity of stable neighborhoods…”

That’s the kind of bland, boiler plate language that a local coalition of housing-minded groups says helps keep DC segregated. It’s from the District’s Comprehensive Plan, a document that provides guidance to DC’s Zoning Commission.

That document is chock-full of references to “stable” and historic neighborhoods that don’t need anything built there. In effect, that ensures they remain predominantly white, wealthy, and low-density.

The group, which includes everyone from affordable housing advocates to for-profit developers, was brought together by local blog Greater Greater Washington around a common grievance: a city zoning code that keeps people from building what needs to be built.

The group saw an opportunity for impact with the Comprehensive Plan being open to amendments this year, something that only happens about twice a decade.

Overcoming traditional divisions in DC housing, the group of activists, housing nonprofits, and developers came together to set out a list of goals.

Among these were a desire to increase the availability of affordable housing, meet the housing demand, and to equitably distribute that housing. That’s in line with the federal government’s recent rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, which requires local governments to take an active hand in desegregation efforts.

And a big way that segregation perpetuates itself is through declaring that “stable neighborhoods” are closed for development. These neighborhoods are almost always whiter and wealthier than the city as a whole, often with considerably less density to boot. The current language helps them slam the door on affordable housing developments that could diversify and in-fill these neighborhoods in a number of ways.

GGwash comp planExample of proposed additions in green and deletions in red to the current Comprehensive Plan, along with an explanation for the changes. (Pg. 5 of link)

At the same time, as the city continues to gentrify, development ramps up in long-time communities of color. While investment in these communities is often needed (and deserved after years of public and private neglect), all too often it heralds the arrival of wealthier, predominantly white newcomers, rising rents, and a subsequent cultural and physical displacement.

After the dust settles that could well be a newly stable neighborhood, in Comprehensive Plan speak—no more development or affordable housing needed.

At the very least, the stability that the current Comprehensive Plan talks about is correlated with whiteness. More likely it’s a subconscious piece of the underlying definition.

That’s why the GGW group has painstakingly gone through, line by line, and offered suggested amendments that reflect DC’s responsibility to affirmatively further fair housing. Affordable housing and new development, the amended document would say, need to be spread more evenly throughout the city.

With the right vision for the future, hopefully one day “stable neighborhoods” can be more than just a euphemism in DC.

soh

DC, NYC now offering low-income tenants free legal representation

Image: Tenant rights activists rally in DC earlier this year

Eviction is just about the scariest thing that a tenant can face. It increases your risk of homelessness, poverty, and job loss. It’s more likely to happen to you if you’re a woman, if you’re black, or if you have kids. And it can set your family back for years. That’s why Washington, DC and New York City just implemented laws offering free legal services to low-income tenants facing eviction.

These laws are part of a growing movement across the country, called “civil Gideon,” to provide legal representation to tenants facing eviction. It stems from data showing that while landlords almost always have a lawyer in eviction suits, tenants almost never do. In DC, 94 percent of landlords have legal representation. That’s compared to only 5 percent of tenants.

That gap produces a huge disparity in outcomes, with tenants often being evicted over minimal debts. Sometimes it’s not even a debt tenants are unable to pay–withholding rent is a common last-straw tactic for tenants who can’t get landlords to make necessary fixes. But without a lawyer to guide them, that tactic can end in eviction.

Opponents of New York City’s law, which offers free representation to tenants making up to $50,000, complain about its cost–estimated to be about $200 million each year. But because evictions so often result in homelessness, increased reliance on safety net programs, and other costs to local governments, supporters of the bill decided to run the numbers.

They found that the measure will not only pay for itself, but it will result in over $300 million of additional savings each year. Between saving tenants strife and saving the city money, it’s hard to find a reason to oppose this bill.

The DC Council agrees, and a similar bill put forward earlier this year by Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie (Ward 5) ended up being included in this year’s budget support act. As a much smaller city, the costs for DC’s program are significantly less than in New York City–the budget included $3.9 million in ongoing funds and an additional $600,000 for this year.

Tenant groups and other advocates will be sure to watch this process closely. But with widespread support, plus clear benefits for tenants and the city coffers, DC’s new effort to get free legal representation for low-income tenants should be a great success.

 

neighborhood cut by interstate

Denver, DC make communities of color “dumping ground”

An interstate slashing through Latino communities in the name of progress. An air-polluting city truck fleet moved from a “commercially viable” gentrifying neighborhood to a lower-income black neighborhood. In the last few weeks, DC and Denver have been busy showcasing the worst of the 20th century’s development ideas—well into the 2010s.

Denver’s new renewal

In the 1950s and ’60s, a philosophy called “urban renewal” was sweeping the nation. Crumbling inner city areas, went the thinking, simply weren’t worth saving. It was better to just knock everything down and start over.

And that’s exactly what urban planners did all across the country. Block by block, city by city, the wrecking balls moved in and cleared old structures out. What determined their path, however, had much more to do with race than it did with a plan for urban growth.

The homes, businesses, churches, and community centers the planners targeted for renewal were almost exclusively owned by people of color. Many communities organized extensively in the face of this theft, and some won decisive victories. But through the use of eminent domain, American cities seized and destroyed whole communities, with the displaced, undercompensated black and Latino families left in their wake shunted along into newly built public housing facilities.

DC has its own history of this practice, with the destruction of functioning black communities along the southwest waterfront something still being felt today.

southwest_1939

Southwest DC in 1939, before the majority black neighborhoods were destroyed

The practice largely petered out in the 1970s and ’80s as community groups honed their resistance tactics, winning more and more victories. But Denver is looking to bring back the bad ol’ days with a new interstate expansion.

In a city that is almost 80 percent white, city planners have targeted several majority Latino neighborhoods on the edge of city limits for destruction. Fifty-six homes and 17 businesses would be razed, and the neighborhoods would be cut down the middle by a full decade of construction.

When community groups filed a complaint alleging disparate impact, the federal government admitted that was the case—but decided it wasn’t enough to force a change in plans. Residents aren’t giving up the fight, however, and you can read more about their efforts here.

DC’s pollution distribution

Unlike Denver’s throwback to another era of racist urban planning, DC’s project is part of a long line of cities putting unwanted goods in black neighborhoods. Residents of majority black Langdon Park in Ward 5 recently learned that Department of Parks and Recreation vehicles will soon be rolling into a new home in their neighborhood.

Langdon Google MapsLangdon Park and Ivy City in northeast DC. Link to Google Maps.

That was only discovered after neighbors noticed activity at the site and did some online searching. The search revealed a lease agreement for the site—and the fact that the city failed to fulfill its legal requirement for notifying residents. ANC officials, who didn’t receive their requisite 30-day notice, were in the dark.

And Ward 5 Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie learned that he also had been illegally kept out of the loop—after investigating, he found that the Council had already unwittingly approved the city’s plan through a 10-day passive approval period last year.

City officials admit their mistake, but they see no reason the project shouldn’t more forward as planned.

The site’s location is problematic because it adds an unwanted good to an already overburdened population. Ward 5 already contains a hugely disproportionate amount of the city’s industrial sites. What’s more, DC, like most American cities, has asthma rates that largely fall along racial lines—black children are far more likely to have respiratory issues than white children.

The addition of more smog-belching trucks to a majority black area of the city, an area that already has too much air pollution and the asthma rates to match, is the stuff of textbooks on environmental racism.

It comes just a few years after a similar fight in Ivy City, Langdon Park’s Ward 5 neighbor, where then-Mayor Vincent Gray announced plans for a new bus depot in another overburdened majority black neighborhood. Mayor Muriel Bowser killed that plan when she came into office, in a win for local residents.

But now she’s advancing an almost identical project. In explaining their decision to move DCPR from its current location in Shaw, the administration stated that the existing site is simply too “commercially desirable” to house vehicles. The burden, then, is intentionally being shifted from a gentrified neighborhood to one with a majority of people of color.

Jeremy Wilcox, the Langdon Park resident who was the first to find the lease agreement, told the Washington Post what it communicates to the neighborhood on no uncertain terms: “We are a dumping ground—Ward 5 is a dumping ground.”

The methods and the scale might be different, but Denver and DC keep putting unwanted goods on the shoulders of people of color. It’s a game American cities have been playing for far too long.

Asset Building cover

New Push in DC for Racial Justice Through Asset Building

A bold new report released this month details the disparity of wealth along racial lines in DC, then plots several ways the city can achieve a more equitable future. Its authors hope it’s just the start of a city-wide movement for building wealth in communities of color.

The report, entitled An Introduction to Asset Building in the District of Columbia, was written by the Coalition for Nonprofit Housing and Economic Development (CNHED) and Capital Area Asset Builders (CAAB), two long-time players in DC’s asset building landscape.

The need is clear. According to the report, 40 percent of DC residents don’t have enough net worth to stay above the poverty line for three months if their income disappeared. One in ten don’t even have a bank account—and among those who do a full quarter of residents are still forced to use predatory institutions like payday loan offices.

Asset building stats

It’s a problem that largely falls along racial lines. An analysis of DC post-recession found that the average white household has over 80 times the wealth of the average black household. That’s largely due to a lack of asset ownership, especially homeownership, in black communities.

CNHED and CAAB want to start a new coalition to take this problem on. Because this disparity has been created by several centuries of discriminatory laws and spending, it will take smart new investments by public and private actors to start to shrink this racial wealth gap.

The report outlines four general approaches that an asset building coalition could take, from pressuring the city government to institute new programs for low-income wealth building, to creating and managing new programs through a steering committee made up of members from this future coalition.

Whatever form this coalition takes, DC residents are counting on it to be impactful. Many literally can’t afford failure.

For more info about the Asset Building Policy Project and how to join the coalition, click here!

Asset Building strategies

Nam_Viet_DC

New Bill Would Help DC Restaurants with Rent Increases

Nam-Viet in Cleveland Park, which closed on June 25

After two high-profile restaurant closings in Cleveland Park, Councilmember Brianne Nadeau (Ward 1) has introduced a new bill to help longtime DC restaurants deal with rising rents.

The bill, supported by Councilmembers Elissa Silverman (At-Large), Robert White (At-Large), Trayon White (Ward 8), David Grosso (At-Large), and Charles Allen (Ward 6), would provide restaurants that have been in the same location for at least a decade with up to $50,000 of assistance a year for up to five years. The restaurants must also be certified small business enterprises.

With this bill, CM Nadeau is trying to not only stop the displacement of longtime DC eateries, but also to prevent the cultural gentrification that many life-long Washingtonians say makes them feel like strangers in their own neighborhoods.

CM Nadeau’s website says that she hopes the bill will help mitigate “commercial gentrification [that] risks the vibrancy and continuity of our neighborhoods…”

In one study on the topic, researchers at the City University of New York found that longtime restaurants in a gentrifying majority-black New York City neighborhood were likely to receive online reviews portraying them in a negative light.

Reviewers used words like “sketchy” or “ghetto” to describe the neighborhood’s black owned businesses, language that is almost always a coded racial condemnation of a majority-black space.

The CUNY researchers termed this practice “discursive redlining,” noting that the public branding of black-owned institutions as undesirable is an important part of the neighborhood takeover.

While rental assistance alone can’t shift newcomers’ perceptions, it can give longtime restaurants—and by extension, residents—a better chance to feel secure in a changing neighborhood. Perhaps a longer time frame would even convince newcomers to try longtime establishments, increasing chances of connections forming between the old and the new.

In any case, CM Nadeau’s bill would help otherwise sound restaurants deal with rising rents. And that in itself may be enough to make it law.

Anita Bonds

CM Bonds Moves Rent Control Fixes

Councilmember Anita Bonds (At-Large) symbolically closes a rent control loophole at an event in October 2016

DC has one of the strongest rent control laws in the nation. Unfortunately, several landlord-sized loopholes turn lots of ostensibly rent controlled housing into market rate units each year. But Councilmember Anita Bonds (At-Large) is working on passing a pair of bills to fix that.

The problem comes in both cases when a rental unit changes hands.

Currently, anyone living in a rent controlled building (any building built before 1975 that has five or more units) by law sees only modest increases in their rent each year. For people who find an affordable rent-controlled unit and then are able to age in place, the protections are stellar.

But when a unit experiences turnover, as units are liable to do in DC’s fast-paced rental market, landlords are able to raise prices by up to 30 percent—often essentially taking the unit to market rate. One family may leave a home that costs $1300 a month only for the next family who moves in to find themselves facing rent of $1700 a month or more.

One of CM Bonds’ bills, entitled the Rental Housing Affordability Stabilization Amendment Act of 2017, would cap that increase at just 5 percent—an amount that preserves the unit’s affordability and doesn’t incentivize pushing current tenants out the door. Publicly supported by Councilmembers Cheh (Ward 3), Silverman (At-Large), Gray (Ward 7), Grosso (At-Large), and Trayon White (Ward 8), the bill would also limit yearly rent increases to strictly the rate of inflation.

Another tactic landlords sometimes use to raise prices is to make voluntary agreements with tenant associations. It’s a process that involves several steps of abuse.

Landlords can file to raise rent above allowable rates with a “hardship petition,”* claiming that they can’t afford to make necessary improvements (or at least can’t earn enough profit while doing so) without more revenue. If their petition is accepted, tenants have no negotiating power—they can pay the new, higher rates or move out.

But sometimes landlords are unsure whether their petition would succeed or not. If that’s the case, they’ll go a different direction and use the threat of a hardship petition as a bargaining chip. In negotiating with tenant associations, landlords portray the tenants’ choices as this: you can either go through with the petition process and likely see automatic rent increases, or you can sit down with me and work on a deal where you’re guaranteed not to see any increases—but you wave future tenants’ rent control rights.

With the voluntary agreement from the tenant association in hand, landlords are able to make any unit that changes hands into a market rate apartment.

CM Bonds’ other bill, the Preservation of Affordable Rent Control Housing Amendment Act of 2017, wants to stop landlords from pitting current and future tenants against each other. It would outlaw the practice of making deals that only raise prices for newcomers, mandating that any agreed upon increases must be applied across the board.

It was co-introduced by Councilmembers Robert White (At-Large), Silverman, Cheh, and Trayon White.

If passed by the Council and signed into law, both bills would move DC closer to protecting tenants as the District’s rent control law intended.

 

*Another one of CM Bonds’ bills on rent control, this one targeting hardship petitions, was signed into law last December. It succeeded in lowering the return on investment guaranteed to landlords from 12 percent to 5 percent.