jonetta rose barras: DC’s never-ending rental housing mess
She hasn’t said it out loud. I can’t help thinking, however, that on more than a few nights, at-large DC Council member Anita Bonds probably has whispered to herself, “Be careful what you wish for.”
Two years ago, at the start of the current Council Period 23, Bonds aggressively lobbied Chairman Phil Mendelson to be reappointed head of the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization. Bonds had just won a second full term. She felt good about the future and what she could achieve.
Housing has proved a difficult challenge. Bonds has had to juggle dozens of legislative proposals. She has had to navigate the obstacle course of competing interests within the council, the executive branch and the community. She has had to manage multiple protests held in front of her home, including one that occurred in the lead-up to the general election and may have played more than a passing role in the defeat of a popular at-large council candidate.
“My job is to hear from as many voices as want to have input,” Bonds told me during a recent telephone interview. “It’s a very complicated situation we are in.”
Concerns about rental housing aren’t new. Back in the early 20th century, low-income families found themselves living in many of the city’s alleys, introducing the phrase “alley dwellings” and instigating construction of the first public housing complexes. Then came battles over redevelopment of public housing. More recently the struggle has been around unmanaged gentrification, which kicked up the cost of housing, introducing luxury rental units in communities where many residents struggled to earn $10 per hour.
Along the way, elected officials created a Housing Production Trust Fund, introduced inclusionary zoning, gave tenants first dibs on the sale of their apartment buildings, and provided the executive branch an opportunity to gain control of declining rental properties to prevent the market loss of low-cost housing. Programs and new policies haven’t yielded enough effective, long-term results to solve the perennial crisis.
Blame that in large part on the absence of proactive council oversight and of consistent, aggressive code enforcement. Results could also be enhanced with the creation of a separate regulatory agency focused exclusively on rental housing.
“We need a rental housing department,” said Bonds, adding that she advocated for such agency “a year ago.” Her colleagues weren’t on board.
As envisioned, such a department would assume complete responsibility for housing-code enforcement, which is currently handled with little competence or urgency by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA). Bonds’ proposal would also remove the Rental Accommodations Division and the Rental Conversion and Sale Division from the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD); over the past several years DHCD has seemingly become fixated on housing production, construction and so-called community development. Tenants have been left on the sidelines, crying for action and protection.
Unsurprisingly, Mendelson quickly dismissed the idea of creating a housing department when I spoke with him over the weekend. He pointed to the breakup of DCRA as the answer. The council gave initial approval this week to Mendelson’s legislation, which, as written, would establish a Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection and a Department of Buildings. Mendelson asserted that the latter would allow for a “singular focus on housing.”
The measure, in my view, is nothing more than a $10 million exercise in deck-chair rearranging. (Oh, did I forget to mention there actually is no money available in the budget to carry out Mendelson’s project, which Mayor Muriel Bowser opposes?) No one should expect any significant improvements even if it is implemented.
Sure, there would be an Office of Residential Inspections. But there also would be three other complex and complicated divisions, including an Office of Strategic Code Enforcement, Office of Zoning Administration and Office of Construction and Building Standards. It would be more of the same.
Renters need a proactive housing department that will seek out and aggressively respond to regulatory violations and policy inadequacies, while assuring the full implementation of DC’s rent control law. Landlords could also benefit from such an agency that would promptly consider their questions and concerns. Without that kind of laser focus, the city’s rental housing crisis will continue unabated.
“We’re nearly where we were in 1986 because we have the pandemic,” said Bonds, referring to the year that the DC Council approved the current rent control law that has been amended and extended over the years but never overhauled.
Nevertheless, the council has chosen to kick the proverbial can down the road, bypassing the hard decisions. Earlier this year, it once again extended the existing rent control law — flaws and all. This week, the legislature, encouraged by Bonds, kicked that can yet again.
Bonds’ committee had held public hearings on several far-reaching legislative proposals, including the Hardship Petition Reform Amendment Act of 2020 and the Rent Stabilization Program Reform and Expansion Amendment Act of 2020. Together, they would have effected significant changes to the rent control law. Among other things, the bills would have expanded the number of units covered by the law; altered how rent increases are calculated, including using the Consumer Price Index as the cap on annual hikes; and decreased the guaranteed profit margin for housing providers from the current 12% to 8%.
The majority of tenants testifying at public hearings last month overwhelmingly supported the measures, as did the longtime director of the Office of Tenant Advocate, Johanna Shreve. She urged the legislature to make the law permanent, calling it a “a critical step towards a truly comprehensive affordable housing strategy for the District.”
Landlords fought back against many provisions. The devil they know is better than the one they don’t. They seemed satisfied with the extension given by the council in the 2021 budget. Polly Donaldson, director of DHCD, argued that the council should reform “the current system before there can be any discussion of expansion to new properties.”
Yesim Sayin Taylor, executive director of the highly respected DC Policy Center, noted in her report on the stabilization bill that capping the permissible annual increase “will lower future rent trajectories.” She said that the proposed new law could “reduce the net operating income, building valuations and tax revenues.”
“To get renters into units they can afford, the city must first recognize that housing is an ecosystem, and its different parts (rental v. owner-occupied, market-rate v. affordable) work together,” continued Taylor.
Further, she argued that subjecting some units to “limited rent growth and lower return will likely push some housing providers to convert buildings into condominiums or coops” — reducing the supply of rental housing in DC.
It’s understandable there would be much disagreement around these key proposals. Rather than addressing them forthrightly, Bonds and her colleagues sidestepped them. They decided on Tuesday to approve legislation that would require landlords to consider housing vouchers as income a renter may present with an application to lease. District law already prohibits discrimination against voucher holders, and to emphasize that point DC Attorney General Karl Racine has filed several successful lawsuits against violating landlords.
The council also set a two-year moratorium on voluntary agreements, which often are signed between landlords and their tenants. By law, if at least 70% of existing renters approve a voluntary agreement, the housing provider can increase the rent above the legally allowable amount. The funds are supposed to be used to finance capital and other improvements. The bargain actually forces new renters to bear the financial weight.
Speaking on Tuesday during the council session, Bonds said voluntary agreements “destabilize rental control” and “exacerbate the affordable housing crisis.” She said the moratorium would “give us time to fix” the problems.
She agreed the rent control law must be reformed and called the moratorium “a step in the right direction.” Except, the failure to act on a comprehensive rent control package effectively kills the proposal. It will have to be reintroduced in January.
It may be a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t world for Bonds and her colleagues; if so, they have themselves to blame for that posture. Tenants and landlords deserve more than endless rounds of public hearings that ultimately result in stagnation simply because elected officials lack the courage to act.
jonetta rose barras is an author and freelance journalist, covering national and local issues including politics, childhood trauma, public education, economic development and urban public policies. She can be reached at thebarrasreport@gmail.com.
Comments are closed.