By Adam Pagnucco.
The county council passed rent control legislation on a 7-4 vote today. The legislation had a long and winding road to passage and went through many changes since March. While everyone expected rent control to pass, the real action was on the many amendments introduced to the bill. Rent control supporters were especially vigilant on these amendments. I will write more about one of the landmark events in recent county history, but for now, this post will summarize the amendments and the votes on them for the sake of posterity.
The amendments and vote tallies are:
Transition time (staff): The bill’s requirements would not take effect until regulations to implement the bill have been adopted and approved by the Council.
Passed 11-0.
Delete annual reporting requirement (DHCA): DHCA argued that this was redundant with existing reporting requirements.
Passed 11-0.
Hard cap (Gabe Albornoz): The hard cap on rent increases would be changed from 6 percent to 9 percent.
Failed 7-4 (Albornoz, Balcombe, Friedson and Luedtke voting yes).
Fees (Kristin Mink): The bill would cover fee increases in addition to rent increases. (In March, I wrote about how landlords in D.C. use fees to get around the city’s rent control law.) The amendment was changed to allow fee regulation without setting an explicit maximum allowable rate through statute.
Passed 8-3 (Balcombe, Friedson and Luedtke voting no). In the discussion, it was pointed out that the council had recently voted for a 7% increase in WSSC fees.
Banking (Evan Glass and Kate Stewart had separate amendments): Landlords who decide not to levy the full allowable rent increase in a given year would be allowed to add the non-levied amount in a future year.
Stewart proposed an amendment to Glass’s amendment adding a 10% cap on banked amounts and applying them to new leases, which is tantamount to control over vacant units. This amendment passed 6-5 (Albornoz, Balcombe, Friedson, Glass and Luedtke voting no).
Glass proposed another amendment allowing a 10% increase for a unit vacated by a tenant who had lived there at least 10 years. This amendment failed 6-5 (Albornoz, Balcombe, Friedson, Glass and Luedtke voting yes).
Glass’s amendment with Stewart’s changes was then passed 6-5 (Albornoz, Balcombe, Friedson, Glass and Luedtke voting no).
Exemption for New Construction (Dawn Luedtke): The bill’s current 15-year exemption for new units would be changed to exempt units built after January 1, 2000. This structure is similar to D.C.’s law, which exempts units built after 1975.
Failed 6-5 (Albornoz, Balcombe, Friedson, Glass and Luedtke voting yes).
Exemption for New Construction (Glass): The bill’s current 15-year exemption for new units would be changed to 23 years.
Passed 9-2 (Jawando and Mink voting no).
Exemption for substantial renovation (Luedtke and Stewart had separate amendments): The bill would exempt units for 15 years after a “substantial renovation.” Luedtke defined the term as “permanent alterations to a building that: (1) are intended to enhance the value of the building; and (2) cost an amount equal to at least 25 percent of the value of the building, as assessed by the State Department of Assessments and Taxation.” Stewart defined the term as “permanent structural alterations to a building that: (1) are intended to enhance the value of the building; and (2) cost an amount equal to at least 50 percent of value of the building, as assessed by the State Department of Assessments and Taxation.”
Stewart changed Luedtke’s amendment to 40% on a vote of 8-3 (Balcombe, Friedson and Luedtke voting no). The amendment then passed unanimously.
Exemption for natural person landlords (or their estates or trusts) who own 4 or fewer units in the county (Luedtke): This would exempt small landlords and resembles a provision in D.C.’s law.
Katz asked Luedtke to change her amendment to 2 units and Luedtke agreed. The new amendment passed 9-2 (Jawando and Mink voting no).
Exemptions for month-to-month tenancies (Balcombe): The bill would exempt “a unit for which a tenant has been offered, but has declined, a lease renewal in compliance with this Section.”
Failed 7-4 (Albornoz, Balcombe, Friedson and Luedtke voting yes).
Bill title change (Balcombe): The bill’s title would be changed from “anti-rent gouging protections” to “rent stabilization.”
Passed 10-0-1 (Glass abstained).
Effective date (Mink): The bill’s effective date would be changed from 6 months after becoming law to 90 days after becoming law.
Passed 11-0.
Sunset (Albornoz): The bill would sunset after five years. The current rent control law in Prince George’s County has a one-year sunset.
Failed 6-5 (Albornoz, Balcombe, Friedson, Katz and Luedtke voting yes).
After a unanimously passed technical amendment, the final bill was called for a vote.
Voting Yes: Fani-Gonzalez, Glass, Jawando, Katz, Mink, Sayles, Stewart
Voting No: Albornoz, Balcombe, Friedson, Luedtke
The Montgomery County Council has passed permanent rent control on a 7-4 vote.