Wilson Building Bulletin: Housing laws move forward, while Commanders deal stalls

Big changes to D.C. housing and tenant laws move forward, controversially

If you’re getting yelled at from people on both sides of the political spectrum, you must be doing something right, no? That’s what At-Large Councilmember Robert White must hope, because right now he’s getting yelled at a lot – and it’s coming from every direction. 

This week, White advanced a sweeping bill that makes significant reforms to D.C.’s housing and tenant laws, from how quickly people can be evicted to where and when tenants can exercise their current rights to buy their building if it’s put up for sale. As we explained last month, the genesis of the bill was Mayor Muriel Bowser’s RENTAL Act, introduced in February as a means to fight a significant slowdown in housing construction in D.C. – both for market-rate and affordable units.

White doesn’t disagree with Bowser’s diagnosis, but he said Wednesday that her cures went too far – and were too friendly to landlords. But his changes – approved in the housing committee on a 3-1 vote, with one councilmember voting present – have also angered progressive advocacy groups, who argue that he is ultimately caving to landlords at the expense of tenants. White doesn’t deny that he’s walking into a political minefield, but he also argued that it’s what has to be done to advance a bill that properly balances what landlords and tenants want.

“Let's stop pretending that you can fix a broken housing system by blaming only landlords or only tenants,” he said. “I get texts every day from tenant advocates and landlords, both saying I'm in the other side's pocket. Here's the truth: they're both wrong. My job isn't to pick a side. It's not to listen to the people who yell at me the loudest. It's to write laws and stand up in the real world for the average D.C. resident.”

One topline change Bowser wanted was to D.C.’s Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, the 45-year-old law that gives tenants the first shot at buying their building when the owner wants to sell it. Bowser wanted to exempt most buildings constructed less than 25 years ago, as well as some with expiring affordability covenants. Progressive advocates pushed back, calling it a gutting of the marquee tenant-protection law. White split the difference, setting an exemption for buildings less than 15 years old, and for owners who agree to a 20-year affordability covenant. 

But that drew opposition from Ward 1 Councilmember Brianne Nadeau, who has her own bill to modernize TOPA including some provisions White included in his measure, and Ward 3 Councilmember Matt Frumin, who argued that TOPA was unfairly treated as a “boogeyman.” Frumin proposed limiting the 15-year exemption from TOPA to buildings constructed after the bill passes; White argued it should also be retroactive. And Nadeau tried to amend White’s provision on affordability covenants; both those efforts failed.

In another big change, Bowser – and also Chairman Phil Mendelson – wanted to speed up eviction proceedings, which were slowed down dramatically during the pandemic and remain relatively gummed up in the courts. White accepted some of those reforms, but altered others – largely because he said the issue wasn’t timelines, but rather a shortage of judges in D.C. Superior Court. (Those judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.) He also tweaked Bowser’s proposal for a speedy eviction from anyone arrested for a violent crime to someone actually charged with a crime.

“You don't lose your home unless you're charged. That is not a high bar. That is not something that takes months or years, but it does at least mean that there has been a judicial finder of fact that says, ‘Yeah, there is some likelihood that this person committed a dangerous crime,’ and you get a real chance to defend yourself.”

Ultimately, White’s amended version of the RENTAL Act (you can read about all the changes in detail here) passed with the votes of Mendelson and At Large Councilmember Anita Bonds, while Nadeau voted against and Frumin voted present. 

Bowser quickly lambasted his efforts as “gutting” her bill, and said he was siding with “residents taking advantage of the system – including those who commit crimes in their units.” Some landlords similarly argued that White’s changes would only make the housing-investment crisis worse. At the same time, some progressive groups worry that even with changes, White’s bill would further weaken TOPA. 

Despite those criticisms, White said his housing bill was a needed and effective balance between competing demands.

“The cost of doing nothing is unaffordable to everyone and frankly would be us abandoning the duty of the council and the housing committee,” he said. “So to my colleagues, our job isn't to pass the easiest bill or the one that makes us look the best in the paper. It is to deliver results, the results that residents are asking us for. We owe it to residents to take tough votes, to challenge old assumptions, and admit when a policy, no matter how well-intended and even generally how good, needs reform.”

The first full vote in the D.C. Council is on July 14.

The pressure builds on the D.C. Council over the Commanders' stadium

At-Large Councilmember Robert White wasn’t the only one getting yelled at this week; Chairman Phil Mendelson also took his own fair share of verbal criticism – but on the fate of the $3.7 billion Washington Commanders stadium deal.

Mayor Bowser and the team have pushed for the council to sign off on the massive deal by July 15, but as we reported recently, Mendelson has pushed to delay any final consideration until September. He says the council needs more time to do its due diligence, and it’s still waiting on an economic impact report from his budget office, as well as an independent assessment of the deal the council commissioned in early June. That assessment was due to the council this week, but has been delayed as Mendelson asked for it to include additional information. 

That delay, though, produced some sparks during a council meeting earlier this week, with Ward 7 Councilmember Wendell Felder accusing Mendelson of hoarding much of the information around the status of the deal. 

“It seems like you’re the gatekeeper of this body, and you make all the decisions on RFK,” he said. “I’m the host councilmember. I feel like you’re making all the decisions, and the council comes second. You’re the negotiator, and I have a problem with that.”

People arguing with Mendelson, who has been on the council for almost three decades, isn’t new, but a freshman legislator directly challenging his management of the council certainly raised some eyebrows in the room. 

Now, context matters: Felder is supportive of the deal and wants it passed as quickly as possible, largely because he sees it as a significant investment opportunity for his ward. And while other lawmakers agree that Mendelson could be more communicative and inclusive at times, the overall sentiment on the Commanders deal is that the council still needs more time.

“I don’t want to negotiate with the Commanders in the middle of this incredibly complicated budget,” said Frumin.

Mendelson also pushed back forcefully on moving ahead quickly with deal, noting that it is “incredibly complicated” but also vague on a number of critical issues, from what type of housing the team would have built on the site (and by when) and what sanctions and clawbacks the city will have if the Commanders don’t live up to their end of the bargain. 

But that was just what Mendelson heard from inside his own house; there was also shouting coming from the outside. In a widely circulated TV clip, President Donald Trump mused that he could intervene in the stadium deal-making since the RFK site is owned by the federal government. Similar pressure is coming from Rep. James Comer (R-Kentucky), who chairs the House Oversight Committee and marshaled the bill that gave D.C. more control over the RFK site.

“During a conversation last week with D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, Chairman Comer strongly urged him to approve the bipartisan RFK Stadium deal before the council adjourns for August recess. Chairman Comer is committed to working with local leaders to advance this once-in-a-generation economic opportunity for the nation’s capital and secure its approval as quickly as possible,” said Austin Hacker, Comer’s spokesman.

Could the White House and Congress really get involved? Well, it’s complicated. D.C. signed a lease for the RFK site, and it specifies that the lease can only be broken if the city violates certain conditions – and not agreeing to build a stadium isn’t one of them. Additionally, D.C. has 90 days to cure any alleged violation. Congress could always pass a bill approving the deal on D.C.’s behalf, but federal lawmakers are out of session from the end of July through to the start of September – right around the time Mendelson has said the council could vote on the deal.

All that being said, Trump has taken a much more expansive and unpredictable view on what he can or can’t do, so truly anything is possible. But even that TV clip of him speaking on the stadium deal seemed to offer the council some reprieve. “Looking at the deal, I don’t blame them,” he said, directly referencing the question on the council taking more time to review the deal.

If Mendelson was looking for any backup this week, he did get it on Wednesday from the Committee of 100, the influential group of civic boosters and busybodies. The committee said in a statement that the council “must insist on a fairer deal for the city,” and amend the deal so that D.C. gets more tax revenue and there are more assurances that benefits from the stadium development will flow to areas east of the Anacostia River.