On May 9th, Connecticut Avenue tenant leaders wrote to Mayor Muriel Bowser to request a meeting on DC housing policies and the effects on living conditions in their apartment buildings. On June 8th, they got their wish.
During their meeting with the mayor, representatives from buildings including 3003 Van Ness, the Avalon, Connecticut House, Brandywine Apartments and Sedgwick Gardens described rent subsidies in excess of market rates, which they said incentivized landlords to favor voucher holders over renters paying entirely out of pocket. They also warned of efforts under way to convert rent-controlled apartments, buildings constructed prior to 1976, into means-tested affordable housing.
“Everyone at our meeting agreed on the need to provide housing for the homeless and to increase the supply of affordable housing citywide,” Harry Gural, the president of the tenants association at 3003 Van Ness, told Forest Hills Connection. “However, we think that housing policy also should increase – not shrink – the supply of affordable housing for middle- and fixed-income Washingtonians.”
And, they described chaotic conditions and crime in their apartment buildings.
“The mayor seemed surprised when we told her that the horrible situation at Sedgwick Gardens in Cleveland Park wasn’t an outlier, but was typical of how the voucher programs had affected many other large apartment buildings in Ward 3. The situation is becoming a crisis,” Gural said.
Also at the meeting with the mayor: a tenant leader from 4000 Massachusetts, and an owner-resident from the 4600 Connecticut Avenue condos who said that absentee landlords were buying units in her building and charging voucher holders “extremely high” rents to live there.
“Fortunately, the mayor seemed to agree on the thrust of our main proposals,” Gural said, which included “increasing transparency by releasing aggregate, non-personal data about the number of housing vouchers and the actual rents paid, protecting rent-stabilized units, and including renters and condo owners on the DCHA working group that will review the extremely high approved rents for housing vouchers.” (Read more about their proposals and Bowser’s commitments here.)
On the latter point, the tenant leaders got their wish three days after the meeting. Gural received an email on June 11th from Brenda Donald, the director of the DC Housing Authority, inviting the tenant leaders to participate in the voucher rates decision-making process.
The meeting with Mayor Bowser was the latest in a series of discussions between the leaders of tenants associations along Connecticut Avenue and candidates for office, including mayoral candidate Robert White, Council chair Phil Mendelson, At-Large Council candidate Lisa Gore, and Ward 3 Council candidates Matt Frumin and Eric Goulet.
How many apartment buildings in DC are rent-controlled? And how many units? No one knows for sure, and in 2015, the DC Council passed a law mandating the creation of a database. Such a clearinghouse would be useful to renters and to DC housing policymakers.
So, where is it? The Washington City Paper reports the database is “stuck in purgatory” because the DC Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) isn’t sharing some of the necessary data with another DC agency – the Office of the Tenant Advocate (OTA).
Diana hart says
All the best intentions on everyone’s part EXCEPT the building owners. The landlords are the obstacle to progress and fairness. I doubt they even have records on base rent and subsequent increases, etc., and even if they do, they will not see it in their interest to cooperate by providing the necessary data. And what about the million $ contract by the city in 2015 to create the database. Where did that $$ go? Finally, it is troubling that Mayor Bowser was seemingly unaware of the situation in these buildings, such as Sedgwick Gardens, which have received considerable publicity. about the conditions that tenants have been experiencing.
Green Eyeshades says
I agree with you that “landlords are the obstacle,” but landlords of apartments covered by rent control most assuredly “have records on base rent and subsequent increases …” Those records are the core of rent control, and landlords disclose them to tenants all the time.
Hee is just a sample of the extensive list of forms required by the DC government agency which operates rent control:
https://dhcd.dc.gov/service/rent-control
Landlords must submit at least one of those forms, and usually several, to the rent control agency whenever they want to change the rent on any rent-controlled apartment. Whenever the landlord sends forms to the rent control agency, the landlord must send a copy to each tenant who would be affected by the changes covered in the forms.
It is because I have years of experience dealing with rent control that I suspect the claims about “excessive rents” being paid on behalf of voucher holders are an urban myth — at least as far as rent-controlled buildings are concerned.
Green Eyeshades says
The middle of the main post includes a link with the label “(Read more about their proposals and Bowser’s commitments here.)” That link connects to this URL:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61aa20230c6aab3311ca5279/t/62a7e283b81e264b8a23d71e/1655169668477/Letter+to+Mayor+Bowser+re+next+steps+on+housing+vouchers.pdf
On its face, the link containing the letter does not identify who sponsored it or who created the letter. I would be more comfortable citing that letter if one of the tenant associations that sent it would post that letter on at least one of their websites.
The PDF at that link is a letter dated June 13, 2022 from five (5) tenant associations at six residential apartment buildings in our neighborhood (Van Ness South, Sedgwick Gardens, Brandywine, Connecticut House, and Saratoga Chesapeake), along with the “Kenmore Residents Association” and a tenant association at 4000 Massachusetts Avenue. I know that Van Ness South, Sedgwick Gardens, the Brandywine, the Connecticut House and probably the Chesapeake are all rent-controlled. The Saratoga is not covered by rent control. I don’t know how old 4000 Mass. Ave. is, so I don’t know if it’s covered by rent control. A recent website says the Kenmore is a condominium. Condominiums are not covered by rent control. The June 13 letter is also signed by a tenant of Avalon the Albemarle, which is covered by rent control.
Under “Increase Transparency” the letter from the tenants’ associations states the following:
“In addition, we request detailed information about the rents actually paid for units occupied by voucher recipients, which often far exceed the rents paid on comparable units by renters who pay entirely out of pocket. Not only does this incentivize landlords to prefer voucher holders over non-voucher holders, but a recently enacted law makes this illegal.”
I have been asking for this proof, too, so I am glad to see that the tenants’ associations have demanded empirical proof of the rents being paid on behalf of voucher holders.
However, I am fascinated that so much controversy has been manufactured over the claim that “rents actually paid for units occupied by voucher recipients … often far exceed the rents paid on comparable units by renters who pay entirely out of pocket” when the very next sentence reveals that such excessive charges for apartments rented to voucher holders are “ILLEGAL.”
The letter from the tenants’ association contains absolutely no proof that rents paid on behalf of voucher holders “far exceed the rents paid on comparable units ….” Perhaps the lack of proof is due to DCHA’s failure to release the information the letter requested. I suspect, however, when that information is released by DCHA it will reveal that the claim of excessive rents paid on behalf of voucher holders will prove to be an urban myth — at least in rent-controlled buildings. Indeed, any housing provider of housing covered by rent control would brazenly violate rent control law and regulations by charging such excessive rents. It would be “ILLEGAL” under existing rent control statutes, regulations and case law to charge more than rent control permits for any tenant, whether they were a voucher holder or not.
It would be helpful to see the actual text of any announcements from the DC Housing Authority (DCHA) about DCHA’s process for setting the rates of rents to be paid through vouchers. Unfortunately, the only public text from DCHA (on its website DChousing dot org) is this cryptic note dated May 19, 2022:
“Rent Payment Standards
“The DC Housing Authority is an integral part of the District’s affordable housing network and prioritizes how we can best serve more customers with safe and affordable housing. We are currently in the process of right-sizing by reviewing our rent payment standards.
“We’ll first establish a working group in collaboration with housing providers and key stakeholders to jointly create a strategic and phased plan before any changes are implemented.
“It is important for everyone’s voice to be heard so together we are creating what’s best for those who need housing the most. If you have any questions, please email us at [email protected]”
That text appears at this link:
https://webserver1.dchousing.org/?recentnews=rent-payment-standards
Nightcrawler says
It costs significantly more money to house voucher tenants. They historically have a much higher degree of wear and tear on units than market rate renters. The increased payment in some sub markets is DCHA’s attempt to redistribute voucher tenants more equitably thorough out wards other than 7 & 8. Furthermore DC puts the onus of city crime on landlords and housing providers rather than anti police politics and woke policies that are misguided and have given reign to criminals throughout the city that brazenly drive ATVs pulling dangerous stunts on our streets with little to no repercussions. We need more police. More case workers. More mental health services. More of everything. But thanks to DC’s high tax policies the exodus of businesses and tax payers is upon us and the coffers will begin to empty because the cities money was misappropriated. But bringing voucher tenants to NW wards has its pros and cons. On the plus side the safer neighborhoods and higher caliber of neighbors created upward mobility for those good underprivileged tenants. But a few bad apples brings the whole neighborhood down.
Green Eyeshades says
This is libertarian rich-person garbage mythology. It is also full of brazen lies and myths about the effect of tax policies. There is no “exodus of businesses and tax payers” — there is constant flux in DC’s population and businesses start up and fail all the time regardless of taxation. The most recent statistics on DC’s population from the District’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) are in the OCFO’s “February 2022 Revised Revenue Estimates for FY 2022 – 2026” dated Feb. 28, 2022, which are here:
https://cfo.dc.gov/node/1584446
That estimate states the following on page five about DC’s population:
“Population in the District, based on the U.S. 2020 Census, was 695,600 in FY 2020, below the estimated 708,600 in FY 2019. In FY 2021, population decreased to 673,500 but not all of the decline is considered permanent, and population is expected to increase to 697,900 by the end of the financial plan period.”
On page six, that estimate adds context:
“The outlook for key economic variables includes:
• “Jobs located in the District increase 3.7 percent in FY 2022, a rebound from FY 2021, 1.9 percent in FY 2023, and 1 percent in FY 2024, cumulatively bringing jobs in the District close to 2019 levels.
• “The District’s population increases by 17,300 —2.6 percent—over the three fiscal years 2021 through 2024. This pace reverses some of the pandemic-related decline as people move back to the District.”
Tax policy did not cause an “exodus” of either residents or businesses. The PANDEMIC caused most of the population loss that the District suffered, and that loss will be recovered post-pandemic.
Mr Dave says
Only people who can live comfortably in DC are those who can afford to buy their way out of most of the unpleasant aspects. of life in DC The young and hip are practicing a type of slumming where uncivil behavior is confused with a truer type of reality. life. And then there are those who have no other place to go.