Forest Hills Connection | News and Life in Our DC Neighborhood

Covering Forest Hills, Van Ness, North Cleveland Park and Wakefield

The DC Council takes up the OAG’s apartments safety bill

The Brandywine Apartments at 4545 Connecticut Avenue.

by Marlene Berlin

A gap in DC public safety laws makes it difficult for the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to sue landlords who do not follow police recommendations to improve the safety and security of their apartment buildings. The DC Council is about to take up OAG-authored legislation aimed at closing that gap.

As Forest Hills Connection reported in May: An MPD Second District commander recommended in 2021 and 2022 that the OAG designate four Van Ness apartment buildings – Connecticut House, 3003 Van Ness, the Chesapeake and the Saratoga – as “nuisance buildings.” DC law makes it possible for the OAG and community groups to sue the owners of nuisance buildings if there’s evidence of drugs, gun or prostitution activity on the premises, but the OAG declined the police recommendation because the “lawsuits must also show that the properties are having an ‘adverse effect’ on the neighborhood as a result.”

The OAG’s Secure Apartments For Everyone (SAFE) Act, an expansion of the 1998 nuisance properties law, adds a focus on the adverse effects inside apartment complexes.

“Many tenants from across the District have expressed a need for immediate, comprehensive action to improve safety and security at their apartment buildings,” DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb said in a statement to Forest Hills Connection. “In response to these concerns, I introduced the SAFE Act, which, if adopted by the Council, will provide a coordinated approach in which relevant District agencies will work with landlords and tenants to address persistent patterns of criminal activity, helping to ensure that all Washingtonians are safe in their homes.”

“The SAFE Act offers a preventive, proactive suite of tools to address security concerns and enhance the District’s ability to work with tenants and landlords to develop tailored plans to address the needs of each building,” Schwalb said.

The legislation would give the DC Superior Court the ability to order the Department Buildings to conduct security assessments once arrests for violent crimes or seizures of guns and drugs meet certain thresholds. The resulting report would be shared with the OAG as well as the Office of the Tenant Advocate, the local advisory neighborhood commission, the ward’s council member office, and the president of the building’s tenants association.

The court could also “determine the most appropriate measures and course of action,” including financial penalties. Landlords with nuisance properties could be ordered to pay $1,000 each day that a nuisance remains unresolved. After 30 days, the fines would go up to $5,000 per day.

And, the bill assigns the landlord responsibilities for maintaining self-closing and self-locking exterior doors, and meeting at least the minimum standards for exterior lighting.

Still, the Council can, and likely will, put its own stamp on the legislation. For example, instead of OAG lawsuits, could mechanisms such as mediation be used to propel a landlord to act? Could security assessments be triggered by entities outside of the courts, such as ANCs, tenant associations, and DC agencies?

What could also be further defined are the roles of the police, who are often the first to be called upon when disturbances occur in apartment buildings, and the Departments of Behavioral Health and Human Services, two agencies responsible for providing intensive addiction and mental health services to those holding permanent supportive housing vouchers.

The OAG presented the SAFE Act on July 11th, shortly before the Council’s summer recess. The legislation is to be referred to the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee and the Committee of the Whole on September 17th. The Judiciary Committee is chaired by Council member Brooke Pinto; the Committee of the Whole, by Council Chair Phil Mendelson.

Tenant leaders will be able to weigh in during the legislative process through direct communication with Council members, and through their testimony.

Discover more from Forest Hills Connection | News and Life in Our DC Neighborhood

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Comments

  1. In my opinion, this probably won’t become law until at least ten months from now, i.e., probably not until just before DC Council goes on its summer recess next year.

  2. Pointing out theprovisions and possible alternative measures is very helpful. Thank you!
    The neighborhoods have now definitely been endangered, and tailoring programs is important because the size and composition of the buildings vary greatly. But mch more money has to be allotted to the Departments of Human Services and Behavioral Health. This calls for the partnering of the real estate industry with the city and the federal government in the interests of public safety.

  3. Amen!
    Itis about time that legislation like this has been proposed.
    Let us all hope that the input from The City Council strengthens rather than dilutes it.

    Curios
    Why will it take a year to come into law?

    • The bill was introduced in the second week of July, just before DC Council went on its summer recess for two months. It was not even assigned to committees until today:

      https://lims.dccouncil.gov/Legislation/B25-0918

      Both committees will probably hold hearings, each committee will hold its own markup meeting, months of delay can crop up at each of those steps. Then the bill in its revised form must be voted on at two different legislative meetings of the full DC Council. If it is passed at the second vote, it goes to the Mayor who can veto it, sign it or return it unsigned. Assuming the Mayor does not veto it, it goes to Congress for the “30-day” congressional review which is not thirty calendar days but 30 days of time when Congress is in session.

      The complete process inside DC Council can take at least six months, which means it would be March 2025 before the bill would be sent to Congress. If Congress fails to disapprove the bill by, e.g., the end of May 2025, it would then be sent to the DC Register for enrollment as a DC Law, which could add another four to six weeks. Which could bring the elapsed time right up to the start of DC Council’s next summer recess in July 2025.

  4. Thank you Marlene for keeping the neighborhood informed.

    Something has to be done for the sake of the residents in these buildings and the nearby houses.!

    Laws are fine but they must be enforced.. voucher recipients were promised assistance from case workers and mental health professionals. Unfortunately this has not been the case.

  5. Washington Post is staying on top of Mayor Bowser’s continuing effort to ruin the housing voucher programs. Their latest story was published after 10 pm last night:

    “D.C. Council funded hundreds of vouchers. Bowser officials say it’s a no-go.”

    “Having hundreds fewer housing vouchers available could be a significant setback in the city’s broader effort to connect families with more stable housing.”

    “In an austere budget year in which Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) proposed significant cuts and no new housing vouchers, the D.C. Council went out of its way to fund hundreds of new vouchers.

    “But three months later, Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) offered a whiplash revelation at a Monday afternoon briefing with reporters: Now the Bowser administration says there are no funds available for most of those hundreds of vouchers.” [snip]

    “The revelation mystified council members and staff who worked on the housing budget last spring and summer and who expected roughly 600 new permanent supportive housing vouchers to help families being terminated from the rapid rehousing program. Having hundreds fewer vouchers available could be a significant setback for those families and in the city’s broader effort to connect vulnerable families with more stable housing in a city with exorbitant rental costs.” [snip]

    “In an interview Monday, D.C. Department of Human Services Director Laura Zeilinger said it appeared the council ‘did not do their due diligence’ when it made a number of budget maneuvers aimed at increasing vouchers, including making a cut to a certain portion of the D.C. Housing Authority’s budget.” [snip]

    “Her letter to Mendelson, dated Sept. 11, says the city will not be able to fund all but 38 new permanent supportive housing vouchers in fiscal 2025. Separately, 126 Local Rent Supplement Program vouchers are available but do not come with support services, and DCHA is funding 1,300 federal housing choice vouchers that will be available to eligible families exiting rapid rehousing, Zeilinger noted.” [snip]

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/09/16/dc-council-housing-vouchers-funding/

  6. Woe the day that St Elizabeth’s and other mental hospitals were turned inside out, defunded, and occupants sent into the streets. Institutionalized care, though expensive, would be so much better for folks having mental health crises.

  7. Stay tuned on the Mayor’s long campaign to ruin housing voucher programs. Low-income tenants who were harmed by the Mayor’s recent meddling with Rapid Rehousing vouchers sued the District last week:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/10/25/dc-rapid-rehousing-lawsuit/

    “Families who had their rental assistance discontinued by the District filed a lawsuit this week that accuses the city of violating the rights of hundreds of residents and demands that they be reinstated in the city’s rapid rehousing program.

    “The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in the Office of Administrative Hearings, which hears and rules on cases involving city agencies. Lawyers for three plaintiffs in the case — Angel Gregory, Sierra Moore and Britne Thomas — said they are seeking certification for a class-action suit that could benefit 816 families who were removed from rapid rehousing between April and June of this year in a controversial shake-up of a city program meant to help those facing homelessness.

    “An official with the Office of Administrative Hearings said the case is unprecedented and probably the first of its kind to seek certification as a class in the administrative court. As of Thursday evening, no hearing had been scheduled.

    “Rapid rehousing, a program that is meant to provide time-limited rental assistance to families at risk of losing their housing, has for years been the centerpiece of Mayor Muriel E. Bowser’s plan to end homelessness.” [snip]

| | |
| | | |