A recent evaluation from the Council Office of Racial Equity (CORE) has raised concerns about the potential negative impact of the RENTAL Act, legislation introduced by Mayor Muriel Bowser, which recently advanced out of the D.C. Council’s Committee on Housing.
The Act aims to expedite eviction proceedings and revokes certain tenant rights under the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), a move that CORE argues could disproportionately affect Black residents in the District.
Historically, Black residents have faced significant challenges in terms of poverty, housing instability, and inadequate access to legal representation.
The CORE assessment highlights alarming statistics, noting that approximately one in four residents in predominantly Black Ward 8 have received eviction notices, as shown in a 2020 Georgetown University study.
Furthermore, the report outlines a troubling disparity within the legal system, characterizing it as a two-tiered justice framework: one benefiting wealthier residents who can afford professional legal services, and another leaving low-income Black residents to navigate the system without assistance.
Evictions surged in 2024, reaching a decade high, with nearly 60% of these filings occurring in Wards 7 and 8.
CORE warns that the RENTAL Act is likely to worsen this situation, creating a relentless cycle of punitive measures targeting low-income Black and Latine residents.
In stark contrast to other jurisdictions that are investing in eviction prevention initiatives, the D.C. Council has been slashing emergency rental assistance.
The shift in focus has alarmed tenant rights advocates, who perceive this legislative move as one that undermines tenants’ protections. Amanda Korber, a supervising attorney at Legal Aid DC, remarked that D.C. has long been a leader in tenant protections, emphasizing that the current legislative direction threatens to lead to increased evictions and greater displacement.
A key section of concern in the RENTAL Act is the proposed expedited “public safety” eviction provision, which CORE identifies as circumventing the due process rights of residents.
This provision allows landlords to initiate eviction proceedings against tenants who are charged (but not yet convicted) with violent or dangerous crimes occurring on the property.
In such cases, courts would be required to schedule hearings swiftly, issuing rulings within a tight window of 40 days, effectively compelling tenants to prove their innocence in eviction cases prior to their criminal court hearings.
This approach not only undermines due process protections but also creates an environment where landlords, typically well-represented legally during these proceedings, gain undue advantages over largely unrepresented tenants.
Moreover, the provisions do not just apply to the tenant involved; they can extend to guests accused of a crime on the premises, risking eviction for tenants based on mere association.
The potential for innocent tenants to be wrongfully affected by these provisions raises historical concerns surrounding bias against Black tenants in public housing.
CORE’s evaluation highlights that the expedited timelines in eviction proceedings may not alleviate the backlog of cases currently facing the courts, potentially increasing tensions between landlords and tenants.
Additionally, the RENTAL Act imposes significant hurdles for tenants involved in eviction disputes through its requirement for preliminary protective orders.
These orders mandate tenants to pay their full rent to the court right at the beginning of the eviction process—even if they have unresolved housing issues or code violations, which could serve as legitimate defenses against eviction.
Under the Act, judges receive expanded discretion in cases where landlords fail to properly notify tenants or submit necessary documents for eviction, further benefiting landlords while disadvantaging tenants, particularly those from marginalized communities.
CORE’s assessment underscores that this legislative shift places substantial power in the hands of landlords and the courts, organizations that historically wield greater resources than low-income tenants, especially in Black communities.
The detrimental implications of the RENTAL Act extend to housing stability and affordable housing access for Black tenants due to its exemptions to the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act.
Notably, the Act excludes newly constructed buildings from TOPA for a period of 15 years, alongside properties where buyers commit to affordability covenants.
CORE stresses that these exemptions threaten to dismantle a framework that has proven effective in preserving housing affordability—particularly for Black tenants.
The assessment criticizes the reliance on speculative benefits from these changes, arguing that it undermines proven tenant protections in favor of unguaranteed development outcomes.
In comparison, Maryland is moving forward with statewide TOPA rights, presenting a contrast to D.C.’s legislative approach, which some developers have held in high regard.
At-Large Councilmember Robert White, who chairs the Committee on Housing, has expressed concern over the affordable housing crisis impacting families in D.C. but has not publicly addressed CORE’s findings.
Councilmember Brianne Nadeau, a vocal critic of the RENTAL Act, shared concerns with CORE’s assessment and was notably the only housing committee member to oppose the bill’s advance.
Nadeau highlighted that the RENTAL Act’s provisions threaten long-standing economic opportunities for tenants, particularly those who identify as Black or Brown.
In her view, the city can advance necessary housing production without sacrificing tenant rights and protections.
Council Chair Phil Mendelson also voiced skepticism regarding the affordability covenant exemption, aligning with Nadeau’s concerns over the legislation.
The CORE assessment articulates a notable absence of data demonstrating a causal link between TOPA laws and diminished housing development, questioning the evidence behind claims supporting the RENTAL Act’s changes.
The 15-year exemption for newly constructed buildings is positioned as a method to attract investment and address declines in multifamily development, though critics warn it could ultimately strip away tenant protections for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.
CORE emphasizes that while loosening TOPA regulations may not stimulate investment as anticipated, it will certainly diminish Black tenants’ guaranteed protections against losing access to affordable housing.
CORE’s findings also acknowledge certain positive aspects of the RENTAL Act, particularly those that emerged from Nadeau’s alternative TOPA reform proposals, aimed at streamlining the TOPA process and safeguarding tenants against unscrupulous landlords.
Nadeau plans to introduce an amendment aimed at addressing some of these concerns, including repealing the TOPA exemption for buildings with affordability covenants and suggesting a reduced, 10-year exemption for new developments.
Moreover, her forthcoming separate bill aims to regulate tenant cash buyouts, a move framed within the larger conversation on tenant rights and protections in D.C.
Her amendment further seeks to rectify a loophole concerning the timing of TOPA exemptions based on occupancy certificates.
CORE’s assessment indicates that Black tenants could face considerable setbacks due to the proposed changes to TOPA, as the risks of eviction disproportionately affect Black households.
The ongoing disparities in housing outcomes for Black residents are deeply rooted in systemic issues of racism and economic disenfranchisement, identified by CORE.
As the legislative process unfolds, advocates for tenants’ rights continue to question the implications of changes to housing policy and the long-standing protections afforded under existing laws.
image source from：washingtoncitypaper
