A Rent Stabilization Policy Review: Why should we care?
(Public Comment Delivered to City Council on Nov 5 2025)
Do tenants know that Takoma Park’s ordinance limits rent increases for half the City’s renters to the rate of inflation (2.4% this year)?
Do they know that allowable rent increases in most of the rest of Montgomery County this year is 5.7% and no caps in Rockville and Gaithersburg?
Do home-owners know that half our neighbors are renters and that they and many of their children wouldn’t be in our neighborhoods and schools if not for our progressive Rent Stabilization ordinance?
Isn’t this law what makes us the progressive and an inclusive community that we claim to be?
The City plans to pay a consultant at least $85,000 to help Council and Staff begin reviewing this important ordinance. Unfortunately, the timing is problematic and potentially dangerous for the participation by our immigrant population. 83% of renter households are non-white. The Federal government’s proposed cutbacks to affordable housing make the timing even worse. Community Vision for Takoma (CVT) recommends delay, but we will continue to monitor the study whenever it proceeds. We care about and are proud of our City’s leadership on progressive Rent Stabilization. Due in large part to this law our community is socio-economically and racially diverse. All of us are stakeholders in this review.
Consistent with the City’s 2019-30 Housing and Economic Development Strategic Plan, CVT supports a rent stabilization review that focuses on protecting the most vulnerable from displacement. CVT will consult and advocate with tenants to protect them from displacement as a result of possible rent increases or other proposed changes. We will also support changes that help small landlords address any unnecessary administrative burden to receiving Fair Return. We will also support ways to enhance both the quality and number of low to moderate income housing. Building on the RFP’s scope, I include with this testimony specific review recommendations for consideration by the consultant, Council and Staff. We care.
Frankly, we are concerned that some City leaders may ascribe to a one-dimensional development agenda at the expense of robust tenant protections. The suggestion that Rent Stabilization is preventing development in Takoma Park has not been backed up by actual evidence. It also ignores other factors, including the fact that the City is “already densely developed”, (per a City authorized assessment)1, and has the highest property tax rate in the County. To adequately analyze any barriers to additional multi-family housing, a much broader and deeper study would be required of relevant policies, economic trends and landuse research and involving a wider set of stakeholders.
It is clear nationally that moneyed interests have successfully lobbied to reduce the role of government in truly affordable housing. We are asking our City to buck this trend, protect our social contract and maintain the City’s robust and progressive role in preserving our economic, racial and social diversity.
As noted, I have included separately a list of study recommendations. It includes: 1) Clarify that the City’s 2019-2030 Housing and Economic Development Strategic Plan and its three main objectives (Preserving, Producing, and Protecting) will provide the foundational definitions for the three “pillars” of our housing policy. 2) Review contextual changes in the overall policy landscape and their bearing on the program at least since 2010. 3) Research and report back on the following data sets: a) Racial equity impacts of policies tracked over time, b) Rent-stabilized units converted to ownership by tenants, c) Quality and safety of units in rent-stabilized buildings, and 4) Plan secure meetings with tenants on the premises of stabilized housing buildings.
As Takoma Park residents and advocates for good government, CVT welcomes the opportunity ahead to share input and discuss this important review with the Council, Staff and consultant. Thank you for your openness to broad community engagement. In that spirit, we urge the Council to define and clarify “effectiveness,” the stated goal in the proposed ordinance. Lastly, I trust that the Council and staff will consider and forward our recommendations to the consultant selected. Thank you.
Randy Gibson, on behalf of Community Vision for Takoma
The Issue: The City of Takoma Park, at the Mayor and Council’s request, is reviewing our historic rent stabilization law. Unfortunately, the review process seems skewed towards weakening the law to appear more attractive to developers. That’s not housing justice!
The Law: Almost half of all households in our City rent their homes. Nearly half of all rental units are rent-stabilized, with annual rent increases now limited to the rate of inflation: 2.4% in 2025 compared to 5.7% in the County. Property owners can apply for “fair return” increases, above that level, and several exemptions exist, including for government-subsidized buildings and single-family houses.
Its Impact: Local data indicates our law has helped preserve our economic and racial diversity and provided stable housing. Many low-income families, including many immigrants, have been able to afford their homes for decades, planting roots and raising their children in a community with strong schools and good local services. We all benefit from the resulting community-wide sense of security and well-being.
What to Do? – Community Vision for Takoma (CVT) invites you to work with us in the months ahead to urge the Council to make sure any changes in the law:
Strengthen tenant protections.
Preserve affordable housing, especially for residents with low incomes.
Help landlords better maintain and repair buildings.
Prevent higher rents or teardowns that would displace current residents.
Honor our community values: Diversity, inclusivity, protecting the most vulnerable.
If you’d like to receive CVT Alerts or join our working group on housing, email: tjcommunityvision@gmail.com.
On July 8, the City of Takoma Park issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant to conduct a policy review of our vital Rent Stabilization Law.
Before this staff-written RFP was released, Community Vision for Takoma sent the Council and staff a critique with recommendations [see a copy below] on an earlier draft staff wrote, proposing what the goals and scope of the review should be. The final version of the RFP was issued without a full Council deliberation or vote on those critical points, despite support from at least two Council members for such a public decision-making process.
This issue affects us all, whether renters, landlords, homeowners, or businesses. Please read the RFP, and CVT’s suggestions, and consider for yourself the importance of the issues that CVT raises. Have they been adequately addressed?
We invite you to work with us in the coming months focusing on such critical issues as: 1) protecting current residents and small landlords from displacement, 2) preserving Takoma Park’s rare stock of affordable housing, and 3) the urgency of reviewing all past and proposed policies with a racial-equity lens.
Comments and Suggestions on Rent Stabilization RFP
Community Vision for Takoma
July 1, 2025
As presented at the June 11th Council meeting, the goals for the RFP do not accurately reflect the City’s current Housing and Economic Development Strategic Plan, approved in 2019.
The Plan’s three main objectives were clearly articulated as:
PRESERVE existing businesses and affordable housing in Takoma Park, including in revitalizing areas.
PRODUCE more housing and opportunities for businesses to start and grow across the income spectrum and in neighborhoods across the City to meet the diverse housing and economic needs.
PROTECT renters, homeowners and local businesses from discrimination and displacement, and protect our environment from destruction.
The Strategic Plan’s only mention of a review of rent stabilization is to serve the first objective – to preserve existing affordable housing – not to question its impact on the pace of development in the City. The Plan also, under each of those three main objectives, includes this specific strategy: “Consider all advocacy and action through a race equity lens.” Given that 83% of householders who rent in our City are households of color, the third goal – protection from displacement – as well as the first goal, which is closely related (preserving existing affordable housing) should be at the core of any evaluation of both existing policy and potential changes to ensure that racial equity concerns are prioritized.
In contrast, the draft RFP calls for a consultant to recommend revisions to our rent stabilization law based on analyzing the impacts of the existing law and any proposed changes on housing “affordability, quality, and choice.” By themselves, those three words are not clearly aligned with the three officially designated goals of the City’s Strategic Plan, and are nowhere actually defined. None of the three terms specifically addresses protection from displacement or preserving the City’s unusual stock of deeply affordable housing. Nor do those words, or anything else in the RFP, indicate to the potential consultants that their entire project should evaluate existing policy and make recommendations “through a race equity lens.”
In fact, the Council’s June 11th Agenda Item suggested that the study should focus on “balancing tenant protection, incentivizing high-quality housing, addressing affordability, and creating housing choice” – as if those goals may be in conflict with each other, or that each is as important as the other. That does not seem to take Takoma Park’s community values into account. Is increasing “choice” in housing – which apparently means developing new housing for current or future residents who can afford more expensive options — really as much of a priority as protecting tenants, especially the City’s many very low and extremely low-income residents?
Choice and more options for whom are key questions for Council to clarify, especially given limited developable land, tight City budgets and uncertain economic trends. Robust data is needed to prioritize and target housing efforts to serve the most vulnerable residents.
In light of the above, we advise the following changes to the draft document. These are needed to realign the entire RFP with Takoma Park’s unique identity, based on a set of core, shared values that do not yet shine through the RFP document:
Clearly emphasize throughout the document that the promotion of racial equity and socio-economic and racial diversity are core community-wide values and are to be top priorities in reviewing the law and proposing revisions. It is important that there be a thorough review of the impact on equity and diversity of our rentstabilization policies over time. Any proposed change should also be carefully evaluated as to its potential for positive and/or negative impacts on improving measures of equity and diversity.
The City has not yet developed its own process for conducting a racial-equity analysis, to use in such an evaluation. However, the RFP could direct the consultant to commit to conducting its review through a racial equity lens, with an option to either adapt the OLO RESJ Project Methodology Tool, used by the Montgomery County Council’s Office of Legislative Oversight, or, if approved by staff after consultation with the Council, an alternative expert tool proposed by the consultant.
2. Revise the language of the RFP to specify that Protection from Displacement is to be a major focus of the review and a major goal of any recommendations for changes in the law or other City policies. That would include protecting tenants potentially priced out of affordable housing options or who could lose their homes if their buildings are torn down to make room for new construction, as well as protecting local businesses, especially small landlords in the City who are struggling financially to maintain older buildings.
The consultant should attempt to identify revisions that would increase such protection, as well as examining how potential changes might increase the threat of displacement. The study should include a close look at measures of housing stability through the years and how any potential changes could affect the likelihood of tenants being able to stay in their homes. Evaluating impacts on stability should include a fine-grained look at historic trends in tenant tenure, eviction rates, and how the law has impacted those, as well as analysis of how proposed changes might affect that important marker of community well-being.
Preserving the City’s unique stock of deeply affordable housing should also be clearly addressed as key to protecting current residents from displacement. This would require a building-by-building inventory of code violations and needed repairs or upgrades. In that context, the RFP should call for the consultant to review not only this law but other City policies, to evaluate what changes would be helpful to encourage and support landlords whose older buildings are most urgently in need of repairs and renovation, including energy-efficiency upgrades.
It’s also essential for the consultant to clearly evaluate both historical and potential impacts on the supply of rental units affordable at particular income levels — not just to make general statements about “affordability,” without defining that term. For example, City staff report that, as of 2022, 93% of our rent-stabilized units are affordable for very low income households (with incomes of no more than 50% of area median income(AMI)), and about 14% are affordable for extremely low income households (no more than 30% AMI). The analysis must focus on this degree of detail, to capture what proposed changes might mean for our most affordable housing.
3. Strengthen Community-Wide Engagement requirements, to ensure the results are authentic and really provide robust, meaningful opportunities for the consultant, City Staff, and the Council to interact deeply and effectively with the full range of stakeholders.
Strong representation of tenants is urgent, as are the voices of landlords, especially small landlords who are also residents. But representatives of the broader resident community – including homeowners – is also appropriate, given the impact that progress toward racial equity and socio-economic and racial diversity has on the stability and well-being of our entire community. Consider directing the consultant to work throughout its project with a Council-appointed taskforce that represents the full range of stakeholders.
Q&A on Rent Stabilization in Takoma Park by Community Vision for Takoma (CVT)
(A working document, comments welcome).
Do you care about housing justice in Takoma Park? Then consider following the City Council’s new review of what may be the single most impactful law our small city has ever passed: Our Rent Stabilization ordinance. To help residents prepare to take part in this process, the 15 Questions & Answers below offer an overview of the current law – and what’s at stake in its review and potential revision.
Question 1: What is Takoma Park’s Rent Stabilization Law all about?
Answer: Takoma Park’s ordinance is apparently the oldest continuously in-effect law in the State of Maryland that stabilizes rent. The first version of our law was passed in 1980.1 (More than 200 other local governments as well as two states – Oregon and California – and the District of Columbia2 now have such a law as well.) Our law requires most landlords who rent out multifamily buildings or individual condominium units to limit their annual rent increases to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index from the year before. (For 2025, the maximum increase allowed is 2.4%.)
The first version of our law was passed in 1980.1 (More than 200 other local governments as well as two states – Oregon and California – and the District of Columbia2 now have such a law as well.) Our law requires most landlords who rent out multifamily buildings or individual condominium units to limit their annual rent increases to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index from the year before. (For 2025, the maximum increase allowed is 2.4%.)
However, there are several landlord exemptions available even for those types of housing – including for units that are federally subsidized. Also, for entire buildings, if they operate under a contract with a government agency that requires at least half the units to be affordable for residents with low or moderate incomes. Owners of newly constructed multi-family rental facilities can also apply for a five year exemption. And the law does not apply to single-family rental housing or accessory dwelling units. In fact, just 1,636 of the 3,217 rental units in the City – about half — were rent-stabilized, as of 2023.5
Q2: How has Rent Stabilization impacted our community?
A: Rent stabilization has contributed significantly to the stability and resilience of our Takoma Park community. It has succeeded in preserving an unusually dense supply of affordable housing in high-priced Montgomery County. (Median rent was $1,318 in Takoma Park, compared to $1,957 in the County, as of 2022.)6
By preserving such reliable affordable housing, the law has played a major role in preserving our economic and racial diversity.7 (That’s not surprising, given the evidence that rent stabilization is a powerful tool for racial justice.) It has enabled Takoma Park to provide housing access to residents from near and far who can plant new roots and raise their children in a community with strong schools and good local services.
And there is evidence that rental communities in our City really are more stable: As of 2022, the median number of years Takoma Park renters have lived in their home is 7 years, compared to just 4 years in the County, which is just starting its own rent stabilization program.8 Rent stabilization has not only directly benefited many Takoma Park residents who rent, of whom a high proportion are residents of color. It has also promoted a broad sense of stability and community-wide security that contributes to the health of our whole city.9
Q3: Overall, what percentage of Takoma Park household are renters?
A: Takoma Park is a densely populated municipality of about 2.1 square miles with an ethnically and economically diverse population of about 17,500 people. About 48% of all households rent their homes. By comparison, about 35% of all households in Montgomery County rent their homes.10
Q4: What about the buildings that are fully exempted from our Rent Stabilization Law because the owners have signed a government contract to limit the rent for at least half of their units? How high are the rents for units that are not included in that protected proportion that must be affordable? And what’s the total number of units in each of those buildings that are not protected at all from hefty rent increases, either by our law or by those government contracts?
A: We urge the Council to ask staff to provide the data to fully answer this question – and to evaluate how total rents and the pattern of annual increases in rents in those uncovered units compare to buildings that are under our law. Note, though, that most renters in the City are either covered by the law or live in units subsidized or rent-regulated in some way by a government agency.
Q5: But is rent stabilization fair to landlords, who are trying to make a living, or does it force them to basically subsidize their own rentals?
A: The law specifically recognizes the value of allowing landlords to get a fair return on their investments. They are able to petition for special increases, beyond the year’s approved percentage increase. They can do so if they find themselves in any particular year in circumstances that require a higher rent to pay the costs of maintaining the safe, quality housing that residents deserve, while making a fair return for their own businesses. More details about such “Fair Return” rent increases are here. (Staff have stated that landlords have made limited use of Fair Return applications. A review to verify if that reflects satisfaction with increases allowed or some issue with the process – such as ease in navigating it or being informed about it – could be part of the rent-stabilization review.)
Q6: CVT alerted residents earlier this year about political pressures for a new Maryland State law to prohibit any local government from including something called “Vacancy Control” in its rent-stabilization law. What’s that all about, and how would it affect Takoma Park?
A: A major goal of rent stabilization is to protect stability and affordability for current and future tenants. After a tenant moves out can the landlord raise the amount of rent to market rate, or is the current rent for the year offered to new tenants? Keeping the rent level for the next tenant after the prior tenant vacates an apartment unit is called “vacancy control.” Allowing the rent to float up to market rates between tenants – often to levels which prospective new tenants can no longer afford – is called “vacancy decontrol.”
Affordable housing advocates stress the importance of vacancy control because it helps protect tenants from displacement and prevents a loss of reasonably priced rental housing. They fear that vacancy decontrol creates an incentive for landlords to displace long-term tenants and to select tenants who are more mobile and have higher incomes. The laws for both Takoma Park and the County include vacancy control. The effort to ban such provisions failed this year (2025) in the Maryland legislature, so our policies are still in effect. Locally, high-level support for vacancy control among both City and County elected officials was reaffirmed in March 2025. 11
Q7: Has rent stabilization stifled development of new multifamily rental buildings in the City?
A: Opponents of the City’s rent stabilization law often make this claim. However, they haven’t been able to offer persuasive evidence that a lack of new development is caused by rent stabilization. There’s good reason to doubt that assertion. A 2017 report to the City Council from a housing consultant, for example, concluded otherwise. One of its “key findings”: There has been little new development in Takoma Park for years because the City – which is just over 2 square miles in size – was already densely developed.12
More recently, a major new opportunity for considerable new housing has opened up at Hospital Hill, the site of the former Washington Adventist Hospital. And another site, owned by a church on New Hampshire Avenue, is already being planned for development, which will include 78 new affordable units for seniors.
Moreover, the results of a number of studies across the nation show that, in general, rent stabilization does not appear to stifle new housing development. For example, a 2021 national review of research on rent stabilization, in a report from the University of Minnesota, concluded: “Little empirical evidence shows that rent control policies negatively impact new construction. [highlighting in original] Construction rates are highly dependent on localized economic cycles and credit markets. Additionally, most jurisdictions with rent stabilization specifically exclude new construction from controls, either in perpetuity or for a set period of time.”13
In fact, Michael Bodaken, Adjunct Professor at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy and former head of the National Housing Trust, testified to the Montgomery County Council in 2023 on just this point: “The evidence shows that overall market conditions, interest rates, costs of materials, and zoning have much more influence over new housing supply than rent regulations,” he wrote. “This is particularly the case in prosperous locations like Montgomery County.”
And nearly three dozen economists in 2023 published a letter making a strong case for expanding rent regulations – pointing to “substantial empirical evidence that rent regulation policies do not limit new construction, nor the overall supply of housing.”
Q8: Does rent stabilization make it hard for landlords to afford proper maintenance and so lead to the deterioration of the City’s rental housing stock?
A: We aren’t aware of any local study on this question, which we agree is an important one to evaluate. One goal of such an evaluation should be how to use and preserve our law while making sure the overall impact of local City and County regulations, code enforcement, and financial incentives support landlords’ efforts to keep their properties in good condition.
It is notable that the same 2021 national review of rent stabilization found: “There is little evidence that rent regulations cause a reduction in housing quality. Some evidence shows that major capital improvements keep pace with need but that more aesthetic upkeep may suffer. Most programs allow for the pass-through of capital improvement costs.”
Q9: In Takoma Park, given the age of many of our rent-stabilized buildings, wouldn’t it help if City policies strongly encouraged landlords to maintain the quality of our affordable housing stock so we don’t lose it?
A: Yes. In fact, a 2018 study14 funded by a national group representing multifamily apartment landlords concluded that even under actual rent control (vs. our more flexible form of rent stabilization): “There is no clear association documented in the empirical research between rent control and building quality, particularly if other ordinances, requirements, or incentives are present to have landlords maintain buildings.”
So, any City review of our Ordinance should carefully evaluate whether we and the County have the right mix of such requirements. For example, this could include a review of how thorough and timely inspections and enforcement of housing codes are, as well as evaluating incentives, such as sharing costs of improvements or extending tax breaks related to repairs when appropriate.
Also, the review should pay special attention to an emerging maintenance challenge: New County energy standards. The County Council recently passed mandatory new Building Energy Performance Standards. These may require a review of cost-sharing options to help the owners of multi-family rental buildings that are rent stabilized comply. Each building in the County that is 25,000 sq. ft. in size or more has its own “site energy use intensity” (site EUI) standard that it must reach by a certain deadline. (A list that includes all the multi-family buildings in our City that must meet such standards and their deadlines is available here.) Site EUI is a measure of the energy use per gross square foot of building area each year. Each building’s final performance standard is based on what the building is used for.
Q10: Does rent stabilization tend to promote a decline in the total amount of rental housing units? Does it create an incentive for owners to either convert their properties to condominiums or tear them down and totally rebuild, or to sell to other developers who will do so?
A: This question, to our knowledge, has not been carefully evaluated locally. We urge the City Housing staff to compile and share data on condo conversions of rent-stabilized units in Takoma Park. The 2021 nationwide review did find that research shows, in general, that rent regulation “is related to an overall reduction in units.” However, other research demonstrates that’s not always the case, and that carefully written laws can avoid loopholes that encourage condo conversions.15 Depending on what a local analysis would show, if necessary, the City could follow other cities’ lead and add focused regulations to encourage landlords to stay in the rental housing market and continue providing affordable housing.
And consider this: When affordable rental units are converted to affordable condominiums or affordable cooperatives – which has happened in Takoma Park with the aid of the City and County – the change can provide affordable options for home ownership to residents with modest incomes who otherwise would not be able to afford buying a home. Given the importance of home ownership to building generational wealth, the equity impact of such conversions is also of value.
Q11: Why is the City Council reviewing our Rent Stabilization Ordinance now?
A:One reason: During the review of the Minor Master Plan Amendment (MMPA), a re-zoning plan, the City was pressured by the County Planning Board and the County Council to review the City’s rent stabilization law.
Separately, the Mayor and some Councilmembers seem supportive of a major review as well. The new City Council has included a review of the City’s ordinance as part of its official “Council Priorities” over this Council’s two-year term (which runs through October 2026). To date, it seems fair to say that the Mayor, some Councilmembers, and staff have expressed more interest in identifying revisions that might increase developers’ incentives to build more housing units – whether affordable or not – than on changes that could strengthen tenant protections or overall housing resilience.
Q12: What role do our Rent Stabilization Law and other tenant protections play in meeting the City’s major housing goals and challenges?
A12:This is a good question, deserving a full evaluation in any major review of the law. But we can make some preliminary observations. The Council, in its 2019 Housing and Economic Development Strategic Plan, prioritized three main housing objectives: Preserve, Produce, and Protect. The objective to protect was defined as: “Protect renters, homeowners, and local businesses from discrimination and displacement; and protect our environment from destruction.”
Notice the inclusion of language about protecting residents from displacement. City staff later reframed those objectives in 2024 as “stability, choice, and quality,” in a way that arguably de-emphasizes protecting residents from displacement.
Stability was defined by staff as “the ability of residents to remain in their community.” Stability for residents renting in multi-family buildings is significantly advanced by the City’s Rent Stabilization policies. And stability among residents – whether they rent or own – is arguably threatened by high property taxes and rents.
Choice was defined as residents’ ability “to choose and find housing that fits their life situations.” Choice is limited among certain housing types, notably duplexes, triplexes and townhomes and, for homebuyers, within certain price brackets, especially low to moderately priced single-family homes. A factor that impacts all housing choices is the limited availability of developable land. We note again this key finding of the 2017 City-funded study: “Because Takoma Park is mostly built out, there is little new residential construction.”
Quality was defined as “safe, healthy and contains all amenities for comfort.” While various enforcement mechanisms attempt to address quality, how well the City’s many aging multi-family rental buildings are being maintained is a particular concern. A full analysis, including building-by-building evaluations of the need for repairs, would be a good first step to begin prioritizing this major issue.
Clearly, rent stabilization and other tenant protections play a key role in achieving the City’s overall housing goals – serving current residents but also new residents. Any policy that might lead to displacement is directly at odds with the City’s goals.
Q13: What other City policies significantly impact our housing?
A:Takoma Park’s suite of housing policies and programs work across the Stability-Choice-Quality framework, some clearly prioritizing housing justice in terms of promoting safe, affordable, well-maintained, stable shelter.
These programs include, for example, grant assistance with down payments for first-time home buyers who are income eligible and the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Law, which since 1986 has given tenants a right of first refusal when a landlord decides to sell. Together, these policies have supported numerous residents, on their own or organizing with other tenants, to transition from renting to home ownership without moving. This can help residents of more modest means, who are disproportionately families of color, begin to build the kind of generational wealth and stability that has historically been disproportionately available to white families. (A success story that, on paper, is a “loss” of rental housing units, but is also a gain for the individuals involved and, at least in some ways, for our community.)
There are also significant new City and County policies, whose impacts on housing it’s too soon to evaluate fully. The City’s new Housing Property Tax Credits passed in late 2024. But they will not be available until the Council has approved regulations to implement them. (As of mid-May, 2025, staff have not yet presented such regulations.) The credit for new, multifamily rental buildings would provide 10 years of full exemption from City property taxes, and five more years of partial exemption. Other, less generous tax credits would apply to the rehabilitation of multi-family rental buildings (Council has instructed staff to flesh this idea out), and affordable housing preservation.
The Minor-Master Plan Amendment, approved in 2024 by the County Council, significantly changed zoning in the 132 acres along Maple Avenue and Flower Avenue, from Philadelphia Avenue to the west, and the Washington Adventist campus, to the east.16 The changes expand the allowable heights, floor-area-ratio (FAR) and commercial-development potential in the plan area, which includes the site of the former Adventist Hospital.
Both the new tax credit for newly constructed rental buildings and the MMPA zoning changes likely increase development potential – but also the potential for some resident displacement.
Q14: How does the City’s Rent Stabilization Law compare with Montgomery County’s?
A: Broadly speaking, Takoma Park’s ordinance offers much stronger renter protections compared with the County’s new law. Three significant differences are:
• The exemption period from rent stabilization regulations for brand new multifamily rental buildings is 5 years in Takoma Park, vs. 23 years under the County’s law.
• After a building’s “substantial” renovation, the County allows a new, 23-year period of exemption from its law. The City has no similar provision. (Renovations that cost at least 40% of the building’s assessed value are considered substantial, under the County law.)
• The maximum annual rent increase allowed under rent stabilization under Takoma Park’s law is the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index in our area (2.4% increase allowed for 2025). Under the County law, the maximum allowed annually is either 6% or the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index plus 3% — whichever is less. (5.7% allowed for 2025).
You can compare the two sets of regulations to see all the differences here. (Link here)
Q15: What can residents do to learn more and/or advocate for the City’s Rent Stabilization and Housing policies?
A: Residents can learn more about individual policies from the Housing pages on the City Website and from our document “Selected Rent Stabilization and Housing Policy Documents”. You can also attend a City Council Meeting – which are most Wednesday nights at the City Community Center – when housing issues are on the agenda. You can make a 3-minute public comment in person or over Zoom at the meetings. Please also share your questions and concerns with your City Councilmember, the Mayor and the entire City Council. Lastly, talk with your friends and neighbors to help them stay informed and engaged too.
And a special invitation: If you would like to actively work on these issues with CVT’s Housing Working Group, send an email to: Community Vision for Takoma at tjcommunityvision@gmail.com. Feel free to also email us, at the same address, any further questions, comments, or information you have about these issues.
In the early 1970s, there were both federal price controls and a statewide rent-control law in effect. After those limits were lifted and rents began rising dramatically, Montgomery County declared a public emergency and passed first a rent freeze and then a rent-control law. That law was in effect from 1973 to 1977, followed by a transitional period during which another law temporarily gave the County the authority to disapprove rent increases of more than 10% if landlords could not provide “adequate justification.” That authority expired in 1981. Takoma Park voted in their rent stabilization in 1980. Prince George’s and Howard Counties and Rockville also had rent-control programs from 1973 to 1976. Read about this history here (pp. 6-10, 63-64, as numbered in the pdf). More recently, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties adopted new rent-stabilization laws that took effect in 2024. The City of Mount Ranier’s new law took effect In 2023. In addition, many jurisdictions in Maryland limited rent increases early on during the COVID-19 pandemic but later lifted those limits. ↩︎
In the early 1970s, there were both federal price controls and a statewide rent-control law in effect. After those limits were lifted and rents began rising dramatically, Montgomery County declared a public emergency and passed first a rent freeze and then a rent-control law. That law was in effect from 1973 to 1977, followed by a transitional period during which another law temporarily gave the County the authority to disapprove rent increases of more than 10% if landlords could not provide “adequate justification.” That authority expired in 1981. Takoma Park voted in their rent stabilization in 1980. Prince George’s and Howard Counties and Rockville also had rent-control programs from 1973 to 1976. Read about this history here (pp. 6-10, 63-64, as numbered in the pdf). More recently, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties adopted new rent-stabilization laws that took effect in 2024. The City of Mount Ranier’s new law took effect In 2023. In addition, many jurisdictions in Maryland limited rent increases early on during the COVID-19 pandemic but later lifted those limits. ↩︎
Housing Annual Report, City of Takoma Park Housing and Community Development Department, Oct. 18, 2023. ↩︎
Housing in Takoma Park, City of Takoma Park Housing and Community Development Department, July 1, 2024. ↩︎
No racial group in Takoma Park is in the majority. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts for the City. ↩︎
Housing in Takoma Park, City of Takoma Park Housing and Community Development Department, July 1, 2024.p. 14. ↩︎
Minnesota Rent Stabilization Study, p. 22, in terms of the national evidence that housing stability – which our rent stabilization supports – yield strong social benefits: “. . . housing research overwhelmingly stresses the importance of housing stability for economic well-being and physical, emotional, and mental health (Harkness and Newman, 2005; Smith et al., 2003; Welch and Lewis, 1998; Guzman et al., 2005; Bartlett, 1997). Housing stability has been associated with greater educational achievement among children (Scanlon and Devine, 2001; Kerbow, 1996; Brennan, 2011; Newman and Holupka, 2014). Also, for evidence of the relationship between housing instability and significant negative physical and mental health outcomes for both adults and children, see the summary and references in “Rent Regulations and the Montgomery County Rental Housing Market,” from the County Council’s Office of Legislative Oversight, OLO Report 2023-5, p. 14. ↩︎
The population density of Takoma Park is about 8,382 people per square mile. That compares, for example to about 5,276 per square mile in Bethesda, 4,961 per square mile in Rockville, and 6,741 per square mile in Gaithersburg. (Source: U.S. Census Reporter.) Sources for proportion of households who rent their homes in Takoma Park and Montgomery County: U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts for the County and the City. Source for number of residents (individuals) who live in rented homes Is: “Facts and Figures: Summary of Census Information Through 2022,” City of Takoma Park Website. ↩︎
“Good Cause/Vacancy Control Local Legislators Sign-On Letter (updated 3/14/25).” County Councilmember Kristin Mink played a leading role in organizing this effort. In addition to Mayor Searcy, Takoma Park Councilmembers Jessica Landman, Cindy Dyballa, Roger Schlegel, and Cara Honzak signed the letter. County Executive Marc Elrich, Mink, and five other County Councilmembers signed it as well. ↩︎
Lisa Sturtevant, Ph.D., “The Impacts of Rent Control: A Research Review and Synthesis,” published by the National Multifamily Housing Council Research Foundation, May, 2018. ↩︎
For extensive commentary on, and the history of, the Takoma Park Minor Master Plan Amendment (MMPA), click on the link to “Affordable Housing,” on CVT’s website. ↩︎
The City Council is on the verge of approving a package of housing tax credits. Community Vision for Takoma welcomes new housing in our city that does not displace vulnerable residents and that is developed in ways that protect the environment, as the Council’s 2019 housing strategic plan wisely requires. We welcome new neighbors. We also strongly support incentives to preserve affordable housing and to renovate our deeply affordable–but aging–rental housing stock.
However, we’re deeply concerned about the proposal to provide large, long-term tax subsidies for developers of market-rate multifamily rental housing. Given the major changes in Takoma Park’s real estate market due to both the enactment of the Minor Master Plan Amendment, which upzoned the center of the city to promote development, and the availability of a major, attractive site for development at the former Adventist hospital, we are not persuaded that tax subsidies are necessary to stimulate market-rate housing.
The City can ill afford to give away future tax revenues to for-profit developers. We face a serious structural deficit in our City budget that may require painful choices about cutting City services or raising our already-high taxes. CVT believes that it would be fiscally irresponsible to provide tax credits for market-rate rental housing that seems likely to be built anyway, given how popular Takoma Park has become as a housing destination. Trying to compete for developers’ attention by being among the first jurisdictions to offer a big tax break for market-rate housing is not a policy experiment worth putting the City’s shaky finances at further risk.
For these reasons, CVT opposes adoption of the market-rate housing tax credit. We do strongly support tax credits to preserve affordable housing, which is so valuable to our community, and to rehabilitate the City’s aging apartment buildings to ensure quality housing for residents. We urge the City Council to strengthen those two proposals.
Two new sign-on statements for City Council endorsements were released this week:
1. From City residents in the union movement:
Having devoted our careers to the union movement and having acquainted ourselves with the candidates we are happy to endorse Jessica Landman in Ward 1 and Roger Schlegel in Ward 3 for Takoma Park City Council.
We know Jessica and Roger share our view that strong, effective unions are needed to improve the lives of all working people. We believe they are the best candidates to represent these interests on our city’s Council.
Karen Ackerman, former AFL-CIO political director
Sally Davies, former President AFSCME University of Maryland College Park
Dennis Desmond, former Business Manager, LIUNA Local 11
Fred Feinstein, former NLRB General Counsel
Tom Gagliardo, civil rights, labor and employment attorney
Beth Grupp, union consultant
Paul Huebner, rank & file activist in Laborers Local # 74 & Fin. Secretary-Treasurer in Carpenters Local #1110.
Jennifer Martin, former President, Montgomery County Education Association
Bob Muehlenkamp, former Teamster Organizing Director
Steve Rosenthal, former political director of the AFL-CIO
Saul Schniderman- Former President AFSCME Library of Congress Guild
Miriam Szapiro, former chief NLRB Regional Advice Branch and union-side labor lawyer
Joe Uehlein, former Secretary-Treasurer of Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO and labor musician.
2. From City residents who are environmental and climate activists:
We, the undersigned, endorse the following candidates for Takoma Park City Council in 2024 because of their deep longstanding knowledge of, and commitment to, climate and environmental issues.
Community Vision for Takoma 2024 City Council Endorsements
Community Vision for Takoma (CVT) is endorsing the following 2024 candidates for Takoma Park City Council, based in part on the responses to our questionnaire. We encourage you to go to their websites:
If you live in Ward 3 or Ward 6, there are three candidates in your ward. So, Ranked Choice Voting will come into play if no candidate gets a majority of votes in the first ballot count. In that case, the 2nd choice votes only from the 3rd place candidate ballots will be counted. Here’s what to remember:
You cannot hurt your 1st choice by listing a 2nd choice. Your 2nd choice will only be counted if your 1st choice comes in 3rd place.
If you have friends & neighbors committed to another candidate, ask them to list your candidate as their 2nd choice.
And…A Word About CVT
Who Are We?CVT is an independent, informal network of residents with no formal organizational structure, no membership roll, and no budget. We advocate for Takoma Park’s progressive political values, and to ensure City transparency and accountability. We are the lone progressive community group attending most City Council meetings and reporting out to the community on a regular basis. Our base – those on our email list– is almost 1,000 residents strong.
What Does CVT Stand For? We seek to advance these critical public interests: Racial equity, social justice, and ecological sustainability; transparency and accountability in our local government; financially sustainable City budgets that prioritize our community’s values; and a public empowered with the information they need to more actively participate in City policymaking.
Our Record. In the wake of the collapse of local independent media, CVT has been your source, widely distributing information about City politics. And we’ve mobilized residents to work together to protect public land for the public good, preserve our City’s rare stock of deeply affordable housing, prevent the displacement of residents, protect rent stabilization, make our streets safer for everyone including pedestrians and bikers, improve stormwater management, protect our tree canopy, treat our climate emergency with the urgency it demands, save our community grocery (the Co-op) and the jobs it provides to a diverse, unionized workforce, support other locally-owned businesses, and strive for a balanced City budget.
CVT is Pro-Housing. We recently testified, for example, in favor of new housing on the old hospital site. We are, however, anti-displacement, whether the residents at risk of being priced out of our community are home renters or owners. We support development that supports tenant rights, ecological sustainability, and racial and economic equity. We advocate for preserving, renovating, and expanding affordable housing – and protecting our rent stabilization – because the unusually affordable housing in Takoma Park has made possible our rich racial and economic diversity, which is the heart and soul of our community.
We Work by Consensus. At our core is a varying group of about 20 residents – including journalists, legal experts, renters and homeowners, and people with decades of experience organizing for social and environmental justice. We meet regularly, organize Town Halls, speak at City Council meetings, build coalitions with other local organizations, and encourage robust resident participation in the City’s democratic process.
Candidates not listed below either declined to participate, or did not submit responses. We encourage you to ask the candidates in your ward any unanswered questions.
Questions 3-10 on the questionnaire were Yes/No questions (with the option of skipping any of those questions). Because very few candidates participated, we opted not to include the Yes/No section.The full questionnaire can be found here.
1. Please List Your Name, Ward, and the Position For Which You are Running. (Campaign websites linked to names).
2. Please provide the names of any City of Takoma Park committees, commissions, or task forces on which you have served, including City Council. Also list any neighborhood, community, or tenant associations for which you have held office.
Jesssica Landman, Ward 1:
Takoma Park Complete Safe Streets Committee; Montgomery County Vision Zero Equity Task Force; Takoma Junction Vision Study Stakeholder Advisory Group; Takoma Central District Citizens Working Group (Takoma Park MD representative)
Roger Schlegel, Ward 3:
Pinecrest Community Association, President; Executive Committee Member. Takoma Junction Task Force. City Manager Search Committee. Parking Management Task Force.
Tony Kyere, Ward 4:
President of Park View Towers Tenants Association.
Ambroise Agosse, Ward 6:
I am the current vice president and the traffic committee member of the New Hampshire Garden Citizens Association, Board member of the Takoma/Langley crossroads Development Authority, Member of the Climate Action Coffee group
11. What are your ideas for making real progress toward racial equity in our City?
Jessica Landman, Ward 1: Implement policies to prevent displacement, using City’s (limited) planning/zoning powers; use data on tree cover & sidewalks/traffic calming plus demographic info to prioritize pedestrian and other infrastructure improvements, using an equity lens; explore how to retain library services at current temporary location once the library re-opens by budget priority-setting; keep NH Av Rec Center in prime working order while advancing its upgrading/replacement, as a City priority.
Roger Schlegel, Ward 3: Seek 95%+ voter participation by all ages 16 and older. Remove barriers to access of residents of color to information, meetings, assistance, and legal recourse. Schedule meetings at venues and times, with advertisement and translation, that don’t reproduce inequitable participation patterns. Use existing social networks to proactively grow BIPOC residents’ influence. Build the institutional muscle to recalibrate white residents’ claims of urgency so as to allocate time and resources equitably.
Tony Kyere, Ward 4: Protect our rent stabilization law. Require 50% of new units on Hospital Hill to be affordable housing.
Ambroise Agosse, Ward 6: This requires an approach that includes advocacy and community engagement. Support local and minority-owned businesses, school programs that aim to help people of color succeed. Participate in community events focused on racial equity topics. Partner with or volunteer for local organizations working on racial justice issues like CVT and provide them with financial support. Encourage diverse representation on city boards for leadership positions like I am doing by running for Ward 6 city council.
12. What additional steps should the City Council take to address the climate emergency?
Landman, Ward 1: Coordinate stormwater management on watershed basis, across (public/private/ jurisdictional basis) holistically, coordinating with other jurisdictions affecting TkPk; clearly define native trees using best eco-practical definitions; plant/approve planting of suitable food trees (nuts/fruits) and support food forests; ramp up program to encourage mulching & not raking leaves where practicable (also lowering city DPW costs); explore solar roof @ Junction lot via outside funding; maintain City EV chargers and fix the broken ones ASAP.
Schlegel, Ward 3: Use media and convene groups to help residents shift to new appliances, HVAC, vehicles, or landscaping, go solar, use alternative transport, garden, tend to trees, rainscape, or grow food forests. Partner with MC, UMD for green careers and businesses. Reward mature trees with a stormwater fee credit. Develop a twelve-year plan for alternative transportation dominant locally. Support new, green infill development with housing for all income levels to reduce regional trips. Set and track targets.
Kyere, Ward 4: Get outside experts to review if Maple Ave and all areas draining into Brashears Run could withstand 24” inches of rain in 18 hours.Develop a real climate impact strategy based on the results of that study.
Agosse, Ward 6: The city can take several additional steps on top of the current one to address the climate emergency and maintain its leadership. Update the Climate Action Plan to set more ambitious targets to incorporate new goals for carbon sequestration, energy resilience, biodiversity protection, comprehensive infrastructures for best flood management. Assist businesses and residents, including those in multi-family housing, to access renewable energy, and to install solar panels.
13. As with other City projects, the cost of the library renovation has increased dramatically. If elected, how would you work to address City project cost overruns?
Landman, Ward 1: I would oppose launching any additional capital projects until the Library and Community Center/police station building project is fully completed; seek to address any additional space needs for City staff through rental of space rather than construction of additional buildings; consider creating a task force of local volunteers who are experts to brainstorm innovative ways to obtain an updated/improved recreation center that would not involve the City directly in providing construction oversight and is budgetarily neutral.
Schlegel, Ward 3: Project proposals and components should emerge from and align with long-term strategic objectives identified by the City. Fiscal and environmental sustainability and equity commitments should constrain and shape designs. Prioritize functionality over ornamentation. Factor in operating and staffing costs. Understand and respect site and situational constraints (e.g. groundwater, access) at the start of the design process. Do not backtrack once committed so as to limit delay-induced cost overruns.
Kyere, Ward 4: First, balance the budget and require city council to live within its means. Second, begin the budget review process earlier so residents can get involved earlier and demand accountability from council members.
Agosse, Ward 6: It sounds too late for me to take strong and serious action to address this matter. To serve as an example for the futures decision makers, we will take responsible those who approved the projects without appropriate and strong studies especially environmental study. However, I will do the projects re-evaluation for cost effectiveness, eliminate needless activities and support finding grants programs and other resources to cover the gap.
14. The City in recent years has had to use reserve funds to pay for expenses. At the same time, property taxes have risen to levels that make it difficult for some residents to stay in their homes. If elected, how would you address these challenges?
Landman, Ward 1: Work with the City Manager to mandate a ‘constant yield’ budget as annual starting point; support CM on management/task metrics to evaluate staffing needs, and efficiency options; re-assess vehicle buying by exploring leasing to reduce costs & expedite fleet electrification; explore equipment-sharing with other cities (like Rockville does) to save on costs of infrequently-used equipment; revisit street maintenance schedules for options to adjust re-paving schedules when road conditions warrant.
Schlegel, Ward 3: Integrate strategic planning with the budget cycle. Use performance metrics; seek greater efficiency, perhaps by merging functions. Explore whether any services once provided by a bi-county City can now, since unification, be County-provided without losing quality or compromising values. Calculate how growth may affect revenue and costs. To close an urgent gap, resurface only as needed; extend replacement schedules; postpone hiring consultants. Don’t compromise equity; compensate workers fairly.
Kyere, Ward 4: We have to cut back on expenditures already!!! Particularly on police cars. We can’t raise property taxes any more. Homeowners in Ward 4 can’t afford to pay taxes now!!!
Agosse, Ward 6: I think a strong action is needed to stop increasing the city property tax as we are way over all other incorporated cities in the State. If elected, I will work with the city to first review the city budget process by giving more time to the city councils for amendment. Second, we will work to reduce city expenditures whereas is needed. And finally, I will support identifying other sources of income than keep putting pressure on the city property tax.
15. What is your vision for the equitable and inclusive use of the public land at Takoma Junction, given what we have learned about the constraints of that space in terms of traffic, open space needs, safety, and support of existing and planned local businesses?
Landman, Ward 1: Day to day the Junction provides vital delivery and parking resources for all of the Junction businesses (including 2 restaurants, the pre-school, the bike shop, the barber shop, the bakery, the butchery, the music school, the dress shop, the business center, etc). The space should (once renovations at the Co-op are complete) receive a makeover. Then the City should affirmatively encourage regular use of the site for City events that benefit residents and businesses with a welcoming locale for e.g. Earth Day, Xmas Market, break dancing contest, etc.
Schlegel, Ward 3: The site now hosts forest, stormwater protection, and a packed parking lot serving local businesses. The parking supply, in relation to the district, seems comparable to that in Old Town. In the short term, a solar cover, tree plantings, and a removable stage/dance floor could be added. In the mid term, efforts to reduce car trips could open up space onsite for a circulator shuttle hub. Longer term, the airspace above the lot could accommodate affordable housing because the City owns the land.
Kyere, Ward 4: People who park in the Junction should pay for parking. A portion of the parking lot should be used for new small businesses, mainly local businesses.
Agosse, Ward 6: I think and believe we can come up with a very modern commercial property that benefits both the city and residents by working together with all parties to design a new project for that land. I mean an inclusive planning process is needed to properly address this matter.
16. What do you think the City should be doing to improve the safety of our communities?
Landman, Ward 1: For traffic, we should prioritize addressing the highest risk routes to schools using an equity lens. For crime prevention, we should continue to build police/business relationships (like with Walgreen’s) and prioritize enforcement of city ordinances at sites that are trash-strewn or vacant and unlit, thus attracting crime, and we should explore tax policies that discourage leaving lots or buildings vacant or in disrepair.
Schlegel, Ward 3: Incentivize more active neighborhood/tenant associations. Ease processes for block/ tenant parties and regularly scheduled play-street closures; build relationships to promote safety. Improve traffic safety with intersection tweaks, speed limit reductions and “5 MPH when people are present” zones. If needed to break patterns of persistent localized crime, position mobile surveillance cameras. Pursue safety objectives across jurisdictions through memoranda of understanding and celebratory events.
Kyere, Ward 4: Create a summer jobs program for teens, especially teens living along Maple Ave. Make police walk their beats and ride bikes instead of zooming around in their cruisers. Make police come to our Tenant Association meetings so they can see what our safety problems are.
Agosse, Ward 6: We should strengthen relationships between law enforcement and the community through regular assessment, meetings, joint community initiatives by running educational campaigns on topics like personal safety, reporting suspicious activity, crimes prevention tips and adapt strategies based on residents’ feedback. Install fixed and more mobile security cameras in strategic areas to deter crimes. Partner with community organizations to address specific safety concerns and leverage their expertise.
17. What do you think the City should be doing to prepare for the arrival of the Purple Line?
Landman, Ward 1: Code enforcement & tax incentives should target vacant/unmaintained sites to fix/rebuild them; work w/ Purple Line Coalition to address/minimize impacts, help neighborhoods & businesses; work w/ MoCo on innovative housing/development projects that protect our small businesses and create new housing/retail in appropriate spots, with ample community outreach; explore redevelopment of the McLaughlin School as, e.g., senior housing + daycare, creating local jobs & housing.
Schlegel, Ward 3: Engage residents, businesses, and property owners in visioning for New Hampshire Avenue, which will link Purple Line and Red Line via BRT. Plan to integrate new development with existing neighborhoods, respecting buffers and using Open Space funds to acquire connecting parks and paths. Pilot a public-private circulator shuttle to link key nodes and stations. Use benches, water fountains, shade tree planting, and optimized hill-climb routes to encourage walking and biking to/from the Purple Line.
Kyere, Ward 4: The city needs to better protect walkers and bikers all along the Purple Line. It is too dangerous even if you’re in a car. The city needs to have meetings to explain tenants rights to people who live there.
Agosse, Ward 6: To prepare, the city should consider a multi-faceted approach that addresses transit access, economic development, community needs, and environmental impacts. Assess and upgrade existing infrastructure such as roads and public facilities to handle increased usage. Develop strategies to manage increased traffic including potential parking zones. By addressing these areas proactively, we can leverage the benefits of the Purple Line while minimizing negative impacts on residents and businesses.
And, this crisis is all too evident here in Takoma Park.
We have almost no independent local news anymore: no Gazette, no Takoma Voice, and the loss of local coverage by the Post and others. All we really have left is a publication put out by the City staff, the “Takoma Park News.”
But this month, we had a stark reminder that this paper newsletter is not an actual news outlet, but a public relations organ.
Residents have a right to expect factual accuracy in the city newsletter.
Unfortunately, the article on page 4 in the May issue, on the Takoma Park Minor Master Plan Amendment (“the Plan”), is filled with spin and misinformation. (The Plan has now been approved by both City and County Councils).
The Plan upzones to increase land values, incentivizing building owners on Maple and Lee Avenues, and around the former hospital site, to tear down old affordable buildings and build new (larger) ones with higher rents. Someone who did not follow the process closely would be left with the reassuring impression that the Plan ensures that in this gentrification process there will be nonet loss of affordable housing, and a right for current residents to return if their building is renovated or replaced.
And yet, the stark reality is that the plan does not ensure either of those outcomes in any way.
City spin: The article contains a quote stating that the plan “explicitly calls out the right to return.”
Reality: What does the ambiguous term “call out” mean here? Perhaps it simply means the right to return was discussed, or mentioned? Because the truth is that the plan does not ensure any such right to return. It says only that priority should be given to eligible residents to return. So, what happens if a building owner tears down a building and builds a new one? If they define “eligible residents” as those with ability to pay what we know will be a new higher market rate rent, then those residents will be displaced.
City spin: There’s a reference in the article to having “strengthened plan language around no-net loss of affordability.”
Reality: The plan calls only for preserving affordable housing “where practicable.” What if the developer does not deem it practicable? And the plan calls only for “striving for no net loss.” Striving is not ensuring.
City spin: The article casually mentions the idea that “tenant displacement laws appropriately meet the needs of our residents.”
Reality: The Plan only “recommends…strategies to minimize displacement.” A recommendation to develop strategies is not the same as a requirement to prevent displacement. And when the plan talks about minimizing displacement, it is acknowledging, as the Planning Board vice chair acknowledged, that there will be displacement.
ACTION ITEMS
At least one large building filled with affordable housing in the Plan area is already up for sale. How is the City ensuring no residents are displaced with each sale or renovation? Stay alert. Ask questions.
The Planning Board, County Council, and City officials have all mentioned the possibility of reconsidering Takoma Park’s strong rent stabilization policy. This policy helped create our exceptionally affordable housing stock, and has kept Takoma Park an exceptionally diverse city. Now there is pressure to weaken that rent stabilization policy. Stay alert. Ask questions.
We have no more local independent press (most of the remaining local press is dependent on real estate and development advertising). To stay informed, we must demand complete and timely accuracy and transparency in the City’s newsletter. Anything short of this creates further erosion of trust. Stay alert. Ask questions.
Below, we post the Executive Summary of an analysis by Takoma Park resident David Reed, PhD, an author, policy analyst, and longtime organizer for tenants’ rights.
The Struggle for Takoma Park’s Future
Executive Summary
Takoma Park’s Minor Master Plan Amendment (MMPA) will determine the future of our City. Either the plan will provide new housing opportunities for low- and middle-income families on the vacant hospital site and protect low-income families along Maple Avenue. Or it will convert both the hospital site and Maple Avenue into a glistening corridor of 12- and 15-story high apartments as in Bethesda or downtown Silver Spring.
The controversy in Takoma Park began in 2019 when the Adventist Hospital, then the City’s largest employer, moved its operations to a new White Oak location. In mid-2023, after 18 months of preparation, staff of the County Planning Department submitted the MMPA for the City Council’s first review. However, the plan did not offer the public an urban development program. It had no implementation stages, no discernible timeline, no identified lead agency, no budgetary allocation of public resources, and no infrastructure improvements.
What the Planning Department staff submitted was a one-dimensional rezoning proposal. In essence, the plan incentivizes private investors to build more than 3,500 new residential units for as many as 8,400 new residents in Takoma Park, whose population in 2021 was approximately 17,500 residents. The plan envisions building 12- to 15-story high-rise apartments on the old hospital site, identified as “Site 23”. The staff’s proposal also called for the “up-zoning” of the entire length of the Maple Avenue District with its 14 garden-, mid-, and high-rise apartment buildings.
“Planning is never just a bureaucratic or technical exercise: in its essence, it is an exercise of political power.”
“Up-zoning” is urban planners’ preferred tool for increasing the value of land. Through increased land values, planners incentivize builders to tear down old residential buildings and replace them with luxury apartments that will boost owners’ rental profits and increase tax revenues. Up-zoning, unless accompanied by robust government protections and incentives, has driven thousands of Black and Brown families over past decades from their apartments into untold social instability in urban areas across the country.
The Struggle for Takoma Park’s Future contends that, with the recent approval of the MMPA, our City Council, County Council, and Planning Board have abandoned our City’s basic values, vision, and goals. Those goals were first established when it created the Maple Avenue corridor in the 1970s and 80s. During that period, local developers, the Montgomery Housing Partnership, and government agencies drew on federal, state and local financing to create the County’s densest concentration of low-income families. Today, Maple Avenue remains among the County’s most affordable and culturally diverse communities.
Now, the MMPA promises to replace existing, deeply affordable housing with higher-priced apartments that would lead to the displacement of current low-income (primarily Black and Brown) families who would struggle to find housing elsewhere in the County. County planners have also recommended weakening Takoma Park’s rent stabilization law. Throughout the two-year process, County planners repeatedly promised, but never delivered, a comprehensive social equity analysis. In the final measure, an independent equity analysis issued from the County Executive’s office states: The Plan “could do real harm” to vulnerable residents, incentivizes “displacement” along Maple Avenue, and fails to provide resources that will allow “residents to remain” in their place of residence. Moreover, planners have failed to provide a local transportation infrastructure study and an impact analysis on public schools.
As the struggle over the future of Takoma unfolded, City and County Councils embraced the allegedly neutral technical proposals of the County’s urban planners pointing our City towards unregulated, for-profit solutions to our housing crisis. City elected officials abandoned community-driven solutions and priorities built on equity and sustainability, and expressed support for the approved blueprint for a racially inequitable, unjustifiably dense enclave along Maple Avenue.
Expert witnesses, housing professionals, and hundreds of neighbors steadily rallied to modify the MMPA. Under the current County Council, we can expect that what is happening in Takoma Park will be repeated across Montgomery County. To halt that trend, our challenge as a community is to build partnerships with community organizations, tenants, religious groups, unions, elected officials, and socially committed entrepreneurs to promote the following actions:
· Protect Takoma Park’s rent stabilization law
· Promote similar strong statutes in Rockville and Gaithersburg
· Protect tenant-landlord regulations and courts
· Ensure the Montgomery Housing Partnership remains focused on preserving and expanding low-income housing – without displacement
· Encourage moderately priced housing development by non-profits
· Promote public acquisition of land and housing stock
