Our city’s historic rent stabilization law, which helps keep rents affordable, is now being reviewed by City Council. Unfortunately, the review process opens the door to weakening the law for renters.
Please sign our PETITION to urge the Council to continue to prioritize tenant rights, and continue to limit allowable annual rent increases to no more than the rate of inflation.
Nearly half of Takoma Park households are renters. About half of these benefit from rent stabilization. (The other half live in units that are exempt from the law.)
Our law caps annual increases for rent-stabilized units at the rate of inflation (Consumer Price Index) – 2.4% this year. The Countyโs cap for the year is more than double at 5.7%.
Forty-seven percent of our renters are either โhousing cost burdenedโ, spending over 30% of their income on housing, or โseverely burdenedโ, spending 50% or more on housing.
Our law keeps rents affordable for many residents with low incomes. That creates stability and sustains the diversity and wellbeing of our whole community.
The Councilโs review and possible revision of our law could either increase or reduce tenant rights and the availability of affordable rental housing for those with few options.
Weakening our rent stabilization law would be especially cruel while anti-immigrant violence and economic forcesย threaten Takoma Park renters, who are mainly people of color.
A Rent Stabilization Policy Review: Why should we care?
(Public Comment Delivered to City Council on Nov 5 2025)
Do tenants know that Takoma Parkโs ordinance limits rent increases for half the Cityโs 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 wouldnโt be in our neighborhoods and schools if not for our progressive Rent Stabilization ordinance?
Isnโt 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 governmentโs 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 Cityโs 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 Cityโs 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 RFPโs 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 โalready densely developedโ, (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 Cityโs 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 Cityโs 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 โpillarsโ 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
City of Takoma Park Housing and Economic Data Analysis, The Cloudburst Group, Oct., 2017. One of the โKey Findingsโ, p. 13: โBecause Takoma Park is largely built out, there is little new residential construction.โ
The Issue: The City of Takoma Park, at the Mayor and Councilโs request, is reviewing ourย historic rent stabilization law. Unfortunately, the review process seems skewed towards weakening the law to appear more attractive to developers. Thatโs 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 โfair returnโ increases, above that level, and several exemptions exist, including for government-subsidized buildings and single-family houses.
Its Impact:ย 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.ย We all benefit from the resulting community-wide sense of security and well-being.
What to Do? โย 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 youโd 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 Cityโs current Housing and Economic Development Strategic Plan, approved in 2019.
The Planโs 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 Planโs only mention of a review of rent stabilization is to serve the first objective โ to preserve existing affordable housing โ 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: โConsider all advocacy and action through a race equity lens.โ Given that 83% of householders who rent in our City are households of color, the third goal โ protection from displacement โ 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 โaffordability, quality, and choice.โ By themselves, those three words are not clearly aligned with the three officially designated goals of the Cityโs Strategic Plan, and are nowhere actually defined. None of the three terms specifically addresses protection from displacement or preserving the Cityโs 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 โthrough a race equity lens.โ
In fact, the Councilโs June 11th Agenda Item suggested that the study should focus on โbalancing tenant protection, incentivizing high-quality housing, addressing affordability, and creating housing choiceโ โ 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 Parkโs community values into account. Is increasing โchoiceโ in housing โ 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 Cityโs 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 Parkโs 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 Councilโs 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 Cityโs 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 โ including homeowners โ 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 Councilโs 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 โ and whatโs at stake in its review and potential revision.
Question 1: What is Takoma Parkโs Rent Stabilization Law all about?
Answer: Takoma Parkโs 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 โ Oregon and California โ 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 โ 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 โ about half — were rent-stabilized, as of 2023.3
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.)4
By preserving such reliable affordable housing, the law has played a major role in preserving our economic and racial diversity.5 (Thatโs 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.6 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.7
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.8
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 whatโs 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 โ 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 yearโs 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 โFair Returnโ 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 โ such as ease in navigating it or being informed about it โ 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 โVacancy Controlโ in its rent-stabilization law. Whatโs 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 โvacancy control.โ Allowing the rent to float up to market rates between tenants โ often to levels which prospective new tenants can no longer afford โ is called โvacancy decontrol.โ
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. 9
Q7: Has rent stabilization stifled development of new multifamily rental buildings in the City?
A: Opponents of the Cityโs rent stabilization law often make this claim. However, they havenโt been able to offer persuasive evidence that a lack of new development is caused by rent stabilization. Thereโs good reason to doubt that assertion. A 2017 report to the City Council from a housing consultant, for example, concluded otherwise. One of its โkey findingsโ: There has been little new development in Takoma Park for years because the City โ which is just over 2 square miles in size โ was already densely developed.10
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: โLittle 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.โ11
In fact, Michael Bodaken, Adjunct Professor at the University of Marylandโs School of Public Policy and former head of the National Housing Trust, testified to the Montgomery County Council in 2023 on just this point: โThe evidence shows that overall market conditions, interest rates, costs of materials, and zoning have much more influence over new housing supply than rent regulations,โ he wrote. โThis is particularly the case in prosperous locations like Montgomery County.โ
And nearly three dozen economists in 2023 published a letter making a strong case for expanding rent regulations โ pointing to โsubstantial empirical evidence that rent regulation policies do not limit new construction, nor the overall supply of housing.โ
Q8: Does rent stabilization make it hard for landlords to afford proper maintenance and so lead to the deterioration of the Cityโs rental housing stock?
A: We arenโt 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 landlordsโ efforts to keep their properties in good condition.
It is notable that the same 2021 national review of rent stabilization found: โThere 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.โ
Q9: In Takoma Park, given the age of many of our rent-stabilized buildings, wouldnโt it help if City policies strongly encouraged landlords to maintain the quality of our affordable housing stock so we donโt lose it?
A: Yes. In fact, a 2018 study12 funded by a national group representing multifamily apartment landlords concluded that even under actual rent control (vs. our more flexible form of rent stabilization): โThere 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 โsite energy use intensityโ (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 buildingโs 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 โis related to an overall reduction in units.โ However, other research demonstrates thatโs not always the case, and that carefully written laws can avoid loopholes that encourage condo conversions.13 Depending on what a local analysis would show, if necessary, the City could follow other citiesโ 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 โ which has happened in Takoma Park with the aid of the City and County โ 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 Cityโs 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 Cityโs ordinance as part of its official โCouncil Prioritiesโ over this Councilโs 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 developersโ incentives to build more housing units โ whether affordable or not โ 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 Cityโs 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.โ
Notice the inclusion of language about protecting residents from displacement. City staff later reframed those objectives in 2024 as โstability, choice, and quality,โ in a way that arguably de-emphasizes protecting residents from displacement.
Stability was defined by staff as โthe ability of residents to remain in their community.โ Stability for residents renting in multi-family buildings is significantly advanced by the Cityโs Rent Stabilization policies. And stability among residents โ whether they rent or own โ is arguably threatened by high property taxes and rents.
Choice was defined as residentsโ ability โto choose and find housing that fits their life situations.โ 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: โBecause Takoma Park is mostly built out, there is little new residential construction.โ
Quality was defined as โsafe, healthy and contains all amenities for comfort.โ While various enforcement mechanisms attempt to address quality, how well the Cityโs 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 Cityโs overall housing goals โ serving current residents but also new residents. Any policy that might lead to displacement is directly at odds with the Cityโs goals.
Q13: What other City policies significantly impact our housing?
A:Takoma Parkโs 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 โlossโ 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 itโs too soon to evaluate fully. The Cityโs 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.14 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 โ but also the potential for some resident displacement.
Q14: How does the Cityโs Rent Stabilization Law compare with Montgomery Countyโs?
A: Broadly speaking, Takoma Parkโs ordinance offers much stronger renter protections compared with the Countyโs new law. Three significant differences are:
โข The exemption period from rent stabilization regulations for brand new multifamily rental buildings is 5 years in Takoma Park, vs. 23 years under the Countyโs law.
โข After a buildingโs โsubstantialโ 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 buildingโs assessed value are considered substantial, under the County law.)
โข The maximum annual rent increase allowed under rent stabilization under Takoma Parkโs 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 Cityโs 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 โSelected Rent Stabilization and Housing Policy Documentsโ. You can also attend a City Council Meeting โ which are most Wednesday nights at the City Community Center โ 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 CVTโs 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 โadequate justification.โ That authority expired in 1981.ย Takoma Park voted in their rent stabilization in 1980. Prince Georgeโs and Howard Counties and Rockville also had rent-control programs from 1973 to 1976.ย Read about this history here (pp. 6-10, 63-64, as numbered in the pdf). More recently, Montgomery and Prince Georgeโs Counties adopted new rent-stabilization laws that took effect in 2024. The City of Mount Ranierโs 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. โฉ๏ธ
No racial group in Takoma Park is in the majority. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts for the City. โฉ๏ธ
Housing in Takoma Park, City of Takoma Park Housing and Community Development Department, July 1, 2024.p. 14. โฉ๏ธ
Minnesota Rent Stabilization Study, p. 22, in terms of the national evidence that housing stability โ which our rent stabilization supports โ yield strong social benefits:ย โ. . .ย 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 โRent Regulations and the Montgomery County Rental Housing Market,โ from the County Councilโs Office of Legislative Oversight, OLO Report 2023-5, p. 14. โฉ๏ธ
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:ย 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: โFacts and Figures: Summary of Census Information Through 2022,โ City of Takoma Park Website. โฉ๏ธ
โGood Cause/Vacancy Control Local Legislators Sign-On Letter (updated 3/14/25).โ 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. โฉ๏ธ
Lisa Sturtevant, Ph.D., โThe Impacts of Rent Control: A Research Review and Synthesis,โ published by the National Multifamily Housing Council Research Foundation, May, 2018. โฉ๏ธ
For extensive commentary on, and the history of, the Takoma Park Minor Master Plan Amendment (MMPA), click on the link to โAffordable Housing,โ on CVTโs website. โฉ๏ธ
The City Council is on the verge of approving a package of housing tax credits.ย 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 Councilโs 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, weโre 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 Parkโs 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 developersโ 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 Cityโs 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 Cityโs aging apartment buildings to ensure quality housing for residents. We urge the City Council to strengthen those two proposals.
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 โTakoma Park News.โ
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 (โthe Planโ), 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 โexplicitly calls out the right to return.โ
Reality: What does the ambiguous term โcall outโ mean here? Perhaps it simply means the right to return wasย discussed, orย mentioned? Because the truth is that the plan does notย ensureย any such right to return. It says only that priority should be given toย eligibleย residents to return. So, what happens if a building owner tears down a building and builds a new one? If they define โeligible residentsโ 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: Thereโs a reference in the article to having โstrengthened plan language around no-net loss of affordability.โ
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 โstriving for no net loss.โ Striving is not ensuring.
City spin: The article casually mentions the idea that โtenant displacement laws appropriately meet the needs of our residents.โ
Reality: The Plan only โrecommendsโฆstrategies to minimize displacement.โ 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 Parkโs 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 Cityโs 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 Parkโs 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 Cityโs 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 Councilโs 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.ย ย 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 โSite 23โ.ย ย The staffโs proposal also called for the โup-zoningโ of the entire length of the Maple Avenue District with its 14 garden-, mid-, and high-rise apartment buildings.ย ย
โPlanning is never just a bureaucratic or technical exercise: in its essence, it is an exercise of political power.โ
โUp-zoningโ is urban plannersโ 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 ownersโ 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 Parkโs Future contends that, with the recent approval of the MMPA, our City Council, County Council, and Planning Board have abandoned our Cityโs 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 Countyโs densest concentration of low-income families. Today, Maple Avenue remains among the Countyโs 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 Parkโs 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 Executiveโs office states: The Plan โcould do real harmโ to vulnerable residents, incentivizes โdisplacementโ along Maple Avenue, and fails to provide resources that will allow โresidents to remainโ 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 Countyโs urban planners pointing our City towards unregulated, for-profit solutions to our housing crisis.ย ย 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:
ยท Protect Takoma Parkโs rent stabilization law
ยท Promote similar strong statutes in Rockville and Gaithersburg
ยท Protect tenant-landlord regulations and courts
ยท Ensure the Montgomery Housing Partnership remains focused on preserving and expanding low-income housing โ without displacement
ยท Encourage moderately priced housing development by non-profits
ยท Promote public acquisition of land and housing stock
UPDATE: Despite the fact that the City Council was on spring break and held no public meetings on the Equity Review, the Mayor wrote a letter to the County Council supporting the MMPA. The County Council then voted to approve the MMPA on April 2nd.
Our City is being ignored and disrespected by theย County Council, which isย rushing to approve a plan that could displace vulnerable city residents, gentrify Maple Avenue, and reduce the socioeconomic and racial diversity of our City.ย
On Monday, County Executive Marc Elrich released the long-awaited independent Racial Equity and Social Justice Review (attached below) of the proposed Takoma Park Minor Master Plan (MMPA). It found the Plan “could lead to real harm” to vulnerable City residents.
The next day, the County Council went ahead with a unanimous “straw vote” that set up approval of the Plan.
The County Council gave themselves, their staff, our Mayor, our City Council, and residents less than 24 hours to absorb or weigh in on the new equity review before that vote.
The County Council has now scheduled a final vote on the Plan at their next meeting, immediately after spring break, on April 2nd.
The City’s last chance to try to improve the Plan and prevent displacement of residents is in this two-week window, unless the County Council postpones the vote.
The City must write a very clear and specific resolution to prevent displacement, now.
ACTION STEP:Write the Mayor and City Council, to urge them to demand a delay of the final County Council vote, to give the City Council time to write a stronger resolution to prevent displacement, in response to the critiques by the County Executive, the County Housing, Transportation and Environment departments, and the equity review.
ACTION STEP: Write the County Council, especially our rep, Council Vice President Kate Stewart (Councilmember.Stewart@montgomerycountymd.gov), to demand that they make changes to the Plan in response to the equity review, and await the City’s review and input before voting on it.
Racial Equity and Social Justice Review findings:
“It does not appear there is a clear rationale provided for why a large swath of multi-family properties are included in a Minor Master Plan aimed at addressing the redevelopment of a hospital campus.”
Residents on Maple “were not informed or asked about zoning changes impacting their place of residence.”
The Review warns that “when you upzone it increases land value and speculation, which can trigger market reactions that lead to displacement of vulnerable residents.”
The Plan lacks the “teeth” to protect our deeply affordable housing.
“No net loss does not go far enough” when newly-built Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDUs) are more expensive than the units they replace.
We should be “looking to increase the affordable housing inventory, not just replace the existing inventory.”
We should ensure that “as the area changes, residents are able to remain, even during the construction phases.”
“Declaring peopleโs fear of displacement as a ‘perception’ while directly stating that the biggest issue is ‘concentrations of poverty’ that need to be โdilutedโ with new development is exactly the type of rhetoric that justifiably stokes the fear of displacement.”
The Review points out that “If done well, this could be a successful case study of how to do development without displacement, which would be celebrated as a best-practice and earn the municipality and County positive recognition.”
As a reminder, the County Executive had to order a racial equity review because a racial equity study repeatedly promised by Planning staff turned out to never exist, and the County Council failed to order one. For the County Executive’s critique of the Plan, read his analysis, or watch the video of our Affordable Housing Town Hall.
CVT’s Takoma Park Affordable Housing Town Hall, March 10 2024
Over 85 people came out on a Sunday for our Takoma Park Affordable Housing Town Hall at 7510 Maple Ave (Piney Branch Elementary). The panelists were CVT’s Jessica Landman, CVT’s Denise Jones, and special guest, County Executive Marc Elrich. Takoma Park’s Mayor and two Councilmembers attended. It was the first chance in the entire Plan process for people to ask questions and get immediate answers.
Takoma Park has an unusual density of affordable housing, especially on Maple Avenue. But the County Executive just issued a warning that the proposed Takoma Park Minor Master Plan Amendment (MMPA) will reduce, rather than increase, our stock of affordable housing, and displace residents.ย The Planning Board and County Council failed to demand an equity study. And planning staff repeatedly promised an equity study that never materialized. So the County Executive finally ordered one. It should be completed very soon. (UPDATE: Find the equity review HERE).
Nevertheless, the County Council housing committee pushed the MMPA through last Monday (March 4) without waiting for the equity study. And the full Council will begin considering it this Tuesday (March 12), apparently without the equity study, and over the objections of residents.
We ask, what is the rush to push ahead without an equity study?
