Affordable Housing – Community Vision for Takoma

Takoma Park 2026 Election Candidate Questionnaire

Responses to the 2026 Takoma Park City Election Candidate Questionnaire

Below are the responses of seven of the candidates in the 2026 City of Takoma Park elections.*

Name and Office For Which You are Running. (Campaign websites linked to names).

Tom Gagliardo, Mayor

Doug Glynn, City Council Ward 1

Jim Della-Giacoma, City Council Ward 2

Suzy Stimler, City Council Ward 2

Tom Wallack, City Council Ward 3

Kurt Gilbert, City Council Ward 4

Ambroise Agosse, City Council Ward 6

2. Do you think Takoma Park’s rent stabilization law needs to be changed, and if so, what changes do you support and why?

Gagliardo, Mayor:
I would not change the provision allowing rent increases up to the rate of inflation. The Incumbent hasn’t demonstrated a need to change that provision or to extend the five-year exemption in order to align City law with County law. I would add a provision to prohibit a rent increase of any size when there are significant code violations.

Glynn, Ward 1: No. The rent stabilization law seems to be working well. Initiatives to align Takoma Park with County laws would not benefit our residents as it could potentially double the permissible annual rent increase. Landlords have the opportunity to file a petition in certain cases to increase rents. I believe maintaining our current law does not stifle construction or development.

Della-Giacoma, Ward 2: The law does not need to be changed but its implementation can be improved with better education for renters about their rights. The city can continue to help residents to organize and better represent their interests to owners. Landlords need more education about their responsibilities and options under the existing law and help to fund building maintenance and rehabilitation to ensure that renters not only have access to stable and affordable housing but it is of good quality.

Stimler, Ward 2: I support the preservation of Takoma Park’s rent stabilization law. It has served us effectively since 1981, and the vibrant, racially and socio-economically diverse community we love and cherish is its result. Depending on the RSG study results, I would consider changing the exemptions for deed-restricted buildings, as many have units that are not deed-restricted or subject to rent stabilization, and to capital improvement pathways, to help landlords keep buildings safe and energy efficient.

Wallack, Ward 3: I feel that Takoma Park should continue to lead on rent stabilization, rather than simply defer to the County to set a uniform policy. Takoma Park is special, and in all my conversations with residents on this topic, people want to ensure Takoma Park remains affordable for current and future renters. My belief is that the best way to do that is to keep our rent stabilization law as it is.

Gilbert, Ward 4: Takoma Park’s Rent Stabilization Law has been a saving grace for our residents for many years. I like that we are exploring ways to improve the law. Aging of some of our buildings has created opportunities for low income housing developers to opt out of our law and use the county guidelines. This allows for higher increases in some of those occasions due to the type of lending. I am not certain that our laws can be changed to restrict that opt out, but would welcome that idea.

Agosse, Ward 6: I support maintaining rent stabilization. It provides important protection for renters and helps prevent displacement. I am open to improvements, but any changes must include strong safeguards and should not weaken protections for residents with limited or fixed incomes.

3. What is your vision for the scale and type of development in our City in order to best serve our community?

Gagliardo, Mayor: Building affordable housing is the priority. The availability of land on Hospital Hill is an opportunity for the entire community to work with Adventist Health Care and Washington Adventist University to foster development of affordable, missing middle and market rate housing compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.

Glynn, Ward 1: I believe Takoma Park needs development that is commensurate with the size of the city given that space is very limited. Hospital Hill is the most eminent space to be developed, which I support as long as we contemplate the needs of a variety of people with different economic possibilities. Also, we should carefully consider what impacts this may have on surrounding neighborhoods, as well as critically evaluating the negative repercussions of higher population density.

Della-Giacoma, Ward 2: We should support quality partners to increase housing choice. This includes MHP plans to rebuild Edinburgh House and those by the Grace Methodist Church for senior housing. In the medium term, the Washington Adventist University has an ambitious vision for a mixed use development with significant affordable housing. This large site has great potential and Takoma Park residents should see this as an opportunity to achieve a net gain in affordable housing of good quality.

Stimler, Ward 2:
I support development that creates employment for local residents, diversifies the local economy, and is environmentally sustainable. I support the use of local and state resources to expand deeply affordable housing, catalyze “missing middle” opportunities, and ensure stable, affordable housing for seniors. I am committed to protecting our rent stabilization law. I believe that creating new residential choices must be supported by new retail businesses within walking and biking distance.

Wallack, Ward 3: I think people move to Takoma Park because it is Takoma Park – a unique, progressive, livable community. To me, this means lots of green space, (relatively) affordable housing options, and a feeling of community in our neighborhoods. We need to preserve our affordable housing stock and work to ensure a range of housing options that can accommodate current and future residents at various income levels and housing needs (i.e., seniors, families, multi-generational households).

Gilbert, Ward 4:
I would love to see more affordable housing and economic development in our city. So long as our infastructure can adequately support such development and does not adversely impact our environment.

Agosse, Ward 6: My vision is development that creates opportunities while respecting our neighborhoods. The City should better promote existing resources, support local businesses, attract responsible investment, and partner with employers to create jobs. I also support local job fairs connecting residents directly with employers.

4. Increasing property taxes to pay for bigger City budgets is making it harder for some homeowners and renters to remain in our community. What changes will you support to address this issue?

Gagliardo, Mayor:
Spending needs to be focused on community needs. Property tax relief needs to be income-related allowing neighbors on fixed incomes to stay in their homes. I would eliminate the requirement to live in a residence for a lengthy period. This would allow older residents to downsize and remain eligible for tax relief. The Council needs to instruct the City Manager to start identifying cost savings now.

Glynn, Ward 1:
A first step would be to request that the City manager identify cost-saving possibilities and prioritize these as new initiatives. The City needs a more realistic vision for capital projects so they do not run grossly overbudget. I support property tax relief for our neighbors on fixed incomes.

Della-Giacoma, Ward 2: I have heard concerns about taxes. The city cut the tax rate in the last budget, and county increases and rising state assessments were a major factor in rising tax bills this year. The FY2028 budget will be challenging to manage with new multi-year union agreements, high inflation, rising costs, and record diesel prices. I will aim to keep the property tax rate level or less. Last year, the city expanded tax relief for homeowners on fixed incomes.

Stimler, Ward 2: I support a cost-benefit analysis of current City services and programs, especially those we duplicate. For example, Takoma Park is the only municipality in Montgomery County with a full-service police department; policing is 31% of our FY27 budget. Rockville and Gaithersburg serve as models of keeping operations while transferring investigative services to the County. If we fail to find areas of cost savings, the result will be a maintenance of effort budget that continues to outpace inflation.

Wallack, Ward 3: I believe we have to minimize future property tax increases and mitigate the impacts of past increases on residents. This requires a few different things. First and most importantly, we need to be willing to make hard choices on the budget. Second, we need to look to diversify our revenues sources. Third, we need to ensure eligible residents are taking advantage of the expanded tax rebate program the Council approved earlier this year.

Gilbert, Ward 4: I do not support increasing property taxes in order to pay for bigger city budgets.

Agosse, Ward 6: Property taxes support essential services, but continued increases can burden homeowners and renters. I support slowing tax increases by carefully reviewing City spending, eliminating unnecessary expenses, improving efficiency, and diversifying revenue through grants, partnerships, economic development, and other sources.

5. What is your position on two-year versus four-year terms for City Councilmembers, including whether that decision should be voted on by residents or be approved by a simple majority vote of the Council?

Gagliardo, Mayor: I oppose four-year terms. Any change of this magnitude should only be done by referendum. I have proposed to the current Mayor and City Council and District 20 delegation to amend state law to make referendums achievable. Current law makes it practically impossible.

Glynn, Ward 1: I support maintaining two-year terms since this has been the system our city government has used for decades. Allowing for fresh, innovative ideas to come forward via new candidates is a crucial element in our democracy. Another vital part of our democracy is for members of the community to have a voice in these decisions, and their vote serves as their voice.

Della-Giacoma, Ward 2: I would like more information on two- vs. four-year terms. The real question is whether we have the right balance between accountability and effective governing in a small city. Our Charter already strikes that balance: Council can act by majority vote, but residents can petition any change to referendum. That built-in check means voters, not just Council, always have the final say.

Stimler, Ward 2: I am a strong advocate of keeping two year terms for City Council to maintain accountability and to give all of our 16 and 17 year olds the opportunity to cast their Youth Vote. In addition, I believe significant changes to the City Charter and to how we practice participatory democracy in Takoma Park should be brought to the people in an advisory referendum, as we did in 2017 when moving elections from odd to even years.

Wallack, Ward 3:
I strongly believe terms should stay at two years. As to the process question, the City Charter lays out two options for amendments, which this would be. Those options are via a vote by the Council (with a required notice and input period) or resident petition (and then either Council adoption or a voter referendum). I am open to learning more from residents about why the amendment process should be changed for terms of office or any other particular measure.

Gilbert, Ward 4: I do not take strong exception to either method. Our ward representatives should be listening to their residents and making decisions based on what they feel is a general consensus, coupled with their individual beliefs. We could also add the question to a vote in the forthcoming election.

Agosse, Ward 6:
I support keeping two-year terms and believe residents should have a direct voice in any change. Two-year terms provide frequent opportunities for voters to evaluate their representatives and help keep elected officials accountable and connected to the community. Leadership requires continuous engagement with residents.

6. How would you promote the meaningful participation of a wide range of residents in Council decision-making? And, what is your position on the public being allowed to clap and hold signs at City Council meetings?

Gagliardo, Mayor: I encourage and embrace public input. Important issues should be explained in the City Newsletter and website, so people can think about proposed changes and decide what they want to say. I would hold interactive public hearings, akin to hearings in the Maryland General Assembly and Congress. Hearings would be held at times convenient to the public, not late on the agenda of Council meetings. And I believe the public should be able to clap and hold signs.

Glynn, Ward 1: Ways to promote meaningful participation include allowing residents more than three minutes, and to two-way discussions. I feel that if members of the public would like to clap in support of other speakers, this is perfectly acceptable and a normal part of public interactions, as is holding up signs during meetings, so long as they do not interfere with other individual’s ability to see.

Della-Giacoma, Ward 2:
I would engage residents via email lists, neighborhood meetings, social media, walk-and-talks, and use city committees to convene topical presentations, such as the Emergency Preparedness Committee’s webinar on Sligo Creek flooding. The Council has adopted Robert’s Rules of Order as the recognized authority on meeting procedure, which says in Section 61:8 that “all persons present at a meeting have an obligation to obey the legitimate orders of the president officer (i.e. the mayor).”

Stimler, Ward 2: The Council needs to make opportunities for resident engagement easy and convenient. This includes holding Council meetings in locations outside the Community Center and providing multi-language materials and translation services. I celebrate public participation in City Council meetings and have no problem with clapping or signs provided that clapping does not impede residents’ 3 minutes to speak and signs are small enough that they do not encroach on others’ physical space or sight lines.

Wallack, Ward 3:
We are a small town with many smart and passionate people. I think there could be greater community engagement in the discussion of issues before the Council and the Council should explore ways to facilitate this. I think people should be able to clap in support of comments and hold signs at Council meetings.

Gilbert, Ward 4: I encourage residents to come to meetings and speak on whatever topic concerns them. I feel that the 3 minute time frame is adequate and 5 minutes can be requested. I think that should be the only time for us to express our personal views during council meetings. There are certainly other city platforms of which to be heard. Clapping, booing and holding signs are unnecesary distractions.

Agosse, Ward 6:
I support clapping and signs at Council meetings as it makes the meeting active. I also support multilingual outreach, neighborhood meetings, and accessible online and in-person participation so immigrants, seniors, renters, and residents with limited incomes have meaningful voices in City decisions.

7. Does the City do enough to protect the nearly one-third of Takoma Park residents who are immigrants and, if not, what further steps should the City take to do so?

Gagliardo, Mayor: No. Where are the visible signs of resistance to ICE’s cruelty? Rather than fear the cost of speaking out, we need to realize the cost of remaining silent. I will work closely with Montgomery Count IRC, Community Safety Network, We Are Casa and Blair Unida.

Glynn, Ward 1: My wife is an immigrant from Mexico who was granted citizenship just over a year ago, so this is a topic I take very seriously. I believe the City has every intention to protect our immigrant residents, however, the City could also make its resistance to ICE more visible. This may be achieved by published statements on the City’s website, articles in the Newsletter and by fostering peaceful protests within City limits that speak out against aggressions towards immigrants.

Della-Giacoma, Ward 2: We don’t, and we should not, allow our police to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. We do this as a long-standing principle as a welcoming city, but also for very practical reasons, as this would undermine the very trust with people in our communities that our police need to help keep us all safe. The city is doing more than many realize to use our taxes for grants for community organizations supporting immigrants and the most vulnerable, and this should continue.

Stimler, Ward 2: FY27’s $93,500 in Community Quality of Life grants to local groups supporting immigrant residents impacted by federal immigration enforcement is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. The City must codify that ICE cannot use City property for civil immigration enforcement, cover immigration enforcement in the newsletter and online, offer know-your-rights and bystander training, and hold standby guardianship, second key, and passport clinics, waiving City passport fees for minors.

Wallack, Ward 3: We have to do more. The lives of our fellow residents are in danger. We should continue to work closely with the community groups on the frontlines of protecting immigrant communities to figure out what the city can do to help.

Agosse, Ward 6:
The City can do more to engage and support immigrant residents. I support stronger multilingual outreach and better access to information about jobs, housing, education, City services, and business opportunities. Partnerships with employers and community organizations can also expand job training and employment opportunities.

8. Do you think the City’s commitment to racial equity is effective (please elaborate)?

Gagliardo, Mayor: Much of what the City considers a commitment to racial equity is performative. The refusal of the current Mayor to conduct or support a racial equity study before the Council voted on the Minor Master Plan Amendment was a betrayal of a commitment to racial equity.

Glynn, Ward 1: Although the City has taken some positive steps forward by committing to “decision-making through a racial equity lens” and officially joining GARE, it is unclear as to how effective these initiatives have been. We need more concrete data and real-world examples of its effectiveness to claim it has been implemented successfully. Without these, it remains only symbolic and superficial.

Della-Giacoma, Ward 2: To know whether it is effective or not, we would need to evaluate each aspect of city equity efforts, such as each Racial Equity Impact Statement from council agendas. One case I know where it was effective was the decision to support the Habitat for Humanity house on Garland Ave. This allowed an immigrant family living in a rented apartment on Maple Ave to move into a “missing middle” renovated duplex on our street, without the children moving schools or going far from grandparents and friends.

Stimler, Ward 2:
The goal of the racial equity framework is to ensure that there is no racial disparity in policies, programs, or services provided by the City. Currently, the City Council focuses on whether existing policies, programs, or services discriminate. The focus needs to shift towards an examination of how policies and programs are devised and how services are provided. The City Council must ensure that programs and services are actually used by everyone, without de facto discrimination.

Wallack, Ward 3:
I need to learn more about exactly what all the city is doing to fulfill our commitment to racial equity. I support the goals of the Racial Equity Initiative and believe the Council and City should continue to work diligently to meet them.

Gilbert, Ward 4: We can make some improvements in this regard. Changes to the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Law (TOPL) could help with affordable housing loss and make for more housing opportunities for people of color and immigrants in the future.

Agosse, Ward 6: The City has taken steps toward racial equity, but there is more work to do. We should regularly measure whether our policies and programs are producing meaningful results, identify remaining disparities, listen to affected communities, and ensure all residents have fair access to services, opportunities, and City decision-making.

9. What should the City do to advance meaningful climate change adaptation and resilience, and address biodiversity loss?

Gagliardo, Mayor: The effort to electrify vehicles is praiseworthy, but more is needed. We must assess the possibility of returning storm water management to the County, which has more resources and a more robust response to climate change. Preserving what remains of our tree canopy is essential. I fully support resident environmental groups, Friends of Sligo Creek, Stormwater Solutions, Climate Action Coffee. Their achievements, perspective and proposals need to be incorporated into City programs.

Glynn, Ward 1: First, we must support active resident groups that are doing very important work. Next, place more emphasis on electrifying the fleet of City vehicles to reduce our carbon footprint. Investigate and reevaluate what services, such as storm water management, the County can more effectively provide than Takoma Park given certain robust systems already in place.

Della-Giacoma, Ward 2: Climate risks include flooding, stormwater management, extreme heat, storms, and drought. The city’s Sustainability and Climate Action plan aims to improve climate resilience. The Sustainability Manager works with the Sustainable Maryland Committee (Green Team), composed of knowledgeable residents. This partnership should be supported. Better infrastructure and planting trees can help with some risks, and improve biodiversity, while preparedness and assistance to residents are needed for others.

Stimler, Ward 2: The City has clear programs and metrics for reducing greenhouse gases emissions and preserving our tree canopy. We need to do more to address heat and biodiversity, developing programs to address urban heat island effects, such as promoting green and cool roofs, and programs to maintain and increase biodiversity, using the City Biodiversity Index (CBI) to evaluate and monitor our progress.

Wallack, Ward 3:
The city should be a central node in coordinating efforts to address the impacts of climate change. This includes conveying information to residents and businesses on what they can do, enhancing resilience through stormwater management, and protecting biodiversity, among other efforts.

Gilbert, Ward 4: Keeping climate change and biodiversity in mind when addressing development and holding develpers accountable in that regard is important. I have seen our staff and residents do just that during conversations about current and forthcoming development projects.

Agosse, Ward 6: I support continuing the City’s environmental work while strengthening climate resilience, particularly stormwater management and flood prevention. We should improve drainage, protect streams and natural areas, maintain our tree canopy, support biodiversity, and prepare neighborhoods for increasingly severe weather.

10. How could the City improve transparency and accountability in the wake of the sexual harassment lawsuit against the City?

Gagliardo, Mayor: Important events and policies needs to be published in the City Newsletter and website. Many records need to be made publicly available without a formal request. I have long called for release of the sexual harassment audit. As with any lawsuit, the public needs to know the truth of what happened and who is responsible. Closed meetings should be the exception. Contrast the Mayor’s response in that case with the County Executive’s response to recent wrongdoing by the County Police Chief.

Glynn, Ward 1: The City should be more responsive to questions that have been asked about the incident. This would also entail releasing the audit. Citizens have a right to know what the Mayor knew and when, why the suit was settled for $1 million and the reason(s) behind not immediately dismissing the offending party from City employment. Publishing this information in the City Newsletter would help regain the trust of citizens and bolster transparency.

Della-Giacoma, Ward 2: Balancing confidentiality against transparency on administrative, legal, and personnel matters is challenging as state law states that for local governments in Maryland, specific matters can be heard in closed session as needed. Using this right judiciously and sparingly is the challenge of all councils. Improving residents’ knowledge of their rights under the Maryland Public Information Act and how to use it could be a practical step to boost transparency and accountability.

Stimler, Ward 2: Transparency starts with the City following all requirements under the Maryland Open Meetings Act not just to the letter of the law, but in the spirit of the law. Meetings should be closed and reports withheld only when absolutely necessary, and any information that can be released should be, even if it must be redacted. Accountability starts with having a clear set of expectations and following through when they are not met. Decisions should be principled, not just “legally justifiable.”

Wallack, Ward 3:
I believe we as residents still deserve more information about this whole situation and greater accountability is still needed. As a member of the Council, I will push for more answers and more information to be shared.

Gilbert, Ward 4:
The city council released a pretty elaborate explanation on the findings of that event after the independent audit of the investigation.

Agosse, Ward 6:
The City should strengthen workplace accountability through regular staff and management training, clear reporting procedures, fair and independent review of complaints, and periodic evaluation of personnel policies. While respecting privacy and due process, the City should communicate clearly about corrective actions and prevention efforts.

*Both Mayoral candidates submitted responses by the original deadline. Candidate Cara Honzak, who had not seen the invitation in time, inquired about whether questionnaire responses were still welcome after the deadline. In the interest of fairness, an extension was offered to her but also to the three other candidates (Shana Fulcher, Kurt Gilbert, Amy Wesolek) who had not submitted questionnaire answers. However, Mayoral candidate Talisha Searcy then withdrew her responses, citing the unfairness of the extension.

Sign the Petition to Protect Our Rent Stabilization

What’s at stake…

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 County’s cap for the year is more than double at 5.7%.
Forty-seven percent of our renters are either “housing cost burdened”, spending over 30% of their income on housing, or “severely burdened”, 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 Council’s 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 forces threaten Takoma Park renters, who are mainly people of color.

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION HERE.

Haga clic aquí para leer en español.

ማመልከቻውን ለማንበብ እዚህ ጠቅ ያድርጉ

Rent Stabilization: Why We Care (Community Vision for Takoma)

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

City of Takoma Park Housing and Economic Data Analysis, The Cloudburst Group, Oct., 2017. One of the “Key Findings”, p. 13: “Because Takoma Park is largely built out, there is little new residential construction.”

Protect Takoma Park Neighborhoods: Keep Rent Stabilization Strong

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.

Without Full Council Debate, City Issues RFP for Major Policy Review of Rent Stabilization Law

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: Rent Stabilization in Takoma Park

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%.)

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 2023.³

For more details, you can read the law here.

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 (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.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 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. ⁹

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.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: “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.”¹¹

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 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): “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.¹³ 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.)

Another set of City policies offer other protection for renters, including Rental Assistance and Tenant Protection from Displacement programs.

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.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 – 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.)

• Our law caps annual increases for rent-stabilized units at the rate of inflation (Consumer Price Index) for the year before. For this year (which began in July 2026), the City limits rent increases for covered units to 3%. The County’s cap for this year is 5.2%.

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.
↩︎
Minneapolis Rent Stabilization Study, published by the Center for Regional and Urban Affairs at the University of Minnesota, 2021, p. 1, 4. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
City of Takoma Park Housing and Economic Data Analysis, The Cloudburst Group, Oct., 2017. One of the “Key Findings”, p. 13: “Because Takoma Park is largely built out, there is little new residential construction.” ↩︎
Minneapolis Rent Stabilization Study, published by the Center for Regional and Urban Affairs at the University of Minnesota, 2021, p. A1. ↩︎
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. ↩︎
Mark Paul (an economist himself), “Economists Hate Rent Control. Here’s Why They’re Wrong,” The American Prospect, May 16, 2023. ↩︎
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. ↩︎

On the City’s Proposed Housing Tax Credits

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.

Democracy Dies in Darkness (in Takoma Park)

We are living through the collapse of local media, nationally.

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 no net 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.

The Struggle for Takoma Park’s Future

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

Read the full article at this link:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1w26crs59ncTB6V28mKtUSOs2LhMzRgvX

Equity Review of the MMPA

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 the County Council, which is rushing to approve a plan that could displace vulnerable city residents, gentrify Maple Avenue, and reduce the socioeconomic and racial diversity of our City.

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 people’s fear of displacement as a ‘perception’ while directly stating that the biggest issue is ‘concentrations of poverty’ that need to be ‘diluted’ 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.

TPMMA-Equity-Analysis-to-CC-3-18-2024-1 Download