Renter advocates gathered in Annapolis in February to call on lawmakers to pass Good Cause Eviction legislation. (Photo by Danielle J. Brown/Maryland Matters)
Supporters of “good cause” eviction laws may finally get their bill this year — but it might come at the cost of other renter protections, as local jurisdictions could have to pick between rent-control measures or good cause evictions under a plan being considered by Senate leaders.
Advocates are going on 10 years trying to get the legislature to make it harder for landlords to kick out tenants without citing a good reason for doing so – so-called “good cause” or “just cause” evictions – and were hopeful this might be the year that Senate Bill 651 finally got out of the Senate committee where it had languished. They say the Senate plan represents “poison amendments.”
But Senate leaders say that, with the state facing a 96,000-unit housing shortage, they fear that too many local renter protections will drive developers away at a time when the state is desperate to bring in new housing options.
“We are most focused on finding ways to increase supply of affordable homes,” Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) said Tuesday. “And so any new policy we are considering, we are viewing from a lens of not inhibiting future investments in affordable housing.”
Ferguson and Judicial Proceedings Chair Will Smith (D-Montgomery) are pushing an amendment that would let counties choose either good cause evictions or rent stabilization efforts – but not both.
“What we’re looking at in the Senate is, one or the other,” Ferguson said. “If a jurisdiction already has the vacancy protections in place — that would not allow for the increase in rents with a vacancy — then good cause would not be permissible.”
Vacancy control is an element of rent stabilization that limits rent increases in between tenants.
“And so, if a jurisdiction adopted good cause, it would preempt any local policy for rent capping in any way,” he said. “Having them both really creates an impractical solution.”
As drafted, SB 651 would protect tenants against lease non-renewal if the landlord does not cite from a broad list of reasons that say why the tenant is getting kicked out. Such reasons for a good cause eviction would include not paying rent, engaging in disorderly conduct or breaching the lease agreement, among other issues.
But during bill hearings on the legislation in both House and Senate committees, housing developers and representatives for landlords said that they’re less likely to do business in areas where they have to navigate a bunch of regulations and renter protections.
“There are a lot of conversations about the regulatory burden that is preventing the increase in supply of affordable housing,” Ferguson said. “Part of the housing discussion right now is that we have too many local regulations that prohibit ongoing investment, and if you look at places like Montgomery County in particular, there is a huge disincentive to invest in affordable housing.”
Judicial Proceedings was scheduled to vote on SB 651 Tuesday afternoon, but Smith pushed the committee vote to later in the week. He said that the amendment in the works “balances the dire need to create new housing and incentivize the creation of new housing” while also creating protections for renters.
Renters hope ‘good cause eviction’ bill will overcome Senate committee hurdle
“We, as lawmakers, have an obligation to ensure that we’re going forward and creating new housing so that housing prices come down … while at the same time providing vital protections for renters,” Smith said Tuesday. “That’s the balance we’re trying to strike amid a massive housing crisis.
“Something’s got to give,” he said.
‘False’ choice
But advocates in Montgomery County say the choice between good cause evictions and rent control efforts would undermine the effectiveness of the renter protection policies.
“It’s a false and unnecessary choice,” Montgomery Councilmember Kristin Mink (D) said Tuesday. “It does not make sense to put those opposed to each other.”
The amendment being discussed by senators would mean that Montgomery County would have to throw out its current rent stabilization policies in order to implement a good cause law, which Mink said is “not a workable deal.”
She and dozens of other local leaders signed on to a letter to the Judicial Proceedings Committee urging members to pass a “clean” good cause bill and reject any amendments that force counties to make a decision between good cause and rent stabilization efforts.
Matt Losak, executive director of the Montgomery County Renters Alliance, said the goals of rent stabilization and good cause evictions serve different purposes. Rent stabilization keeps rent costs down, while good cause protects tenants against needless evictions, to prevent homelessness and instability.
“We’re concerned that there is no good solution and that renters will pay the price,” said Losak, who’s advocacy groups is one of the main organizations supporting the good cause eviction effort.
“I hope there is time for cooler heads to prevail and for JPR [Judicial Proceedings] to do the right thing,” Losak said. “I am deeply dismayed that the leadership of JPR would not lend its full-throated support in opposition to these poison amendments.”
Ferguson said “it’s hard to see it moving in the Senate without having some determination to allow one policy or the other in a jurisdiction, not both.”
“The legislative process is about compromise. There’s no such thing as a perfect bill,” he said. “We’re trying to balance a lot of different interests. And I think this is a good example where there’s been a lot of work done to try to find a path that works, that has moved the ball down the field. And I think incorporates a lot of the concerns from all parties involved.
Mink disagrees that the proposed policy choice is a compromise.
“The idea of trading off vacancy control for good cause is some kind of compromise – it is absolutely not the case,” she said. “This amendment would be a huge deal.”