Tweak, tweak!

Panic!

That’s what many city residents do when they hear that the city is “looking” at its rent stabilization code. For instance, just prior to this week’s council session (Jan. 23) an e-mail circulated warning that “beyond dismantling the rent control law this meeting could result in 20% rent increases.”

The city’s rent control - or “rent stabilization,” as it is officially called - was indeed on the city council’s agenda - as it will be occasionally over the next few months. Revisions to the rent stabilization code are very likely in store. This is part of the council’s continuing effort to review and revise city code.

Council members Terry Seamens and Marc Elrich, both representing large numbers of renters, immediately challenged the approach. Seamens questioned where the council was heading with it, and whether there was a problem with how the city calculates the rate of rent increases. Elrich, eyeballing the thick packet of background and research documents handed out by the staff, asked why the city is looking at this law in such detail - much more than they did with any other piece of revised city code.

Elrich asked why the city is looking at the law at all. There have been no complaints from residents, he claimed. “So, what’s the problem?”

City staff-member Sara Anne Daines of the Economic and Community Development office explained that the law is more complicated than most, hence the heavy paperwork. Council Member Bruce Williams pointed out that the current city code called for review of the rent stabilization law once every three years, and in his many terms in office, this is the first time he’s seen it done. A review is long overdue, he said.

The mayor reassured the two ruffled council members and the large number of observers in the council chamber’s audience that nobody intends to make fundamental changes to the law - there will be only “tweaking.”

“Tweaking” then became the Word of the Evening, along with reassuring commitments to affordable housing from all the council members and mayor.

The staff presented a number of comparisons - comparing Takoma Park's rent control with those of a number of other cities. The key difference seems to be in how annual rent increases are calculated. A number of cities, including Takoma Park, base their stabilisation formulas on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), a number calculated by the U.S. Department of Labor showing changes in the cost of consumer goods and services. Takoma Park allows landlords to raise rents based on 70% of the CPI. The city doesn’t allow 100%, as some cities do, because it assumes that some expenses, such as mortgage payments, are fixed.

At the end of the session, all that had been proposed were, indeed, a few tweaks. A few suggestions to make slight adjustments in the annual rent adjustment rate were made. The adjustments would factor into the rate fluctuations in utility costs, higher insurance rates, and the effects of property tax adjustments. There is also the issue of fees and utility costs charged above the cost of rent by some landlords. The code revisions might address this disparity.

So, it seems as though there are no big changes coming in Takoma Park rent control, just “tweaks.” All of the council members gave at least lip service to preserving the law essentially as it stands. The newest member, Colleen Clay, cited a recent Univ. of Maryland study of Takoma Park rent control. That study, she said, found that while city landlords were unsatisfied with rent control and claimed they did not make enough profit because of it, they nevertheless rarely charge the maximum allowable rent. This would indicate, she said, that there were other factors keeping rental rates where they were. She did acknowledge the other point of view , noting that landlords she’d met while campaigning complained to her about rent control. On the other hand, she said that a year and a half ago, when she moved out of a city apartment her landlord never returned her security deposit. The city staff, amused, told her she could have pursued the case through their office, but the statute of limitations was up.

I’ll pass on the appeal the council made to the public. This is the time for those concerned to affect the process of changing - or not changing - the rent stabilization code. The process is just beginning and there are ample opportunities for public comment and suggestions.

The next discussion will be at the Feb. 6th session. The council will discuss exemptions and other regulations and “current trends,” as well as rent increases upon vacancy of rental units. The following two discussions will be on capital improvement rent increase petitions, held on Feb. 21 and 27.

The Mayor and many of the council members noted with concern, that while it may be useful to revise the rent control code, they were not addressing an issue that could make rent control moot - and that is the rapidly increasing loss of rental stock as apartments are becoming privately-owned condominiums. This is happening not only the city, but in the county, the metropolitan region, and even the entire eastern seaboard, as the mayor noted.

All in all it was an easy council meeting. None of the Trail-gate pro- or anti-foot people showed up. Ms Mayor and Ms Austin-Lane were perfectly civil to one another, discussions were generally brief and to-the-point.

How boring!

The most contentious moment came when Council Member Terry Seamens objected to the actions of City Manager Barbara Matthews. She had, in Seamens’ view, “unilaterally” appointed Deputy City Manager Wayne Hobbes to be chairman of the Emergency Responsiveness Committee. Seamens felt it is inappropriate to have a city staff member appointed by the city manager to a committee that has an oversight role. Seamens had brought up this objection previously and he was unhappy that the response had been to make Hobbs co-chair, which Seamens felt was a token measure.

Other than that, the council officially disapproved of the death penalty, approved of “Takoma Park Community Center Sam Abbott Citizens Center” as the official name of the commingled building, though they granted that the staff may refer to it as the “Takoma Park Community Center” for short. I’m betting it will still be known as “City Hall” by most people.

Fear not, readers! There are plenty of hot topics to liven up future council meetings. Trail-gate is on the agenda for Feb. 6th - same session as the rent-control discussion. Hoo, boy! That could be a long, loud meeting!

- Gilbert