The Trojan Horse Ambrose/Williams Substitute Rent "Reform Bill"
and Suggested Opposition Letter to Council
Beware landlords bearing gifts, especially of the so-called “rent reform” kind,
proposed by Councilmember Ambrose and Mayor Williams. While tenants currently
under rent control receive cost-of-living increases (CPI), under the Ambrose-Williams
bill, 10 per cent yearly rent increases could easily become the norm, hence, because of
compounding, doubling your rent in less than a decade. To receive the low-income
exemption of only CPI increases, you must have VERY low income -- under $21,000 for
singles, and under $30,000 for a family of four, a revival of the mayor’s noxious “means
testing” idea.
Enactment of Ambrose/Williams would accelerate the flight of the poor and
middle class out of the District, making DC an unaffordable city for most. This is not
only bad policy, it is a demographic catastrophe, ensuring that the District like other cities
across the country are reduced to bi-polar enclaves, consisting of the very rich and the
very poor. Examples elsewhere prove it. Boston did away with rent control and it has
proven a disaster, forcing thousands of families out of the city! Boston's mayor and many
now lament the change, but it is too late. The Apartment and Office Buildings
Association (AOBA) hails a purported new rent program in Boston called "Rent Plus".
Plus what? The family jewels?
District rent control was designed along with home rule to help and empower low
and middle income renters and minorities to keep affordable housing and stabilize
neighborhoods. It was also intended to retain people who have a key stake and make a
signal contribution to the city, i.e., teachers, firefighters, police and other public service
workers -- local or federal.
The Ambrose bill, which is really the mayor's bill in disguise, would defeat the
purposes for which rent control was granted: affordable housing. Currently, landlords
can raise the rent on any unit that becomes vacant to the highest rent charged a
comparable unit. In this market, rents for any vacant units have already reached
astronomical levels - $1100 and $1200 efficiencies have become common; $1800 onebedrooms are the norm. Annual rent increases can amount to hundreds of dollars. None
of this is rent control. Whole classes of people have been priced out of the market,
including the poor, low income, fixed income, the elderly and students. Landlords cry
"market rate" for entry-level rents in apartment buildings, but the market has become a
casino and the landlords are breaking the bank at Monte Carlo. "Market rate" for housing
is a landlord fixation, but housing, especially rental housing, is not a commodity. We are
not talking about oil futures, pork bellies, or Reebok sneakers; we are talking about the
roof over people's heads, the sina qua non for physical, economic and social survival in
America's big city.
The Ambrose/Williams bill has means testing as a requirement for rent control.
"Means testing" is a celebrated misnomer, it should be called "demeans test". Nobody in
this city should have to plead poverty for the benefits of rent control. We know of no
other jurisdiction in the country has this requirement for rent control. Do we want
landlords writing the rules and implementing them as they did during the scandalous 95/5
denial of tenants' "right to buy" fiasco, allowed by a dysfunctional Department of
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA)?
Renters need to stand up and be heard. There are an estimated 100,000
households presently under rent control. Let your council members hear from you!
Remind them that this is an election year. TENAC serves notice that we will oppose, and
campaign vigorously against any candidates voting to weaken or destroy rent control. If
the council hears from us loud and clear, tenants cannot fail.
Please write or e-mail your council member and urge them to support the Graham
alternative endorsed by TENAC and vote no on Ambrose/Williams. Below is suggested
language.
Your Name
Address
City, Zip
Date
Council Member ___________________
The District Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Council Member
As a tenant, I am gravely concerned about the survival of rent control in the city
and the current rent control bill (the "Ambrose-Mayor Williams substitute bill") before
the District City Council. I urge you to back the Graham alternative proposal endorsed
by TENAC and vote “no” on Ambrose/Williams, which instead of correcting the current
abuses rampant under the present rent control law, would make them worse.
Ambrose/Williams would allow current rents to double in 7 or 8 years. Low and middle
income renters can’t afford this. This is unconscionable, since it would inevitably force
out of the District low and middle income renters.
Ambrose/Williams would make the District a city of only the very rich and very
poor, precisely what rent control was designed to prevent. I remind you that District rent
control was developed, along with home rule, to help and empower low and middle
income wage earners and minorities to maintain affordable housing. Ambrose-Williams
allows continuing skyrocketing rents, and destroys the purpose of rent control: affordable
housing for all, especially firefighters, teachers, bus drivers, librarians and other public
service employees. Ambrose-Williams would also revive "means testing", an outrageous
practice for a paltry number of so-called "set-aside" apartments for the poor. No other
rent control jurisdiction imposes means testing. Tenants should not have to plead poverty
to get the benefits of rent control.
Ambrose/Williams would also take away the many renter protections renters have
presently. Recovering past illegal rent increases would be severely restricted by making
2006 the “base year” for rent control, the year on which all future increases are based.
I am a gravely concerned District tenant. I urge you to support the Graham bill
and disavow the Ambrose/Williams substitute bill. As a voter, I will vigorously oppose
any council or mayoral candidates hostile to real rent control reform.
Graham bill Yes! Ambrose/Williams No!
Sincerely,