D.C.’s COVID-Era Eviction Policies Backfire

This edition of “Rent Free” delves into several significant urban housing issues, starting with the impact of COVID-era eviction restrictions in Washington, D.C. Recently, the D.C. City Council unanimously repealed an emergency rule from 2021 that delayed eviction processes for tenants with pending applications for rental assistance. The Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) had resulted in a backlog of unpaid rent, with many tenants accumulating severe financial distress. The shifting policies reflect a growing concern among landlords and city officials about the unsustainable rent delinquency rates, which soared from a pre-pandemic rate of about 5% to between 15-20%. Mayor Muriel Bowser indicated that the affordable housing sector is burdened with a cumulative backlog of $100 million in unpaid rent, which could lead to foreclosure and directly impact the availability and affordability of housing in the city.

In Massachusetts, the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) sentiments are also escalating as state Attorney General Andrea Campbell is pursuing legal action against the town of Milton. The state had mandated community compliance with the MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) Communities Act to allow apartment construction near transit hubs. However, Milton’s local authorities attempted to repeal the zoning changes mandated by the state law through a ballot initiative. The state alleges that it possesses enforcement authority under the Act, and the Massachusetts Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling soon. This case underscores the broader struggle between local desires to restrict housing development and state-level initiatives aimed at increasing affordable housing availability near public transit.

In Pittsburgh, Mayor Ed Gainey is preparing to introduce a series of zoning reforms aimed at liberalizing housing regulations, including reducing minimum lot sizes and allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Still, local YIMBY activists remain apprehensive about a proposed citywide inclusionary zoning policy, which would require developers to allocate a portion of units for lower-income residents. Historically, such zoning measures have been viewed as burdensome by builders, who argue that they suppress new construction and exacerbate housing shortages. With legal disputes ongoing regarding past zoning expansions, many view Gainey’s plans with skepticism, fearing that inclusionary zoning may further inflate an already costly housing market.

The urgency of housing policy discussions is finding its way into the political arena, as highlighted during a recent vice presidential debate, where candidates focused on rising housing costs more than in past debates. While housing was mentioned multiple times, the solutions offered were criticized for being inadequate. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz lauded Minneapolis’s zoning liberalization efforts, while Ohio Senator J.D. Vance suggested utilizing federal lands for development. Notably, both candidates voiced concerns about traders and speculators in the housing market, promoting a discourse that centers more on restricting certain groups rather than advocating for productive housing development strategies.

One major theme throughout the article is the struggle between community interests and the urgent need for policy changes to address the housing crisis. As various localities confront the realities of housing shortages and affordability pressures, each region’s response reveals different priorities and strategies. D.C.’s approach is to refine eviction processes while tackling delinquencies; Massachusetts emphasizes compliance with state law mandating housing developments; and Pittsburgh grapples with balancing inclusionary policies against the backdrop of existing market conditions. Each instance reiterates the complexity of housing regulation where numerous stakeholders have conflicting objectives.

Lastly, quick mentions of additional urban issues, such as environmental regulations impacting housing development in California, highlight that the challenges facing housing production and affordability are not confined to the regions discussed. From government funding allocations to the rise of accessory dwelling unit construction, these broader narratives reflect the systemic issues endemic to the urban housing landscape. As cities navigate through these intricate challenges, the conversations around housing continue to be pivotal, demanding a multifaceted approach to create sustainable solutions that accommodate the varying needs of urban communities.