Public Hearing on the Strong Homes Amendment Act (Bill 26-493) - July 7, 2026
Public Hearing on the Strong Homes Amendment Act (Bill 26-493) - July 7, 2026
On July 7, 2026, the Committee of the Whole of the Council of the District of Columbia, chaired by Phil Mendelson, held a public hearing on Bill 26-493, the Strengthening Tenant Receivership and Oversight for Neighborhood Growth (Strong Homes Amendment Act). The hearing began at 3:13 PM and concluded at 5:33 PM in Room 412 of the Johnny Wilson Building. The bill, introduced by Councilmember Robert White and co-introduced by several other councilmembers, aims to amend the Tenant Receivership Act, the construction codes, and the business organizations code to address chronic neglect by landlords, expedite the appointment of receivers, and provide stronger enforcement tools. The record will remain open until 5:00 PM on Tuesday, July 21, 2026.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Farrah Fosse (Empower DC): Urged support for the bill and emphasized the need for dedicated funding of at least $10 million per year for the Tenant Receivership Abatement Fund. She noted that the current receivership process is underfunded and often leads to displacement, and recommended adding tenant voice to the process, including applying TOPA (Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act) to receivership sales.
- Sunny Desai (Legal Counsel for the Elderly): Supported the bill as a step forward but called for an affirmative right to rent escrow so tenants can seek repairs without waiting for an eviction case. He cited the example of a 72-year-old client who endured unsafe conditions for years before obtaining relief.
- Eric Jones (Apartment and Office Building Association, AOBA): Expressed concerns about rebuttable presumptions, lien superiority, and the ability of a receiver to sell properties at fair market value. He urged the committee to clarify these provisions to avoid unintended consequences for responsible landlords.
- Denise Hunter and Nathan Hondreau (Empower DC tenant leaders): Shared personal experiences of living in deplorable conditions at Capitol Vista, including mold, pests, and lack of heat. They urged passage of the Strong Homes Act and dedicated funding of $10 million per year for the receivership fund, as well as earlier intervention by the Department of Buildings.
- Bill Slover (Court-appointed receiver): Stated that the greatest obstacle to successful receivership is lack of funding. He supported many provisions of the bill but stressed that without dedicated capital and immediate bridge funding upon appointment, receivers cannot perform their duties. He noted that receivers often have to advance personal funds or face delays.
- Jeffrey Levine (Small landlord): Raised concerns about government accountability, citing a hypothetical scenario where a landlord cannot complete repairs because DOB inspectors are denied entry. He asked for clear policies on repeated denied inspections and stronger notice provisions (e.g., not just email) before receivership is pursued.
- Beverly Smith (Benning Park resident): Supported the bill and called for tenant voice in the process, including subjecting sales to TOPA and giving weight to tenant association recommendations. She requested $10 million annual funding for the receivership fund.
- Eleanor Hart (DC for Democracy): Expressed enthusiastic support for the bill and urged passage of complementary legislation, including the Lien Act, Clean Act, and Mean Act, to strengthen tenant protections.
- Jen Baker (2M Tenants Association): Described ongoing conditions at 2M apartments, including broken elevators, garage doors, and repeated heat failures. She supported the bill and stressed the need for tenant voice and dedicated funding of $10 million per year.
- Gabe Murnoff (Volunteer with Empower DC): Supported the bill but advocated for tenant voice in the receivership process, dedicated funding of $10 million annually, and earlier DOB intervention. He also supported complementary legislation.
- Cameron King (DC Association of Realtors): Agreed that bad actors should be addressed but cautioned that the bill’s expansion of receivership powers could inadvertently affect small landlords facing financial difficulties. He urged the committee to include strategies to help struggling good-faith owners rather than relying solely on takeover.
Discussion Items
- Funding for the Tenant Receivership Abatement Fund: Chairman Mendelson and Councilmember White pressed OAG officials on the fund’s status. Brendan Downs (OAG) confirmed that the fund currently has no money, having been used only twice (Foster House and one other case). The fund has a statutory cap of $2 million and is replenished only through excess restitution or owner repayments, which is slow. OAG expressed openness to discussing additional funding mechanisms.
- Rebuttal Presumption and Abatement Plans: Councilmember White questioned how the bill would speed up the process. OAG officials explained that removing the owner’s ability to delay by proposing an abatement plan and creating a rebuttable presumption for receivership after a failed preliminary injunction would shorten timelines. They cited the Marbury Plaza case, where a lawsuit filed in July 2021 did not result in a receiver until early 2024.
- Tenant Voice: Several witnesses and councilmembers discussed the need to give tenants a formal role in the receivership process, such as through TOPA or requiring court weight to tenant association recommendations. No specific mechanism was finalized, but the topic was noted for further work.
- Sales of Receivership Properties: The bill allows the court to order a sale to a qualified buyer with a detailed abatement plan. OAG noted this would help when owners lack funds or act in bad faith.
- DOB Capacity: Keith Parsons (DOB) stated that the bill would not likely require additional inspection capacity, as the number of receivership cases is small (about six per year). He confirmed that DOB is equipped to track and enforce commitments from purchasers.
Key Outcomes
- The record will remain open until 5:00 PM on Tuesday, July 21, 2026, for written testimony.
- Councilmember White expressed willingness to work with stakeholders, including AOBA and small landlords, on technical aspects such as lien superiority and rebuttable presumptions.
- Chairman Mendelson and Councilmember White acknowledged the need for additional funding for the Tenant Receivership Abatement Fund and committed to exploring options, including appropriations or restructuring revenue sources.
- The committee noted that further refinement of tenant voice provisions and early intervention by DOB would be considered as the bill moves forward.
- No votes were taken; the hearing was a fact-finding session.
Meeting Transcript
I'm calling to order this hearing. This is a public hearing of the committee of the whole of the Council of the District of Columbia. I'm Phil Mendelssohn, Chair of the Council and Chair of the Committee of the Whole. Today is Tuesday, July 7, 2026. The time is 3.13 in the afternoon. We are in room 412 of the Johnny Wilson Building. The subject of this hearing is Bill 26-493 entitled Strengthening Tenant Receivership and Oversight for Neighborhood Growth. This legislation was introduced by Councilmember Robert White, co-interduced with Councilmembers Propinto, Matt Freuman, Brianna Doe, and Janice Lewis George. Introduced on November 19th last fall. The looking at the long title of the bill, the bill would amend the tenant receivership act to clarify grounds, notice, and procedures for receivership, expand tools available to the court and receiver, establish cost recovery and lien mechanisms, and authorize tenant protections. The bill also would amend the construction codes to strengthen injunctive relief and amend the business organizations code to permit disillusion and related remedies in case of fraud or abuse. The looking at the hearing notice to restate this a little differently, the stated purpose of Bill 26-493 is to amend the Tenant Receivership Act to include violations of the Air Quality Amendment Act of 2013 as grounds for the appointment of a receiver, and to clarify what constitutes a serious threat to the health, safety, and or security of the tenants to allow for the electronic mailing of violations and to require more frequent reporting of progress made by the receiver in abating conditions giving rise to the appointment. Bill 24-493 also amends the construction code approval and amendments to act 1986 to clarify provisions related to injunctive relief for illegal construction activity and amends Title 29 of the code to authorize the Superior Court to dissolve a limited liability company in a proceeding by the Attorney General if certain conditions are met. So today we are focused on building code and um uh decent tenant uh housing conditions. The record in this matter will be open for two weeks. That is, it will close at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, July 21st. What does that mean? As a political body, we will consider comments whenever they come in right up to the final vote. But we have to follow record on legislation, and for those purposes, anything that is given to us by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, July 21st will be included in the record. Before I call witnesses, I'm going to recognize uh colleague, Councilmember Robert White, who's the author of the legislation. In case you have an opening statement. Thank you, Chairman. Um, and uh thank you for scheduling this hearing at such a busy time. Last fall I introduced the strong homes amendment act, uh, with Attorney General Brian Schwab because of what I hear from tenants uh way too often, families heating their homes with the stove in January, parents putting buckets under a leaking roof, and children sleeping in rooms with mold on the walls. These are not rare stories in DC these days, and in nearly every one of them, landlords knew these issues existed, had been cited for violations, had been fined, and simply decided that waiting out the government was cheaper than doing repairs. Now I want to be clear. Uh this bill is not about every landlord. This bill is about the small number of landlords that are neglecting properties and mistreating residents. Um, this bill is about properties like Marbury Plaza, 2M, Benning Park, where residents look at me to say, why council member White, after years of telling you these issues exist, is the building not fixed? This is unacceptable. And I tell them I agree it is not acceptable. This the district already has a tool to hold the worst slum lords accountable. It's called receivership. A judge puts a neutral professional in charge of the building. The rent goes to repairs instead of in the owner's pocket, and the property gets brought back up to code. The tool works. Since we've had an independently elected attorney general, the district has won the appointment of a receiver in nine cases. And in every one, tenants recovered restitution. The district won penalties to deter the next bad actors, and repairs finally got made after years. In eight of those buildings, the property has already passed out of the hands of the neglectful owners and into new ownership. And the ninth looks headed the same way. The problem is how long the worst actors can stall before a building is brought under receivership. Owners propose repair plans that never that they never intend to follow. They miss deadline after deadline and dare the district to hold them in contempt. They try claiming they never got the notice, and when the court finally runs out of patience, they file for bankruptcy or say that they'll sell the building to start the clock over. At Marbury Plaza, tenants waited years between the first court order and a receiver taking charge. No one should have to litigate for years to have heat and hot water. This bill closes that loophole, those loopholes.
openpublica.com