'Good cause' at a cost: Counties may have to pick either good cause evictions or rent stabilization
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.
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.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
29 minutes ago
- CBS News
Blue state governors to testify on "sanctuary policies" amid L.A. protests over immigration raids
Washington — Three Democratic governors are defending their responses to the migrant crisis and dispute claims of failing to cooperate with federal authorities, according to prepared remarks that will be delivered Thursday before a House oversight panel. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz are among the witnesses scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on so-called "sanctuary policies". "Let me be clear: Sanctuary policies don't protect Americans. They protect criminal illegal aliens," Oversight Chair James Comer, a Kentucky Republican will say in his opening statement. The governors' appearances come as President Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom remain embroiled in a legal and political standoff over the deployment of the National Guard troops and Marines to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles. Demonstrations have spread to other U.S. cities, including New York and Chicago following a series of deportation raids. "Minnesota is not a sanctuary state," Walz will tell lawmakers. "It is ridiculous to suggest that Minnesota — a state that is over 1,500 miles away from the Southern border and a thousand miles from lawmakers in Washington, D.C. who decide and implement border policy is somehow responsible for a failure of immigration enforcement." The former vice presidential candidate has drawn intense scrutiny not only over immigration policy but also for his handling of social justice protests that broke out in Minneapolis following the death of George Floyd in 2020. Trump administration officials have cited Walz' actions to justify the president's decision to federalize troops in California. While Walz does not appear to directly address the controversy in his testimony, he says he is "disappointed" in the federal government's overall approach. "As governor of Minnesota, it is incumbent on me to use the state's resources to help Minnesota families—not turn those resources over to the administration so they can stage another photo-op in tactical gear or accidentally deport more children without observing due process," Walz is set to say. Ahead of the hearing, the GOP-led panel released a video compilation of various news clips accusing the governors of "shielding" undocumented immigrants and "causing chaos" in their states. A memo from Hochul's office suggested the hearing could be "derailed by wild accusations" and "twisted characterizations" but noted the governor's position is "clear" when it comes to supporting strong borders and comprehensive immigration reform. "New York state cooperates with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in criminal cases," Hochul says. "And our values as New Yorkers demand that we treat those who arrive here in search of a better life with dignity and reject policies that tear law-abiding families apart." Hochul also addresses the influx of more than 220,000 migrants to New York City since early 2022, many of whom were bussed from border states, calling it "an unprecedented humanitarian crisis." "We have responded to this crisis with both compassion and pragmatism," Hochul states."And as a result, we largely prevented what could have become an additional crisis — one of street homelessness and tent cities." Pritzker says Illinois also stepped up to the challenge, and blamed the lack of federal intervention and cooperation from border states for exacerbating the problem. "As governor, my responsibility is to ensure that all Illinoisans feel safe in their homes, their businesses, and their communities," Pritzker is prepared to say. "That is why my administration continued to make significant investments in public safety, even as our resources were strained because of the lack of federal support during the crisis — expanding our state police force and investing in efforts to reduce gun violence." Thursday's session follows a March hearing on sanctuary cities with four Democratic mayors: Eric Adams, of New York, Mike Johnston of Denver, Brandon Johnson of Chicago and Michelle Wu of Boston. Comer launched an investigation in January into "sanctuary jurisdictions", including states, counties or cities, to examine their impact on public safety and federal immigration enforcement. President Trump has vowed to crack down on localities that don't back his immigration agenda. Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security removed its list of sanctuary jurisdictions after several cities challenged the findings.


Washington Post
41 minutes ago
- Washington Post
House will vote on Trump's request to cut funding for NPR, PBS and foreign aid
WASHINGTON — House Republicans are moving to cut about $9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress as President Donald Trump's administration looks to follow through on work by the Department of Government Efficiency when it was overseen by Elon Musk . The package to be voted on Thursday targets foreign aid programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides money for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, as well as thousands of public radio and television stations around the country. Republicans are characterizing the spending as wasteful and unnecessary, but Democrats say the rescissions are hurting the United States' standing in the world. 'Cruelty is the point,' Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said of the proposed spending cuts. The Trump administration is employing a tool rarely used in recent years that allows the president to transmit a request to Congress to cancel previously appropriated funds. That triggers a 45-day clock in which the funds are frozen pending congressional action. If Congress fails to act within that period, then the spending stands. The benefit for the administration of a formal rescissions request is that passage requires only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate instead of the 60 votes usually required to get spending bills through that chamber. So, if they stay united, Republicans will be able to pass the measure without any Democratic votes. The administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along. Republicans, sensitive to concerns that Trump's sweeping tax and immigration bill would increase future federal deficits , are anxious to demonstrate spending discipline, though the cuts in the package amount to just a sliver of the spending approved by Congress each year. They are betting the cuts prove popular with constituents who align with Trump's 'America first' ideology as well as those who view NPR and PBS as having a liberal bias. In all, the package contains 21 proposed rescissions. Approval would claw back about $900 million from $10 billion that Congress has approved for global health programs. That includes canceling $500 million for activities related to infectious diseases and child and maternal health and another $400 million to address the global HIV epidemic. The Trump administration is also looking to cancel $800 million, or a quarter of the amount Congress approved, for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation, and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country. About 45% of the savings sought by the White House would come from two programs designed to boost the economies, democratic institutions and civil societies in developing countries. The Republican president has also asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's slated to receive during the next two budget years. About two-thirds of the money gets distributed to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. Nearly half of those stations serve rural areas of the country. The association representing local public television stations warns that many of them would be forced to close if the Republican measure passes. Those stations provide emergency alerts, free educational programming and high school sports coverage and highlight hometown heroes. Advocacy groups that serve the world's poorest people are also sounding the alarm and urging lawmakers to vote no. 'We are already seeing women, children and families left without food, clean water and critical services after earlier aid cuts, and aid organizations can barely keep up with rising needs,' said Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America, a poverty-fighting organization. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said the foreign aid is a tool that prevents conflict and promotes stability but the measure before the House takes that tool away. 'These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world,' McGovern said. 'And at a time when China and Russia and Iran are working overtime to challenge American influence.' Republicans disparaged the foreign aid spending and sought to link it to programs they said DOGE had uncovered. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said taxpayer dollars had gone to such things as targeting climate change, promoting pottery classes and strengthening diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Other Republicans cited similar examples they said DOGE had revealed. 'Yet, my friends on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe, seriously, that if you don't use your taxpayer dollars to fund this absurd list of projects and thousands of others I didn't even list, that somehow people will die and our global standing in the world will crumble,' Roy said. 'Well, let's just reject this now.'


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Republicans lay groundwork for ‘total tax cliff' at end of Trump's term
Congressional Republicans are laying the groundwork for a tax cliff at the end of President Trump's term in office. While the conference is pushing to make the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent, additional measures geared toward working-class Americans are being slated for expiration at the end of 2028. 'It means that's going to be an issue in the next presidential race,' House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.) said Tuesday. The major expiring tax breaks in the House-passed version of Republicans' domestic agenda bill are boosts in the standard deduction, the deduction for seniors, and the child tax credit, along with the cancellation of taxes on tips, overtime pay, and car loan interest. Budget hawks are saying this sets up a 'tax cliff' in the legislation similar to the one Republicans are now trying to surmount, since most of the 2017 Trump tax cuts expire at the end of this year. 'There's a total tax cliff in there. There's about $1.5 trillion worth of taxes that expire in four years, five years, which means what? In five years, they'll just keep them going. This is why we end up with the same problem,' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said last week. 'It is 100 percent a gimmick to have tax cuts that you're putting in place for four or five years,' he added. The legislation is likely to undergo substantial changes in the Senate, including a change in the accounting baseline that will allow trillions of dollars worth of deficit additions coming from the extension of previous tax cuts to be ignored. But senators are sounding open to maintaining the split between making the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) permanent and allowing the additional cuts for workers, families, retirees and consumers to expire. 'The general feeling of Senate Finance is the TCJA — we need to make that permanent. We need to make the business provisions — the expensing, the R&D provisions — we need to make those permanent. The other things, I think we should discuss it,' Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said last week. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) stressed the objective of overall permanence while saying the additional cuts could be subject to change. 'Our intent is to make the tax cuts permanent. Now, something like the child tax credit, with a huge transfer payment aspect to it, I'd have to say that's something I'd have to check on. Other tax cuts and reductions, depending on score and how the votes come down, that could change,' he said last week. The expiring cuts are mostly ones that were proposed by President Trump while he was on the campaign trail. They appealed to various constituencies and came fast and furious in the run-up to the election. Seven different targeted tax proposals were floated in September and October, according to a tally by news agency Reuters. Trump proposed making auto loan interest fully deductible at a speech in October in Detroit, the capital of the U.S. auto industry. He pitched getting rid of taxes on tips in June in Las Vegas, Nev., a battleground state with an enormous hospitality sector. He proposed a tax credit for family caregivers at a rally at Madison Square Garden in New York, a state where more than 4 million people take care of loved ones. Many in the policy establishment — both left-leaning and right-leaning — view Trump's additional cuts as ancillary, if not altogether undesirable. 'I would prefer those things would be completely off the list,' Daniel Bunn, president of the Tax Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, told The Hill in November. 'It's not good policy. It does not move in the same direction that the 2017 reforms work.' William Gale, co-director of the more liberal Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, wrote in a commentary last year that canceling taxes on tips was a bad idea. 'The obvious problem is that the proposals are inconsistent with sound tax policy. The less obvious problem is that exempting tips would not even help the vast majority of low-income workers,' he wrote. While senators sound open to keeping the division between permanent and temporary tax cuts, they're also wary about creating another tax cliff that is likely to factor into political debates in the future. 'They're doing that for only four years, and all of a sudden that stops? I'm not real high on tax policy that expires,' Johnson said of the no-tax-on-tips provision. 'If it's good enough to include, let's make it permanent. Let's have that discussion.' The Senate has a lot more room to work with than the House since its budget baseline for the bill could allow about $5.5 trillion in expiring tax cuts to be left out of the accounting. However, conservatives in both chambers have expressed concerns about the potential deficit impact of the GOP bill, which has rattled financial markets and spurred a sell-off in the bond market. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated last week that the House's version of the plan would add $2.4 trillion to the nation's deficits over roughly the next decade. In a follow-up analysis requested by Democrats, Congress' official budget scorer estimated additional interest costs resulting from the plan would amount to $551 billion over a decade — a change that would 'increase the cumulative effect on the deficit to $3.0 trillion.' While top Republicans have sought to discredit the CBO's scoring of the measure, there has been distress in both chambers, as well as the White House, over the overall cost and the fact that it is projected to grow the economy by just 0.03 percent. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the bill would grow the economy from 1.83 percent to 1.86 percent over the long run, representing little change from the Federal Reserve's latest prediction of 1.8 percent made prior to the passage of the legislation in the House. 'The Democrat inspired and 'controlled' Congressional Budget Office (CBO) purposefully gave us an extremely low level of growth, 1.8 percent over 10 years — how ridiculous and unpatriotic is that!' Trump wrote on social media earlier this month. One of JCT's models shows the legislation reducing U.S. capital stock by 0.9 percent over the budget window, leading to an overall decrease in economic output. 'The first and second half effects result in a decrease of 0.1 percent on average over the entire budget window,' JCT found. Democrats have seized upon the expiring cuts that Trump proposed as evidence that the bill is skewed toward the wealthy — though lower income tax rates for lower earners will be made permanent as part of the bill. 'Why is this bill designed to take away some of the benefits that you claim people are going to have?' Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) asked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a hearing Wednesday. 'The senior tax credit expires … No taxes on tips expires.' Despite locking in lower tax rates for lower earners, forecasts project the House-passed tax bill will benefit higher earners more and will redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top of the income spectrum. Half of the bill's passthrough deduction alone, which was worth more than $200 billion in 2022, went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers by adjusted gross income, according to the JCT.