Committee narrowly votes to report local-option anti-rent-gouging bill

The House Counties, Cities and Towns Committee voted 11–10 to report House Bill 21-75, an anti–rent-gouging measure that would give localities the option to establish boards to review and limit rent increases.

The bill’s patron, Delegate Clark, told the committee the measure provides a “local option for localities to adopt a anti rent gouging board” and includes exemptions and a mechanism “to get at the root of gouging, not to go after good actors.” He said the bill contains a “fair rate of return” for owners seeking exemptions and a 10‑year grace period option for new developments.

Supporters — including local housing advocates and legal-aid organizations — said the measure would protect renters in high‑cost areas. Victoria Horak of the Legal Aid Justice Center said the organization supports the bill and offered to provide information on supply questions. Gustavo Espinosa of the Legal Aid Justice Center and other community organizers also testified in favor.

Opponents and some committee members raised concerns that the measure could reduce the housing supply or discourage maintenance and investment. One committee member cited an Urban Institute study saying rent regulation is “associated with reduction in total number of units.” Delegate Wyatt warned landlords might close or convert multifamily units rather than operate under constraints; he said that could “reduce the supply of availability around the Commonwealth.”

Zach LaMaster of Gentry Lock Consulting, testifying for the Northern Virginia Apartment Association, told the committee his organization opposed the bill; when asked if his group opposed the measure he answered, “Yes, ma’am.”

Committee discussion focused on the bill’s local‑option structure and the safeguards included in the draft: exemptions for capital improvements and a stated fair rate of return, and an ability for local boards to grant exemptions when owners document legitimate costs. Delegate Clark said local officials, including mayors and the city of Franklin, have asked for the tool.

After debate and a motion from Delegate Bennett Parker to report the bill with amendments, the committee voted 11–10 to report House Bill 21-75 to the next stage of consideration.

The committee recorded support from several nonprofit and community groups during the public‑comment portion, including Housing Opportunities Made Equal, the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, New Virginia Majority, Casa, Immigrant Justice Campaign, African Communities Together (testimony offered online) and others. The bill’s reporting means localities would have the option to adopt the authority described in the measure; it does not itself impose a statewide rent limit.

The bill text, as presented to the committee, includes: (1) creation of a local board that may review rent increases; (2) a carve‑out allowing owners to seek exemptions for capital improvements or documented operational costs; (3) a provision allowing localities the option to exclude new developments for a period (stated in committee as 10 years); and (4) a “fair rate of return” provision for investors seeking exemption.

Committee members asked for and received clarification that the bill is a local option and does not impose statewide rent control. The committee’s vote to report the bill moves it forward for further consideration by the House.

Votes at a glance: motion to report House Bill 21-75 moved by Delegate Bennett Parker; second not specified in the transcript; recorded vote 11 yes, 10 no; outcome: reported.

Questions lingered in committee about whether the measure will affect housing supply; supporters said localities asked for the tool, while opponents cited studies and local‑government experience warning that rent‑limiting policies can reduce units or maintenance.