Prince George’s Council approves tenant relocation payments ordinance after heated debate; 6-0-2

Prince George's County Council on May 27 enacted CB 17-2025, a landlord-tenant relations bill that requires relocation payments for tenants when rental housing is deemed unfit for human habitation. The ordinance passed the council floor vote with six ayes, zero noes and two abstentions.

Council members and members of the public spent more than an hour debating the scope of the bill and exemptions for landlord liability. Supporters said the measure would ensure displaced tenants receive prompt assistance; opponents — chiefly property owners and managers — warned the law could burden affordable housing operators and expose landlords to large costs even when damage was caused by tenants.

The bill requires landlords to provide relocation payments when a unit is temporarily or permanently uninhabitable, and it specifies payment formulas for permanent displacement including three months’ rent at fair market value. The ordinance includes a narrow set of exemptions already in the draft: small landlords (five or fewer dwelling units), buildings condemned due to natural disaster, and single-owner two-unit dwellings where the owner occupies one unit. On the council floor, a proposed amendment to add a further exemption for displacement caused by a tenant was offered but failed for lack of a second.

During the public hearing, representatives of property-owner groups and affordable-housing managers testified that the bill in its current form would impose significant financial risk. Hugo Cantu of the Apartments and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington said the measure diverged from Montgomery County’s relocation law by lacking exemptions for tenant-caused damage and urged three changes: (1) exempt tenant-caused events (fires, illegal activity), (2) require tenants to carry renters insurance, and (3) allow landlords to offer alternative housing when appropriate. He warned that recent insurance-market volatility and premium increases could make compliance onerous for owners.

Speakers from large property managers said tenant-caused events — balcony grilling fires, unreported leaks that lead to mold remediation, or intentional arson — have in the past displaced dozens of households and required long repair timelines. One management executive said their firm experienced a fire that displaced 20 families; rebuilding and remediation took months and caused more than $4 million in economic loss, with at least $500,000 of out-of-pocket expenses not covered by insurance. Southern Management’s Lynn Phillips and Humphrey Management’s Jessica Zuniga Sanaria asked the council to exempt tenant-caused damage and to consider excluding income-restricted affordable housing, which they say operates with tightly constrained budgets and financing restrictions.

Council members who supported the bill said it grew out of constituent cases in which seniors and other residents were temporarily left without adequate housing or notice. Vice Chair Oriada, the primary sponsor in the council session, said the legislation was intended to provide immediate relief for displaced residents and to create minimum standards for tenant relocation assistance. Several council members urged continued work after enactment to craft clarifying amendments that address exceptional cases and insurance issues.

The council declined on the floor to adopt an amendment that would have explicitly exempted landlord obligations when displacement was caused by a tenant’s actions. After extended discussion, the council voted to enact CB 17-2025. The final recorded outcome was: approved, yes 6, no 0, abstain 2.

The enactment does not itself require renters insurance, and the council acknowledged further work may be necessary to address cases where tenant conduct caused the damage and to consider targeted exemptions for certain affordable housing financing types. Sponsors and other members indicated an openness to follow-up legislation or committee work to refine the statute.

Action on CB 17 follows a broader local policy debate about tenant protections and the operational impacts of local mandates on developers and affordable-housing operators. Implementation details — including administrative procedures, notice requirements to tenants and landlords, and coordination with state rules — remain to be clarified by council staff and the county executive’s office.

Votes at a glance: the ordinance passed on final enactment with a recorded outcome of 6 yes, 0 no, 2 abstentions. Two abstentions were stated on the record during the final vote.

The county clerk will publish the enacted text and the date of effect in accordance with county procedures.