Governor Moore and Allies Seek Objectivity, Speed in Permitting to Boost Housing; Counties and Municipalities Seek Carve‑outs

Governor Wes Moore opened testimony on House Bill 503 — the Housing for Jobs Act — describing it as a targeted effort to “cut the red tape for housing production in communities with a high availability of jobs and a low availability of housing.” The administration asked the committee to adopt objective standards and predictable rules so jurisdictions will implement their existing comprehensive plans.

The nut graf: The administration argued unpredictability and subjective local processes have discouraged developers, delayed projects for years and reduced housing production; supporters said the bill fosters predictability and unlocks housing near jobs and transit. County and municipal groups urged amendments to avoid litigation traps and preserve local flexibility in limited circumstances.

Secretary of Housing and Community Development Jake Day said objective standards raise production by an estimated 33% and cited other states (New Jersey, Massachusetts, Colorado, Montana) with similar reforms. The governor noted Maryland issues fewer residential building permits per capita than many states and cited a 96,000‑unit statewide housing deficit.

Key elements described in testimony included: identifying jurisdictions with a jobs‑to‑housing unit ratio above 1.5 and targeted approvals for those locales; default affirmative bias toward approval when projects meet pre‑existing objective local criteria; specified, narrow reasons to deny (health/safety impacts, substantial inconsistency with adopted objective criteria, insufficient sewer/water/school capacity that is verified by independent metrics); and limited remedies including administrative review and, in the bill, circuit‑court challenges in some cases. The bill also includes incentives such as counting 1.5 “housing units” toward goals for units built near rail stations and for deed‑restricted affordable units.

Supporters from the affordable housing development community, local developers, the Maryland Affordable Housing Coalition, Maryland Realtors and the building industry urged a favorable report. Developers described long permitting timelines (several said they routinely experience 3–5 years between application and construction; one witness said he had rejected 50–75 projects statewide because approval timelines were too long) and argued for certainty to unlock supply.

Opposition or cautious testimony came from the Maryland Association of Counties and the Maryland Municipal League, who said they had limited time to shape the bill before introduction and sought amendments. MACo cautioned the bill could enable developers to submit incomplete or poorly prepared applications and then sue if jurisdictions failed to act within a prescribed timeline. They also asked for clearer mechanisms to determine when regulations make projects “financially infeasible.” MML raised administrative and judicial process concerns and urged use of local administrative review rather than circuit court in the first instance.

The hearing included considerable public‑opinion polling cited by proponents showing broad voter support for objective standards and reducing permitting time. Advocate groups including Greater Greater Washington and coalition partners supported the bill as a supply‑side tool to reduce housing costs and support workers’ ability to live where they work.

Ending: Governor and administration urged the committee to favor predictability and to pass a bill that would require jurisdictions to implement their plans; counties and towns asked for substantive amendments to avoid costly litigation and to protect local infrastructure and services. The committee received detailed technical amendments offers from local governments and stakeholders and took no final vote during the hearing.