Delegates reject amendment to exempt gas‑free short‑term rentals from carbon‑monoxide detector rule
Loading...
Summary
The Maryland House defeated an amendment that would have exempted short‑term rentals that 'don't produce carbon monoxide' from a new safety requirement. Lawmakers debated public‑safety tradeoffs and cost before a roll‑call produced 26 aye and 94 nay, leaving the bill to advance to third reading.
The House of Delegates debated an amendment to House Bill 12‑21, the Jillian and Lindsey Weiner Short‑Term Rental Fire Safety Act, that would have exempted short‑term rental units “that don't produce carbon monoxide” from a requirement to install carbon‑monoxide (CO) detectors. The amendment failed on a roll‑call vote, 26‑94, after a lengthy floor exchange.
Supporters framed the bill as a basic life‑safety measure. The bill sponsor said the State Fire Marshal “strongly recommended” adding CO detectors and noted the measure responds to fatalities in a short‑term rental elsewhere: “How much is a life worth?” the sponsor asked, arguing a combined smoke/CO alarm costs “no more than $50.” The sponsor also recounted a family tragedy that inspired the act and said short‑term rentals should meet the same minimum safety expectations as commercial lodging.
Opponents argued the amendment was a narrow, practical fix that would avoid imposing costs where CO generation is unlikely. The delegate who offered the exemption said the change simply would not require detectors in homes he described as lacking gas, propane or oil systems and told colleagues: “You can't get carbon monoxide poisoning for something that doesn't produce carbon monoxide.” He tied his objection to housing‑cost concerns and implementation burdens.
The House proceeded to a recorded roll‑call on the amendment. The clerk announced “there being 94 votes in the negative, only 26 in the positive,” and the amendment failed. The bill as amended by the committee (which adds CO alarms and other safety provisions) was printed for third reading.
The exchange included sustained floor debate on the balance between uniform safety standards and housing affordability, and multiple members asked whether local jurisdictions could add rules or enforcement. Sponsors repeatedly cited fire‑marshal backing; opponents pressed on costs and the practical import of the exemption. The House did not take a final third‑reading vote during this session.
Next steps: House Bill 12‑21 was printed for third reading and is expected to return to the floor for a final vote at a later date.
