Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public divided at Montgomery County hearing over proposed demolition tax to fund affordable housing
Summary
At a public hearing on Bill 5-25, proponents urged a demolition excise tax to fund the Housing Production Fund and curb displacement, while developers and builders warned the $20,000 fee could reduce permits and concentrate new construction in affluent areas.
Montgomery County’s public hearing on Bill 5-25, a proposed excise tax on certain demolitions and renovations intended to fund affordable housing production, drew multiple speakers who offered sharply divided testimony.
Rohit Khanna (Somerset Town Council) testified in support, calling the tax a dedicated funding source for the Housing Production Fund (HPF) and urging the council to supplement demolition-tax revenues with additional appropriations to scale production. Julie Greenberg, a longtime Somerset resident, also backed the measure and highlighted the HPF’s track record in producing mixed-income, permanently affordable housing.
Advocates from CASA (testimony read by Aden/"Eden" Aron) argued the $20,000 demolition fee would help protect working-class families and immigrants from displacement and urged passage to create dedicated revenue for HPF-driven affordable housing.
Speakers representing the homebuilding and development industry opposed the proposal. Antonio Francis, speaking for the local builders’ group, said a $20,000 tax could further reduce demolition permits (which have already fallen more than 50% in recent years, he said) and concentrate new construction in wealthier neighborhoods. Mimi Brodsky Kress, a longtime local home builder, warned the fee could make infill building less viable and be passed on to buyers, further increasing housing costs.
Other public commenters supported tailoring fee distributions so part of revenue could address school-cluster impacts and local infrastructure pressures. Several speakers noted prior council proposals on similar topics and urged careful design of fee-sharing formulas (including possible allocations to MCPS). The council left the hearing record open briefly for a late-arriving registrant and invited written testimony; no final votes were taken during the hearing.
The hearing provided the council with detailed pro and con arguments it will weigh during forthcoming committee reviews and budget conversations.
