Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tenant Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tenants and advocates urge council to broaden consumer protections; landlords and developers warn of costs
Summary
At a lengthy public hearing on Bill 6‑25, advocates and county executives argued the measure is needed to let renters seek consumer‑law remedies for defective tenancies; landlords and small property owners said the change is duplicative, could punish small landlords and reduce housing investment.
Montgomery County held an extensive public hearing on Bill 6‑25, which would treat certain defective tenancies and landlord conduct as violations of county consumer‑protection law, remove a landlord exemption, and strengthen enforcement and penalties under relevant chapters.
Ken Hartman, assistant chief administrative officer, testified for the County Executive and said the administration helped draft the bill. "Renters are consumers and like purchasers of cars, home improvements and gym memberships, they should benefit from the same protections," Hartman said, noting that the change would give the Office of Consumer Protection and the County Attorney authority to seek injunctions and damages in Circuit Court in severe cases.
Dr. Jeffrey Johnson, chair of the Montgomery County Community Action Board, and representatives of CASA, Housing Initiative Partnership (HIP), Action in Montgomery and tenant associations described prevalent problems — from mold and infestations to inoperable heat and elevators — and urged passage to provide renters another enforcement route when building managers fail to act.
"This bill would offer another avenue for renters facing unsafe housing situations to have their concerns addressed," Dr. Johnson said. Multiple tenants described long‑running mold, rodent infestations and delayed repairs that they say created health and safety risks.
Opposition testimony came from business and landlord representatives. Chris Breuer, CEO of the Donoho Companies, called the bill "a solution in search of a problem" and said existing state law and county code already provide remedies; he warned that additional county rules could chill investment and reduce housing supply. Small landlords and property owners said the proposal would impose disproportionate burdens on mom‑and‑pop landlords who lack legal teams and resources.
Speakers on both sides urged the council to consider equity, enforcement capacity and potential unintended consequences. The public hearing closed after the council heard in‑person and virtual testimony from dozens of residents, advocates and business representatives. A public safety work session on the bill is scheduled for March 17, 2025, and the council requested written materials to support the committee record.
The council did not take a final vote at the hearing; further committee deliberations were expected.
