City council members voted down an action to alter calculations for a city rent ceiling and annual increase for single family dwellings in the city.
The College Park City Council voted down an ordinance that would increase the current rent ceiling by 33 percent, surprising some in attendance after a contentious debate and some confusion among city officials last night.
With the ordinance’s failure, the rent ceiling will keep total monthly rent at 0.6 percent of the property’s overall value. Had the bill passed, landlords would have been able to up their rent to 0.8 percent of the property’s value. It would have also mandated the rate remain constant for the next three years.
Students spoke out before the meeting about how profoundly higher rents could impact university students who live off-campus — an effort that swayed at least one council vote.
A previous agreement set the first year’s ceiling at 1 percent and mandated a decrease by 0.1 percent each year for the following two years.
Both District 1 Councilmembers Patrick Wojahn and Christine Negle were the lone votes in favor of the ordinance while District 2 Councilman Bob Catlin, who proposed the legislation, was an abstention. The council voted 5-2 to reject the proposal.
Catlin, who abstained when it became clear the bill wouldn’t pass, was obviously frustrated by the result.
“They don’t care about the details,” Catlin said of the landlords and opposing councilmembers. “They just don’t like rent control.”
Student Government Association student liaison Jonathan Sachs spoke out against the measure, saying its passage would have “a profound impact on students.”
District 3 Councilwoman Stephanie Stullich was swayed by student testimony heard at a public hearing held before the council meeting.
“At this point, I’m not really sure why this is a beneficial change,” Stullich said. “It seems to be an area where student residents and long-term residents would both benefit from keeping the cap where it is.”
Last night marked the second public hearing the council has held on the issue this month.
“I think this ordinance in particular comes at a bad time for University of Maryland students,” senior English and women’s studies major Elizabeth Cerezo said. “There are a lot of issues affecting their pockets.”
Cerezo was one of only two speakers at the hearing. The other, Natalia Cuadra-Saez, recently ran for SGA president on a platform that included proposals for creating affordable housing options.
“It’s really easy to abuse students because there are students who need to live close to campus,” the junior classics and history major said. “Landlords have an interest in making money. We have an interest in affordable housing.”
Both Cerezo and Cuadra-Saez said they came to the hearing to speak on behalf of their peers who couldn’t make it out or didn’t understand the implications of the ordinance. With a transient student population, the landlords have the upper hand in understanding the “ins and outs” of local politics, they said.
“Students don’t know what’s going on,” Cuadra-Saez said. “Landlords have been here longer.”
Only a handful of students joined them in the crowd.
During the meeting, Catlin stressed this was only one small part of the rent stabilization regulations and a necessary change. Some councilmembers inquired what percentage of rental properties would be affected, but Catlin had no definitive answer.
When he responded vaguely, his colleagues weren’t satisfied.
“I don’t know if that’s an answer,” District 2 Councilman Jack Perry said.
“It is an answer,” Catlin rebutted quickly.
“It’s something you said,” Perry quipped. “But it still doesn’t tell me how many.”
“There’s too many questions that I don’t get answered,” Perry continued. “I don’t think my vote’s ever going to change on this.”
Two weeks ago at the first public hearing, city landlords came out in a show of force against the ordinance, many of whom said the increase was too small.
“Their stated purpose for this ordinance is to protect the students from greedy landlords,” Dave Dorsch, a city landlord, said last week. “There’s really no need for rent control here. They should let market conditions work themselves.”
Dorsch also said that he didn’t think the council had heard his concerns and measures rarely make it this far in the legislative process without passing.
rhodes@umdbk.com
