Councilmember Robert White Statement on the Housing Investment Protection Act Hearing

 

 

OFFICE OF COUNCILMEMBER ROBERT C. WHITE, JR

CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON HOUSING

THE JOHN A. WILSON BUILDING

1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 107

WASHINGTON, DC 20004

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                             MEDIA CONTACT

Thursday September 24, 2026                                                                 Whitney Sweetwine, 202-600-1866

 

 STATEMENT FROM COUNCILMEMBER ROBERT C. WHITE, JR. ON THE HOUSING INVESTMENT PROTECTION ACT

Committee on Housing Holds Public Hearing

WASHINGTON, D.C— “Today, we heard painful stories from housing providers—especially small landlords who have gone months without rent while continuing to pay their mortgages, taxes, utilities, and repair costs. I take those experiences seriously. A system that cannot deliver a decision within a reasonable period is not working as it should.

But it is simply not credible to say the Council has done nothing. Since the end of the public health emergency, the Council has repeatedly acted on requests from housing providers. We reformed ERAP to prevent abuse and eliminate delays caused by pending applications. We exempted LIHTC units from rent control and provided $60 million to address unpaid rent. We created new TOPA exemptions for recently constructed and smaller buildings, protected legitimate investment transactions, expedited cases involving dangerous crimes, shortened eviction timelines, and established a process for tenants to continue paying rent into the court registry while nonpayment cases proceed. 

The housing industry asked for these changes, and the Council delivered them. Industry representatives cannot ask for reforms, receive them, and then continue to say the Council has done nothing. Nor should we keep changing the law simply to send a symbolic ‘signal’ without first measuring whether the changes already enacted are working. 

We need to be clear-eyed about what is happening. Whatever frustrations remain with the length of individual cases, completed evictions in the District are at historically high levels. A slower process does not mean that the District has stopped evicting residents for nonpayment of rent. And while six new Superior Court judges were recently confirmed, eight vacancies remain, with 2 additional departures expected at the end of this year—and the court is facing a $20 million funding cut.

 I support the goal of predictable hearing timelines, but a deadline on paper does not create a judge or resolve a case. 

That does not mean every provision in the Mayor’s bill is wrong. It means each provision requires careful review. I support changes that will produce timely, fair decisions for responsible housing providers and tenants. But when policy treats every tenant like a scammer or every landlord like a slumlord, it usually hurts the people in the middle. 

I am also advancing the Shared Housing Agreements and Resolution Effort, or SHARE, pilot because we cannot simply point to the courts and stop there. SHARE would bring housing providers and eligible tenants into a short, structured mediation process before the initial eviction hearing. Agreements for eligible tenants could include repayment plans, targeted financial assistance, necessary repairs, or an agreed move-out date. If the tenant declines to participate, does not respond, or the parties cannot reach an agreement within the defined period, the housing provider can proceed to court. 

SHARE is not intended to prevent every eviction. It is designed to identify early which tenancies can be stabilized and which cannot—before the debt, legal costs, and conflict become unmanageable. A landlord who can recover rent or secure an agreed move-out sooner may be better served than one who receives an eviction judgment month later but never recovers what is owed. 

We can protect tenants from wrongful displacement while giving responsible landlords a reliable way to enforce their leases. Those goals are not in conflict. The answer is to distinguish hardship from bad faith, resolve the cases that can be resolved early, and preserve court resources for the cases that truly require a judge.” 

 

                                                                                 ###