The D.C. Council is considering a proposal that would close an often-criticized loophole in the city’s housing voucher policy, enabling rent-controlled buildings to charge higher rates to people with housing vouchers, eroding the power of the city’s rent control policies.
Currently, renters who use housing vouchers, including some formerly homeless renters, are exempt from rent control, meaning landlords at rent-controlled buildings can charge voucher holders more than the D.C. rent control law authorizes them to charge other tenants. The Rent Stabilization Protection Amendment Act of 2025 would make tenants utilizing housing vouchers covered by rent-controlled rates, reducing how much landlords can charge renters who rely on a subsidy.
Councilmembers heard testimony from community advocates on the bill at a Committee on Housing hearing held on Oct. 28. Proponents argued that removing the rent stabilization exemption would stop landlords from charging housing voucher tenants higher rates, saving money for the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA), which could then offer more vouchers to people in unstable housing situations. Opponents said in practice, the bill could discourage landlords from renting to tenants with housing vouchers because they would not be able to charge enough rent to keep up with costs.
Advocates on both sides of the debate argue the bill would affect the availability of rent-controlled units city-wide, with proponents saying it would expand affordability for all residents and opponents claiming it may reduce the number of rent-controlled units on the market.
At-large Councilmember Robert White, who chairs the committee, said he has heard anecdotes from residents living in Wards 3 and 4 of landlords advertising and renting their units “exclusively” to voucher holders, taking advantage of the rent control exemption to charge higher rates. White said he is concerned about these “bad actors” who exploit voucher holders by renting out a surplus of units, which are often in poor physical condition and not intended to be inhabited by multiple tenants.
“Steering the many people with vouchers into a few large buildings undermines both the point of voucher programs, letting people of various incomes live interspersed with others, and human services best practices,” White said.
David Gottfried, a Ward 4 resident, said he has seen firsthand how corporate developers can take advantage of housing voucher holders for profit. Most recently, Petra Management Group paid $700,000 in a settlement with the D.C. Office of the Attorney General following a lawsuit that accused the housing developer of discriminating against voucher holders by overcharging them to boost profits.
In this process, he said, voucher holders are exposed to “unsafe” and “unsanitary” conditions, as companies like Petra cut many of the maintenance and security costs of buildings.
“To be clear, buildings housing predominantly low-income residents can work if they include robust wrap-around services: mental health support, case management, social services, etc.,” Gottfried said. “That’s not what Petra is doing.”
But Lauren Pair, rent administrator with the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), said the department opposes the bill because it would add operational burdens for housing providers and could lead to the loss of affordable housing units across the city.
Pair said DHCD is concerned smaller housing providers who currently rent to voucher holders may convert their units to owner-occupied or non-rental units to avoid the new obligations the bill would impose, limiting the affordable housing options available to residents, including those who rely on vouchers. When renting to voucher holders, landlords already have to verify their rents are reasonable compared to the surrounding neighborhood per standards set by DCHA, which some detractors said made the bill unnecessary.
Pair added that the “increased regulatory complexity” placed on landlords if the bill passes might lead small housing providers to stop renting to housing voucher holders, which would violate the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. Still, Pair does not think this would deter some D.C. landlords.
“Although it’s illegal to discriminate based on income, it’s difficult to prove, and this may be one potential outcome of the legislation,” Pair said.
Others in favor of the bill pushed back on the claim that housing discrimination will run rampant under expanded rent control mandates, instead arguing that the bill’s passage will simply force local government authorities to go after these violations with greater urgency.
“We may see an uptick in source of income discrimination claims, or we might have to see the Office of Human Rights take a more aggressive approach to ensuring source of income discrimination doesn’t happen,” Amanda Korber, a supervising attorney with Legal Aid D.C., said.
Charrisse Lue from the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless said the organization supports the bill because it will move D.C. “a step forward” in addressing the city’s affordability crisis. She said the current rent control exemption incentivizes income discrimination by perpetuating the notion that renting to voucher holders is an option instead of a requirement.
“Landlords should not need an incentive to follow the law,” Lue said.
If passed, the bill could lead to DCHA paying less per voucher for each resident on a “substantial” amount of vouchers, Korber said, which could lead to more overall availability within the program.
Currently, D.C.’s FY2026 budget allots zero housing vouchers for homeless individuals. The budget included voucher funding for 156 Permanent Supportive Housing family Vouchers, but the lack of individual vouchers will force many homeless residents to go without access to prospective housing options for the next year.
“Given that the council has had a difficult time funding vouchers in recent years, this would be an incredible outcome,” Korber said.
The bill is under council review and would have to pass in both the housing committee and council before moving on to the mayor’s office.
This article originally appeared in Street Sense’s Nov. 5, 2025 edition.
