Testimony by Charisse Lue, Policy and Advocacy Attorney
The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless envisions a District of Columbia where housing is a human right, racial justice is a reality, and all people have true and meaningful access to the resources needed to thrive.
Today’s hearing is full of legislation that aims to make drastic changes to major tenets and provisions of housing and tenant-related laws that will have a substantial impact on the lives of thousands of D.C. residents. Each of these bills could, and probably should, warrant its own hearing to allow community members, advocates, and council members a meaningful and thoughtful opportunity to respond and consider such substantive measures. Residents deserve thoughtful and meaningful consideration of such impactful provisions.
The Housing Production Omnibus Amendment Act of 2026 should not pass as currently drafted. It fails to include provisions that focus on remedying the dearth of deeply affordable housing for households with 0-30% AMI income. The proposed bill language should maintain the prioritization of creating and preserving deeply affordable housing, ensure that the production and preservation funds are spent only to create and preserve more affordable units and create a straightforward path to remedy D.C.’s affordable housing crisis. Currently, the Housing Production Trust Fund (“HPTF”) is the primary resource for the creation and preservation of deeply affordable housing and the most effective tool to remedy the dearth of deeply affordable housing in D.C. The HPTF legislation mandates that fifty percent (50%) of the funds must be expended for the purpose of creating or preserving deeply affordable housing for households with incomes at 0-30% AMI. The proposed bill does not include any requirement to prioritize housing creation for those with incomes at 0-30% AMI. Instead, it inappropriately lumps low-income and extremely-low income brackets together and allows up to fifty percent of the fund to be used within the Housing Production sub-account that explicitly excludes production for those with the lowest incomes. This new legislation should not be deprioritizing the demographic that needs housing the most in D.C. Any proposal for a new iteration of the HPTF must continue to prioritize 0-30%. AMI. This legislation should include an explicit mandate that fifty percent (50%) of the Housing Opportunity Fund and its sub-accounts are spent on increasing access to affordable housing for households with incomes of 0-30% AMI. If developers are not required to build deeply affordable units, they won’t.
The latest Housing Profile report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) shows that over 59,000 D.C. renters have extremely low incomes (0- 30% AMI) with housing costs up 5% from the previous year. The dearth of affordable housing for the extremely low-income is currently as severe as -37,429, with only thirty-two deeply affordable homes available per one hundred renter households.
D.C. Council must protect and strengthen the progress D.C. has made over the last few years to prioritize the creation of deeply affordable housing. While the proposed bill, as drafted, segregates and focuses funds for the creation of an affordable housing sub-account, it de-prioritizes 0-30% AMI households and fails to include the HPTF mandates that are demonstrating to be effective in increasing the creation of deeply affordable units. In FY 2022, DHCD reported that only twenty percent (20%) of HPTF expenditure was spent on the creation of deeply affordable. However, after increased oversight by this Committee and the inclusion of mandates focused on combatting the dearth of deeply affordable housing, that statistic doubled. Director Green reported that for FY23 forty-three percent (43%) of expenditures of funds were for the creation and preservation of affordable housing for those within the extremely-low income bracket. The legislation proposes new exclusions that dis-incentivize producing deeply affordable housing.
Additionally, proposed language explicitly limits allowable uses of the ‘Affordable Housing Subsidy Account’ to expenditures for only shallow operating subsidies. Shallow subsidies do not result in permanent housing for those who do not have substantial incomes to maintain expensive D.C. rents on their own. Shallow subsidies are not appropriate subsidies for those with the lowest incomes. Also, while Tier 1 and Tier 2 are defined in the legislation and named as the targets for the subaccount, they are lumped together without any specific mandates for Tier 1. Combining 0-30% AMI with 31-50% AMI without mandating specific requirements for 0-30% AMI production only harms efforts to expand deeply affordable housing. Last year, WLCH named this issue when the Executive proposed to expand the eligibility for LRSP. As we explained then, the proposed language to amend the LRSP definition by raising it to 50% AMI only incentives developers to continue their practice of utilizing the Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF) funds to develop rental units for higher levels of income affordability. The mayor’s proposal to raise the LRSP AMI eligibility to 50% would have de-prioritized what is most needed in D.C., which is deeply affordable housing. Lumping Tier 1 and Tier 2 in this proposed legislation has the same effect and will cause the same harm. A failure to produce deeply affordable housing.
The proposal to also utilize the affordable housing subaccount for “supportive services for tenants above minimum requirements” is inappropriate, vague, and detracts from the purpose of the current HPTF, which is to increase access to affordable housing units to meet the greatest need in the District. The funds in HPTF should not become a massive catch-all funding mechanism for various DHS-based third-party service contracts. Finally, the proposal for contract loan funding in a subaccount specifically meant for housing creation for the lowest-income residents should require that more than 30% of units in a building are available for the demographic.
Finally, in general, we support the increased transparency and reporting measures included in the proposed bill. However, accountability measures are also necessary. The legislation must include accountability measures to ensure that awardees use the Housing Opportunity funds for the stated purpose and meet the award requirements upon completion of their eligible project. There must be explicit claw-back provisions.
It is critical that Council remain steadfast in its commitment to create and preserve affordable housing for the most vulnerable. While D.C.’s median rent is approximately fifty-four percent (54%) higher than the national median, an estimated forty-four percent (44%) of D.C. residents are rent burdened. Over eighty-seven percent (87%) of those that are rent-burdened live below 30% AMI. Recent data shows homelessness remains above pre-pandemic numbers and the United States Marshall Service reported that the 2025 eviction filings increased by two-hundred fifty percent (250%).
When Mayor Bowser announced her goal for 36,000 affordable units, we were disappointed that the administration failed to commit to ensuring that one-third of those 36,000 affordable unit target would be deeply affordable. We recommend that the Council, through the Fair Share Housing Target Act of 2025, demonstrate a commitment to creating deeply affordable housing throughout the District by including the definitions of extremely low income and low-income households as “affordable housing” in the bill language and explicitly include extremely low-income and low-income affordability targets.
D.C. must stop making broad announcements about “affordable housing” without being clear on who exactly can afford it. Too often, people forget that overall AMI in this region is extremely high. Affordable housing generally includes housing for those making up to 80% AMI. In D.C., eighty percent (80%) AMI for a family household of four is a household with an income as high as $131,000. Fifty percent (50%) AMI for that same family means an income of up to $81,950. Thirty percent (30%) AMI means an income of up to $49,150. The income differences are substantial. Since the use of “affordable” is applied over such a broad range, it is imperative that D.C. is clear about which levels of housing affordability are being prioritized and created. Without these definitions and explicit targets, there will continue to be a concentration of affordable housing produced for the higher income levels of affordability and in certain geographic areas. Without utilizing the data and being intentional, D.C. will continue to fail to produce the deeply affordable housing that it needs throughout the City.
The creation of deeply affordable housing is more crucial for D.C. residents than it has ever been. To meet the housing needs of the majority of D.C. residents, we strongly urge D.C. Council to maintain prioritization of housing creation for residents with incomes at 0-30% AMI. Legislation must include explicit mandates, accountability, and transparency measures that will produce deeply affordable units for those who most need housing options in D.C.