COVID-Era Emergency Rental Assistance Rules Modified

An old expression defines a true compromise as one that leaves no one 100% satisfied. This was the order of the day in reforming the rules for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP), which were modified during the COVID pandemic, but had never reverted to their prior state. ERAP provides rental assistance to District residents earning less than 40 percent of the Area Median Income, when those residents experience housing emergencies. The financial assistance can cover overdue rent, late fees, and court costs related to eviction proceedings.

Prior to the COVID pandemic, applications for ERAP funds required documentation of five criteria, including DC residency and the applicant’s household income and assets. Due to the complexities of life during COVID, a legislative adjustment was made to allow applicants to self-certify that their applications met those metrics. The emergency legislation passed at the most recent Legislative Meeting restores the pre-COVID requirement that those criteria must be demonstrated and not simply self-attested.

However, the bill also adds a new, sixth criteria: a required description of the nature of the emergency situation. By adding this requirement, the bill seeks to drill down on the emergency that led to the need for rental assistance in the first place. The bill defines the emergency as “a situation in which immediate action is necessary to avoid homelessness or eviction, to re-establish a rental home, or otherwise to prevent displacement from a rental home, which is the result of n unforeseen or unusual event, such as the loss of a job or high medical costs, that impacts the applicant unit’s ability to pay rent and that cannot be resolved without financial assistance.”

While the emergency bill re-enacts the prior bill’s previous requirement that the longstanding five criteria be demonstrated, it allows for the proof of the emergency situation to be self-attested if necessary, such as in cases of domestic violence where documentation might be unfeasible. This was an effort at compromise between the Administration’s claims that fraud was taking place via the self-certification process and the unfortunate reality that many crises that provoke risk of eviction are inherently difficult to document.

The emergency bill also allows the court to provide just one stay of any pending eviction proceedings if an ERAP application is in process. Under the COVID-era rules, the court often issued multiple stays. The language of the emergency bill was also formulated so that in the consideration of a potential stay, while courts maintain substantial discretion in instituting and continuing stays on eviction, no evidentiary proceedings are required.

Given the large and unjustified backlog in the confirmation of nominated District judges by the US Senate, eviction proceedings are already greatly slowed, and therefore the potential need for evidentiary hearings was seen by the courts as potentially further compounding existing delays. The language providing the courts with discretion to extend stays is intended to protect tenants whose applications are stagnating through no fault of their own.

The bill attempts to find a balance between advocates on both sides of the housing assistance issue. On one side: the unusually unified providers of affordable housing, who argued that the COVID-era measures led to such substantial rent non-payment that the economics for any and all future affordable housing projects would no longer pencil out and were in jeopardy. Similarly, existing affordable housing projects were at risk of foreclosure.

On the other side, housing advocates who insist that even the COVID-era emergency assistance program was burdensome and deeply insufficient, with both the ERAP application portal itself, plus non-cooperation by landlords, creating barriers to keeping residents housed and avoiding eviction.

The bill as passed was an emergency measure, requiring a two-thirds vote of the Council, and will remain in effect for 90 days. A temporary version of the bill, which would remain in effect for 225 days, also received the first of two necessary votes. Councilmembers stated they intend to hold hearings and move a permanent version of the bill based on how implementation of the emergency bill goes.

Licensed Cannabis Businesses Encouraged, Enforcement Against Unlicensed Businesses Increased

Also at the most recent Legislative Meeting, the Council approved in the second of two necessary votes a bill building upon the Council’s past efforts to facilitate more extensive business operations from licensed cannabis businesses, while further cracking down on the unlicensed providers.

In regards to the licensed businesses, the bill creates a new category of qualifying patient—the non-resident. Non-residents from other states and countries who are not enrolled in any other jurisdiction’s medical cannabis programs would be able to apply for a temporary credential in the District and purchase cannabis in our licensed businesses.

In regards to non-licensed businesses, the bill provides the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration with the permanent authority to conduct inspections of such businesses, as well as enforcement authority against these businesses and their landlords. Penalties include fines and the ability to padlock unlicensed businesses to force their operation to cease.

Unrelated to the licensed/unlicensed business stratification, the bill also increases the minimum distance allowed between a new cannabis business and any school/recreation center from 300 to 400 feet. The bill also requires that Councilmembers and Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners receive advance notification of the location of proposed new or relocated cannabis businesses. Finally, the bill expands the definition of social equity applicants seeking new cannabis licenses to also include the direct family members of those adversely affected by the War on Drugs.

In a change from the language approved at the previous Legislative Meeting, the bill would additionally provide legal standing to daycare facilities to protest licenses for new cannabis facilities within 400 feet of their address. The bill would also prohibit packaging on cannabis products from mimicking food packaging that might appeal to individuals under 21 years of age, with the understanding that while children are already banned from cannabis facilities, once the products are taken home, if left unattended, they could be found and deceptive or unclear packaging could prove tempting to children.

Other Action

In other action at the most recent Legislative Meeting, the Council passed an emergency bill requiring all funds generated by the sale of decommissioned DC Circulator buses be used to support the Circulator employees who will lose their jobs as part of the abrupt cancellation of the longtime bus service.

A bill passed on the first of two necessary votes was a comprehensive measure expanding the availability of, and access to, electric vehicle infrastructure by facilitating District access to federal funds, mandating consideration of installation of charging infrastructure during major streetscape projects, and requiring installation of parking-adjacent electrical outlets during the construction or substantial renovation of commercial or multi-unit residential buildings.

A measure was also passed on the first of two necessary votes that would declare the red-backed salamander as the official amphibian of the District of Columbia. Students of Powell Elementary School had first proposed the designation, since the salamander’s stripe echoes the District’s flag, and due to the Rock Creek Park denizens role in controlling the District’s mosquito population.

The Council’s next Legislative Meeting will be held on October 15. Meetings will likely continue at a two-a-month pace through the end of the year, in order to maximize legislative activity through the end of the two-year Council Period on January 2, 2025.