D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 10-A, § 500
500.1 The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan describes the importance of housing to neighborhood quality in Washington, DC and the importance of providing housing opportunities for all segments of the population throughout Washington, DC.
500.2 The critical housing issues facing Washington, DC are addressed in this element. These include:
500.3 In 2006, the Comprehensive Plan identified most of these issues. The District has implemented many actions in response, including:
affordable housing through Planned Unit Developments (PUDs);
500.4 However, as Washington, DC remains attractive to and retains higher-income households, rising demand and competition has and will put upward pressure on rents and a greater number of lower-income households will experience greater pressure from rising housing costs, leading to residents leaving or bearing a housing burden. Thus, greater public action is needed to fulfill the vision of an inclusive District.
500.5 Housing in the District must also be understood through a racial equity lens. Forty-nine percent of white households are owner-occupied, while only 35 percent of Black and 30 percent of Latino households are owner occupied, and the median value of Black-owned homes is less than that of white homeowners. Black and Hispanic households have the greatest rent burdens, at 35 and 39 percent. These gaps are a result of historic, systemic practices such as redlining, racial covenants, and predatory lending that limited access to housing, restricted wealth building opportunities for communities of color, and created highly segregated development patterns. Even while the District has grown in population, the District's low-income residents have experienced displacement pressures. Of adults experiencing homelessness, 86 percent are Black, while only 47 percent of District residents are Black. While this element often uses income to describe groups and provides overall averages, it is critical to disaggregate data to understand housing considerations experienced by different race, age, and gender groups, and to consider and implement housing policies and actions in this racial equity context to address historic gaps and current challenges.
500.6a Housing issues affect every facet of the Comprehensive Plan. They influence land
use and density decisions, shape infrastructure and community service needs, determine transportation demand, and even drive employment strategies for District residents. At the most basic level, it is the availability of safe, decent, affordable housing across all neighborhoods that will determine whether the District's vision for an inclusive District will be realized. The type of housing constructed or preserved, the cost of that housing, and where it is built will influence whether the District can attract and retain families with children, maintain neighborhood diversity, improve health and educational outcomes, and provide economic opportunity for all.
500.6b Section 224 of the Framework Element of the Comprehensive Plan explains the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Generalized Policy Map (GPM), and zoning. By District Code, the "Zoning maps and regulations, and amendments thereto, shall not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan . . ." The Zoning Commission considers the text, policies, and maps in reviewing zoning designations. Section 227 in the Framework Element includes the definitions for the categories used on the Future Land Use Map, such as Low Density Commercial or Medium Density Residential. These categories are not zoning but are used by the Zoning Commission in reviewing various zoning requests. Each land use category definition identifies a representative zoning district appropriate to this designation, and states that other zoning districts may apply. The Comprehensive Plan policies and FLUM play an important role in guiding future growth, including housing.
500.7a Text Box: What is the Difference Between Housing Affordability and Affordable Housing?
Housing affordability is a broad measure of whether or not housing is affordable to a range of households. Households that pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing are considered to be burdened by housing costs, while those who pay more than 50 percent are severely burdened. Therefore, housing affordability is the extent to which a broad range of households pay less than 30 percent of their income on housing. An important part of affordability are neighborhood assets that help keep transportation costs low, such as reducing the need for car ownership and use.
500.7b Broad affordability is a function of the overall market supply being able to meet rising demand. New supply can improve affordability by letting new residents move to Washington, DC without taking an existing unit, and by allowing existing residents to trade up, thereby freeing up an existing unit for someone else to occupy. For instance, 40 percent of new units become occupied by households moving from outside the District, while 51 percent are occupied by households moving from within the District, and the remainder are households mixed with both District and non-District residents.
500.7c
Affordable housing in the Comprehensive Plan is defined as housing in which occupancy is limited to households earning 80 percent or less of the median family income (MFI) of an area as annually determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (References to deeply affordable housing throughout this element refer to units available to households earning 40 percent or less of the MFI.) HUD standards are used by many federal programs that fund affordable housing. The price of this housing is maintained at a level below what the free market would demand using restrictive deeds and covenants and financed by grants, mortgage subsidies, vouchers, tax credits, or through land use tools. The maximum monthly cost to a household of affordable housing is limited to 30 percent of the targeted household’s income limit (which varies according to the number of people in the household). Different affordable housing programs are benchmarked, or targeted, to specific levels of median family income (MFI). Affordable housing developments often set prices near or at the top of their targets, while eligibility is open to households across their range of income targets. This can lead to residents of affordable housing having monthly housing costs that, although subsidized, are higher than 30 percent of their actual income. Public housing, vouchers, and a few small federal programs are exceptions in which each household’s monthly housing cost is based on their specific income.
The benchmarked, or targeted, incomes for the Washington metropolitan area in 2017 are shown in Figure 5.1 below. The figure shows the major programs for affordable housing and the incomes eligible for each. In 2017, the MFI for a family of four was $110,300. For the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, the terms extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate- income correspond to up to 30 percent, 50 percent, 80 percent, and 120 percent of the MFI, respectively.
It is important to note that use of a regional MFI skews high for the District. In 2017, for example, the actual median household income, rather than MFI adjusted by family size, was $82,372 in the District and $99,669 for the DC metropolitan area. Affordability in the District is further skewed given the District’s comparatively higher market rate housing costs. The 2017 median value for homes in the District is $607,000 compared to $424,000 for the metropolitan area. Further, the regional MFI does not disaggregate and consider information by race, an important consideration given the income gap for communities of color in the District, with the MFI for Black households in the District less than the MFI for White households. The 2017 median income for Black families in the District is $51,114 (less than 50 percent of the MFI), while it is $190,957 for white families in the District. Proportionately, this means that more Black families are likely to fall within the extremely low and very low-income categories, as shown in Figure 1, below. Fewer Black households will be able to afford housing in the low- or moderate-income categories.
500.7d Example: If a single mother of two earned $15.50 per hour, her annual income would be approximately $32,200 and fall within the extremely low-income category. If she spends 30 percent of her income on housing, she could afford to pay only $886 per month on housing. Finding decent housing or any housing at this price range is a challenge in Washington, DC.
500.7e By contrast, market rate housing is defined as housing with rents or sales prices that are allowed to change with market conditions, including increased demand. Some market rate housing may be naturally occurring affordable housing that moderate and some low-income households can afford. However, the supply of naturally occurring affordable units can be unstable due to potential pressure from both sides. With too little demand, decreasing rents are insufficient to cover maintenance and the units fall into a state of disrepair and become vacant and underused. With too much demand, the units are rehabbed into higher cost units. Rent-controlled apartments are counted as market rate units because there are no occupancy restrictions. The District's rent control law stipulates that, under usual circumstances, rents on market rate apartments built prior to 1975 may rise only as fast as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for older adults and tenants with disabilities and the CPI plus two percent for everyone else.
500.7f Regional MFI is used rather than the District's median income because it is the federal government benchmark commonly used to qualify for funding subsidies.
500.8 Figure 5.1 Sample of Housing Programs, 2017 Income Limits and Main Household Targets
| Income Definition | Extremely | Very | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Moderate | |||||
| Household Size | Percent of Median Family Income | |||||
| 30% | 50% | 60% | 80% | 100% | 120% | |
| 1 | $ 23,150 | $ 38,600 | $ 46,350 | $ 61,750 | $ 77,200 | $ 92,650 |
| 2 | $ 26,450 | $ 44,100 | $ 52,950 | $ 70,600 | $ 88,250 | $ 105,900 |
| 3 | $ 29,800 | $ 49,650 | $ 59,550 | $ 79,400 | $ 99,250 | $ 119,100 |
| 4 | $ 33,100 | $ 55,150 | $ 66,200 | $ 88,250 | $ 110,300 | $ 132,350 |
| Historic Home Grant Program | ||||||
| Home Purchase Assistance Program | ||||||
| HOME, CDBG* | ||||||
| Housing Production Trust Fund | Inclusionary Zoning | |||||
| Low-Income Housing Tax Credits | ||||||
| Public Housing |
500.9 Washington, DC's housing stock is varied in type and size, with developments since 2006 shifting the makeup of the District's housing. Figure 5.2 shows the number of units by type, year built, size, and vacancy rate and how these have changed over 17 years. The figure shows that owner/renter rates have fluctuated.
In addition, Figure 5.2 shows that, despite a modest increase in the number of detached/attached single-family homes, which represent 75 percent of large units (three or more bedrooms), a shift toward multi-family units has been consistent. The shift is also visible in Figure 5.3 New Housing Units Authorized: 2000-2017. Washington, DC’s housing stock is becoming both older and newer as pre-1939 buildings are being preserved and remodeled to have more units while post-World War II buildings are more often torn down and the sites redeveloped to add new, modern apartment buildings. Of the 281,000 occupied housing units in 2017, 42 percent were owner-occupied, and 58 percent were renter occupied. Thirty-seven percent of the housing units in the District are single-family units, and over 34 percent of the housing stock was built before 1940.
500.10 Housing Element Figure 5.2: District’s Housing Stock, 2000, 2010, and 2017
| 2000 | 2010* | 2017* | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Housing Units | 274,845 | 296,836 | 314,843 |
| Occupied Housing Units | 248,338 | 252,388 | 281,475 |
| Owner-Occupied | 41% | 43% | 42% |
| Renter-Occupied | 59% | 57% | 58% |
| Total Vacancy | 10% | 15% | 11% |
| Homeowner Vacancy † | 2% | 3% | 2% |
| Rental Vacancy † | 11% | 10% | 6% |
| Type | 2000 | 2010* | 2017* |
| Single-Family Detached | 13% | 12% | 13% |
| Row Houses | 27% | 25% | 24% |
| 2-4 units | 11% | 10% | 9% |
| 5+ units | 49% | 52% | 54% |
| Housing by Year of Construction | 2000 | 2010* | 2017* |
| 2010- | - | - | 7% |
| 2000-2009 | - | 8% | 8% |
| 1990-1999 | 3% | 3% | 3% |
| 1980-1989 | 5% | 4% | 5% |
| 1960-1979 | 24% | 19% | 21% |
| 1940-1959 | 34% | 31% | 23% |
| 1939 or earlier | 35% | 34% | 34% |
| 100% | 100% | 100% | |
| *2010 & 2017 ACS 1-year data | |||
| † 2000 homeowner and rental vacancy uses 2004 data |
500.11 Since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2006, the increase in housing demand and costs has been ongoing, driven by a national recession and recovery, demographic shifts, low interest rates, regional economic growth, falling crime
rates, renewed confidence in District government, and improvements in public services. Rising costs have accelerated since the recovery began in 2010, with the median sales price of single-family homes increasing 7.3 percent per year, condo miniums increasing 2.8 percent per year, and average rents increasing 2.9 percent per year between 2000 and 2017. Part of the increase is attributable to declining interest rates, which went from eight percent to below four percent between 2000 and 2017. Declining interest rates enabled a 37 percent increase in home buying purchasing power and contributed to rising prices. The increase in demand has propelled an increase in housing costs, affecting both renters and homeowners but raising homeowners' value. With higher prices came greater down payment and mortgage requirements, making it more difficult for renters to transition to homeownership. Given income and wealth disparities, and a higher percentage of renter households, housing affordability is increasingly difficult for communities of color.
500.12 The increase in demand has also resulted in a significant increase in the production of housing that has only accelerated since the recession ended in 2009. Figure 5.3 shows the recent trends in housing units issued permits. The figure shows that average annual production of housing for the years after the national recession is more than double (4,483 units per year from 2011-2017) than average production in the District prior to the recession (1,991 units per year from 2002-2007). There is evidence that this new production has slowed the rising costs of renting or owning multi-family units.
500.13 Figure 5.3: New Housing Units Authorized: 2000-2017
Source: U.S. Census, DC Office of Planning (OP)
500.14 Even more dramatic has been the volatility of single-family home values. Between 2000 and 2005, the median sales price for a single-family home in the District rose 174 percent, from $178,250 to $489,000. However, prices then dropped 23 percent in just two years between 2007 and 2009 due to the national financial collapse, causing many homeowners to lose equity in their most important investment. Prices since 2010 have started to rise rapidly again at about 7.3 percent per year. Condominiums and cooperatives—once considered starter homes for first-time buyers—have also increased, but more modestly as production expanded the competitive supply. Figure 5.4 shows that the median sales price of condominiums rose sharply from $138,000 in 2000 to $377,950 in 2005. Condominium prices then stayed mostly flat until 2010, when they started to rise at an average rate of 2.8 percent per year.
500.15 As prices have risen, the percentage of residents able to comfortably afford the median priced home or apartment has dropped. In 2001, 34 percent of the District's for-sale housing would have been affordable to a family supported by a full-time schoolteacher. By 2004, that figure had dropped to just 16 percent. By 2017, the percentage of homes in the District that a full-time schoolteacher could afford had partially recovered to 19 percent. This was due to a variety of factors, including higher wages, decreasing interest rates, the drop in values after 2007, and the increasing availability of condominiums that are less expensive than single-family homes. Nevertheless, the tightening availability of moderately priced housing is hindering the District's ability to retain and attract moderate-income households.
500.16 Figure 5.4 shows the change in housing value and purchasing power from 2000 to 2017. The figure illustrates how median sales prices of single-family and cooperative/condominium homes have changed in relation to changes in the purchasing power of married-couple families and non-family households. It shows that sales prices of single-family homes, while volatile, have tracked the purchasing power of married-couple families, whose incomes grew 3.9 percent per year since 2006, but whose purchasing power increased 7.0 percent per year as interest rates decreased. Over the same time, married couples in the District grew by over 14,600 new households, or just under half of all new households since 2006.
500.17 Figure 5.4: DC Median Sales Prices and Purchasing Power by Household Type: 2000-2017
Source: U.S. Census American Communities Survey (ACS) 2017, Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors (GCAAR), Freddie Mac, OP
500.18 Rents have also risen, making it more difficult for many to afford to live in the District. Between 2006 and 2017, at 3.4 percent per year, rents in Washington, DC rose faster than the MFI of the region, which grew by only 1.8 percent per year. Much of the increase in rents was due to new amenity-rich buildings that attracted higher income households to the District. However, even rents in buildings built prior to 2006 rose at a rate of 2.7 percent per year. As a result, between 2006 and 2017, nearly 18,300 fewer affordable units were available to households earning equal to or less than 60 percent of the MFI (See Figure 5.10 Change in Supply of Rental Units by Affordability). There are many reasons in addition to rising rents for the overall reduction in the number of lower cost units, including demolition of older buildings and conversion to condominiums.
500.19 The rising costs have continued a crisis of affordability, particularly for the District's lowest-income residents. Over 20 percent (56,700) of all households in 2017 were severely burdened by housing costs, and another 16 percent (44,600) of households were burdened. Residents must set aside a growing share of their earnings for housing and utilities, leaving less disposable income for health care, transportation, food, other basic needs, and the ability to set aside savings to prepare for the future. The greatest share of burdened and severely burdened households are the 39,500 rental households earning less than 30 percent of the MFI. The market has also become more segmented, with dwindling housing choices for working families and the middle class in general. Expanded housing options for lower- and middle-income households have become limited, and the opportunity for many residents to build individual wealth through homeownership
has become more difficult. Racial representation differs across income groups, and communities of color are disproportionately impacted by increasing housing costs and diminishing supply of affordable options. The District's Black and Hispanic households experience higher levels of rent burden that increase the likelihood of displacement.
500.20 For existing residents who were already homeowners, the price fluctuations represented a source of wealth as their homes appreciated in value but also a source of risk as some lost significant equity in their family's single largest investment, which could help them put their kids through college or retire in relative comfort. The strength of the District's housing market has also created opportunities to solve some of the very problems it is creating. The recent boom has raised real estate values, incomes, and sales, generating millions of dollars in new revenues for housing programs through deed and recordation taxes dedicated to the District's HPTF. The pending availability of several large sites for redevelopment creates housing construction opportunities that did not exist five or 10 years ago.
500.21 The IZ Program, which requires most new residential buildings of 10 units or more to set aside between eight and 12.5 percent of the project toward affordable units, has now delivered almost 600 affordable units as of Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, with another 800 expected over the next several years, at a pace of close to 200 affordable units per year. The program is particularly beneficial for two reasons. First, it retains the affordable units for the life of the project; second, it produces units in high-amenity, high-cost neighborhoods, where land prices make it very expensive to financially subsidize affordable housing. An expanded IZ program that would encourage additional affordable housing and extend program applicability is under consideration.
500.22 Housing is a regional market that provides a wide array of choices that vary by location, size, building type and age, accessibility, and other factors. The difficulty in expanding the supply of moderately priced housing across the region will continue to create a market dynamic where higher-income households drive the cost of housing. Housing costs within the District are among the highest in the region and reflect the premium placed on being close to the region's core. Allowing all District residents to have the choice to secure housing in their communities is a growing challenge as redevelopment and highly competitive offerings are readily available in surrounding jurisdictions.
500.23 Moderating the cost of housing and expanding opportunities will require a regional effort. It will take sustained multi-jurisdictional coordination and partnerships, such as an analysis of the regional impediments to fair housing and other approaches, to increase the supply of housing and better meet demand at all incomes. For instance, it will be difficult to improve affordability in the District,
even though the pace of Washington, DC's housing production doubled after the recession, when production across the rest of the region is down 38 percent.
500.24 While housing is a regional market, it is also a very personal choice tied to family, community, and the unique identity shared by residents living in Washington, DC. The fact that many residents place a priority on maintaining their identity as Washingtonians partially explains why 71 percent of the District's residents moving within the region stay within Washington, DC. The rate of retention is actually the highest for extremely low-income households, with 77 percent staying in the District. This is due in part to Washington DC's investment in public transit and affordable housing, keeping housing and transportation costs low relative to the rest of the region. However, the same migration data suggests that lower-income households tend to move to Wards 7 and 8, where 90 percent of residents are Black. Migration data must also be considered in the context of race. In addition, the District is experiencing difficulty in retaining moderate-income households earning between 80 and 100 percent of the MFI, with only 60 percent of them choosing to stay in Washington, DC.
500.25 On a neighborhood level, the recent boom in housing demand has challenged the District's ability to enable lower-income residents to stay in their neighborhood and grow inclusive and racially and economically diverse communities. Approximately 60 percent of those moving to Wards 7 and 8 are very low-income households, while only 17 percent of those moving to Ward 3 are very low-income. The District is increasing the rate of developing new and preserving existing affordable housing, with approximately 1,700 affordable units delivered per year since 2015. While some of this production is occurring in the very neighborhoods where such housing is already concentrated, changes in the way investment decisions are being made, such as preferences for projects in high-cost areas are shifting production to higher-cost neighborhoods, where there is less affordable housing. A housing needs assessment conducted by the Urban Institute for the District in 2015 suggests that more affordable housing is needed District-wide, especially in high-cost areas and for those households earning less than 30 percent of the MFI.
500.26 Map 5.1 illustrates the location of affordable housing projects in the District, overlaid on a map that characterizes neighborhoods by an index of housing costs versus neighborhoods that are Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP), as defined by HUD. With the exception of a few projects, there is very little affordable housing built in neighborhoods with high housing costs. If left unchecked, these patterns will continue to concentrate lower-income residents in some neighborhoods and find them scarce in others.
500.27 Map 5.1: Affordable Housing Projects by Neighborhood Index of Housing Costs and R/ECAP
Source: DHCD, HUD, HousingInsights.org
500.28 While the market for housing has been robust since 2010, there is no guarantee this trend will continue indefinitely. The lessons from the financial mortgage
collapse of 2007 suggest that softer demand due to rising interest rates or other risks could test the resiliency of Washington, DC's housing market. Measures to increase affordable housing must be mindful to account for market dynamics and the burden placed on the private sector so that forward momentum can be sustained. This may require additional bold steps by District government, such as the recent increased allocation of funding in 2015 to the HPTF from deed recordation and transfer taxes and other sources.
500.29 One of the critical issues facing Washington, DC is how to retain and create more housing units that are large enough for families with children. In 2006, 21 percent of District households were composed of families with children. By 2017, households with children had fallen to below 20 percent because they experience difficulty finding units they can afford. This percentage is substantially lower than the 33 percent rate for the region and 31 percent rate for the nation. However, other cities, such as San Francisco, New York, and Boston, also experienced declines in the percentage of households with children since 2006.
500.30 Family households with children need larger housing units with more bedrooms. Of the existing housing stock, only 34 percent of the units have three bedrooms or more, which is a slight decline from 2006, when 35 percent of units had three or more bedrooms. Eighty-nine percent of recent new construction has been apartments, of which only two percent had three or more bedrooms. Of new condominium units built since 2006, less than 10 percent had three or more bedrooms. Because the vast majority of Washington, DC's capacity for growth is in multi-family development, the District will need to look to apartment buildings to add larger family-sized units.
500.31 Many residents of Washington, DC have a strong desire to stay, whether they have recently moved here or their family has lived in Washington, DC for multiple generations. As touched upon in the Framework Element, Washington, DC experienced a tremendous increase in the number of younger adults between the ages of 20 and 39 years since 2006. This has led to an increase in children between the ages 0 and 14 years, and young adults are finding their housing needs change as they start new families. The increase in young children is an early indication of their parents' desire and intention to stay in Washington, DC. At the same time, the District is also expecting an increase in older residents. A broad retention strategy is needed for these new and existing families and the overlapping housing needs of older adults to maintain the health and equity of the District.
500.32 The availability of single-family housing and housing with more rooms are two factors that are positively correlated with retaining family households. other factors are also important, including affordability, crime, childcare, parks, and school quality.
500.33 Who is moving in and out of the District? Figure 5.5 shows the demographics of migration in and out of the District. It shows that, in 2017, nine percent (65,522) of the District’s population moved into Washington, DC that year. Out-movers during the same year numbered 60,873. During the same period, in-movers were less likely than out-movers to be families with children, Black, or homeowners and more likely to be low-income. While this tells a District-wide story, within various neighborhoods affordability issues are reshaping neighborhood demographics; for example, neighborhoods in Southwest Washington have seen extensive new development that attracted younger, more affluent, and whiter residents, while losing both residents of color and lower-income residents.
500.34 Figure 5.5: Migration in and out of the District, 2017
| Moving Out | In-Movers | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Total | Another State | Abroad | |
| Number of people | 60,873 | 65,522 | 54,722 | 10,800 |
| In Poverty | 7,150 | 10,656 | 8,440 | 2,216 |
| White | 32,682 | 39,014 | 32,158 | 6,856 |
| Black | 19,909 | 17,063 | 15,797 | 1,266 |
| Asian/Pacific Islander/Other | 6,225 | 6,787 | 4,662 | 2,125 |
| Two or More Races | 1,925 | 2,490 | 2,025 | 465 |
| Hispanic | 6,384 | 5,975 | 4,227 | 1,748 |
| Age 1-4 years | 2,996 | 1,522 | 1,115 | 407 |
| Age 5-17 years | 4,592 | 2,913 | 2,044 | 869 |
| Age 18-29 years | 24,554 | 37,819 | 24,554 | 4,709 |
| Age 30-39 years | 15,412 | 11,812 | 9,438 | 2,374 |
| Homeowners | 19,060 | 11,103 | 8,355 | 2,748 |
| Renters | 35,797 | 38,822 | 32,208 | 6,614 |
Source: U.S. Census ACS 2017, OP
500.35 Overall, key indicators suggest that demand for housing will remain strong in the District. However, it is important to recognize that events, such as the 2020 public health emergency, may change this outlook. Still, indicators including the historically strong employment market, improving schools, and a walkable urban lifestyle that is attractive to a new generation of residents will likely continue to drive housing demand. The increase in young children (zero-14 years) is an early indication of their parents’ desire and intention to stay in the District. Retaining new and existing families is important to Washington, DC’s vibrancy and health.
500.36 In order to meet this demand, it will be critical to continue, and support, the overall production of both market rate and affordable housing. Without new development and an increased supply of these units, rising costs caused by these demand pressures will increasingly restrict the types of households who can
afford to live in Washington, DC. New production will take the pressure off the existing housing supply and allow it to serve a greater range of household incomes.
500.38
This Housing Element seeks to address the challenges of rising costs and other housing needs through its policies and actions focused on the production of new market rate and affordable housing and the preservation of existing affordable housing. It is organized into four major sections. The first addresses housing production, including both market rate and affordable housing. The second addresses housing preservation, focusing particularly on anti-displacement strategies and housing maintenance. The third section addresses homeownership and fair housing laws. The final section covers the needs of those experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, older adults, and others who are not adequately served by the private market.
SOURCE: District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984, effective April 10, 1984 (D.C. Law 5-76; 31 DCR 1049 (March 9, 1984)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984 Land Use Element Amendment Act of 1984, effective March 16, 1985 (D.C. Law 5-187; 32 DCR 873 (February 15, 1985)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Amendments Act of 1989, effective May 23, 1990 (D.C. Law 8-129; 37 DCR 55 (January 5, 1990)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Amendments Act of 1989 NCPC-Recommended Amendments, and Closing of Public Alleys in Square 669, S.O. 88-452, Act of 1990, effective May 23, 1990 (D.C. Law 8-132; 37 DCR 2213 (April 6, 1990)); as amended by District Government Land Use Temporary Amendment Act of 1994, effective October 1, 1994 (D.C. Law 10-190; 41 DCR 5360 (August 12, 1994)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendments Act of 1994, effective October 6, 1994 (D.C. Law 10-193; 41 DCR 5536 (August 19, 1994)); as amended by District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984 Land Use Amendment Act of 1994, effective March 21, 1995 (D.C. Law 10-235; 42 DCR 30 (January 6, 1995)); as amended by Technical Amendments Act of 1996 effective April 18, 1996 (D.C. Law 11-110; 43 DCR 530 (February 9, 1996)); as amended by Second Technical Amendments Act of 1996 effective April 9, 1997 (D.C. Law 11-255; 44 DCR 1271 (March 7, 1997)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 1998, effective April 27, 1999 (D.C. Law 12-275; 46 DCR 1441 (February 19, 1999)); as amended by Technical Amendments Act of 1999, effective April 12, 2000 (D.C. Law 13-91; 47 DCR 520 (January 28, 2000)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 2006, effective March 8, 2007 (D.C. Law 16-300; 54 DCR 924 (February 2, 2007)); as amended by Technical Amendments Act of 2008, effective March 25, 2009 (D.C. Law 17-353; 56 DCR 1117 (February 6, 2009)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 2010, effective April 8, 2011 (D.C. Law 18-361; 58 DCR 908 (February 4, 2011)); as amended by Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 2021, effective August 21, 2021 (D.C. Law 24-20; 68 DCR 006918 (July 16, 2021)).