D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 10-A, § 510
510.1 The Homes for an Inclusive City task force report stated that roughly 30,000 affordable and inexpensive market rate housing units throughout the District were at risk of being lost. This is more than 10 percent of the Washington, DC's housing stock, and it is home to many of the District's most vulnerable residents. To avoid displacement, the District will need to channel a greater share of the revenues being created by the strong housing market into new programs that preserve affordable units. This must be a priority in the District's high-cost areas, as well as its lowest-income areas. Preserving affordable units in higher-income neighborhoods is especially important given the high cost of producing new units.
510.2 Many of the units that are at risk currently receive their funding through the federal Section 8 program. The program was initiated in 1974 and placed 20- to 40-year affordability contracts on apartment buildings. Thousands of these contracts are now expiring, with many of the units being converted to market rate rentals. Similarly, tax credit affordable housing projects, which largely started in the 1990s, are now expiring after 30 years of affordability requirements. The Preservation Strike Force Report estimated that, between 2016 and 2020, expiring subsidies will place approximately 13,700 units at risk. Many are located in developing neighborhoods, and there are few incentives for building owners to keep them affordable.
510.2a Text Box: Public-Private Affordable Housing Preservation Fund
The Public-Private Affordable Housing Preservation Fund proposed by the Preservation Strike Force and created in Fiscal Year 2017 is one important step to ensure the District does not lose expiring affordable housing. The innovative fund mixes both public and private dollars to provide rapid bridge acquisition and predevelopment financing. Capitalized in 2017 with $10 million of public financing and $30 million in initial capital from private partners, the fund could leverage a total of $80 million toward the preservation of expiring affordable housing.
510.3 Publicly subsidized affordable housing options had decreased by 2006, with the expiration of Section 8 contracts and other subsidies, and with the District moving forward with the demolition of 3,000 public housing units to make way for mixed-income projects at East Capitol Gateway, Ellen Wilson, Henson Ridge, Wheeler Creek, and Arthur Capper Carrollsburg. Among these, only Ellen Wilson and Capper Carrollsburg included one-for-one replacement units for each subsidized affordable removed.
510.3a Text Box: What Is Displacement?
Displacement is an issue that many residents and policy makers are concerned about and is a critical challenge when attempting to achieve an equitable District.
But it is also not a clearly defined term; it often relates to observation of neighborhood change at a high level, as well as situations in which a household is forced to move from its residence at the individual level. For purposes of clarifying processes and use for the Comprehensive Plan, there are three forms of displacement: physical displacement as households must move when the properties they occupy are redeveloped, economic displacement as housing cost increases in the neighborhood force the household to find other housing options, and cultural displacement as residents lose a sense of belonging or shared identity in their neighborhood due to neighborhood change or growth. While these may relate, they each have different planning responses.
510.3b How Displacement Affects Washington, DC
Information about the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing units, illustrated in Figure 5.10, along with the decline of the number of lower-income, primarily Black households, which can be found in the Framework Element, indicates that Washington, DC has experienced significant displacement in many neighborhoods and across the District. National-level studies suggest that, by some measures, the District is the U.S. city most affected by both the increasing demand for housing from higher-income households and the decline in the number of lower-income households.
510.3c Between 2006 and 2017, Washington, DC experienced a decline of more than 15,600 households earning between 30 and 80 percent of the MFI; 9,250 households were homeowners, and 6,350 were rental households. Capitol Hill and other Northeast neighborhoods experienced the greatest decline, with a decrease of 5,950 households earning between 30 and 80 percent of the MFI. During this time, the data suggests there was a modest increase of extremely low-income households District-wide; most moved to Wards 7 and 8 and to Upper Northwest/Northeast, where many have ended up paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing.
510.3d Addressing Displacement in Washington, DC
Washington, DC has one of the strongest sets of anti-displacement programs in the country, which includes rent control, eviction protection, Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), District Opportunity to Purchase Act (DOPA), locally subsidized rents, tax assessment caps, and tax credits for low-income and older homeowners.
510.3e Yet, protecting all citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable, from the forces that lead to displacement clearly continues to be one of the greatest challenges to growing an equitable and inclusive District. The number of residents affected by physical displacement is relatively small on an annual basis and they can be provided assistance more easily than the significantly larger number and range of households facing economic displacement from rising housing costs
caused mainly by a lack of supply. Minimizing the impacts of physical and economic displacement requires balancing the cost-effective approach of preserving mixed-income housing in some locations and expanding housing supply, particularly affordable housing, in others through new construction and redevelopment. Achieving such balance will require a greater understanding of neighborhood submarkets, a more sophisticated approach to the allocation of funding, and difficult discussions among community stakeholders regarding approaches to increasing density. Addressing the broader economic displacement goes well beyond the responsibility of any single development. The District must strengthen existing policies and develop new ones to counteract and mitigate physical and economic displacement.
510.3f The decline in the number of low-income homeowners, who are more insulated from rising housing costs, is an indication of cultural displacement. Older lower-income households face many life changes or may pass their property on to heirs, leading to a natural turnover in residents and new faces in the neighborhood. Those who stay, experience the loss of long-term friends, neighbors, and local businesses, and often are confronted by the ever-increasing lure from the economic gain of selling. Confronting this form of displacement will require greater neighbor-to-neighbor and broader civic engagement. Housing policy can serve to retain vulnerable residents but minimizing the impact of cultural displacement means maintaining community cultural institutions and businesses, creating civic spaces and events that cross cultural divides, and balancing different needs. The efforts should invite all to participate, interact, and grow a common experience and identity, encouraging new residents to respect the identity of the neighborhood they are joining. Information about focusing efforts in this direction can be found in other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Those efforts, along with policies of the Housing Element, will help ensure that, as neighborhoods change and evolve, neighbors continue to see that there is a place for them in their community and to share in the benefits of living in Washington, DC.
510.3g Displacement is a District-wide issue. All residents have a stake in addressing it because it affects both current and future residents. Policies in the Comprehensive Plan, along with the District's housing programs and initiatives, will bolster the manner in which all forms of displacement are addressed.
510.3h In addition to policies contained in the Housing Element, see also the Arts and Culture Element and refer to the Office of Planning's Equity Crosswalk for policies and actions that address cultural displacement.
510.4 Looking to the future, Washington, DC will need to strengthen existing and add new programs to preserve its affordable stock, particularly its subsidized rental units. Rental housing comprises almost 60 percent of the housing stock and is the
main housing option for those just entering the workforce and those without the initial resources to purchase a home. Low-income renters are already more likely to pay more than half of their incomes on housing than any other group. In 2006, a proposal for a District-sponsored rent subsidy program (similar to Section 8) called the Local Rent Supplement Program was implemented to offset the expiring federal subsidies and help other households who are cost-burdened. The proposal called for direct rental assistance to 14,600 extremely low-income renters. The program has been expanded over the past several years from 2,800 households to over 5,700 and a total cost of $100 million per year.
510.4a
Text Box: Strategies for the Redevelopment of Existing Income-Restricted Affordable Housing
Many of Washington, DC's affordable housing developments are aging past their functional lives. This means that, in addition to the affordability controls expiring, the structures and systems are sometimes in a state of disrepair, inefficient, and without modern amenities. Redevelopment or substantial rehabilitation to provide decent, safe housing and prevent displacement from lack of habitability is essential. Redevelopment, however, creates short- and long-term displacement risks. As the cost of housing rises, the need for income-restricted affordable units becomes even greater. Affordable housing properties may contain a layering of project-and tenant-based subsidies at the federal and local levels, as well as naturally occurring affordability. In many cases, many different types of subsidy may exist in one building, which presents a challenge in prescribing singular strategies to prevent displacement of low-income residents. Redevelopment or rehabilitation of income-restricted affordable housing should use the following strategies, ordered by priority, to minimize displacement, maximize the return of tenants to their community, and retain affordable housing:
When redeveloping the property, build replacement affordable units first prior to any off-site physical relocation from existing affordable units, or provide appropriate offsite affordable units as new permanent housing within the project neighborhood, if necessary due to site constraints.
Projects accepting tenant-based vouchers must accept tenant-based vouchers following redevelopment.
In addition to the strategies listed above, redevelopment of affordable housing should increase the capacity of housing overall, including new dedicated affordable and market-rate units in mixed-income communities.
510.5 Policy H-2.1.1: Redeveloping Existing Income-restricted Affordable Housing
Redevelopment of public housing must make every effort to achieve all strategies in 510.4a. Redevelopment of income-restricted affordable housing by other parties should implement as many of the strategies in 510.4a as possible. The availability and certainty of land use and financial and regulatory incentives to make the projects feasible are critical to achieve these strategies.
510.6 Policy H-2.1.2: Preserving Affordable Rental Housing
Recognize the importance of preserving rental housing affordability to the well-being of the District and the diversity of its neighborhoods. Undertake programs to preserve the supply of subsidized rental units and low-cost market rate units, with an emphasis on preserving affordable units in high-cost or rapidly changing neighborhoods, where the opportunity for new affordable units is limited.
510.7 Policy H-2.1.3: Expiring Federal Subsidies
Preserve 100 percent of expiring subsidies for affordable housing units, particularly those in Section 8-based projects and projects funded with low-income housing tax credits and tax-exempt bonds, wherever possible.
510.8 Policy H-2.1.4: Avoiding Displacement
Maintain programs to prevent long-term displacement resulting from the loss of rental housing units due to demolition or conversion, and minimize short-term displacement during major rehabilitation efforts, and the financial hardships created by rising rents on tenants and other shocks or stresses. Employ TOPA, DOPA, and other financial tools, such as the HPTF and the Preservation Fund. In addition, provide technical and counseling assistance to lower-income households and strengthen the rights of existing tenants to purchase rental units if they are being converted to ownership units.
510.9 Policy H-2.1.5: Conversion of At-Risk Rentals to Affordable Units
Support efforts to purchase affordable rental buildings that are at risk of being sold and converted to luxury apartments or condominiums to retain the units as affordable. Consider a variety of programs to own and manage these units, such as land banks, DOPA, TOPA, and sale to nonprofit housing organizations.
510.10 Policy H-2.1.6: Long-Term Affordability Restrictions
Ensure that affordable housing units that are created or preserved with public
financing are protected by long-term affordability restrictions and are monitored to prevent their transfer to non-qualifying households. Except where precluded by program requirements, affordable units should remain affordable for as long as possible and align with the length and magnitude of the subsidy. For land disposition and affordable housing tied to zoning relief, affordability should last for the life of the building, with equity and asset buildup opportunities provided for ownership units.
510.11
Maintain rent control as a tool for moderating the affordability of rental properties and protecting long-term residents, especially older adults, low-income households, and those with disabilities. In considering refinements to the rent control program, the District should be careful to determine whether the proposed changes improve effectiveness, fairness, and affordability without discouraging maintenance and preservation of rental housing units. Rent control should be primarily considered a tenant protection and anti-displacement tool, and therefore should not be utilized to define or assess progress toward income restricted affordable housing production and preservation goals.
510.12
Develop and fund programs that provide direct rental subsidies for extremely low-income households (earning less than 30 percent of MFI), including persons experiencing homelessness and families in need of permanent shelter or rapid rehousing. Continue support for federally funded rental assistance programs, including public housing, project-based Section 8, other project-based rental assistance, and the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
510.13
As dedicated affordable housing reaches the end of its functional life, support maintaining or expanding the quantity of dedicated affordable housing in the redevelopment of the site to the greatest extent feasible, in line with the District’s goals as identified in the Framework Element including those for racial equity and equitable development, and with all applicable redevelopment strategies as referenced in Policy H-2.1.1.
510.14
Maintain a rehabilitation grant program for owners of small apartment buildings, linking the grants to income limits for future tenants. Such programs have been successful in preserving housing affordability.
510.15
Expand the Local Rent Supplement Program for both tenant and new project-based support targeted toward public and privately held extremely low-income housing and housing for formerly homeless individuals and families.
510.16 Action H-2.1.C: Purchase of Expiring Subsidized Housing and Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
Implement and use DOPA to acquire, preserve, and dedicate new affordable housing through a process that will maintain the properties with long-term affordability requirements.510.17 Action H-2.1.D: Affordable Set-Asides in Condo Conversions
In a condo conversion, 20 percent of the units should be earmarked for qualifying low- and moderate-income households. In addition, condominium maintenance fees should be set proportionally to the unit price so that otherwise affordable units do not become out-of-reach because of high fees.510.18 Action H-2.1.E: Housing Registry
Maintain a registry of affordable or accessible housing units in the District and a program to match these units with qualifying low-income households.510.19 Action H-2.1.F: Affordable Housing Preservation Unit
Establish and maintain a division within District government to systematically and proactively work with tenants, owners of affordable housing, investors, their representatives, and others associated with real estate and housing advocacy in Washington, DC to establish relationships and gather intelligence to preserve affordable housing and expand future opportunities by converting naturally affordable unassisted units to long-term dedicated affordable housing.510.20 Action H-2.1.G: Expand Acquisition Funding for Preservation
Continue funding for public-private partnerships to facilitate acquisition and early investments to leverage greater amounts of private capital for the preservation of affordable housing.510.21 Action H-2.1.H: Improve Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Program
Improve the preservation of affordable housing through TOPA and TOPA exemptions by providing financial incentives to TOPA transactions, including predevelopment work, legal services, third-party reports, and acquisition bridge financing. The effort should include tracking mechanisms to collect accurate program data and evaluate outcomes for further improvement in the program.510.22 Action H-2.1.I: Anti-Displacement Strategy
Track neighborhood change, development, and housing costs to identify areas of Washington, DC that have experienced, are experiencing, or are likely to experience, displacement pressures. Collect, disaggregate, and monitor data to consider income and racial characteristics of the neighborhoods and households affected by or at risk of displacement. Conduct racial equity analyses that identify the policies and underlying forces contributing to any inequities. Such analyses
must consider different sources of displacement pressures, including a lack of new housing in high-demand neighborhoods and effects new development may have on housing costs in adjacent areas. Monitor best practices and identify new strategies for displacement prevention. Use the information to create a District-wide anti-displacement strategy, prepare reoccurring reports, improve program performance, and identify targeted areas within which to deploy resources to prevent displacement and help residents with the highest displacement risks stay in their neighborhoods. Examine ways to support low-income residents in areas that have already experienced rapid displacement, such as those in Mid-City and Near Northwest.
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)).