D.C. "OMNIBUS" HOUSING BILL Draft Joint Committee Print, Bills 14-167 and 14-183 Committee on Economic Development and Committee on Finance and Revenue October 26, 2001 The "Omnibus" Housing Bill (a combination of legislation submitted to Council in April by the Mayor and Councilmember Catania), though still lacking some detail and subject to additional calculations, is available and scheduled for a Hearing before the Finance and Revenue Committee on Tuesday, November 6, 2001 at 5:00 p.m. To testify, call Schannette Grant in Jack Evan's office, 724-8058. The committee staffs have made modifications throughout, some of which are in response to citizen's criticisms. We especially appreciate inclusion of the table that translates percent of AMI into actual income figures. On the whole, it is a better bill for their work, but affordable housing advocate will still have problems with many of the proposals and will want to seek further changes in the coming weeks. Chief among these is the unreal definitions of "low-income " housing (80% of AMI, or up to $68,000 a year for a family of four, which is almost $20,000 more than the D.C. median income. Right now, definitions are not consistent throughout the draft. All definitions should be consistent throughout the document, i.e. "extremely low" = 30% of AMI, or up to $25,500; "very low" = 30-50% of AMI, or $42,500; and "low" = 50-60% of AMI, or up to $51,000. These definitions will in effect label roughly half of D.C. residents as "low income.") The draft legislation also gives insufficient priority for increasing the available number of low-income rental units. And the Bill still lacks balance: there are too many incentives and rewards for developers and middle and upper class homeowners and too few measures for working class families, especially renters, earning less than the D.C. median income. There follows a brief analysis of the 82-page draft legislation, and recommendations for the Council. Title I - Due Process Demolition. Draft Title I spells out the process leading up to demolition and requires public notice to the ANC and in the press. It opens the way to possible use of the properties for low-income housing, and holds delinquent owners personally liable. But it still makes it difficult for neighborhood interests to participate and defines "unoccupied" as "not occupied by a legal tenant" (italics added). Since there are many paying tenants who are not "legal" through no fault of their own (resulting primarily from lack of a certificate of occupancy), we recommend Council support of Title I after striking "legal." Title II - Low-income Housing Preservation and Protection. This title combines Mr. Catania's proposals from Bill 14-183, Section 202, with some of the Mayor's Bill 14-167, and refines the whole in a effort to save Section 8 and other federally-assisted housing that would otherwise expire. It applies to any building of five or more units, 20% of which are occupied by very low-income (up to $42,500 for a