Got TOPA?

02/21/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18G9vt8Nkw/

Terrance Laney was put on leave after City Paper asked about the potential conflict of interest in his dual roles.

07/27/2025

Two proposed T**A-related amendments spell trouble for the Rental Act when the full Council takes up the Mayor’s signature bill next week.

Robert White, the Chair of the Committee on Housing, has proposed hacking away at the bill that came out of his committee, removing many of the regulatory burdens that were being foisted on DHCD, omitting the T**A “cooling off” period, and refining some of the currently existing T**A exemptions.

Councilmember White’s proposal also aims to address some of the technical faults in the two new T**A exemptions – what I call the “rich” and “poor” building T**A exemptions. His proposal, however, highlights how poorly written and poorly thought-out these two new exemptions – demanded by the Mayor – are.
As I described in my post last week, the "poor" buildings are those that have affordable housing covenants (usually because of government loans from HUD or DHCD or tax credits). The Rental Act requires that the covenants for these “poor” buildings apply for 20 years minimum. The "rich" buildings are those built in the last 15 years. These newer buildings are exempt from rent control & as a result, rents are typically higher.

One problem with the Rental Act that I highlighted last week was the timetable for determining whether the “poor” building T**A exemption applied or not. This exemption is uniquely tied to the status of the buyer, and determined as of the date of the closing. I suggested that this foretold litigation as tenants and tenant associations tried to figure out when their T**A rights begin and end under this new “closing day” exemption. A buyer who claims to be developing “affordable housing” may later change lenders or otherwise decide not to enter into a covenant. This change-of-mind could happen as late as the day of closing – so what happens to the tenants’ T**A rights if that happens?

Councilmember White’s amendment tries to address that conundrum by requiring that the buyer’s proposed covenant be made part of the Notice of Transfer, which must in turn be given to the tenants, apparently, at the time the purchase and sale agreement is ratified. Then, if the buyer ultimately decides against going the “affordable housing” route and instead finds market-based financing for the deal, at that point, the tenants must receive an Offer of Sale.

This “poor” building exemption is becoming more and more convoluted, in my opinion, and it seems to miss the entire point that I thought the Mayor and her affordable housing gurus were preaching – that affordable housing developers are reluctant to invest in DC because they want to have the flexibility to sell (or get out of) their publicly funded projects without having to hassle with T**A. The Rental Act does not do this. If the bill passes into law, an affordable housing developer could buy a property without the tenants being able to exercise T**A, but when it comes time to sell this “affordable housing” project, the sale would be subject to standard T**A unless the new buyer was also willing to enter into a brand new 20 year affordable housing covenant.

Councilmember Matt Frumin, also a member of the Committee on Housing, submitted his own amendment to his committee’s work. His Rental Act amendment focuses on the “rich” building exemption – the one that would exempt from T**A buildings sold before the 15th anniversary of receiving a certificate of occupancy. Echoing his criticisms in the committee vote (where he abstained), Councilmember Frumin focuses on the lack of retroactivity language in the “rich” building exemption because as written, the Rental Act would exempt every residential building constructed since 2010.

Frumin’s amendment proposes that the bill make clear that the 15-year anniversary T**A exemption only applies prospectively – to buildings built after passage of the law. Frumin explains: The raison d'être for reforming T**A is to attract investment to the District that will result in the production of new housing units. Housing developments that have already completed construction were, by definition, not held back by T**A and investors made their investments with full knowledge of the law. Moreover, applying the exemption retroactively would withdraw an existing right from current tenants—a dramatic policy shift. By comparison, limiting the exemption to future housing developments would open the District to a wider swathe of investors and allow potential tenants to make an informed decision about their rental housing.
Councilmember White’s amendment also focuses on the retroactivity issue with regard to the “rich” building T**A exemption, but his suggestion that the exemption only apply to “new” buildings lacks the legal clarity that Councilmember Frumin’s proposal has.

Even if these two councilmembers are ultimately able to find common ground on the language, I wonder if the real estate lobby isn’t going into overdrive to keep the language as-is so that all multi-family properties constructed in the last 15 years will be exempted from T**A (at least until their 15th birthday). What a sweet gift that would be to the real estate lobby!

Fortunately, the language on the “20-year affordable housing covenant” exemption is so convoluted and inapposite from what the stated goal of the legislation was that I think a majority of the council will balk at signing onto the Rental Act. If nothing else, they should refrain from voting on this important piece of legislation until Ward 8 has its councilmember sworn-in on August 8th. Ward 8 has a lot of “rich” and “poor” buildings that would be affected by the Rental Act and that community should have its voice heard on this poorly thought-out bill.

07/25/2025

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/768220/d-c-s-two-tiered-justice-system-how-the-rental-act-threatens-black-tenants/

A new racial equity assessment sounds the alarm on D.C.’s RENTAL Act, warning that it could disproportionately displace Black residents.

07/17/2025

On July 9th, the Committee on Housing passed its Rebalancing Expectations for Neighbors, Tenants, and Landlords (RENTAL) Act of 2025 & now it goes to the full Council for a vote. For tenants, this bill is not as bad as advertised, & let me tell you why.

Only 1/2 of the RENTAL ACT deals with changes to T**A, the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act. (other 1/2 deals with eviction reform). I am happy to report the RENTAL Act does not kill T**A despite the tough talk from the real estate lobby and their Council allies.

The RENTAL ACT exempts T**A from two kind of buildings - those with overwhelmingly "poor" tenants and those with relatively "rich" tenants.

The "poor" tenants (my term) are in buildings that have affordable housing covenants (usually because of government loans from HUD or DHCD or tax credits).

The "rich" buildings are those built in the last 15 years. These newer buildings are exempt from rent control, and as a result, rents are typically higher. Think of all the new apartments in NOMA, Navy Yard, West End.

Taking T**A away from either of these groups is wrong IMO. But the Mayor, the council chair, and the present and former chairs of the Housing Committee think otherwise and are perfectly comfortable taking historic rights away from tenants allegedly to promote the potential construction of "affordable" housing. Anyone who thinks this is a good tradeoff needs to look up what "affordable housing" really means and who it is intended to benefit.

Fortunately the RENTAL ACT leaves T**A intact for all other multi-family apartments. I imagine there are plenty of buildings that are neither "rich" or "poor" that will go up for sale in the next 10 years with T**A still required. Tenants who believe their building is for sale but unsure of their T**A rights should always consult a lawyer - no matter what the landlord or the listing agent tells you.

Like the Council's attempt to exempt Single Family Homes from T**A in 2018, this new attempt to exempt more of the city's rental housing from T**A's protection creates administrative hurdles and burdens for the landlords trying to sell their "rich" or "poor" buildings, giving tenants and their advocates new opportunities to exploit and leverage paperwork mistakes and bureaucratic bumbling. For example, under the Rental Act, prospective tenants applying to live in "rich" building must be notified that their building is new and can be sold without T**A before it turns 15 yrs old. Like a rent control exemption, if a landlord doesn't notify the tenant about the supposed T**A exemption at the beginning of the tenancy, it becomes void when the landlord really needs (or wants) it - when they go to sell their building.

The RENTAL ACT's exemption of "poor" buildings also foretells many legal disputes between Tenant Associations, landlords, and prospective buyers. The proposed T**A exemption is unusual because it is based on the status of the buyer - for the "poor" building T**A exemption to apply, the buyer must enter into a binding covenant to maintain at least 51% of the housing units in the building at no greater than 80% area median income or median family income for a period no less than 20 years following the date of
transfer. Per the RENTALACT, the covenant doesn't have to be entered into until the time of purchase - so does that mean that tenants won't know if they have T**A rights until the moment of closing? Poor legislating = increased litigating = tenant leverage.

The Mayor's bill certainly deserves to be named the Rebalancing Expectations ACT - even though it going to be landlords and listing agents who will have their normal practices adjusted. The RENTALACT makes it "unlawful" to “Coerce a tenant to waive their [T**A] rights, retaliate against or harass a tenant seeking to exercise their rights, or engage in conduct intended to prevent a tenant from exercising their rights." The bill also creates a 15 day "cooling off" period when the buyer & seller can't talk to the tenants. The bill also requires that anyone offering money to the tenants for the assignment of T**A rights to disclose their relationship to the buyer or seller. This all spells trouble for the sophisticated listing agents & development bros who have developed sneaky ways to scam tenants out of their T**A rights (e.g., $50 and a piece of pizza).

Another example of new bureaucratic hurdles proposed by the Rental Act - landlords are required to file "Certifications of eligibility" to exempt their buildings as "rich" or "poor" and anyone can demand copies of those certifications, which the Department of Housing and Community Development must produce within 5 days after a request.

The bill also requires DHCD to review all T**A filings. “Within 7 days of receipt, the Dept shall review each offer of sale ...and each notice of transfer received... for the purpose of ensuring compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements." DHCD doesnt do that now.

More Rental Act bureaucracy: if tenants make a deal to sell their T**A rights, the deal has to be filed with DHCD within 30 days. If not, the deal is deemed invalid and unenforceable. Trust me - title insurers are going to💩themselves when they read this part of the RENTAL ACT.

Also included in the Rental Act: within a year, DHCD has to come up with a searchable database of T**A filings, including Offers of Sale, development agreements (which are often confidential) and Notices of Transfers. DHCD is the only DC agency I am aware of that closes for business at 3:00 pm, and they can barely handle T**A filings as it is, how will they comply with this new law? Did the Mayor include a huge boost in DHCD's budget to accommodate these new bureaucratic responsibilities?

The RENTAL ACT also proposes to give the Mayor, and therefore DHCD, new powers over the real estate market that would make Vladimir Putin blush. Under the RENTAL ACT, the Mayor gets power to decide who can buy rental properties ("qualified purchasers"), who can help the tenants with their T**A rights ("tenant support providers"), and what kind of contracts are used ("template" purchase contracts).
Curiously, the bill also requires that the Mayor seek out untested buyers, presumably those who are not already in the DC market: "The Mayor shall recruit and solicit applications from reputable parties that have not previously conducted real estate transactions in the District." Was this language included in the Rental Act to give the mayor the power to give sole source contracts to her out-of-state cronies?

Fortunately, other than the proposed exemption of "rich" and "poor" buildings from T**A, the Rental Act contains only a few additional anti-tenant provisions. Per the RENTALACT, within 15 days after receipt of the offer of sale, a tenant on an oral lease has to prove their tenancy to the owner who is trying to sell the rental building, or else they lose their T**A rights. In my experience, DC tenants on oral leases are disproportionally low income folks, Seniors, or people living in so-called "heir" properties. Seems like punching down to me, but I guess that's who the Mayor wants to go after.

The RENTAL ACT also aims to make it harder for tenants to monetize their T**A rights. The Committee on Housing's Report on the Rental Act claims the law re-writes the definition of "buy out." But the text of the law doesn't really do that. DC Code § 42–3404.06 currently says"The tenant may ...assign or sell [T**A] rights to any party, whether private or governmental. The exercise, assignment, or sale of tenant rights may be for any consideration which the tenant, in the tenant’s sole discretion, finds acceptable."
The RENTALACT changes this, so that “The ...sale of tenant rights may be for relocation assistance as provided in subchapter III; building affordability; compensation for tenant organizing expenses, attorney fees; building improvements; or building energy efficiency improvements."
Another example of bad legislating - the proposed law doesn't say that those 6 items are the only types of consideration that tenants obtain or demand for assigning their T**A rights. Inclusio unius non est exclusio alterius.

So bottom line, the RENTAL ACT has taken something that is time-honored and elegant in its simplicity, and replaced it with a Frankenstein monster of contradictory ideas and bureaucratic hurdles that fail to accomplish the Mayor's expressed goal of thwarting tenant rights & tenant leverage. Tenants win if this bill passes, and they win if the Council ultimately rejects it.This can't be the result that the GCAAR lobbyists were looking for.

07/17/2025

https://x.com/gotT**A/status/1944111250222260509?t=B_IfUZ3UnBhAgiFVMxQu5A&s=19

06/26/2025

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/766636/topa-park-east-housing-adams-morgan/

Residents at Park East Apartments are taking advantage of the tenants rights law that Mayor Muriel Bowser wants to gut.

06/19/2025

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/766360/topa-amazon-affordable-housing-robert-white/

T**A is on the chopping block, but a closer look at the data suggest the truth is more complicated than political rhetoric.

02/14/2025

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/758236/using-rent-debts-as-cover-bowser-works-to-rob-tenants-of-the-right-to-buy-their-buildings/

Mayor Muriel Bowser is backing a series of changes to the city’s landmark law allowing tenants to try and buy their buildings.

09/10/2022

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/got_topa_this_company_wants_to_help_you_exercise_your_right_of_first_refusa/12297

The Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act gives renters the right of first refusal when their landlord plans to put the property on the market. And naturally, there is now a company that wants to help those renters either buy or sell those lucrative rights.

08/02/2022

08/02/2022

What is T**A? Today, we show and tell.