Dear MMHA Members,
Yesterday afternoon the Baltimore City Council passed the attached 21-0031, Landlord-Tenant Lease Renewals “good cause” bill despite our objections that the l violated measure violates state law and causes more challenges for residents. Under the legislation, residential housing providers must offer residents the right to renew their lease except for good cause during a catastrophic health emergency issued by the Governor.
Summary of 21-0031: A housing provider may only non-renew a lease for “good cause” if one of the conditions is met:
* The tenant has caused a substantial breach of the lease that warrants non-renewal, and after receiving written notice to cure or correct the breach, the tenant has failed to comply within 45 days;
* The landlord seeks to recover possession of the leased premises for use by the landlord or the landlord’s spouse, child, parent, or grandparent as their primary residence;
* The landlord seeks to permanently remove the leased premises from the rental market;
* The landlord, after having obtained all necessary permits, seeks to undertake substantial repairs or renovations that cannot be completed while the leased premises is occupied; or
* The leased premises are owner-occupied and the landlord leases out a single rental unit on the premises.
Please note that under the bill, failure to pay rent would NOT constitute a substantial breach of lease. Further, if a housing provider declines to offer to renew the lease for “good cause,” the housing provider must send notice to the tenant at least 75 days, but no more than 100 days, prior to the end of the lease term. The notice must specify the facts related to the “good cause” for declining to offer a renewal, including, if a substantial breach of lease is alleged. If in violation of the ordinance, a housing provider could be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction, subject to a fine of not more than $1000 for each offense.
As we have mentioned in previous emails, the Baltimore City Office of Law issued a position that the bill did not meet legal form or sufficiency in and violated State law (file:///C:/Users/agreenfield/Downloads/Law%2021-0031.pdf). This position did not change when the bill was amended to serve for a “temporary” period of time including and through 180 days following the termination of the Governor’s Executive Order. Specifically, “[t]he concept of requiring the landlord to offer the tenant the ability to renew the lease at the end of its term is in conflict with state law embodied in several sections of the Public Local Law of Baltimore City. The Mayor has within three regular Council meetings, or by the regular Council meeting following July 4th, to sign or veto the bill. We will urge him to veto the bill.
Some of our members have expressed significant concern over the passage of 21-0031 and we have begun researching the legal issues. If you are interested in learning more, please let us know.
On a separate note, the City Council did not seek to overturn the Mayor’s veto on Security Deposit Alternatives, 21-0022 suggesting that the veto is sustained. During this afternoon’s City Council session, Councilwoman Sharon Green Middleton did introduce 21-0097 – https://baltimore.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4978695&GUID=603CCFD8-7D2A-4DDB-9748-61E9A95223C0&Options=ID|Text|&Search=lease which establishes a security deposit voucher program. We expect additional legislation from the Mayor and Public Justice Center and will be engaging.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Aaron J. Greenfield
MMHA