Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here to testify in strong support for HP 508, an act to protect tenants by limiting rent increases
• The most fundamental purpose of rent control is to enhance affordability and protect tenants' rights
• The most fundamental purpose of rent control is to enhance affordability and protect tenants' rights
• A guardrail that protects existing tenants while the long-term work of expanding supply can proceed in
• , H. 5008, an act to protect tenants by limiting rent increases.

Bills: H5008

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Keywords: rent control, housing stability, tenants rights, affordability crisis, consumer protection

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here to testify in strong support for HP 508, an act to protect tenants by limiting rent increases
• The most fundamental purpose of rent control is to enhance affordability and protect tenants' rights
• It would allow cities and towns to protect tenants from corporate investors and predatory landlords.
• Rent control would stabilize and protect tenants across this state from displacement and homelessness
• I'm here to testify in strong support for H. 5008, an act to protect tenants by limiting rent increases

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-21, House Bill 508, an act to protect tenants by limiting rent increases. Committee leaders explained the Article 48 initiative process and said the hearing was intended to gather testimony for a report to the legislature. The measure would replace current state law that prohibits rent control, cap annual rent increases at the lower of CPI or 5%, exempt certain properties including owner-occupied buildings of four or fewer units, subsidized, university, nonprofit, and short-term rental housing, and exempt new construction for 10 years. It would also eliminate vacancy decontrol, so limits would continue when units turn over, and enforcement would rely largely on tenants and the Attorney General through the courts. The hearing began with expert testimony from Whitney Airgood-Obrien of Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, who described Massachusetts’ severe rental affordability problems and reviewed research on rent regulation, noting mixed evidence on supply and quality effects but clearer evidence that rent regulation can slow rent growth and improve tenant stability. Supporters of the petition, led by Carolyn Chow of Homes for All Massachusetts, argued that rent stabilization is needed now to curb displacement and runaway rent increases, especially for low- and moderate-income renters. Laura Frost described her Arlington building being bought by a large firm that sought steep rent hikes, and said rent control would help prevent “tenant flipping” and community displacement. Dave Foley of SEIU Local 509 said the issue affects workers’ ability to live near their jobs, while Dr. Mark Paul and Tram Huang argued that the evidence supports well-designed rent stabilization, that vacancy decontrol encourages displacement, and that the policy should be seen as a complement to new housing production rather than a substitute. Committee members questioned supporters about the 10-year new construction exemption, the lack of vacancy decontrol, and whether rent stabilization could discourage development; supporters responded that the measure targets corporate rent gouging, that small landlords are protected by exemptions, and that production and rent stabilization can coexist. Opponents, including representatives of small property owners, chambers of commerce, and labor/building trades, argued the proposal would hurt small landlords, reduce investment, and slow housing production. They said operating costs such as taxes, insurance, and maintenance are rising faster than the proposed cap, and warned that the measure would reduce property values and tax revenue and could push investment to other states. Several opponents emphasized that many Massachusetts housing providers are mom-and-pop owners rather than large corporations, and said the policy would make it harder to maintain and improve housing. Committee members pressed both sides on the need for a middle ground between affordability and preserving development incentives, but no vote was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• in an oral lease arrangements a way to sidestep all tenant-landlord protections for possession simply
• </c><00:19:50.120><c> landlord</c> to sidestep all tenant landlord to sidestep all tenant landlord protections
• </c> written in such a way that protects written in such a way that protects tenants<00:20:06.520><c>
• </c><00:42:22.280><c> um</c><00:42:22.520><c> protections</c> care a lot about tenant um protections
• </c><00:42:29.720><c> protections</c><00:42:30.400><c> package</c> presented the tenant protections package

Committee: Senate Housing and Homelessness Prevention

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> streamline how our landlords and tenants streamline how our landlords and tenants interact<00:01
• > timelines,</c> tenant right, tenant service timelines, tenant right, tenant service timelines, and<
• </c><00:04:39.200><c> uh</c> Uh this amendment does protect uh Uh this amendment does protect uh minor
• and</c> So, this will protect and So, this will protect and uh uh uh uh<00:04:55.640><c> not</c><00:
• </c> the lives of landlords and tenants the lives of landlords and tenants better<00:07:27.640><c> in

Transcript Highlights:

• . tenant. tenant.
• tenants.
• So I think the combination of the protection of the tenant and the protection of the landlord, the balance
• ><00:58:43.800><c> the</c> protection of the tenant and the protection of the tenant and the protection
• </c> renter protections. renter protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is a first step in providing vulnerable seniors with these protections, specifically the protections
• protections for older Washingtonians.
• Seniors are a protected class.
• The protection of expressing our rights as senior tenants should apply for any...
• The protection of expressing our rights as senior tenants should apply for any 55-or-older senior housing

Summary: The Housing Committee heard two bills and received updates on scheduling. Chair Peterson announced that HB 2266 may move from Thursday to Monday for executive action due to ongoing talks with the city, and HB 2489 will move to next week for additional amendment work. HB 1542, concerning senior independent housing, was briefly opened, then suspended so HB 2527 could be heard first; the committee later returned to HB 1542 for public testimony. The committee adjourned after closing the hearing on HB 1542, with no votes taken during this meeting. HB 1542 would establish rights for residents of senior independent housing, allow enforcement under the Consumer Protection Act, and require a Commerce report to the legislature. The staff summary described the bill as creating protections such as respectful treatment, the ability to install certain safety devices, resident meetings, and timely management responses in emergencies. Rep. Reeves said the bill responds to seniors in Federal Way who lack protections in independent living settings and noted likely amendments to extend the reporting deadline and possibly add a registry to clarify which communities are covered. Testimony from the Alzheimer’s Association and AARP supported the bill as a needed consumer-protection measure for vulnerable older adults, while other witnesses asked for broader coverage, including manufactured home communities, and LeadingAge Washington requested more stakeholder work and a technical amendment related to CCRCs. HB 2527 would regulate eventual tenant ownership programs tied to federal low-income housing tax credits. Staff explained that the bill would require developers to create reserve or escrow accounts, inform tenants and partners of their rights and responsibilities, and comply with timely transfer obligations, with enforcement by the Housing Finance Commission and possible debarment from future tax-credit participation for violations. Rep. Pollet said the bill is intended to address cases where Native families were promised eventual ownership of homes but did not receive deeds or keys after years of renting, citing an audit and describing the bill as a needed accountability tool. Supportive testimony from Indigenous rights attorney Gabe Galanda emphasized that hundreds of families, many in tribal communities, were affected. The Housing Finance Commission opposed the punitive approach, saying it had already updated policies after the audit, that the projects are complex and vary by tribal housing authority, and that the bill could undermine collaborative work and potentially misdirect penalties away from the actual responsible parties. Committee members pressed the commission on accountability, ownership structures, escrow obligations, and the status of remaining households, and the exchange highlighted disagreement over whether the bill’s enforcement provisions are appropriate.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is why we need a bill to protect tenants.
• The security guard took the tenant meeting flyers off tenants' doors, and two tenants saw this happen
• H. 1814 fills the gap in protecting the legal rights of tenants.
• This protects both sides. Tenants still have their leverage.
• It ensures that tenants who raise legitimate complaints are protected, while landlords who provide housing

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary heard testimony on a wide range of bills, with much of the discussion focused on housing stability and maternal mental health. On H. 1924/S. 1171, supporters including Sen. Joan Lovely, Rep. Jim O’Day, physicians, advocates, and people with lived experience urged the committee to create legal protections and treatment pathways for defendants who experienced postpartum psychosis or other perinatal mood disorders within 12 months of giving birth. Testimony emphasized that these conditions are rare but severe, often treatable, and can lead to tragic outcomes if criminalized rather than addressed through screening, expert evaluation, treatment, and, in some cases, resentencing or mitigation. Committee members asked about diagnosis years after the fact and how the Illinois law has worked; witnesses said retrospective diagnosis is possible and that the Illinois model has led to some successful resentencing petitions and broader awareness. Housing-related bills drew substantial testimony. On H. 1983/S. 1071, witnesses described “zombie” subordinate mortgages that were sold years after borrowers believed they had been resolved, then resurfaced with large balances and foreclosure threats. Supporters said the bill would require disclosures and court review to prevent unlawful servicing and foreclosure practices. On H. 1952, advocates from the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, tenants, and legal services providers backed a permanent statewide right to counsel in eviction cases, citing data showing strong tenant outcomes and the importance of quality control, multilingual outreach, and full representation. On H. 1895/S. 1184, testimony supported codifying a two-tier summary process in eviction court and prohibiting defaults at the initial case-management stage. On H. 1883, a small property owner supported rent escrow as a way to protect landlords from bad-faith nonpayment while preserving tenant rights. The committee also heard testimony on bills addressing discriminatory housing covenants, tenant oversight, and homelessness. On H. 1762/S. 1080, a housing advocate supported removing void restrictive covenants from deeds, describing the Dirty Deeds Project and the lingering harm of racist language in property records. On H. 1814, tenants and advocates described harassment, retaliation, security problems, and lack of accountability in subsidized housing, arguing for an Office of the Tenant Advocate within the Attorney General’s Office. On S. 1120, multiple witnesses supported a bill of rights for people experiencing homelessness, saying it would affirm the right to rest and seek shelter, reduce criminalization, and extend anti-discrimination protections. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and questions on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• leased up overrides this when the tenant leased up overrides this protective<00:04:53.280><c> provision
• It will enhance protections.
• So Minnesota tenants really deserve accessible information about their legal protections and how we can
• So Minnesota tenants really deserve accessible information about their legal protections and how we can
• Minnesota tenants really deserve accessible information about their legal protections and how we can

Bills: HF2296 , HF1566 , HF1854 , HF1385 , HF1142

Committee: House Housing Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• under the Tenant Protection Act.
• our tenant protection laws.
• The returning tenants are protected.
• But I am concerned that the tenant right protections are moving to unit protections.
• We have the most tenant protections in the nation.

Committee: House Housing and Community Development

Summary: The committee heard several housing-related bills, with the longest discussion on SB 79, which would allow more housing near major transit stops and on transit agency land. The author and supporters argued it would address California’s housing shortage, support transit ridership, and reduce vehicle miles traveled, while opponents from cities, housing advocates, and legal aid groups raised concerns about affordability requirements, demolition and displacement protections, and local control. After extensive debate and amendments, the committee approved SB 79 on a roll call vote of 8-1, with one member not voting, and sent it to the Assembly Local Government Committee. The committee also heard SB 21, which would allow limited reductions in unit count when converting deed-restricted SRO buildings into larger, more livable affordable units with kitchens, bathrooms, and supportive services. Supporters said the bill would preserve aging nonprofit-owned SRO housing and prevent building failures like the Skid Row Housing Trust portfolio, while no opposition witnesses testified. The bill was moved on a unanimous 8-0 vote to Local Government. SB 92 was heard next and would close a density bonus loophole by limiting how much commercial floor area can be increased through the law. The author said the bill responds to a proposed Pacific Beach project that would have used a small number of affordable units to justify a very large hotel tower; the City of San Diego and labor groups supported the fix, and some housing groups withdrew opposition after amendments. The committee passed SB 92 on a 7-0 vote, with the roll left open. Later, the committee took up SB 522, which would extend just-cause eviction protections to rebuilt units that were previously covered by the Tenant Protection Act after a disaster. The author and Los Angeles City Attorney Heidi Feldstein Soto said the bill would preserve tenant protections in rebuilt communities like Pacific Palisades, while apartment, realtor, and property owner groups opposed it, arguing it would add burdens and discourage rebuilding. Members questioned whether the bill was necessary given existing Housing Crisis Act right-of-return protections, and the discussion was still ongoing when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you can't tell me that we can't balance the need to protect tenants with the need for growth.
• I am here in support of an act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants, S1447
• Cities like Jersey City and West New York have some of the nation's strongest tenant protections and
• tenants from runaway rent increases and no-fault evictions, ...their communities and protect tenants
• As we speak, Rent increases to inflation and protects tenants from no-fault evictions.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government

Summary: The Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government held a long public hearing focused mainly on two sets of issues: proposals to amend or repeal the MBTA Communities Act, and bills to allow local rent stabilization. Committee chairs opened by explaining the hearing would be tightly managed because of the very large number of speakers, with testimony limited to two minutes per person and written testimony still accepted by email. Members and witnesses were called in a mix of in-person and virtual order throughout the hearing. On the MBTA Communities Act, several legislators and local officials argued the law is too rigid and should be revised to account for local conditions. Speakers from small, rural, or infrastructure-limited communities such as Hanson, Halifax, Marshfield, Winthrop, Dracut, Carver, Rehoboth, and others said the law’s one-size-fits-all approach does not fit towns with limited water, sewer, transit access, or buildable land. Some filed bills would repeal the law, exempt certain communities, or create appeals processes based on infrastructure, environmental, or historical constraints. Supporters of the law’s changes emphasized local control and the need to avoid forcing development where communities believe it is impractical or inconsistent with town character. A large portion of the hearing was devoted to rent stabilization legislation, especially S. 1447 and related House bills. Supporters included legislators, city councilors, tenant advocates, labor leaders, housing nonprofits, public health organizations, and residents who described sharp rent increases, displacement, homelessness risk, and the strain on working families, seniors, students, and people with disabilities. They argued local-option rent stabilization would let municipalities cap excessive increases and prevent no-fault evictions while preserving flexibility for local conditions. Opponents, including small landlords and property owners, said rent control would discourage investment, worsen housing quality, burden responsible owners, and drive small landlords out of the market. Some witnesses also supported a Cape Cod/Island transfer fee bill and a suburban infrastructure fund, arguing those would provide local revenue for housing or roads. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• under the Tenant Protection Act.
• Tenant Protection Act.
• Under the Tenant Protection Act, there are 15 specified reasons a landlord may evict a tenant, including
• But I am concerned that the tenant right protections are moving to unit protections.
• I wish that we would have tenants protections.

Summary: The committee heard several housing bills, with the longest discussion focused on SB 79, which would allow more housing near high-capacity transit stops and on transit agency-owned land. The author and supporters argued it would address California’s housing shortage, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and strengthen transit systems by putting more residents near rail and rapid transit. Supporters included housing advocates, local officials, environmental groups, and transit-oriented development organizations. Opponents, including many cities, the League of California Cities, and some tenant and legal advocacy groups, raised concerns about affordability requirements, displacement, demolition protections, local control, and the bill’s interaction with existing local planning efforts. The committee discussed amendments to strengthen anti-displacement protections, minimum density, affordability standards, and a local flexibility alternative, and SB 79 was moved out on a due-pass-as-amended vote of 8-1, with one member not voting. The committee then took up SB 21, which would amend the Housing Crisis Act to allow limited unit reductions when converting deed-restricted SRO buildings into larger, more livable affordable units with private bathrooms, kitchens, and supportive services. The author and nonprofit housing providers said many SRO buildings are financially unsustainable and that the bill would preserve deeply affordable housing while improving conditions for residents. There was no organized opposition testimony at the hearing, though one business property group registered opposition. Members expressed support for the preservation-focused approach, and SB 21 was approved on an 8-0 vote and sent to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. Next, SB 92 was heard, a measure to close a density bonus loophole by limiting how much additional commercial floor area a project can receive and preventing the law from being used to justify very large nonresidential projects with only minimal affordable housing. The author cited a San Diego project as an example of the problem, and the City of San Diego supported the bill as a reasonable fix. Several labor and housing groups also supported it, while no formal opposition witnesses testified. The committee accepted amendments, members praised the effort to curb abuse while preserving feasibility, and SB 92 passed on a 7-0 vote. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 522, which would extend just-cause eviction protections to units rebuilt after disaster if they had previously been covered by the Tenant Protection Act. The author and the Los Angeles City Attorney said the bill would help preserve rental housing in disaster-affected communities, especially after the Pacific Palisades fires, and would not create new rent control. Opponents, including apartment, realtor, and property owner groups, argued it would add burdens to rebuilding and could discourage reconstruction. Members raised questions about whether existing law already protects returning tenants and whether the bill was necessary, and the hearing continued into committee discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> tenants. So uh there was a huge issue. tenants. So uh there was a huge issue.
• This would go to do with the tenant.
• </c> that tenant pays for utilities. Correct? that tenant pays for utilities. Correct?
• If your bill... >> The tenant.
• </c> want them to have the same protection want them to have the same protection but<00:47:22.240><c>

Committee: Joint Judiciary, Division B

Transcript Highlights:

• Public resources are used to support housing development, tenant protections should not be an option.
• We'll rename the working group to the tenant protection working group.
• And further, the tenant protection working group shall address tenant protection issues in the state,
• We'll rename the working group to the tenant protection working group.
• And further, the tenant protection working group shall address tenant protection issues in the state,

Bills: HB1700

Committee: Senate Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs

Summary: The joint committees on Housing and Health and Human Services, along with related committees, heard and later took action on three housing bills. HB 1700 HD1, relating to housing and expedited permitting, received support from disability advocates, including the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities and a self-advocate who said faster permitting would help people with disabilities access more independent living options. The chairs said they would add amendments to ensure expedited permitting would not compromise ADA or Fair Housing Act protections and to require reporting on the number, type, and geographic distribution of projects so the program could be evaluated over time. The measure was recommended and adopted with amendments by the participating committees. HB 1777 HD2, which would require tenant protections for residents displaced by HHFDC-supported redevelopment projects, drew support from HHFDC, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Parents and Children Together, and numerous other organizations. Testimony emphasized the need for a right of first offer, replacement housing payments, relocation information, and tracking procedures to reduce displacement harms, especially for Native Hawaiian and public housing residents. In decision-making, the committees amended the bill to incorporate the Senate companion measure, rename the working group as the tenant protection working group, broaden its duties, and include a $75,000 appropriation for working group expenses. The committees also noted concerns about unequal treatment between tenants in publicly supported projects and private redevelopments, and referenced the KPT low-rise redevelopment as an example where required relocation assistance still did not proceed smoothly. The bill was recommended and adopted with amendments. HB 1975 HD1, relating to kupuna housing, would repeal the sunset on the state rent supplement program for kupuna, appropriate funds to HPHA, and add positions to support the program. HPHA, the Executive Office on Aging, OHA, Catholic Charities Hawaii, AARP Hawaii, Aloha Independent Living Hawaii, and others testified in support, with Catholic Charities describing how the subsidy helped a senior remain housed through major medical issues. The committees later recommended passage with amendments, including a technical correction to the number of positions and a date fix, and the recommendation was adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• Tenants may not damage property, and landlords are protected from liability.
• Tenants may not damage property, and landlords are protected from liability.
• But I think it's a good notification to the tenant so that they can take insurance to protect their property
• But I think it's a good notification to the tenant so that they can take insurance to protect their property
• But I think it's a good notification to the tenant so that they can take insurance to protect their property

Summary: The Housing Committee heard public testimony on Senate Bill 5496, which would limit certain business and investment entities from buying additional single-family homes after reaching 100 holdings, with exemptions for banks, nonprofits making affordability-related improvements, and some development/foreclosure situations. Senator Alvarado said the bill is intended to curb speculation and help Washington families compete for homes, while opponents argued it would interfere with the market, reduce rental supply, and could affect REITs and retirement investments. Supporters, including Habitat for Humanity, said institutional buying has made homeownership harder and that the bill would create needed guardrails; opponents from the building and rental housing industries said the data did not justify the restriction and asked for clearer exemptions or data on impacts. The committee also heard Senate Bill 6200, which would prohibit landlords under the residential and manufactured/mobile home landlord-tenant laws from banning tenants from installing portable cooling devices, subject to safety, code, egress, insurance, and damage-related exceptions. Senator Slatter and supporters framed the bill as a public health response to deadly heat events, especially the 2021 heat dome, and said it would help renters, seniors, and people with disabilities stay safe during extreme heat. Landlord and property management representatives were generally neutral or cautiously supportive, but asked for changes on notice, lease language, insurance, and window-unit safety; one testifier raised concerns about evaporative coolers and potential moisture damage. In executive session, the committee acted on several bills. It adopted an amendment to Senate Bill 5156 on elevator standards in smaller apartment buildings and reported the bill out with a due pass recommendation. It rejected amendments to Senate Bill 5938 on the foreclosure prevention fee, adopted an amendment removing a study requirement, and then reported the bill out as amended with a due pass recommendation. It also adopted an amendment to Senate Bill 6054 on fire-hardened building materials and reported that bill out as amended with a due pass recommendation. Finally, the committee reported out Senate Bill 6237B on flood disclosure with a due pass recommendation. After those votes, the committee reopened public hearing on SB 6200 and SB 5496 to hear additional testimony, then adjourned for the day.

Transcript Highlights:

• In fact, to protect permanent tenants, the bill places a burden on park management to prove that the
• I've had many conversations and heard concerns about extending the protections under the Tenant Protection
• Quite frankly, this has been seven years that the Tenant Protection Act has been on the books.
• think, three years ago: how many tenant bills have been enacted into tenant protection bills?
• protections, strong tenant protections, while also encouraging, and when I say mom and pop here, it's

Summary: The Assembly Judiciary Committee heard several housing- and courts-related bills. AB 768, by Assemblymember Avila Farias, would close a loophole in mobile home rent control by excluding homes not used as permanent residences, such as vacation or short-term rental use. Supporters said it would preserve affordability for full-time residents while preventing wealthy second-home owners from benefiting from rent control; a nonprofit housing operator asked for a technical amendment to avoid conflicts with tax-exempt bond restrictions. The bill was moved and passed as amended. AB 1359, by Assemblymember Arambula, would let people age 80 and older request a permanent jury-service excuse without providing a doctor’s note. Supporters from the California Senior Legislature said the current medical-note requirement is burdensome and unnecessary, while some members raised concerns about reducing older adults’ participation on juries and suggested the exemption should be more flexible or reversible. After discussion, the bill passed to Appropriations. AB 1406, by Assemblymember Ward, would raise the cap on liquidated damages in new condominium pre-sale contracts from 3% to 10% to help developers finance condo projects and increase for-sale housing production. Developers and housing advocates argued the change would improve financing and make more condos feasible, while realtors and consumer advocates warned it would shift too much risk onto buyers, especially first-time homebuyers. Committee members expressed mixed views and asked for stronger consumer protections; the author said he was open to further amendments, and the bill was held open with the roll call not fully completed in the excerpt. The committee also began hearing AB 1157, by Chair Kalra, which would lower and make permanent the rent cap under the Tenant Protection Act and extend protections to single-family home renters, but the transcript excerpt mainly captures extensive public support testimony and the author’s opening presentation, with no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• the relationship between landlords and tenants.
• “A tenant.
• This discretion is an important tool to protect tenants.
• protect them from losing their home.
• protect them from losing their home.

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee held public hearings on three bills. SB 6237 would require landlords to disclose flooding history and flood risk to new tenants, along with notices that renters’ insurance and flood insurance may be needed and that county or local government sources have hazard information. The sponsor said the bill was a simple disclosure modeled on other states’ laws after recent flooding in Washington. Testimony was generally supportive, with an environmental nonprofit urging a broader jurisdiction-based disclosure instead of only county government, and housing industry groups saying they were neutral or concerned about added lease disclosures and asking for clearer language about what flooding information must be disclosed. No vote was taken on the bill. The committee then heard SB 6214, which would authorize public corporations, housing authorities, and certain nonprofits to operate as land bank authorities for affordable housing, with requirements for affordability covenants, annual reports, priority access to tax-foreclosed properties, and tax exemptions for qualifying land bank property and transfers. Supporters from Spokane, counties, housing authorities, affordable housing groups, and developers said land banking would help lower land costs, speed development, and expand affordable housing production. One member of the public opposed the bill, arguing it could remove land from the market and affect rural land supply. Department of Revenue staff flagged a technical issue, saying the bill needs a clearer definition of a qualifying land bank authority so the exemption can be administered, and confirmed the proposal would shift property off the tax rolls. The committee also asked whether the bill would allow non-housing uses such as parks or green space; staff said the bill requires affordable housing use, though the other half of land bank activity is not specified. The committee also heard SB 6139, which would require landlords to keep accepting previously used payment methods and continue to accept partial rent payments during an unlawful detainer process, while making clear that partial payments do not reinstate a lease or stop an eviction unless the parties agree in writing. The sponsor said the bill was intended to address cases where tenants can make partial payments but landlords shut off payment portals and refuse them, forcing judges to issue case-by-case standstill orders. Tenant advocates opposed the bill, arguing it would encourage evictions, remove judicial discretion, and could trap tenants by inviting partial payments that do not protect their housing. Landlord and property management groups were concerned about requiring continued access to payment portals and about ambiguity over whether accepting partial payments would waive eviction rights, though they said the bill was a good starting point and suggested clearer receipts and statutory protections. The public hearing was closed without action on SB 6139. In executive session, the committee adopted a proposed substitute for SB 6091, which limits broker marketing restrictions without requiring open access to homes and removes a Washington Law Against Discrimination provision, then voted the bill do pass to Rules. The committee also voted to recommend confirmation of gubernatorial appointments 9278, Pedro Espinoza, and 9279, Diana H. Perez, to the Housing Finance Commission.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> &gt;&gt; um, no provision for the original tenant &gt;&gt; um, no provision for the original tenant
• </c> and she um you know we want to protect and she um you know we want to protect people<00:16:14.079
• </c><00:23:01.840><c> bifurcation</c> &gt;&gt; specific tenants bifurcation &gt;&gt; specific tenants
• </c> three to say uh, landlords and tenants three to say uh, landlords and tenants may<00:49:51.520><
• </c> municipal authority, not tenants rights. municipal authority, not tenants rights.

Committee: House Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• Income tenants in Northern and Central Virginia.
• But it does allow them to mitigate their risk and potentially rent to a riskier tenant, you know, a tenant
• As much as the tenant can.
• or a tenant with a subsidy.
• Our intention is to give motivated tenants an option.

Transcript Highlights:

• In fact, to protect permanent tenants, the bill places a burden on park management to prove that the
• I've had many conversations and heard concerns about extending the protections under the Tenant Protection
• And quite frankly, this has been seven years that the Tenant Protection Act has been on the books.
• Quite frankly, this has been seven years that the Tenant Protection Act has been on the books.
• protections, strong tenant protections, while also encouraging, and when I say mom and pop here, it's

Committee: House Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• some level of protection.
• the tenants.
• So this is just a measure of protection for tenants in these home parks. Thank you very much.
• the tenants.
• So this is just a measure of protection for tenants in these home parks. Thank you very much.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Housing

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held a hearing on a wide range of housing bills focused on manufactured housing, condominiums, public housing, tiny homes, and protections for elderly and disabled residents. Chairs Haggerty and Cyr opened by emphasizing the importance of these housing types and the need to hear from many speakers. Testimony on manufactured housing was especially extensive and sharply divided. Supporters of bills such as H. 1475, S. 990, and H. 1513 argued that out-of-state corporate owners are buying communities, raising rents and fees, reducing services, and exploiting legal gray areas. Residents and lawmakers from affected communities like Taunton, Middleborough, Attleboro, and Oak Point described steep rent disparities, fear of displacement, and the need for stronger protections, while Representative Hawkins urged an omnibus approach and said the bill would create a local board to ensure compliance with existing law. Opponents, including the Massachusetts Manufactured Housing Association and Hometown America’s counsel, argued that current law already provides protections, that the bills would create uncertainty or unfairly restrict owners, and that H. 1475 was intended to clarify the post-Blake legal landscape. The committee also heard testimony on condominium reform through S. 980, with owners describing lack of transparency, surprise assessments, and limited accountability, and urging updates to Chapter 183A and more owner rights. Public housing bills also drew support from housing authority advocates. MassNAHRO backed S. 955, H. 1517, H. 1512, H. 1550, and H. 1551, saying housing authorities need more flexibility to preserve and expand affordable housing. Witnesses supported tax relief for replacement public housing units and streamlined procurement rules, arguing these changes would help projects move faster and make better use of capital funds. Committee members asked questions about PILOT agreements, tax treatment of new developments, and whether state and federal public housing would be treated similarly. The committee also heard from Senator Lovely and advocates for S. 1007/H. 1525, which would prevent and respond to bullying of elderly and disabled residents in housing. Supporters described the bills as a long-needed response to harassment in senior and public housing, calling for building-level plans, staff training, and AG oversight; Jerry Halberstadt said the measure should be strengthened with enforcement and tenant advocacy support. Pamela and other witnesses described severe personal impacts from bullying and management retaliation. Another major topic was S. 1474/H. 1474 on movable tiny houses as permanent dwellings and accessory dwelling units. Supporters, including Representative DeCoste, Vera Struck, Kaylee DeCrease, and Abundant Housing Massachusetts, said tiny homes are a safe, affordable, sustainable option for seniors, workers, and others facing the housing shortage, and urged the committee to legalize them and align state rules with emerging standards. They also discussed tax classification and the need for a clear building code and DMV category. Finally, H. 1476 on pet-friendly elderly housing drew support from animal welfare groups, who said the bill would restore and modernize a prior pet program, expand access across state-aided housing, limit pet deposits, and reduce pet surrender caused by housing barriers. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and questions on the bills.