The Rockville Mayor and Council meeting of July 8, 2024 caught my eye because it warned, “The following program contains explicit language. Viewer discretion is advised.” Of course, I had to watch. Near the end of the Community Forum, a speaker expressed his frustration with the City saying, “I hate all of you…and I hope you all get heat strokes” peppered with swearing. Mayor Ashton ably handled the uncomfortable situation by recognizing his anger, empathizing with his frustration, and then asking him to avoid swearing because the meeting should be appropriate for adults and children. The speaker apologized and the meeting moved on.

So what was causing this resident so much frustration? He was upset about the lack of air conditioning and the rent increase at BLVD 44, an apartment complex in Rockville Town Square. His concerns were part of nearly three hours of Community Forum, with dozens of speakers providing comments in anticipation of a presentation about rent stabilization listed later in the agenda. Because presentations do not allow public comments or questions, anyone with concerns had to express them via email in advance or by speaking during the Community Forum.

Many residents supported rent stabilization, highlighting its importance in preventing displacement and maintaining community stability, particularly for vulnerable populations like seniors and low-income families. Some speakers shared personal stories of financial struggles and the impact of rising rents on their lives.

On the other hand, opponents argued that rent stabilization could deter new housing investments and reduce the quality of rental units due to decreased maintenance. They suggested that increasing the housing supply would be a more effective solution.

Following a presentation by city staff on rent stablization and a request for Council direction, the Council engaged in a nearly two-hour discussion, going past midnight. Council members and staff addressed various aspects, including the potential benefits and drawbacks. Proponents of rent stabilization highlighted its importance in preventing displacement and ensuring housing affordability for lower to moderate-income tenants. They emphasized the urgency of addressing housing stability, particularly for essential workers and seniors, and discussed how rent stabilization could provide immediate relief compared to other housing programs, such as Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDU), which rely on real estate partners.

Opponents raised concerns about unintended consequences, such as decreased property values and reduced tax revenue, disincentivizing new construction and investment, and the potential for deferred maintenance and neighborhood deterioration. They also discussed the need for transparency in rental practices and the possibility of positive reinforcement for landlords adhering to voluntary rent guidelines. Overall, the council recognized the complexity of implementing rent stabilization and the need for further research and thoughtful policy crafting to balance benefits and avoid negative impacts.

After watching and transcribing the discussions by residents, businesses, staff, and Councilmembers on rent stabilization, three issues became apparent:

1. Affordable housing is a wicked problem. Former Councilmember Mark Pierzchala frequently raised concerns about affordable housing in the city but was routinely met with resistance from anti-developer and anti-working-class sentiments within the Council and among residents (remember Beall’s Grant II?). This is a local/state/national issue that requires collaboration across various sectors of society. There are no easy, simple solutions, despite the appeal of quick fixes like controlling rents, increasing housing density, or mandating a higher percentage of low-cost units in apartment complexes. Each of these measures has long-term and unintended consequences. Most Councilmembers recognize that they lack sufficient information and resources to make significant progress on this issue. But some of them are struggling with establishing priorities and recognizing limitations because they are trying to please everyone.
2. The Council is still in a developmental stage. Although they have been serving together for over six months, they are still learning how to conduct effective meetings and understand the complex issues facing the city. Solving problems and making decisions often seem easier from the outside, but as Councilmembers, they must balance the constant demands from residents, businesses, and organizations behind the scenes with public discussions that have legal and social consequences. Mayor Ashton is more collegial than her predecessor, but she may need to provide stronger guidance to the new Councilmembers. For example, reading a constituent letter that everyone has already received is inefficient (imagine if everyone did this). If a Councilmember initiates a motion, it should not be discussed unless it has been supported by a “second.” Finally, the Mayor or City Clerk should clearly call out the final vote on motions (e.g., “the motion is approved on a vote of 5 for and 2 against”). Voting by a show of hands is silent and can be difficult to see on camera.
3. Late night meetings impair good decision-making. This meeting extended beyond midnight, and as they entered the new day, Councilmember Van Grack introduced a motion to define the scope of work for the housing work session. The ensuing 13 minutes were challenging for councilmembers and staff, who struggled to understand the motion and the decision-making process. Scanning the transcript reveals clear signs of fatigue, muddled thinking, lack of engagement, and poor performance. The Mayor and Council need to develop better ways of meeting because they are making major decisions for the City under the worst conditions. It doesn’t have to be this way and they’re doing residents and businesses a disservice.