Maryland’s housing crisis requires partnership between government and housing providers to enact common sense rules that protect tenants while also supporting the production and preservation of affordable housing. For decades, this partnership has enabled the development of decent, safe affordable housing for the thousands of tenants who need it. However, recent legislative actions have threatened the very affordable housing communities that Maryland residents desperately need. Although well-intentioned, as state and local lawmakers continue to pile on burdensome and in some cases redundant regulations, they are pushing away the businesses and nonprofit organizations most invested in solving our affordable housing shortage without fixing any problems or making housing more attainable for Marylanders.

Consider, for example, the redundancy in the good-cause eviction requirement proposals that have been debated by the Maryland legislature. Affordable housing communities funded through HUD subsidies, Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development loan funds, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits or USDA Rural Development programs already operate under strict good cause eviction standards. These communities are audited regularly, sometimes by multiple agencies, and must maintain detailed documentation of compliance. The property owners and managers face significant penalties for non-compliance, including financial sanctions and exclusion from future participation in these critical housing programs.

Yet despite this robust existing framework, some lawmakers want to give local jurisdictions the authority to impose additional good-cause eviction requirements on property managers that will likely include different definitions and standards. This would create a confusing patchwork of regulations that affordable housing providers must navigate. When state or local legislation conflicts with federal housing program requirements, property managers are caught in an impossible position. Which standard should they follow? How can they implement contradictory requirements? The result is unnecessary confusion for staff, residents and regulators alike.

The burden extends far beyond just navigating conflicting definitions. Each new notice requirement, each additional benchmark, each extra procedural step will increase operational costs significantly. For affordable housing providers already operating on tight margins, these escalating administrative burdens strain limited resources. Property management staff — already stretched thin in today’s tight labor market — must spend more time on paperwork and less on maintaining communities and serving residents.

These regulatory complications also extend vacancy periods. When units sit empty due to administrative delays or legal challenges arising from longer notice periods or disputed interpretations of the regulations, nobody wins. Housing providers lose rental income, potential residents remain without homes and the overall housing supply is artificially constrained, all of which undercuts affordability. Legal fees mount as housing providers seek clarity on conflicting requirements, further draining resources that could be better directed toward property improvements or resident services. The legal costs associated with compliance have become a significant line item in operating budgets, diverting precious resources away from the core mission of providing quality affordable housing.

Housing providers are essential partners, not obstacles. Avoiding redundancies with federal or state loan program requirements already in place and creating a reasonable, predictable regulatory environment would encourage more investment in affordable housing.

Until then, Maryland will continue to lose housing investment to neighboring states, and its residents will bear the consequences of well-intentioned but ultimately counterproductive legislative proposals.

Miranda Darden-Willems is executive director of the Maryland Affordable Housing Coalition.