Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Committee holds Housing for Jobs Act bills pending further review of denial process and regional targets

January 28, 2025 | Prince George's County, Maryland


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Committee holds Housing for Jobs Act bills pending further review of denial process and regional targets
The committee received a briefing Jan. 28 on the Housing for Jobs Act (Senate Bill 430 and House Bill 503). The governor’s economic‑growth priority would require the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Department of Planning to calculate regional housing infrastructure gaps and assign shares to local jurisdictions to reach a jobs‑to‑housing ratio target of 1.5 or less.

Lorenzo Bellamy explained the bill’s principal elements: annual calculations divided into six district regions (Prince George’s County is in the Washington suburban region), tools for jurisdictions to reduce gaps (building near rail stations or constructing affordable housing), and an affirmative obligation for localities to expeditiously approve projects. The bill would limit valid denial reasons and allow judicial remedies when jurisdictions improperly deny projects. Bellamy said the bill is effective Jan. 1, 2026, and that hearings were not yet scheduled.

Committee concerns: members asked how the denial and appeals process would differ from current practice and requested a clear list of permissible denial reasons. One member asked whether the bill’s procedures could short‑circuit normal local appeal and judicial steps; presenters said they would provide a more detailed mapping of the denial process. County staff said Mako (Maryland Association of Counties, MACo) would discuss the bill at its legislative committee and that the county would continue to evaluate the measure.

Action: after discussion, the committee moved to hold the bills for further review; the clerk recorded an “aye” and the motion to hold carried (transcript notes the motion carries). No formal county position was recorded at the meeting.

Discussion vs. decision: the committee paused action for further analysis of legal and procedural changes the bill would create; no formal county policy position or amendments were adopted.

Evidence: staff briefing, committee Q&A and the clerk’s roll call are recorded in the Jan. 28 transcript.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Maryland articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI