DC's short-term rental bill still turns on what your association permits
DC's short-term rental bill still turns on what your association permits
2026-09-09 · District of Columbia · Legislation · Pending — not yet law
The Mayor's short-term rental bill would widen who can obtain a licence in the District — and would keep, in attestation form, the requirement that the applicant's association permits short-term rentals on the premises. Bill 26-647, the Short-Term Rental Regulation Amendment Act of 2026, is pending and has not had a hearing.1
Chairman Phil Mendelson introduced it at the request of the Mayor on March 13, 2026. It was referred on March 31, 2026 to the Committee on Public Works and Operations and the Committee of the Whole, with a Notice of Intent to Act published April 3, 2026. No hearing has been held.
What it would change
Three expansions, on the Mayor's own account of the bill:
- Tenants could operate short-term rentals at their primary residence, except in rent-stabilised units and where the lease forbids it.
- A new special-event licence category.
- A resident could licence a second property they own in the District — a departure from the primary-residence model that has defined the District's regime.
The bill also layers on conditions: clean hands, proof of District residency, booking-platform licensure, and a two-year disqualification after a revocation.
The association provision
Existing District law already requires an applicant to show that the relevant condominium, cooperative or homeowners association permits short-term rental operation. The bill carries that requirement forward and converts parts of the regime to an attestation model — the applicant attests that their association permits it, rather than producing association sign-off.
That drafting choice is the part that matters to a board, and it is not addressed in the Mayor's announcement.
Why the attestation model is the story
An attestation shifts the verification burden. Under a sign-off model, the association is in the loop by construction: the licence cannot issue without something from the association. Under an attestation model, the licence issues on the applicant's word, and the association's involvement is retrospective — it finds out when it finds out.
For a District condominium whose declaration restricts short-term rentals, three consequences follow.
A licensed operation is not a permitted one. A District licence has never overridden a recorded covenant, and nothing in this bill purports to. But a licence in hand is what an owner will point at, and that conversation will come up more often, not less.
The association's own enforcement is unchanged and remains the operative mechanism. The remedy for a covenant breach is the association's: notice, hearing, fine, and injunctive relief if it comes to that. None of that depends on the licensing regime, and boards that have been waiting for the District to enforce their covenants for them will wait a long time.
A false attestation is a fact worth capturing. Where an owner has attested that the association permits short-term rentals and the declaration says otherwise, that attestation is a document. Whether it has independent legal consequences is a question for counsel; that it is evidence of the owner's knowledge is not.
The second-property provision, and why it matters more in a condominium
Allowing a resident to licence a second property they own is, in the District's housing stock, largely a proposition about condominium units. That is what a second property in the District usually is.
The practical effect would be to make the investor-owned, non-owner-occupied unit a licensable short-term rental — the exact category that association short-term rental restrictions were written to address, and the one where the board has the least informal leverage because the owner does not live there.
What a board can do while the bill sits
Know what your documents actually say. Many District declarations restrict leasing by minimum term rather than by naming short-term rentals; some are silent. A board that has never read the leasing provision closely should do so before an owner reads it for them.
Decide the association's position now, not under pressure. Whether to permit, restrict by minimum lease term, cap the number of units, or prohibit outright is a governance decision that takes time and, often, a document amendment. Making it in the abstract is easier than making it in response to a specific owner with a licence.
Have an answer ready for licence enquiries. If the attestation model is enacted, some owners will ask the association what it permits before attesting. A board with a written answer prevents a category of dispute cheaply.
What to watch next
A hearing, and the treatment of the attestation language in any committee print. Council Period 26 ends at noon on January 2, 2027, and a measure not finally adopted lapses. A mayoral bill with a sequential double referral and no hearing five months after referral is not moving quickly.
Related District of Columbia HOA Topics
Stay on top of District of Columbia HOA law
Every week: new District of Columbia legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.