At the start of the legislative session in January, Gov. Wes Moore’s administration hitched its wagon to three housing bills designed to ease construction barriers and promote more housing throughout Maryland, part of a broader effort to bring down the state’s cost of living.

Two of the administration’s bills sailed through the session with little opposition, while the most ambitious of the bunch died on the vine.

The Moore administration also backed a “good cause” eviction proposal. But once again, the measure, popular among tenants’ rights groups but not the landlord lobby, failed to make it over the finish line.

Maryland voters have repeatedly identified housing as a top priority in public opinion polls and widely agree that the state needs more affordable options. They also support government intervention to bring down high housing costs.

Here’s an update on how some of the most talked-about housing bills fared this session, including one proposal concerning “squatters” and another tackling housing discrimination. Ambition ratings are on a scale of one to five house emojis.

Locking in the rules for developers

Outcome: Passed.

Ambition level: 🏠 🏠 🏠

This bill gifts developers one of the things they covet most: more predictability.

Sponsored by Sen. Malcolm August and Del. Dylan Behler, both Democrats, it proposes that if developers get the green light to move forward with a housing project of a certain size, the local laws and regulations in place at the time the project application was submitted are locked in place.

In other words, a developer wouldn’t have to worry that the zoning for their project will change midstream, which can force delays and financial losses. These expenses, they argue, make developments unfeasible or are passed on to tenants through rent.

The rules would stay the same for either five years or another period of time as determined by the local regulatory body, according to the final bill. There are exceptions, too, including if a project poses health or safety risks.

Another provision of the bill prohibits local governments from collecting development excise taxes and fees before a project is constructed, which developers said helps relieve some added pressure.

The ‘TOD’ bill

Outcome: Passed.

Ambition level: 🏠 🏠

Transit-oriented development, sometimes referred to as TOD, may sound fancy, but it’s actually straightforward: building housing near transit stations.

This has long been a priority for the Moore administration, and the governor has already attempted to fine-tune existing financing and zoning rules for TOD through executive order. Moore, the unofficial sponsor, told a Senate committee that the state could unlock as many as 7,000 new homes and $1.4 billion in tax revenue with this bill by automatically designating certain areas for more funding opportunities and looser zoning rules.

The amended bill would also limit counties’ ability to require that the areas near the transit stops include a certain amount of parking. The counties can conduct “parking studies” to get around this, though the state Department of Transportation must concur with the findings.

In January, Moore said the state owns some 300 acres of land near transit stations that are “just sitting on our balance sheets.”

The smaller homes, smaller lots act

Outcome: Died in committee.

Ambition level: 🏠 🏠 🏠 🏠

Under the proposed Starter and Silver Homes Act of 2026, more homeowners could build homes on smaller lots, including townhomes, and they could subdivide their property into up to three lots. More consequentially, it would prohibit local legislators from intervening in those decisions.

That last piece of the bill ignited testy sparks in Annapolis this year, and lawmakers grilled Maryland Housing Secretary Jake Day about the exclusion of local voices from local decisions.

“Why should the state override local governments?” Sen. Jason Gallion, a Republican who represents Cecil and Harford counties, asked during one exchange at a committee hearing.

“Conversations and debate about control or power are disconnected from the reality of what Maryland families are experiencing,” Day replied, referencing polling data showing residents’ support for housing.

Several local government officials made the trip to Annapolis to testify against the measure, including mayors and administrators who said local elected officials are keyed into community nuances and should have the final say.

Faster removal of ‘squatters’

Outcome: Died in committee.

Ambition level: 🏠 🏠 🏠

State lawmakers championed legislation during the 2025 General Assembly session that sought to bring those accused of “squatting” to court more quickly. It passed, but Del. Jackie Addison, a Baltimore Democrat, brought it back to lawmakers again this year to further condense the timeline.

Some lawmakers favored this tweak since it would have provided even faster relief to constituents who believe their homes have been illegally occupied. But it concerned tenant advocates, who thought it imposed grave risks to renters who unknowingly enter into bogus leases or who are being retaliated against unfairly.

This bill never stood much chance of passing; for one thing, last year’s version just took effect in October. The proposal served as a signal to Marylanders that the “squatter” discussion isn’t over.

Limited credit score screenings

Outcome: Passed

Ambition level: 🏠 🏠 🏠

Marylanders with housing vouchers can no longer be turned away from rentals on the basis of their credit scores alone.

The bill notes that landlords can continue to gather referrals from prior housing providers, assess tenant screening reports, utility bill payments and background checks. What they cannot do is base their decision on the tenant’s credit history from the time before they had a voucher.

Lawmakers introduced the bill as a follow-up to past legislation that made it illegal to turn a tenant away based on their source of income. Still, some voucher recipients said they remained at a disadvantage based on their credit history, which in many cases did not reflect that they now had guaranteed rent payments.

Maryland is one of a few states to champion this tenant protection.

‘Good cause’ eviction

Outcome: Stalled in the Senate.

Ambition level: 🏠 🏠 🏠 🏠

It’s the elusive white whale for Maryland tenant advocates, and it will evade capture one year more.

The bill would allow Maryland jurisdictions to pass laws that require landlords to provide a “good cause” reason, such as failing to pay rent or breaching a lease, for not renewing a tenant’s lease.

It has become a favorite among housing attorneys who say it’s far too easy for tenants to be forced out of their homes. In many cases, they say, a lease non-renewal can be used as a retaliation by housing providers against renters. And there’s no great legal defense for it.

Even though the law is an enabling measure — which gives jurisdictions the option to implement it, rather than a decree to do so — it has been a tough sell for some lawmakers. Many believe leases are designed to be short-term contracts with clear start and end dates. And others have said the mechanism could force higher rent costs as landlords spend more money on court costs to repossess their properties.

The bill passed the House earlier this month, but it may have happened too late for it to get a closer look in the Senate.