During its May 5 legislative meeting, the D.C. Council deliberated on several issues, including permanent youth curfew legislation, support for former Talbert Street SE condominium owners, and certified business enterprise compliance and enforcement.
The legislative body also approved, on its final reading, the Open Meetings Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2026. This bill continues a practice in which the council and the mayor can conduct closed meetings about potential terrorist and public health threats, as well as matters deemed sensitive while the District is under the thumb of President Donald J. Trump and Congress.
Despite some press corps members’ outcry about the law, D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson (D) calls it necessary in these times.
“[Council] members have seen how when we’re talking about Hill’s strategy dealing with Congress and its interference or the White House and its interference, these are conversations that can’t be public,” Mendelson said. “It doesn’t make sense that the council members would discuss how they’re going to deal with President Trump and have it on the front page where Donald Trump can read it.”
At the beginning of the council’s legislative meeting, D.C. Councilmember Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), who voted “present” on the first reading, withdrew an amendment that would’ve changed the expiration date to Oct. 31 — a shorter timeline than the 225 days allowed for temporary legislation.
The council would later approve the temporary bill, with D.C. Council members Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) and Charles Allen (D-Ward 6) maintaining their longheld opposition to the open meetings changes.
Lewis George didn’t answer a text requesting comment, while Allen, in essence, called the bill a misnomer.
“It’s the opposite of open meetings,” Allen told The Informer. “We don’t have to give public notice. We can go into closed sessions for any reason. It’s too broad.”
Last year, the council approved the Open Meetings Clarification Emergency Act after striking down an amendment that Allen proposed to narrow the legislation so that it only covers meetings about federal government affairs and economic development negotiations. The council has since used its powers under the legislation to periodically conduct closed meetings, the most recent of which took place in February when Congress was advancing a decoupling disapproval resolution.
As a permanent bill makes its way through the council, Allen said he’s in the throes of efforts to ”strike a balance.”
“It’s important from time to time to talk about federal strategy and personnel matters but we have to tell the public that we’re going into a closed session for some level of accountability,” he told The Informer. “I don’t think it’s a heavy lift to disclose a closed session. From a transparency perspective, the government should be accountable.”
The council’s Committee of the Whole conducted a hearing on April 22 about the permanent legislation. It has yet to conduct a mark-up of the bill.
In years past, before the Open Meetings Act modifications, the council had to issue a public notice about meeting— such a public housing tour conducted by the Committee on Housing— where there was a quorum of council members. As Mendelson explained, the council experienced similar hurdles to keep negotiations with Monumental Sports under wraps while adhering to the tenets of the law.
On May 5, Allen and Lewis George stood alone as opponents to the temporary legislation, just weeks after D.C. Councilmember Trayon White (D-Ward 8) voted “no” during the first reading of the bill, and Parker and D.C. Councilmember Christina Henderson (I-At large) voted “present.”
Ward 8 D.C. Councilmember White’s office declined comment. A senior council staffer told The Informer that Henderson has concerns about the broad scope of the legislation and the ramifications of holding “no notice” meetings where a range of topics could be discussed without reporters present.
For Mendelson, it’s not quite clear why council members are opposed to the open meetings modifications.
“I don’t understand it because every council member signed the introduction, including Councilmember Allen and Councilmember Lewis George,” he told The Informer. “I would say that it’s very difficult for members to vote against the concept of an open meeting because members perceive that as being politically unpopular. My experience is that it is not…but that doesn’t change how some members perceive that it would be unpopular.”
On Second Reading, the Council Approves Permanent Youth Curfew Legislation with Nadeau’s Amendments
In the hours leading up to the council’s second reading of the Juvenile Curfew Act of 2026, D.C. Councilmember Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2) withdrew the emergency youth curfew bill that, if passed, would’ve immediately renewed the mayor and local police curfew and curfew zone implementation powers in time for summer break.
As concerns loom about an intrusive White House and Republican-dominated Congress, Pinto, who long struggled to drum up support for the emergency bill, said she wants to show that the District, and the District alone, can quell mass youth gatherings.
“It’s important that the federal government understands that we are serious about public safety here in D.C. and in our local government, and we take that really seriously, which is why we’re passing this permanent emergency today,” Pinto told reporters on May 5. “That’s why we’re going to continue to work on interventions to support all of the people of our city, on prevention, on holding perpetrators of crime accountable, and on ensuring that there’s sustainable safety that everyone in our community deserves.”
The council would later approve the Juvenile Curfew Act of 2026 with D.C. Council members Brianne Nadeau (D-Ward 1), Lewis George, Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5), Trayon White (D-Ward 8), and Robert White (D-At large) voting in opposition.
The legislation included amendments that Nadeau introduced to: “sunset” the bill after two years and prohibit the Metropolitan Police Department from transporting youth curfew violators to a detention center. On May 5, council approved the “sunset” amendment with Pinto and D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson (D) voting in opposition.
Nadeau’s second amendment narrowly escaped defeat, with Mendelson, Pinto, and D.C. Council members Anita Bonds (D-At large), Matt Frumin (D-Ward 3), Christina Henderson (I-At large), and Wendell Felder (D-Ward 7) voting in opposition.
The amendment, which is subject to appropriations, mandates the immediate release of a minor caught violating curfew to their parents or guardians. Other options for release include: a site of youth programming, a 24-hour youth drop-in center, a safe location identified by the youth, or, if all else fails, the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA).
During the May 5 legislative meeting, Pinto expressed concern that the amendment would further burden CFSA, while D.C. Councilmember Anita Bonds (D-At large) requested that CFSA be designated as the sole drop-off point.
“It just seems to me if we give law enforcement many options of what they can do, it generates confusion,” Bonds said. “It’s a time constraint, usually when law enforcement is involved, and I just think that…it’s clearer, it’s easier for everyone to know this is where you will go to pick up your child.”
Nadeau, who had spoken to CFSA after submitting a fiscal impact statement, told her colleagues that implementation would require $250,000 for two full-time employees. On the day preceding this legislative victory, she expressed confidence her colleagues supported what she described as efforts to curb youth incarceration.
“This is about young people wanting to be together and wanting to have fun and things getting out of control,” Nadeau told reporters on May 4. “It’s our job as the adults and the people in power to help mitigate the negative impacts of that, but also give them spaces where they can do that, where they can be together and have fun and do the things that feel right for a teenager to be doing in spaces that are safe for them.”
Parker, fresh off a youth hearing that he conducted as chair of the council’s Committee on Youth Affairs, pushed for an amendment extending weekend hours of operation for at least four District recreation centers. He later withdrew that amendment, but not without giving a nod to the nearly 50 youth who spoke before him less than a week prior.
“I made a commitment to the young people that we were bringing this up for a vote,” Parker said, “so my contingency in withdrawing it is that we can bring it up for a vote in committee markups, so that the young people can have something to look at to say their demand on policy was actually followed through on by the council. I think that’s important.
In the minutes leading up to his decision, Parker defended his amendment against Lewis George who asked that he yield to her months-long work on legislation aimed at extending recreation center hours and funding youth programming independent of the youth curfew. Lewis George, chair of the council’s Committee on Facilities, said she intends to fund her legislation for Fiscal Year 2027 during a budget markup taking place within her committee in a couple of weeks.
Later, as she geared up to cast her “no” vote for the curfew bill, Lewis George made note of the curfew’s place in a larger conversation about law enforcement, federal government intrusion, and the erosion of civil rights during the second Trump presidency.
“I’d ask my colleagues, many of you I know who are also sociologists and anthropologists and understand history and have read books on mass incarceration and books on these things to do vote on this in the context of how history will judge this moment and judge the federal occupation of cities, especially Washington, D.C.,” Lewis George said, “and not move forward in making this mistake that we know will be a mistake, especially if the harm that can be realized, like the risk of harm to young people and death with agents and people who don’t have the escalation training and tools, that don’t know our young people and are not under our oversight.”
An Inside Look: The Fight for a Youth Governing Council
Sitting in council chambers throughout much of the youth curfew deliberation were members of Black Swan Academy (BSA), a local nonprofit that’s helping District youth organize for extended recreation hours, enrichment programming, and the creation of a youth governing council.
For Ward 8 student Atrayu Lee, the youth governing board is a tool in fulfilling all other demands and ensuring that the D.C. Council never overlooks the youth’s perspective in matters of relevance to them.
“Like you can’t ignore us, we’re at your front door…working alongside the council,” said Atrayu, a senior at Thurgood Marshall Academy Public Charter School. “Any bill that has anything to do with the youth, we get to comment on it and have an actual vote on it, and we get to propose our own legislation for youth.”
On April 30, Atrayu counted among the nearly 50 youth who testified at the hearing conducted by the council’s Committee on Youth Affairs. He spoke in support of funding for the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to provide wraparound services for young people. Days later, before the council’s legislative meeting, he stood on the steps of the John A. Wilson Building alongside other youth and adult organizers who demanded the council create safer spaces for young people.
“We’ve been ignored,” Atrayu told The Informer. “For the curfew [discussion], many youth organizations have come together, said the same exact thing and given many different layers of how to solve the issue. Some people say workforce, and I said DPR. Solutions are coming from the youth because we know what we want.”
Parker, chair of the council’s Committee on Youth Affairs, called the April 30 hearing a significant step in bringing in young people as partners in creating citywide enrichment. He said the youth governing council legislation, and some of the other ideas put forth by the youth, would come under his purview before going to the entire council.
“From the hearing, what we heard is that DPR programming is really beneficial, and the young people really enjoy it, and they want more of it,” Parker told The Informer. “They want extended hours, they want to be able to connect with their friends throughout the city. The same motivations that adults and others have. I thought it was really productive, and we’re already taking action steps on some of the things that came out of it.”
One day earlier, Mendelson, chair of the committee that oversees education agencies, offered his take on the effectiveness of the youth hearing.
“There’s definitely a value in listening to youth and what their perspective is,” Mendelson told The Informer. “I’m not sure how many of those who testified are the ones who are causing the problems that we’ve seen with these takeovers.”
Some of the youth who stood on the steps of the Wilson Building that Tuesday pushed back against that notion.
“I go down [to] Navy Yard, [and] I do responsible things down there,” said a BSA youth leader named Taylor,” but at the end of the day, the need to criminalize us has to stop. It is insane. I come down here [to the Wilson Building] because I feel like youth need to be heard more and our voices are important.”
Jermaine, another BSA youth leader, called the youth governing council a means of tackling what he described as adult hypocrisy.
“This legislation is to help youth have more of an impact and say in what’s going on in D.C., especially when they are told countless times that they are the future,” Jermaine said. “How are they meant to be the future when they are being segregated? The curfew does not help any type of youth… Adults are punishing the youth for things that they have done in their own ages.”
Kwanzaa Billy, BSA’s program and operations manager who’s been at mass teen gathering at Navy Yard, didn’t mince words when she explained the opposition that young people face on various fronts.
“It’s safe until MPD comes. It’s safe until the National Guard comes,” Billy said before commending the youth who speak before the council. “They risked themselves to go on public record to talk about that. So for people who are like, ‘Oh, these ain’t the same kids,’ they are the same kids, and even if they weren’t, they’re choosing to be [in the community] community and represent their peers.”
The Council Moves on What Some Hope is the Final Wave of Relief for Talbert Street Condo Owners
On its first reading, the council approved the River East at Grandview Homeownership Relief and Restoration Amendment Act of 2025, legislation that At large D.C. Councilmember White introduced to provide a final wave of relief to the former owners of the River East at Grandview Condominiums.
Mendelson voted in opposition while Henderson voted “present.” As Henderson briefly explained during the May 5 council breakfast meeting, it was a matter of liability.
“There’s still a lawsuit going on now, so this technically isn’t over, right?” Henderson asked At-large Councilmember White. “Would they use this as an admission of the District’s involvement in terms of the OAG [Office of the Attorney General]? Like, did we talk to the OAG…?”
In 2021, shortly after leaving their condemned condominiums under duress, 46 families embarked on a journey where they struggled to secure new housing while paying a mortgage for a home they couldn’t occupy.
While the D.C. Council explored avenues for recompense, several of the condominium owners took their battle to the courts.
At the time of the council’s May 5 vote, 30 out of 46 former condominium owners hadn’t purchased new homes. The legislation ensures that they would be to do so with the use of grant funds from the Home Purchase Assistance Program (HPAP). This arrangement ends in 2032.
The legislation also ensures that those who’ve since purchased another home would also be able to use HPAP, while those who aren’t tapping into the grant funds will have “limited support” for mortgages. Meanwhile, those who purchase inclusionary zoning units will be able to get equity from their home and pass on the asset to their children after a 15-year affordability covenant.
Ty’on Jones, a former condominium owner who’s since bought a new home, called the council’s passage of River East at Grandview Homeownership Relief and Restoration Amendment Act of 2025 the start of a new life.
“I can sleep now knowing that we all did our part,” Jones told The Informer. “We are appreciative of the council members who…worked really, really hard to make it so that it was something that would pass.”
Since moving from Talbert Street SE, Jones and most of those owners have received: mortgage relief, temporary housing and mortgage assistance. Some owners who didn’t make an immediate home purchase also received a $30,000 buyout.
Other resources that have been provided via 2024 council include housing counseling services, affordable mortgage options despite lowered credit scores, future property tax relief, and mayoral authority to forgive condominium owners’ HPAP and Housing Production Trust Fund loans.
By the spring of 2025, Jones settled, once again, in Anacostia as a homeowner. But, as he recalled, it didn’t come without, as he described, a lot of “back and forth” between him and lenders to ensure that the lender would accept funds provided by D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD).
“I had to sign my [Talbert Street SE] property over to DHCD,” Jones told The Informer. “And as I signed the property over, I was able to secure the loan for the [new] property.”
Jones also shouted out other parties who gave deference to him and his neighbors who had endured a special set of circumstances.
“If it wasn’t for the developer, his financing company for the development and their knowledge of our situation and their commitment to kind of getting us through it likely would have not happened,” Jones told The Informer. “Lenders typically don’t see a story and don’t understand why your mortgage is not being paid or… the information connected to the relocation, and displacement at the property.”
Between 2021 and last spring, when he closed on his new home, Jones and his neighbors, then spread across the city, often met with elected officials and general counsel in their push for recompense. He did that while balancing a work schedule and struggling to maintain the registration on his certified business enterprise which was headquartered on Talbert Street SE.
Well after coming out on top, Jones said he had to see to it that his neighbors who hadn’t yet purchased a new home could do so in the current market.
“The cost of housing in the District is just enormous,” Jones told The Informer. “The average person isn’t buying. Even though that second piece of legislation created a path, it wasn’t equitable so that folks who needed some additional support could get that from the District. Sometimes that gets left out.”
During the council’s May 5 breakfast meeting, At-large Councilmember White faced concerns and criticism from Henderson, Mendelson and others who questioned what more the District should do for the displaced condominium owners who, according to Mendelson, collectively received relief and assistance to the tune of $14 million.
White would later counter that tabulation by adding up expenditures that totaled $7.2 million. While on the dais, he told his colleagues that more could be done.
“Now, the District did step in, and that mattered. We provided rental assistance. We helped stabilize families in a moment of crisis, but let’s be honest about what we did not do,” he said. “We did not restore these families to the path of homeownership, and the market did not stand still while they waited. Interest rates doubled. Home prices increased more than 25 percent. So these families were left forced back into the market. They weren’t starting where they left off. They were starting from behind.”
At-large D.C. Councilmember White’s legislation, which has Lewis George and Ward 8 D.C. Councilmember White as co-introducers, will cost the District $2.7 million, which, according to a council staffer, come from untapped Fiscal Year 2026 HPAP funds.
Such a timeline sparked an inquiry from D.C. Councilmember Doni Crawford (I-At large).
“Councilmember White, in your conversations with the executive, are you optimistic that we won’t see other situations like this, particularly for first-time homebuyers purchasing in Ward 7 and 8?” she asked. “And how do we just work together to make sure this doesn’t happen again?”
In his reply, White placed the onus on another branch of government.
“When we purchase a home or when work is done, we are relying on the city,” At-large Councilmember White said. “When they say it’s been done well and it’s been right for that to be the case. And so I don’t agree with how this is played out with respect to liability, but, no, I’m not confident that this won’t happen again because I’ve got no plan from the executive to explain how it won’t happen again.”
