On Tuesday, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed more than 270 bills into law. Among them are five measures with potentially long-term effects on housing supply and the governance of artificial intelligence (AI) in public institutions. These laws aim to accelerate development, change tenant screening practices, and formalize AI oversight — but each contains trade-offs that merit close attention.
Housing: The Statewide Picture
Maryland currently faces an estimated housing shortfall of roughly 100,000 units and — according to the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development — will need about 590,186 additional housing units by 2045 to keep pace with population growth. The newly enacted measures try to address supply constraints by limiting regulatory uncertainty and encouraging transit-oriented development, while critics warn the reforms may replace some barriers with new administrative or political hurdles.
Maryland Housing Certainty Act
This law attempts to reduce developer uncertainty by locking in local zoning and land-use rules that apply to a housing project to those in effect "at the time of submission." It also prohibits collecting development impact fees and excise taxes until after project completion — lowering upfront costs that often deter smaller builders.
Key trade-offs: The act still allows local governments to require separate approvals or permits for each phase of development. Observers argue that phased permitting can reintroduce delays, potentially undermining the law’s deregulatory goals. State permitting data also show Maryland issued roughly 3,500 fewer building permits in 2025 than the prior year, a sign that permit systems remain a bottleneck.
Maryland Transit and Housing Opportunity Act
Targeting common local barriers such as density limits and parking mandates, this law designates transit-centered housing projects as "enterprise zones" and makes them eligible for property and income tax credits. It also bars local governments from imposing off-street parking requirements for developments within a quarter-mile of public transit hubs and restricts some land-use limits on publicly owned land.
Key trade-offs: The law explicitly preserves local authority to deny projects for environmental, public health or infrastructure reasons (e.g., schools, roads, water, sewer, emergency services). Tax credits can accelerate projects near transit but also risk directing public subsidy toward chosen developments rather than letting market signals decide.
Tenant Rights
Maryland Fair Chance Housing Act
This law changes tenant screening practices for landlords who manage or own five or more residential rental units. Landlords are prohibited from requiring prospective tenants to undergo drug or alcohol testing before a conditional offer and cannot demand release of records from drug prevention or treatment programs. If a landlord runs a criminal background check on one applicant, they must run it for all applicants.
Key trade-offs: Supporters say the law reduces discriminatory screening and protects applicant privacy. Critics warn that mandatory, uniform screening rules, required reassessments and a $500 fine per violation could increase compliance costs, legal exposure, or vacancy times for owners navigating the new rules.
AI Governance and Innovation
Artificial Intelligence Ready Schools Act
The act requires the Maryland State Department of Education to provide statewide guidance on K–12 AI use, including a rubric for evaluating AI tools used by educators. It creates new administrative duties for school systems: designated AI coordinators, training programs, procurement procedures, reporting obligations and guidance systems.
Key trade-offs: Proponents emphasize student safety and consistent standards; opponents worry the additional administrative layers could strain school budgets and slow classroom adoption of beneficial tools.
Artificial Intelligence Partnership With the University System
Maryland also authorized a formal partnership with the state university system to support AI research and adoption. The legislation establishes a new office with a director, partnership hubs, subcabinets, fellowships and annual reporting and planning duties.
Key trade-offs: Supporters say the structure coordinates public research and workforce development. Critics contend government-backed hubs and planning offices risk directing capital and talent toward politically preferred projects rather than letting decentralized market forces or academic competition determine winners — a potential drag on rapid innovation.
Bottom Line
These five laws reflect a mix of incentives and guardrails: they are designed to spur housing development near transit, protect renters’ rights, and create a framework for AI in schools and public institutions. But each law includes provisions that preserve local control or create new administrative responsibilities, meaning outcomes will depend heavily on implementation, local politics and follow-through. Policymakers, developers, school leaders and tenants should watch how the new rules are interpreted and enforced in the months ahead.
