Living
What does D.C.’s marijuana law mean for the community?
Local ordinances won’t protect businesses from federal prosecution
By JOHN J. MATTEO & LOGAN G. HAINE-ROBERTS

D.C. Code § 48-904.01 provides that persons over the age of 21 can possess relatively small amounts of marijuana for personal use, give some of that marijuana to others, and cultivate a few plants in their residence for personal use.
Washington, D.C., has legalized the recreational use of marijuana, allowing residents to smoke in their homes. Marijuana-smoking District residents may welcome this development, but their non-smoking neighbors and the residential communities where they live may have cause for concern. Non-smoking residents may have complaints about smoke entering their homes. Meanwhile, residential businesses catering to marijuana smoking residents may be concerned about their compliance with federal law.
While nearly half of the country has legalized marijuana use in some fashion, relatively few states have legalized recreational marijuana use. Among this small group of states, D.C.’s law is an anomaly. Unlike many of its counterparts, the District’s law does not allow the sale of marijuana. Instead, D.C. Code § 48-904.01 only provides that persons over the age of 21 can possess relatively small amounts of marijuana for personal use, give some of that marijuana to others, and cultivate a few plants in their residence for personal use. Moreover, smoking remains restricted to residences.
Longtime urban dwellers will recognize issues raised by a recent case as similar to past disagreements over cigarette smoke. Days after D.C.’s new law went into effect, a married couple filed a lawsuit in D.C. court alleging that their marijuana smoke wafting from the adjacent row house was harming their couple’s children. The judge hearing the case issued a temporary restraining order forbidding the neighbor from smoking anything in his home. The couple, both lawyers, has demanded $500,000 in damages in addition to the demand that the neighbor stop smoking.
In a past article for the Blade, we discussed the potential for conflicts such as these in the context of cigarette smoke, as well as their ramifications for condos and coop boards. Many of those steps apply to marijuana smoke as well. However, coops and condos may have more significant concerns with respect to marijuana smoke.
In short, the federal government still considers marijuana illegal. Marijuana is listed as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Schedule I controlled substances have a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use, and no accepted protocol for medical use. In short, marijuana is among the most dangerous and least valued drugs according to the federal government. For reference, other Schedule I controlled substances include heroin, LSD and ecstasy.
The problem for coops and condo associations is that, while the District has legalized marijuana, the federal government has not. The law concerning conflicting state and federal law like this is fairly complicated, but federal courts have reached similar conclusions. Courts agree that businesses associated with marijuana use are subject to civil liability and possibly criminal prosecution by the federal government. Simply put, local laws legalizing marijuana will not protect businesses from contrary federal law.
The federal policy on marijuana implicates a number of laws applicable to coops, condo association, and even other businesses. For example, the Controlled Substances Act mentions real property owners and lenders specifically. The Act makes it illegal to knowingly lease or make available any place that is then used to produce or use a controlled substance. Therefore, landlords who are aware tenants residents are growing or using marijuana on the property may open themselves to criminal prosecution. As complaints arise between owners and renters, it may be harder for property owners and associations to ignore residents’ activities which are illegal under federal law.
The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act raises additional legal concerns for property owners. This law allows the federal government to seize drugs and associated items, including money and real property. In the event a tenant arouses the suspicion of federal law enforcement, property owners and lenders may find their property or collateral forfeited under the law. Notably, a property owner or lender does not even need to know about the illegal activity before the federal government seizes the property. While these repercussions may seem extreme, they are not unforeseeable.
The Bank Secrecy Act may be significant for local banks even though it would be more directly applicable to marijuana-based businesses, which remain largely illegal in D.C. Generally, the Act obligates banks to assist the federal government in policing criminal activity by watching for suspicious activity in clients’ transactions and filing reports as necessary. Banks need some understanding of their clients’ money to file these reports. Naturally, lending or holding money banks know to be associated with marijuana may expose them to liability and prosecution under the Act. If a bank somehow became aware that a significant portion of its’ clients money was associated with marijuana, it would have additional responsibilities and concerns under this Act.
Federal agencies have tried to placate businesses concerned about compliance with these laws. The Department of Justice has issued two memos discussing legalized marijuana. The memos suggest that enforcement by federal authorities may be less vigorous in these states, but the memos also reiterate that marijuana is illegal and exposes users and businesses to prosecution. The Treasury has acted similarly to address banks concerns about making loans to marijuana based-businesses. Specifically, Treasury policy now requires banks to file an additional form under the Bank Secrecy Act to address these issues. However, despite these and other steps by federal agencies, the general consensus is that the federal government has done little to clarify the operation of local and federal laws and even less to address business concerns. Consequently, local coops, banks, and businesses now face the unenviable task of trying to remain compliant with federal law while their clients make use of D.C.’s new law.
If a cooperative apartment or condominium community is experiencing an increasing number of complaints regarding marijuana smells, smoke, or perhaps related criminal activity and if remediation efforts have been unsuccessful, the Board should consider a building-wide smoking ban, and perhaps a ban on odiferous plants. Smoking marijuana is legal under state law, but as has been seen in the case of the D.C. temporary-restraining order, it does not make it less of a nuisance. Owners and boards should begin preparing for these conflicts now by seeking legal advice early. Bear in mind also, that Congress has a significant level of control over District issues, but has not, as of yet, intervened directly on this. Consequently, the situation could change rapidly.
These are just a few of the potential issues that are on the horizon given D.C.’s new law. Others include the effect of the law on records and drug testing in the workplace. These and other issues are certain to find their way to the courts as potential plaintiffs use the law as a defense to adverse actions from their communities and employers.
This is part of a series of articles by Jackson & Campbell on legal issues of interest to the LBGT community. Jackson & Campbell is a full-service law firm based in Washington with offices in Maryland and Virginia. If you have any questions, contact John J. Matteo at 202-457-1600 or [email protected]. If you have any questions regarding our firm, contact Don Uttrich, who chairs our Diversity Committee, at 202-457-4266 or [email protected].
The contents of this article are intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.
Real Estate
Unconventional homes becoming more popular
HGTV show shines spotlight on alternatives to cookie cutter
While stuck in the house surrounded by snow and ice, I developed a new guilty pleasure: watching “Ugliest House in America” on HGTV. For several hours a day, I looked at other people’s unfortunate houses. Some were victims of multiple additions, some took on the worst décor of the ‘70s, and one was even built in the shape of a boat.
In today’s world, the idea of what a house should look like has shifted dramatically. Gone are the days of cookie-cutter suburban homes with white picket fences. Instead, a new wave of architects, designers, and homeowners are pushing the boundaries of traditional housing to create unconventional and innovative spaces that challenge our perceptions of what a home can be.
One of the most popular forms of alternative housing is the tiny house. These pint-sized dwellings are typically fewer than 500 square feet and often are set on trailers to allow for mobility. Vans and buses can also be reconfigured as tiny homes for the vagabonds among us.
These small wonders offer an affordable and sustainable living option for those wishing to downsize and minimize their environmental footprint. With clever storage solutions, multipurpose furniture, and innovative design features, tiny homes have become a creative and functional housing solution for many, although my dogs draw the line at climbing Jacob’s Ladder-type steps.
Another unusual type of housing gaining popularity is the shipping container home. Made from repurposed shipping containers, these homes offer a cost-effective and environmentally friendly way to create modern and sleek living spaces. With their industrial aesthetic and modular design, shipping container homes are a versatile option for those contemplating building a unique and often multi-level home.
For those looking to connect with nature, treehouses are a whimsical and eccentric housing option. Nestled high up in the trees, these homes offer a sense of seclusion and tranquility that is hard to find in traditional housing. With their distinctive architecture and stunning views, treehouses can be a magical retreat for those seeking a closer connection to the natural world.
For a truly off-the-grid living experience, consider an Earthship home. These self-sustaining homes use recycled construction materials and rely on renewable energy sources like solar power and rainwater harvesting. With their passive solar design and natural ventilation systems, Earthship homes are a model of environmentally friendly living.
For those with a taste for the bizarre, consider a converted silo home. These cylindrical structures provide an atypical canvas for architects and designers to create modern and minimalist living spaces. With curved walls and soaring ceilings, silo homes offer a one-of-a-kind living experience that is sure to leave an impression.
Barn homes have gained popularity in recent years. These dwellings take the rustic charm of a traditional barn and transform it into a modern and stylish living space. With their open, flexible floor plans, lofty ceilings, and exposed wooden beams, barn homes offer a blend of traditional and contemporary design elements that create a warm and inviting atmosphere, while being tailored to the needs and preferences of the homeowner.
In addition to their unique character, barn homes also offer a sense of history and charm that is hard to find in traditional housing. Many of them have a rich and storied past, with some dating back decades or even centuries.
If you relish life on the high seas (or at a marina on the bay), consider a floating home. These aquatic abodes differ from houseboats in that they remain on the dock rather than traverse the waterways. While most popular on the West Coast (remember “Sleepless in Seattle”?), you sometimes see them in Florida, with a few rentals available in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor and infrequent sales at our own D.C. Wharf. Along with the sense of community found in marinas, floating homes offer a peaceful retreat from the hustle and bustle of city life.
From tiny homes on wheels to treehouses in the sky or homes that float, these distinctive dwellings offer a fresh perspective on how we live and modify traditional thoughts on what a house should be. Sadly, most of these homes rely on appropriate zoning for building and placement, which can limit their use in urban or suburban areas.
Nonetheless, whether you’re looking for a sustainable and eco-friendly living option or a whimsical retreat, there is sure to be an unconventional housing option that speaks to your sense of adventure and creativity. So, why settle for a run-of-the-mill ranch or a typical townhouse when you can live in a unique and intriguing space that reflects your personality and lifestyle?
Valerie M. Blake is a licensed Associate Broker in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia with RLAH @properties. Call or text her at 202-246-8602, email her at [email protected] or follow her on Facebook at TheRealst8ofAffairs.
Real Estate
Convert rent check into an automatic investment, Marjorie!
Basic math shows benefits of owning vs. renting
Suppose people go out for dinner and everyone is talking about how they are investing their money. Some are having fun with a few new apps they downloaded – where one can round up purchases and then bundle that money into a weekly or monthly investment that grows over time, which is a smart thing to do. The more automatic one can make the investments, the less is required to “think about it” and the more it just happens. It becomes a habit and a habit becomes a reward over time.
Another habit one can get into is just making that rent check an investment. One must live somewhere, correct? And in many larger U.S. cities like New York, Chicago, D.C., Los Angeles, Miami, Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville, Austin, or even most mid-market cities, rents can creep up towards $2,000 a month (or more) with ease.
Well, do the math. At $2,000 per month over one year, that’s $24,000. If someone stays in that apartment (with no rent increases) for even three years, that amount triples to $72,000. According to Rentcafe.com, the average rent in the United States at the end of 2025 was around $1,700 a month. Even that amount of rent can total between $60,000 and $80,000 over 3-4 years.
What if that money was going into an investment each month? Now, yes, the argument is that most mortgage payments, in the early years, are more toward the interest than the principal. However, at least a portion of each payment is going toward the principal.
What about closing costs and then selling costs? If a home is owned for three years, and then one pays out of pocket to close on that home (usually around 2-3% of the sales price), does owning it for even three years make it worth it? It could be argued that owning that home for only three years is not enough time to recoup the costs of mostly paying the interest plus paying the closing costs.
Let’s look at some math:
A $300,000 condo – at 3% is $9,000 for closing costs.
One can also put as little as 3 or 3.5% down on a home – so that is also around $9,000.
If a buyer uses D.C. Opens Doors or a similar program – a down payment can be provided and paid back later when the property is sold so that takes care of some of the upfront costs. Knowledgeable lenders can often discuss other useful down payment assistance programs to help a buyer “find the money.”
Another useful tactic many agents use is to ask for a credit from the seller. If a property has sat on the market for weeks, the seller may be willing to give a closing cost credit. That amount can vary. New construction sellers may also offer these closing cost credits as well.
And that, Marjorie, just so you will know, and your children will someday know, is THE NIGHT THE RENT CHECK WENT INTO AN INVESTMENT ACCOUNT ON GEORGIA AVENUE!
Joseph Hudson is a referral agent with Metro Referrals. Reach him at 703-587-0597 or [email protected].
Some vehicles age quietly — but not muscle cars.
For 2026, the Chevrolet Corvette tightens its focus, fixes one glaring flaw (the previously dowdy interior) and flaunts a futuristic design. The Dodge Charger, on the other hand, is loud and proud, daring you to ignore its presence at your peril.
CHEVROLET CORVETTE
$73,000-$92,000
MPG: 16 city/25 highway
0 to 60 mph: 2.8 seconds
Cargo space: 13 cu. ft.
PROS: Awesome acceleration. Race-car feel. Snazzy cabin.
CONS: No manual transmission. No rear seat. Tight storage.
Finally, the Chevrolet Corvette feels as good inside as it looks flying past you on the freeway. That’s thanks to the classy, completely redesigned cabin. Gone is the old, polarizing wall of buttons in favor of a sleeker, three-screen cockpit. There’s a large digital gauge cluster, a wide infotainment screen angled toward the driver, and a marvy new auxiliary display. Everything is modern and a bit glitzy — but in a good way.
Fit and finish are higher quality than before, and the controls are more intuitive. Chevy’s Performance App is now standard across trims, offering real-time data for drivers who enjoy metrics as much as momentum. And the new interior color schemes, including slick asymmetrical options, let you express yourself without screaming for attention—confidence, not obnoxious bluster.
As for handling, the steering is quick and sure, body control is exceptional, and acceleration is blazingly fast. A mid-engine layout also delivers sublime balance.
Three trim options, including the V8-powered Stingray, the E-Ray (also with a V8 but paired with electric all-wheel drive), and the Z06 and ZR1 variants for racing devotees.
(Note to self: For a truly mind-blowing experience, there’s the new 1,250-horsepower ZR1X all-electric supercar that goes from 0 to 60 mph in less that 2 seconds and is priced starting at $208,000.)
Yes, the ride in any of these Corvettes can be firm. And visibility is, well, rather compromised. But this supercar is a total Dom, not a timid sub. Think Alexander Skarsgard in “Pillion,” and you get the picture.
DODGE CHARGER

$52,000-$65,000
MPG: 16 city/26 highway
0 to 60 mph: 3.9 seconds
Cargo capacity: 22.75 cu. ft.
PROS: Choice of gas or EV power. Modern tech. Spacious cabin.
CONS: No V8 engine (yet). Soft steering. Less-than-lithe cornering.
Everything old is new again for the Dodge Charger. The automaker initially was phasing out gas-powered models in a shift to electric vehicles but then quickly pivoted back to include gas engines after yo-yo regulatory changes this year from, well, the yo-yos in the White House.
Powerful twin-turbo engines in the R/T and Scat Pack trims produce up to 550 horsepower. These models come standard with all-wheel drive but can be switched to rear-wheel drive for classic muscle-car antics when the mood strikes you.
At the same time, Dodge still offers the electric Charger Daytona, delivering up to 670 horsepower and ferocious straight-line acceleration.
The Charger’s aggressive design, massive digital displays and practical hatchback layout carry over, reinforcing its ability to be both a performance diva and everyday companion. With the larger-than-expected storage space, I appreciated being able to fit a boatload of groceries in the trunk during a Costco run.
New wheel designs, paint choices and trim variations help you visually distinguish between gas and electric Chargers. But no matter the model, each one feels decisive and deliberate on the road. Commuting in stop-and-go traffic during rush hour is fine, but this street machine excels at high-speed cruising on the freeway.
The turbo six-cylinder engine delivers muscular torque with less drama than the old V8s, but still with plenty of urgency. The electric Daytona version is a different kind of thrill, with its instant, silent thrust that feels like it could almost launch you to the moon.
Steering is stable but not exactly crisp, and the Charger’s weight makes it less lithe—and lively—than other muscle cars, especially when navigating tight corners.
But that’s just fine with me. Like Bea Arthur as Dorothy in “The Golden Girls,” this no-nonsense muscle car is proud to be big, bold and brassy.
