10/21/2025
🚨 Mayor Vetoes Rent Escrow Ordinance — But Council Can Still Act!
The Mayor’s veto of the Rent Escrow Ordinance is a setback for Wilmington tenants — but it’s not the end.
🗳️ 10 Councilmembers voted YES to protect renters.
🔥 Only 9 votes are needed to override the veto.
This ordinance is 100% legal and rooted in the implied warranty of habitability — the right to live in safe, livable housing. Rent escrow is not radical — it’s accountability.
The City can’t keep passing the buck to nonprofits while families live in unsafe homes. $300K is less than 1% of our budget, and we can recoup that through interest.
👉 Call your Councilmembers. Tell them to override the veto.
Wilmington families deserve dignity, safety, and justice in housing.
— Councilmember Shané N. Darby
2nd District, Wilmington City Council
Statement on the Mayor’s Veto of the Rent Escrow Ordinance
I am deeply disappointed by the Mayor’s decision to veto the Rent Escrow Ordinance — legislation that was both legally sound and morally necessary to protect Wilmington tenants from unsafe and uninhabitable living conditions.
The ordinance passed the Wilmington City Council with 10 votes in favor, 1 against, and 2 absences during the October 2 meeting. 
Under the City’s legislative process, if the Mayor vetoes the bill, the Council may override that veto with a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the full Council. 
With 13 members on the Council, that means 9 votes are required to override the veto.
This ordinance was crafted to uphold a long‐standing legal principle: the implied warranty of habitability. That warranty — recognized in common law — ensures that every tenant has the right to live in housing that meets basic health and safety standards. Rent escrow is not a radical idea; it is a basic tool of fairness used in cities across the country to hold negligent landlords accountable when they refuse to maintain their properties.
The Mayor’s claim that this legislation is “legally flawed” is simply not true. The absence of explicit statutory language does not erase the spirit of the law or the rights implied by it. Our ordinance was built squarely within that framework — balancing tenants’ rights with due process and landlord accountability.
Equally troubling is the suggestion that nonprofits should take on the responsibility of administering this program instead of the City itself. Tenants deserve a transparent, publicly accountable system — not one that relies on under-funded nonprofits to do the City’s job. A $300,000 fiscal note represents less than one percent of Wilmington’s budget, and those funds would be recouped through interest on escrowed rent. The notion that the City “cannot afford” to protect its residents from slumlords is both dishonest and dangerous.
Moreover, the Justice of the Peace Court already manages landlord-tenant disputes statewide. Rather than invent excuses, the administration could have collaborated with the Court to ensure a smooth implementation. Instead, they’ve chosen to protect bad landlords and perpetuate the crisis of unlivable housing in our city.
Let’s be clear: this veto does not protect Wilmington’s residents — it protects those profiting from their suffering.
The City Council passed this legislation because we believe every Wilmington family deserves dignity, safety, and accountability in housing. I will continue fighting for that, with or without the administration’s support.
— Councilmember Shané N. Darby
2nd District, Wilmington City Council
