It occurred to me the other day that if I tripped over a bottle on my way to City Hall and a genie magically appeared and offered me three wishes about Mayor Brandon Scott’s package of housing bills, I’d better be prepared with an answer.

So I thought about it, and here’s what my three wishes would be:

Wish No. 1: A Fairer Process

Homeowners on blocks targeted by the “bulk and yard” bill (25-0064), which comes up for a final third-reader vote tonight at the City Council, have not been notified of the disruption that could take place if the legislation passes.

Agency reports in the public bill file are strangely nonspecific, ignoring the most fundamental changes and their impacts.

The Law Department has been so disengaged that it didn’t even pick up simple drafting errors, let alone explain the intended interpretation and application of the proposed new regulations.

Public servants with relevant data at their fingertips have been loath to produce it. Letters from some bill opponents have been excluded from the bill file.

Constituents were gaslit, their concerns fobbed off with misinformation. At a City Council hearing after Bill 25-0064 was introduced, its chief sponsor, 8th District Councilman Paris Gray, misrepresented its provisions on the official public record, while its chief booster, the 3rd District’s Ryan Dorsey, described them, cynically, as “modest.”

In what universe is it a “modest” change if the owner or speculator next door can suddenly build a 45-foot-high building all the way to the alley alongside your sunny little rear yard?

It’s as if reality had to be suppressed in order to get this bill, and a companion bill that lifts off-street parking requirements, over the finish line so the mayor can proceed with his most highly controversial bill (25-0066), which so far has not been scheduled for a public hearing.

Wish No. 2: Engage with the ADU mandate

In May, when Mayor Scott jumped on the bandwagon of the end single-family-zoning lobby, he curiously failed to address the fact that the state had already instructed us to make a particular change to accommodate more dwellings.

Baltimore is under a mandate to amend the zoning code to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on lots that have detached single-family homes. An ADU is a secondary housing unit on a single-family property lot that provides sanitation, cooking, eating and sleeping facilities for at least one individual.

Why is this statewide initiative, described as a way to meet affordable housing needs, not under discussion in Baltimore? Why is it not part of the package of housing bills now before the Council?

The new law does not require Baltimore to increase multi-family housing density, eliminate parking requirements and allow single-family homes to be converted into apartments via the current confusing array of bills.

What the state is requiring is that Baltimore and other jurisdictions enact ADU provisions by October 1, 2026. That will take an honest and fair legislative process. Why aren’t we involved in that now?

Wish No. 3: Love the Rowhouse Again

Most Baltimoreans live on rowhouse blocks, which make up the City’s residential heart and soul.

Rowhouses come in a variety of styles and in sizes from grand to tiny. Their rear porches and yards, whether big or small, provide space for children to play and for adults to grow a garden, grill a meal or simply enjoy the weather.

Rowhouses accommodate some families for generations and other families in transition. They contribute “dollar density” to city taxes. And they offer the “American Dream” of homeownership.

When you appreciate Baltimore’s rowhouses, you feel like it’s a lost opportunity whenever you see them torn down or converted to multiple units.

Contrary to recent policy statements, single-family rowhouses and their open yards are an asset, not a “problem” to be solved through increased density and lot coverage.

Single-family rowhouses and their open yards are an asset, not a “problem” to be solved through increased density and lot coverage.

How did we get to the place where elected politicians have convinced themselves that very compact R-8 rowhouse blocks are somehow not dense enough?

And why would a city official state on the public record, when expressing his support for 100% lot coverage under Bill 25-0064, that people who occupy R-8 rowhouses don’t need back yards?

The common thread for me: City Hall is out of touch with the needs and wishes of real Baltimore.

• Joan Floyd is a 30-year resident of Remington.