BRINGING SUIT against a Bethesda-based company that rents apartments to some of the District’s neediest people, the D.C. attorney general alleges living conditions that are unbearable. Tenants must contend with mold, vermin, faulty plumbing, broken heaters and requests for repairs that largely go ignored. What’s equally disturbing is that the firm is still able to benefit from millions of dollars in public tax money that the city pays annually in rent subsidies. That officials say they have no alternative but to do business with an alleged slumlord underscores just how dire the lack of affordable housing is in the District. That should be a call to arms for Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) and the D.C. Council to devise more effective strategies in cracking down on slumlords and creating better housing options.

The irony of the District simultaneously suing and subsidizing Sanford Capital was detailed in recent reports by The Post and Washington City Paper. The company has been repeatedly cited over eight years by city inspectors for substandard conditions — amassing more than $150,000 in fines — and tenant advocates allege a systemic strategy of neglect. D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) last year brought suit against the company and its subsidiaries over conditions at two apartment complexes in Wards 7 and 8. Sanford officials have declined media interviews; an attorney for the company told Post reporters it has been a responsible manager, making adjustments when necessary.

Problems — including the firm’s apparent failure to pay a third of its fines — haven’t deterred the city from continuing to place formerly homeless individuals and other people receiving housing vouchers in Sanford properties. City Paper estimated payments to Sanford at about $340,000 a month. District officials explained they have no choice, so scarce is affordable housing and so large the portion of the market controlled by Sanford. “A Catch-22,” one city official told us.

Mr. Racine should be applauded for aggressive action that has resulted in Sanford agreeing to make repairs under court supervision at two apartment complexes. Good also that Ms. Bowser this week ordered city inspectors to do a complete review of the rest of Sanford’s rental portfolio. It is clear, though, that more needs to be done. Tenant advocates say Sanford is not alone and so the city needs to assess the efficacy of its inspection program and study the records of other jurisdictions in dealing with landlords who routinely violate housing codes.

The District under Ms. Bowser has made major investments to the Housing Production Trust Fund, but it needs to examine whether more vigorous policies are needed to require developers to build affordable housing and impose consequences on those who don’t live up to their obligations. The mayor, attorney general and council should work together on a coordinated approach to these critical issues.