Hoboken Mayor Slams Rent Control 'Compromise' As 'Corporate Greed'; Meeting Links Here

HOBOKEN, NJ — Should the city of Hoboken compromise with a group that wants to let landlords remove certain apartments from rent control — or wait until November and let the public vote on what to do? [UPDATE: A final vote was taken Monday night. See the results in a new article here.]

On Monday, Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla said he has listened to the concerns of various stakeholders and will not support a "compromise" up for a final vote before the City Council on Monday night.

Links

• The link to watch the meeting and participate is here.
  
• To watch the meeting on Facebook without participating or speaking, you can use this link.

Bhalla has the ability to veto the measure, should it pass — as he did with a "compromise" a year ago — but six of the nine council members could override a veto, said one councilwoman Monday.

"It would result in displacement, further gentrification, further loss of below-market housing stock, and further erode the character of our city," Bhalla said in a statement Monday, further characterizing some of the landlord group's tactics as "weird." He added, "I do not want to be a part of any such action."

In the statement, posted in full at the end of this story, Bhalla said that while he understands council members' comments that they'd rather avoid the risk of a public referendum, he believes compromising with the landlord group would be giving in to "corporate greed."

READ PRIOR REPORTING: Rent Control Amendment Heads To Final Vote Before Hoboken City Council

Recent Back-And-Forth

In the days leading up to the vote, both the landlord group and tenant advocates tried to sway the public and officials.

In the last week, the landlord group complained that some of the tenant advocates pushing back are from out of town — but tenants noted that the head of the landlord group behind the referendum, Ron Simoncini, is also from out of town. He has gone to various cities trying to amend their rent control measures.

Tenant groups said they fear that landlords will find subtle ways to push longtime Hoboken tenants out of their units if the council's compromise passe, as landlords could potentially get an increase of as much as $21,000 in a year.

Tenants have told both Hoboken Patch and NJ.com about how landlords have tried to pressure them out of rent controlled buildings in town, without penalty.

What's This All About?

Hoboken's rents have risen in the past few years faster than almost anywhere in the country. READ MORE: Hoboken Had Highest Rent Increases Of All Cities In NYC Area

Hoboken has a Rent Control Ordinance that keeps rent hikes in certain units to the cost of living increase, allowing tenants to budget for annual rises — but an amendment up for a special hearing and final vote on Monday could help phase out rent controlled units.

Renters and their advocates are especially concerned that the proposed amendment will allow landlords to get a one-time $21,000 increase per year for a unit if a longtime tenant leaves, and the City Council hasn't proposed any new tenant protections against harassment. READ MORE: Hoboken Landlords Could Force Tenants Out If Measure Passes, They Say

The new controversy began recently, when a landlord group run by public relations professional Simoncini — who has fought to amend rent control in Hoboken for decades, and recently fought rent control in other towns in New Jersey — acquired signatures in Hoboken in May to put a rent control revision on Hoboken's public ballot in November.

If passed, the landlord group's proposal would allow landlords of rent controlled units to get a one-time unlimited rent increase when a tenant leaves.

Proponents say that this will allow landlords to have more money for upkeep on their properties and other costs.

Right now, Hoboken's rent control provisions cap annual increases at the Cost Of Living Adjustment — around 5 percent — but let landlords pass along increases in taxes, water charges, and more to tenants. Landlords can also get a 25 percent decontrol every three or more years if a tenant leaves voluntarily.

(Note that a state law also says rent increases toward an existing tenant can't be "unreasonable," but doesn't define the amount, which means tenants often must end up at an eviction hearing before they can make their case to a judge.)

Now, Hoboken voters could approve his measure for a one-time unlimited increase when they vote in the November presidential race.

Eight of the city's nine council members voted two weeks ago to introduce what they called a "compromise," meant to avoid the unknowns of a public vote.

That's what will come to a final hearing and vote on Monday night.

What's In The Council's Compromise, Up For A Vote Monday?

But some tenants and their advocates are concerned about aspects of the "compromise."

The "compromise" measure means that landlords could apply for a $1,750 per month one-time increase if a current tenant leaves who has already lived in the unit for ten years or more. If a tenant was there two years, the landlord will get a 25 percent increase, and for a five-year tenant, they'd get a 50 percent increase.

Here are news stories in which tenants have told Patch, NJ.com, and other outlets that landlords have found ways to subtly pressure them out, without reprisal.

Several neighboring cities recently passed measures to protect tenants amid rents that are spiking nationally, but Hoboken has not passed similar tenant protection measures. READ MORE: 5 Recent Tenant Protection Measures That Other Towns Took, And Hoboken Hasn't

Residents have complained about certain council members being relatively quiet about the issue.

Last year, while running for office, 1st Ward Councilman Paul Presinzano spoke out about a possible 9.5 percent increase in rents at Marine View Plaza, a waterfront high rise complex with many units renting for under $1,500 per month. Presinzano did not respond to questions about potential new protections for the compromise.

But the councilman did post this message for constituents:

Councilman Phil Cohen said he was concerned about the short time period the council had to consider this important issue. He said that the compromise would remove from the November ballot "a toxic referendum question that has been deceptively presented to the public."

Some council members have said that it's preferable to pass the compromise now than to take the chance of having a one-time unlimited increase for everyone — but have not said whether they plan to strengthen tenant protections or look at other potential compromises.

Meanwhile, the current city administration has acknowledged that it's been taking months for residents to get answers regarding legal rents in their buildings, when fighting unexpected increases.

The cities of Hoboken and Jersey City recently passed resolutions to ask the state to ban use of the software in setting rents, but notably did not ban the software in their own communities.

Virtual Meeting Links And Details

Links to the meet agenda and detailed packet are posted here. You can click on the agenda packet for more specifics.

Those speaking on the measure have a limit of five minutes.

• To Join the meeting:

Click: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/8819...
Phone Number: 1-929-205-6099
Webinar ID: 881 9724 3579
Passcode: 145969

Read the exact wording of proposed amendment that would appear on November's ballot here.

See Bhalla's new statement below.

See what Hoboken tenants and others said at the previous meeting: READ MORE: Hoboken Landlords Could Force Tenants Out If Measure Passes, They Say

Summary Of 'Compromise' Ordinance Introduced Last Month:

Mayor Bhalla's Statement, Released Monday, Aug. 5, 2024

I am unequivocally opposed to the amendment to Hoboken’s rent control ordinance being considered by the City Council at its virtual special meeting tonight.

In arriving at this position, I have listened to the input of a diverse group of stakeholders: tenants, landlords, elected officials, and other concerned residents. Simply put, I am opposed to this amendment because it would severely diminish our stock of rent stabilized units in the City of Hoboken.

I also understand that this amendment has been characterized as a “compromise” amendment in lieu of a potential referendum question this November. There is broad consensus that the potential referendum is a more severe attack on rent control. The logic I have heard is that if this “compromise” passes then the more severe referendum question will be withdrawn, but if this “compromise” does not pass, and the referendum does pass, the end result will be worse for tenants. Therefore, rather than risking a worse outcome, it is better to “compromise” by passing an amendment that avoids a worse outcome from a referendum vote in favor of landlords.

I understand this logic. However, I reject it because our primary obligation as elected officials, having taken an oath of office, is to advance the public interest. Tonight’s amendment does not advance the public interest. It advances the interests of special interest groups and wealthy, corporate landlords. It would result in displacement, further gentrification, further loss of below-market housing stock, and further erode the character of our city. I do not want to be a part of any such action.

I also do not take kindly to having a metaphorical gun being placed to my head by the Mile Square Tax Association, an aggressive corporate landlord lobbying organization, essentially being told to take this “compromise” or possibly face a worse consequence for tenants at the ballot box. As the Jersey Journal pointed out this morning, it’s time for the City Council to “grow a spine,” do their jobs, and push back against these bullying tactics by corporate landlords and their lobbyists.

I also reviewed communications from these same landlord special interest groups suggesting that tenants who oppose gutting rent control are “socialists” that are connected to an organization that is “pro-Hamas.” This tactic is just plain weird and shows a lack of respect for the intelligence of our voting public.

Before entering politics, I had the privilege of serving as Hoboken’s Rent Board Attorney and its Special Litigation Counsel. I also spent years as a private citizen serving as Tenant Advocate Attorney for the City of Union City and witnessed firsthand the need for public investment in protecting tenants’ rights, which is why I brought a Tenant Advocate Attorney to Hoboken once in office. While on the City Council, I led the effort to pass Z-88, a historic amendment to rent control. This is all to say that my record on rent control and affordable housing is well established. It’s something I believe in and am willing to fight for in November.

In conclusion, I want to be clear: if the amendment passes tonight and lands on my desk, it is dead on arrival. I will veto this amendment because it’s the right thing to do. I also have full confidence that should a referendum that proposes to further gutrent control be up for a vote in November, Hoboken voters will make the right decision at the ballot box.

Sometimes the veto pen is the last defense against corporate greed and tyranny. This is one of those instances.