Dear Editor: There certainly has been a lot of misinformation and confusion surrounding the amendments to Hoboken’s Rent Control Law passed by a majority of the City Council on March 1, 2000. In their defense, I don’t believe that the council members who voted in favor of the amendments, nor the Clock Towers tenants who cheered them on, truly understand the wording of the ordinance or the devastating impact it will have on the people currently residing in 3,000 subsidized apartments (more than 15 percent of Hoboken’s housing stock). These affordable housing units were created during the 60s, 70s and early 80s by a handful of private owners organized under a variety of government programs (some state, most federal). The private companies that own these 3,000 units, called limited dividend housing corporations, were established to serve a public purpose and use — specifically to improve our substandard housing stock and to alleviate the shortage of decent, affordable housing for people of modest means. In exchange for providing this much-needed public service, the landlords received a guaranteed, albeit fixed, profit; low-cost government financing; and exemption from local property taxes. Recently, the federal government (HUD) has moved away from these project-based subsidies to tenant-based subsidies in the form of vouchers. As a result, the subsidy will no longer go to the landlord, but, instead, will go directly to the tenant. Some tenants in these buildings have incomes that exceed the HUD guidelines for vouchers. Considering that the subsidized rents the landlords currently receive are way below the rents the landlords could collect on the open market, it is understandable that these tenants feel vulnerable about the removal of the project-based subsidy. So vulnerable that they would embrace an automatic 7 1/2 percent rent increase up-front? So vulnerable that they are wiling to abandon 30 percent of their neighbors? Have we as a community sunk so low that we embrace a law that will pit neighbor against neighbor? This ordinance is not necessary and is, in fact, harmful to the tenants its proponents claim they are protecting. Fact 1: These government-financed buildings were never exempt from Hoboken’s Rent Control Law. The local law was simple pre-empted by a higher authority (in the case of Clock Towers, HUD). Fact 2: When federal rent-regulation of these buildings expires, the authority to regulate rents automatically reverts to the state (Department of Community Affairs). Hence, there is no emergency requiring “protective measures” at the local level. Fact 3: The limited dividend corporate owners of these properties are not permitted by law to simply walk away from their obligations. Just as the owners had to take certain legal steps to establish the limited dividend corporation, they must take legal steps to dissolve the corporation. For one thing, the City Council must give its consent. Fact 4: For 25 years, these limited dividend corporate owners have been exempt from local property taxes. The city collects payments in-lieu of tax, which are significantly less than the full tax rate applied to the assessed property value. Further, the payments in-lieu of tax go exclusively to City Hall — nothing is contributed to the public schools or county government. In effect, the entire taxpaying community has been subsidizing these owners for 25 years. Now, these corporate landlords want vacancy decontrol on 30 percent of their units so they can collect exorbitant rents while they continue to be exempt from property taxes. The only beneficiaries of this ordinance are a few corporate landlords, and, interestingly, City Hall. Payments in-lieu of tax for these properties are a function of the amount of rent collected. So, higher rents = more revenue for City Hall. Isn’t it rather perverse that City Hall should benefit from the economic hardship it has imposed on the very people it claims to protect? This ordinance is a back-door approach to undermining Hoboken’s Rent Control Law and a first step in dismantling Hoboken’s affordable housing stock. These are critical issues which will shape our future and deserve much more thought and public discussion. Put it on the ballot! Phyllis Spinelli