Dear Editor: As Division Chief of the Hoboken Rent Control office, I’d like to take this opportunity to answer several concerns of residents regarding the recently approved Rent Control Amendments. Following is a brief breakdown which hopefully will be helpful to tenants who may be affected: Decontrol of two-family owner occupied buildings: This portion of the amendment seems to be causing most of the confusion because some people are claiming that this will cause “wholesale displacement” of tenants by their landlords. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The amendment allows a landlord of an owner occupied two family building to be exempt from rent control “only” if the tenant in place at the time the amendment takes effect vacates the apartment of his or her own volition. The landlord must prove that the tenant did move on their own and not because the landlord refused to renew their lease. A signed affidavit must be submitted by both the tenant and the landlord. An exemption will be in place for as long as the landlord resides at the property. And the unit would become rent controlled if the owner moves. State law, not rent control, governs evictions. If a landlord decides not to renew a tenant’s lease without cause, he or she is not eligible for the exemption under this amendment. As stated above, landlords must prove that the tenant was not forced to vacate before an exemption can be granted. This protects tenants. Base rent upon expiration or termination of exemption: This portion of the Rent Control Ordinance came about as a way to protect tenants because the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entered into a Regulatory Agreement with the Applied Companies in November 1998. Nine Applied buildings became exempt from local rent control regulations because there was no definitive language in our ordinance which spelled out how the transition from exempt property to private property would be handled. The city has no control over those nine buildings. As it is, an agreement was made with the provision that if Applied Housing agreed to maintain the subsidized units in these buildings (which equal approximately 80 percent of the units) they would be entitled to not only rent vacant units at market, but are allowed to raise the rents of the non-subsidized tenants in these buildings to 30 percent of the current income over the next three to five years. Under the current project based exemption, even if a tenant was not eligible for a Section 8 voucher, if their income went up, their rent went up, if their income went down, their rent went down. Once this Project Based Section 8 expires (as it has for the first nine buildings) the regulating of middle income tenants’ rent, also expires. If we do not define how those tenants rents should be regulated, DCA will enter into an agreement to allow the rents to increase, with no input from the city. For example, under the regulatory agreement which Applied now has with DCA, a family with four incomes pays 30 percent of their total family income or HUD Market Rent, whichever is less. However, if one of the family members moves and the family income decreases, the rent remains the same. My question to DCA when we met on February 25, was “if the middle income tenants rent goes up but does not come down when there is a change in family income, what is DCA regulating?” DCA has agreed by letter to my office that they are looking into this. Under our Amendment, the rent paid by middle income tenants at the time the exemption expires, would not be increased to 30 percent of their family income. It would remain the same and would come under all the regulations of the Rent Control Ordinance. Therefore rents would go up the same as any other tenant in the private sector. No more and no less. The question of Vacancy Decontrol only comes up if the landlord agrees to keep the subsidized units in the building at the time of exemption, and if the landlord maintains at least 70 percent of the non-subsidized units under all rent control regulations. If a tenant ever moves on his own will, only then can the owner apply for a one time increase. Applied Housing has had this Regulatory Agreement in place since 1998, and to date, there has been no displacement of tenants in order to get market rent! Tax and water sewer surcharges from tenants: Over the past several years, most of the inquiries I receive at the Rent Control office are regarding the tax and water/sewer surcharges which landlords are entitled to pass on to tenants. I find it hard to believe that Dan Tumpson and his group have not supported this amendment with as much vigor as they have in disputing any change in the Vacancy Decontrol amendment, since this will benefit the tenants and not the landlords of Hoboken. Tenants will actually see a reduction and savings in the amount of the “pass along” from landlords. Currently the Rent Control Ordinance allows for a base year for real estate tax at the 1972 rate. This means that a landlord is entitled to a tax surcharge which subtracts what the taxes were in 1972 from the current tax and the difference can be passed onto the tenants. Now, we all know that the taxes back in 1972 were much lower than today and therefore, the landlords have been getting a windfall with this formula in the form of additional rent. The amendment for tax surcharges changes the base year from 1972 to 1988, the year of the last revaluation of property. Landlords will still be entitled to a tax surcharge, but much, much less than they have been receiving currently. This is very important to tenants, and would do what Mr. Tumpson and his group are stating they are for –namely to keep apartments affordable in the future. In my capacity as Rent Regulation officer, I work closely with the tenant/landlord advocate and with tenants and landlords on a daily basis. I can assure you that if a tenant is being overcharged and it is brought to my attention, the situation is corrected within a very short time. When I was part of the task force to amend the Hoboken Rent Control Ordinance, back in 1996, we involved all organizations in our decision making, including the Campaign for Housing Justice. As a matter of fact, two of their members were members of the task force. The task force recommended that all owner occupied one, two and three family buidings should be exempt from rent control if the tenant(s) vacated the unit of the own volition. I can assure everyone that the Rent Control Amendment was put forth with good intentions in an effort to maintain the tenants rights as well as continue to improve our city. Changes can always be made to the ordinance if any part of it is not working. However, without definitive language in the ordinance, the city would have no say in what agreements are made at the time these subsidized properties complete payments on their HUD mortgages. It is our hope that the city will be included in all future negotiations concerning these issues. My staff and I will continue to assist both tenants and landlords with the regulations in the Rent Control Ordinance to ensure a fair process for all. Carole McLaughlin