Dear Editor:
I found your article in the November 19 issue, “Applied fights fire with fire,” about Helen Hirsch and the Public Interest Law Center (PILC) suing Applied Housing, to be interesting reading. While I have not seen either the agreement between Applied Housing and the Department of Community Affairs or the lawsuit, several thoughts come to mind.
First, the article states that the concern among these activists is “Will the buildings be providing enough (low income) housing for Hoboken.” Well, here’s a news flash: There will always be a higher demand for low cost apartments than can be met. As we saw from recent articles about the opening of the Marine View waiting list, people will come from miles around in order to hit the housing jackpot. We can’t house the entire world at below market rents in one square mile.
Second, the terms of the agreement between Applied and the DCA appear to be quite reasonable. Requiring a subsidized tenant to pay 30 percent of their income as rent is consistent with mortgage qualification standards and avoids many of the incentives for corruption and abuse that exist with fixed rate subsidized units such as in Church Towers and Marine View.
Third, although I have the highest respect for Ms. Hirsch, it seems to me that neither she nor the PILC have a right to file a suit against Applied Housing. Ms. Hirsch doesn’t live in Applied Housing, and therefore is not impacted by whatever agreement is ultimately reached. No existing tenant of Applied Housing will be impacted. It seems to me that the people who might be impacted are nameless and faceless future potential tenants. If I’m wrong, perhaps Ms. Hirsch and the PILC would list people who are adversely impacted and provide reasons why they are not parties in the suit. Put another way, who died and gave Ms. Hirsch and this PILC bunch of do-gooders the right to decide what is in the best interest of Hoboken? By the way, how many units of low income housing have Ms. Hirsch and the PILC built in Hoboken, or any other town for that matter?
Finally, it seems to me that it if Applied Housing is to avoid battles in the future, then Ms. Hirsch, the PILC and their supporters need to pay a price for being unreasonable and meddlesome. Now I’m not suggesting dragging Ms. Hirsch in to court on harassment charges. I am, however, suggesting that Applied Housing select one building and start the legal and administrative processes that are necessary to turn the building in to condominiums and to remove the building from the low income housing stock. Existing tenants should be given a choice of buying their unit or moving to another building at the same rent when vacancies occur. Ms. Hirsch and the PILC will quickly figure out that this is a direct result of their lawsuit. Should Ms. Hirsch and the PILC withdraw their suit then the conversion can be stopped. If not, the conversion should go forward. Ms. Hirsch and the PILC will be on notice that further meddling may result in additional condominium conversions.!
Until these do-gooders face consequences to their acts that they find unacceptable, they will continue to meddle in affairs that are none of their business.
Jonathan R. Gordon