Rent control was described by a city official recently as the “third rail of politics” in Hoboken. For months, it appears no one has gone near the issue. But there are a few people in the city who have chosen to grab onto the dangerous rail with two hands, fully aware of the potential consequences.
The issue hasn’t made its way to the City Council agenda since a subcommittee, chaired by Councilwoman Beth Mason, was charged with the task of identifying and resolving problems with Hoboken’s controversial rent control ordinance approximately one year ago. The other two members of the committee are Councilman Ravi Bhalla and Councilman Michael Russo.
“We’re trying to get to a place where we’re not under constant barrage,” Mason said, in regard to potential amendments to the measure.
History
Rent control was established in 1973 to stop rent hikes that would price out residents of the Mile Square City who lived here before the real estate boom of the late 70s and 1980s took off.
“My level of frustration with Hoboken is off the charts.” – Ron Simoncini
________
The limit on an increase in rent is usually two to three percent by the ordinance, depending on the economy.
New changes
Amendments to the ordinance were recently proposed with the help of former Corporation Counsel Michael Kates. There were four specific issues that were addressed. Mason said that at least two of those changes are ready to move forward to the council.
One change is the update of definitions in the rent control ordinance. The current ordinance has not been altered significantly over the years, and some of the terms and definitions are not even applicable because they do not conform to the rest of the state of New Jersey, according to Mason.
“How can we work together if we’re not speaking the same language?” Mason said on Tuesday.
The second change is a two year time limit on when a claim can be made against a landlord. There is no current limit on how far back a tenant can go for redress. For example, if 10 years ago a landlord charged an illegal rent and continued to do so, the tenant could be awarded back rent plus settlements for far more money.
Though not all the members of the Citizens for the Retention of Affordable Housing will agree, tenant advocate and attorney Cathy Cardillo believes a two-year limit is not out of the question.
“For me personally, and not all my members agree, I have no problem with a limitation on a tenants refund as long as she’s been properly noticed of her rights and been filed into the city contemporaneously before she moves into the apartment,” Cardillo said. “The tenant would have to inquire [into the rent]. If they don’t for two years, they could lose the right to refund. If the tenant doesn’t investigate within those two years, the rent would still go down if you notice your rent is illegal.”
Cardillo believes the problems start and end with the landlords trying to cheat the system.
“Honestly, and even one of my tenants in the group doesn’t believe me, but I’ve never had a case when there’s been an innocent landlord,” Cardillo said.
Ron Simoncini, a spokesperson for the Mile Square Taxpayers Association, a group of landlords in the city, is frustrated with the lack of progress that has come from the City Council.
“This council has had at least five different opportunities to cure these problems,” Simoncini said. “They don’t cure it because they’re political animals. They won’t do what’s right for the fear that there will be a political impact.”
The four problems which will be addressed, according to Simoncini, are changing phantom liability, which allows current landlords to be held liable for previous landlords’ mistakes; a better records-keeping method; a change in annual rent rise compared to monthly; and an alteration of some definitions so the law is consistent, as Mason mentioned.
Simoncini has worked all throughout New Jersey in regard to rent control, and finds Hoboken to be troublesome.
“My level of frustration with Hoboken is off the charts,” Simoncini said. “I’ve done 16 previous rent control oppositions. This is the most cynical, dysfunctional circumstance that I’ve ever seen.”
Although Simoncini is not the biggest supporter of rent control law, he does see a need for the ordinance to remain active.
“I’ve never been on one rent control site where somebody said we need to get rid of rent control,” Simoncini said. “It would be the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do would be to have vacancy decontrol.”
Vacancy decontrol is when a landlord preserves rent controls and tenant protections for occupied apartments, but removes them once the tenant moves out.
Currently, rent control applies to approximately 8,000 rental units in Hoboken. In order to qualify for rent control, the building would have to be built before 1987.
On the backburner
Many are now wondering why the amended resolution hasn’t been brought to the council just yet.
Cardillo said the city has “respected both views, but to date nothing has happened” since a subcommittee held meetings earlier this year in regard to an amendment of the rent control ordinance.
Mason blamed the mayor’s office, and said there has been “no effort on the part of this administration to try to accomplish it and get this done.”
However, Mayor Dawn Zimmer pushed the onus of finishing the project to the City Council. Zimmer said in an e-mail statement that it is up to the subcommittee, headed by Mason, to bring the agenda forward to the City Council.
Part of the issue is the transition of new corporation counsels. Cardillo said there hasn’t been the same cooperation to work together under the new corporation counsel. According to Simoncini, Kates is still willing to work on this to get it done.
“He’s waiting for a telephone call,” Simoncini said.
If something were to happen, it is believed by both sides that the issue could be placed on a referendum on the ballot.
“It’s actually easier in Hoboken to get it on the ballot for referendum,” Cardillo said. “What’s happening now is that I think that the [landlords] see that they, themselves, can also do a petition for referendum, doing these multiple mass mailings, more or less scaring property owners to set up a referendum themselves. If the council votes ahead to do something, it’s likely that either side is going to petition.”
Simoncini confirmed that a referendum is possible.
“If, in fact, the council is unable to do this, the prospect of a referendum will not come from the tenants; it will come from us,” he said. “Our referendum would be a complete reform of the rent control ordinance.” Simoncini said this is something the landlords would rather leave up to City Council.
While some aren’t sure what the delay has been to bring some parts of the ordinance forward for a first reading, Simoncini said the answer is clear.
“The politics have resulted in it not being able to get a public vetting through the process of a first reading,” Simoncini said. “It’s really sick, and it’s really sad.”
The subcommittee, headed by Mason, believes at least a portion of the new amendments to the rent control ordinance is ready to be presented. But some say since it is the “third rail of politics,” no one wants to touch it for fear of political repercussions. As they say in Hoboken, it’s always political season, which means it may be a while before rent control is visited once again by the council.
What do you think? Is rent control in urgent need of reform? Go to this story on our website at www.hudsonreprter.com and vote in our reader’s poll.
Ray Smith can be reached at RSmith@hudsonreporter.com.