HOBOKEN – After tenant advocates from Hoboken submitted a petition with over 1,400 signatures to stop changes to the city’s rent control ordinance, the Mile Square Taxpayers Association, a group of property owners in Hoboken, have contested the validity of the petition that would stop three changes to the controversial 1973 law from going into effect.
“To stop a law from being implemented, a committee of petitioners is required to submit signatures totaling 15 percent of the vote in the previous election of the general assembly,” said Charles X. Gormally, Esq., of Brach Eichler PC in Roseland in a press release. Gormally represents landlords in a class action lawsuit against Hoboken who have been challenging the city’s past administration of the ordinance. “The tenants’ petition would therefore require 2,188 signatures to suspend the law and be considered a referendum. Instead, the Tenants’ Committee submitted only 1,442 signatures, less than 50 percent of the required number. The Committee has not earned the right to have these Petitions reviewed by the City Clerk, as the statute is definitive in its requirement for these signatures to be delivered no later than 20 days after the law is adopted. The period has passed and the requirement has not been met. The City should notify them that they are dead in the water.”
The amendments, which were approved by the council unanimously on March 2, limit tenant reimbursement for illegal rent overcharges to two years and make it easier for landlords to provide documentation for seeking a vacancy decontrol. Landlords are also required to distribute a pamphlet outlining tenant’s rights and obtain signatures confirming delivery whenever a change in rent or tenancy occurs.
Tenant advocate and attorney Cathy Cardillo filed an order to show cause earlier this week, contesting the council’s vote on the ordinance because of alleged conflicts of interest involving council members.
The MSTA also filed an order to show cause that asks the court to “determine that the petition submission is void on its face”, claiming it doesn’t comply with the mandate of state statutes.
The City Clerk’s office was still reviewing the matter on Friday afternoon. — Ray Smith
Our Digital Archive from 2000 – 2016
