Hoboken’s rent control debate took a new twist last week when a Hudson County Superior Court judge ordered the Hoboken City Clerk’s Office to review a petition submitted by tenant advocates that calls for either the repeal of recent changes to the city’s 1973 rent control ordinance or a public vote on the changes.
Rent control applies to residential buildings built before 1987 and regulates the rent a landlord can charge a tenant. The law applies to approximately 8,000 units in Hoboken. Attempts to change the ordinance over the last 38 years have been highly contested by tenant advocates, who fear renters are being stripped of their rights.
‘There’s absolutely going to be appeals.’ – Charles Gormally
____________
The City Council unanimously approved three changes to the rent control ordinance on March 2 after almost two years of council subcommittee meetings. Tenants were outraged, worrying that changes they considered pro-landlord were the beginning of the end for rent control in Hoboken. Landlords and property owners were also angry, because they felt the changes should have gone further.
One change limits the back rent tenants can collect if a landlord is found guilty of overcharging them. Previously, tenants could be awarded money for the duration of the violation. The new changes limit payments to a maximum of two years. For many, the solution sounds simple: landlords should charge the correct rent. However, landlords say poor city record keeping has made it difficult for some property owners to calculate the legal rent.
In what some see as a response to that poor record keeping, a second change eases document requirements for a landlord applying for vacancy decontrol of a unit. Vacancy decontrol allows a landlord to raise the rent on an apartment by 25 percent once every three years if a tenant vacates willingly.
A third change requires landlords to inform tenants of their rights, and to show proof the information was supplied.
The petition drive
Dan Tumpson is a tenant advocate who co-led the petition effort to force a repeal or referendum of the changes.
Tumpson says he handed in petitions to the clerk’s office on March 30, within 20 days of March 11, when Mayor Dawn Zimmer signed the ordinance, as required by law.
To put a referendum on the ballot, the law requires petitioners to gather signatures totaling 15 percent of the voters from the most recent Assembly election. The petitioners say they were told by the Hudson County Deputy Clerk that they needed 972 signatures to place the issue on the ballot.
However, they say after rejecting the initial petitions submitted by Tumpson, City Clerk James Farina said the petitioners needed 1,967 signatures.
So Tumpson and his team took to the streets and gathered more signatures within a 10-day “cure” period prescribed by law. Tumpson says he handed in approximately 2,300 signatures. The clerk’s office rejected the petition again, even though the supplemental petitions were within the 10-day period. The city’s legal position has been that a lack of signatures is not a curable deficiency that can be corrected within 10 days.
Hudson County Superior Court Judge Bernadette DeCastro filed a decision on June 14 that said the City Clerk’s office did not properly review the signatures submitted by the tenant advocates, and ordered the clerk to review the amended petitions through a certification process.
“This court, based upon a reading of the statutes, finds that [the city clerk]’s actions were arbitrary and capricious in failing to accept the petition as filed,” her ruling reads. “It is therefore ordered that the City Clerk shall process plaintiffs’ filed petition as provided by law and review the petition and amended petition timely submitted consistent with the statute. If the Clerk determines the petitions are insufficient, by statute he will not certify the petition.”
“I was shocked that we had to go through this at all,” Tumpson said. “I was obviously happy that the judge ruled that the clerk was arbitrary and capricious by not reviewing the petitions. Now I hope we go through a proper certification process.”
Now what?
The ruling by the judge does not guarantee that a vote on the changes will appear on a ballot in an upcoming election.
If the clerk, through a certification process, finds that there are enough valid signatures requesting a referendum, then the question will be placed on the ballot either in the November election or a special election. The changes could also simply be repealed by the council, but the politics of that decision could be complicated and the outcome hard to predict.
Will the city appeal?
Charles Gormally, an attorney who represents a group of landlords in the city, has been granted permission from the court to intervene and appeal the results of the case.
“There’s absolutely going to be appeals,” Gormally said.
Gormally has requested a stay of the ruling, which would delay the results. Gormally said the clerk’s office should not have to review the petitions because it’s clear there were not enough signatures within the initial 20-day period after the law was signed by Zimmer.
He believes that if the city clerk goes through the certification process again the ultimate result will again be rejection.
Gormally said the ruling wasn’t a total loss for property owners and landlords.
“From our perspective, what’s important is that the law didn’t get suspended,” Gormally said. “If a valid referendum was filed, the law would be automatically suspended…We don’t think the city should have to pay for a full review process for [the clerk] to reach the same decision.”
Business Administrator Arch Liston said through a spokesperson that the legal department is still looking into the case, but would not say if the city will be involved in the appeals process.
Renee Steinhagen, the executive director of the Newark-based Public Interest Law Center New Jersey Appleseed, represented the petitioners.
“The city needs to move forward and give the people the right to be heard [by reviewing the petition],” Steinhagen said last week.
Tumpson has been involved in referendums for local issues since 1981.
“[The referendum process] is the only expression of true, direct democracy that exists for citizens,” Tumpson said. “What we call democracy is that you vote for somebody, and they’re your representative. You hope that they represent you, but you find out quite often they don’t.”
Ray Smith may be reached at RSmith@hudsonreporter.com