Dear Editor:
One point must be made clear from the outset. Neither side in the debate over rent control wants to abolish it. The fact is that after 18 plus months of meetings with tenants, homeowners, and their advocates, the council, in a rare show of absolute unity, voted to enact these changes in the interest of all parties.
But now certain tenant activists would have the city return to what the courts have found to be seriously flawed. The amended ordinance adds protection for tenants by requiring that landlords regularly and repeatedly provide tenants with a written disclosure of their right to have their rent calculations reviewed by the Rent Control Office thereby enabling tenants to determine if they are being overcharged and to recover such overcharges. While Cheryl Fallick in her recent letter to the Reporter refers to some trepidation on the part of Councilman Mello, it must also be noted that he did indeed vote for the amended Ordinance. The councilman stated emphatically that among his reasons for doing so was to protect landlords, particularly those in owner-occupied buildings, from predatory contingency lawyers. This revision both informs tenants of their rights and impedes the plundering enterprise of such attorneys.
The greed so often cited by tenant activists is not limited to landlords! Another aspect of the amended ordinance that Ms. Fallick attacks is the granting of equitable authority to the rent leveling board. I find that position disingenuous. Let’s remember that equity is a term of art for fairness. What can be fairer than to allow a person appearing before the board to present whatever evidence they might have on the issue before the board? That principle applies to both tenants and landlords. In fact, Ms. Fallick is a member of that very board. As a board member she is in a position to ensure that the board does not abuse the equitable powers they have been given.
Let’s also not forget that the City Council did modify those equity powers as requested by tenant advocates to ensure that any action taken by the board does not violate the provisions of the ordinance. Finally remember, if either party in a dispute does not agree with a board decision, they still have the right to take the matter to the Courts. The change in the ordinance harms neither tenants nor landlords; rather it extends equal protection to all parties.
No doubt the need for rent control in Hoboken persists; this amendment goes a long way in correcting what was in place. A “yes” vote will only continue what the Court has found to be an “arbitrary, capricious and, as applied, unconstitutional” system. A no vote supports a more balanced, fairer system which protects all parties. I urge Hobokenites to take a stand in favor of resolution and equity by voting no on Tuesday.
Jim Goss