Citizens of Hoboken:
Contrary to Ron Simoncini’s assertion in last week’s Reporter that “there is nothing harmful or unfair to Hoboken tenants” in Ordinance Z-88 (which amends Hoboken’s Rent Control [RC] ordinance and which is the subject of public question No. 2 on Hoboken’s November 8 ballot), Z-88 harms tenants (and rewards landlords who charged illegal rents) in many ways:
*The base year (from which legal rents are calculated) is changed from 1973 to 1985, so all illegal rents charged during those years are legalized.
*A “period of repose” provision prevents a tenant from recovering more than 2 years of illegal rent overpayment.
*A “statute of limitations” provision prevents a tenant from recovering ANY illegal rent overpayment if the tenant does not request a legal rent calculation within 2 years of receiving a “disclosure statement” which does not even “disclose” that the registered rent may be illegal.
*A landlord can submit “alternative proofs” to justify past rent increases to substitute for missing registration and vacancy decontrol (VD) forms which are required for rent increases. Unfortunately, these “alternative proofs” need not be valid evidence at all: a certification from the landlord could suffice. Z-88 would thus permit an unscrupulous landlord to insert one or more illegal VDs based only on his certification and no other evidence. (Contrary to Mr. Simoncini’s assertion that “all evidence would be subject to challenge by tenant representatives”, prior tenants who might refute such certifications may have left Hoboken and/or be unaware that the RC hearing is even happening. Is accepting unverifiable evidence Mr. Simoncini’s idea of “the American way”?) This would not only legalize a present illegal rent, it would also allow the present legal rent to be jacked up far beyond what the current tenant is paying, encouraging the landlord to evict that tenant so the next tenant will pay the much higher rent.
*Z-88 gives the Rent Control Board the “equitable authority” to depart from the RC law when they think it is “fair” to do so, completely undermining the law.
Yet Mr. Simoncini seems to be suggesting that because the Council held 18 months of hearings prior to enacting Z-88 and approved it unanimously, then it must be fair. This is obviously not true: Z-88 only benefits landlords who violate the law and harms their tenant victims and does not address the alleged misadministration which motivated the RC hearings in the first place. Mr. Simoncini also suggests because I and other tenant advocates submitted suggestions for dealing with possible RC problems to the Council RC Subcommittee that these suggestions helped shape the Z-88 amendments. This is also obviously not true; unlike Z-88, our suggestions addressed administration problems without weakening RC protections.
Bottom line: Z-88 weakens RC, hurts tenants, and benefits only landlords who violate the law. Z-88 is a first step in dismantling RC which will lead to many of our friends and neighbors losing their homes. If you believe in maintaining tenant protections, you have the opportunity to exercise your democratic right to do something about it: vote YES to reject Z-88 and preserve tenants’ RC protections!
Daniel Tumpson