To the Editor:
Despite what you may have heard from the Bayonne Tenants Organization, rent control has not been abolished. Bayonne has had rent control regulations in place for almost half a century. In 2011, we transitioned from an ordinance that served its purpose for four decades to a more updated ordinance that addresses the challenges of today. Let me be clear, November 4 is not about voting for or against rent control but rather which type of rent stabilization measures are fair to everyone.
I believe property rights are the foundation to individual freedom and prosperity. Although I find myself more in line with Jeffersonian philosophy my opinion on this debate is greatly influenced by Rousseau’s concepts of “perceived good result” and “public good.” Someone builds an apartment complex to meet the needs of the community. The rent is then determined by the marketplace and there is a mutual benefit. The free market is ideal but when it shifts primarily in favor of one party we have an obligation to protect the public good.
Rent stabilization laws were established to do just that. These measures reinforce the equality of bargaining power between the tenant and the landlord. Much like rent control regulations have in the past, vacancy decontrol is working. Landlords can no longer use the ordinance as an excuse to ignore necessary improvements. I fear a return to the old ordinance will mostly favor one side by disrupting the balance and halting our city’s progress.
The BTO claims that by selecting yes you are voting affordability but I question for whom? Their proposed ordinance is not based on income. Reverting back to their ways will still allow someone making $150,000 per year the same access to a rent controlled apartment as any family in need of affordable housing. Previously, the BTO claimed that the 2011 ordinance ignored tenant’s income and would have led to unfair rent increases, which has not happened. In the terms of raising rent levels for existing tenants vacancy decontrol regulates rent increases by three factors: percentage of existing rent, Consumer Price Index, and tenant’s household income.
The bottom line is the present ordinance safeguards our seniors and fixed-income families with protections that go well beyond the civil court system. Vacancy decontrol defends the rights of property owners by allowing minimal increases on apartments to counterbalance the burden of rising property taxes. In its short time this ordinance has proven to be more effective at balancing the bargaining power of both parties in the current market than the previous 1973 regulations supported by the BTO. Based upon its success and consideration of the “public good” concept I will be voting “No” this November 4.
PETER FRANCO