Dear Editor:
Thanks for your article on the state of rent control. You have raised salient points, most importantly that tenants need protection from greedy landlords.
However, I must point out that this quagmire has only been exacerbated by the actions of predatory lawyers who have added particular venom to this toxic environment. While I view the MSTA with suspicion, it must also be recognized that some “tenant activists” are in fact reaping unconscionable profits exploiting the vagaries of the current rent control laws.
I take issue with the quote stating that there is “never…an innocent landlord.” This is simply not true.
We are former renters in Hoboken. In the early 80s, our rent was nearly doubled. At the time, we were misinformed that since that building was owner-occupied with only two tenants, the landlord was free to charge what he thought fit. We subsequently purchased a rowhouse, and have lived in it for nearly thirty years. When the time came to rent one of the two rental units, we consulted a local realtor. Based on our previous experience, we suggested a rent of $425, a bargain even in 1984. At no time were we told that such an increase was illegal. Indeed, we were encouraged to increase it, but chose to keep the apartment affordable.
In the 26 years of the tenant’s occupancy, we often decided not to raise the rent despite being entitled to do so and despite having made major improvements. Our altruism is borne out by the fact that the legal rent calculation, done by the rent control office, was nearly $100 more than the tenant was paying. This is without taking improvements into account.
The issue isn’t simply landlord greed vs. tenants’ rights. I emphasize that ours is an owner-occupied house; we own no other rental property. While I plead guilty to ignorance, I am certainly not greedy. There is a fear in Hoboken, fed by some well-intentioned activists, that all homeowners are developers. Again, not true.
A third proposed amendment went unmentioned in your article. Purchasers of buildings with rental units should, at the time of purchase, be informed of their obligations along with a history of the units’ rents. The same should be provided to prospective tenants. This was not the case for us. As a result, we’ve been obliged to pay nearly $90,000 to a tenant who enjoyed a well-below-market rent for 26 years. Where is the justice in this?
As we all know, there are ever fewer owner-occupied houses (and therefore rentals) in Hoboken. This is attributable, at least in part, to the laws as they now stand. Exempting houses with two or fewer units, while grandfathering in seniors and those receiving SSI, would help preserve affordable housing in Hoboken. The alternative is the inevitable development of these homes into condominiums, most built out into the precious outdoor space behind them, a situation that few would welcome.
For the good of all, amendment of rent control cannot come soon enough.
Jim Goss