Report: Hoboken will have to vote again on rent control question
Feb 13, 2013 | 3920 views | 6 6 comments | 27 27 recommendations | email to a friend | print

HOBOKEN -- Not again! For real?

NJ.com reported Tuesday that a Superior Court judge overturned November's 8,248-to-8,196 vote that rejected changes to Hoboken's long-standing rent control laws. The changes, proposed by a property owners' group, would have eliminated rent control in certain buildings when current tenants left. But the changes were narrowly defeated.

The property owners want a new vote because they say the hurricane and other factors prevented some from voting on the issue.

To read a more detailed explanation on the vote, see related links to past stories, below.

Watch this site for updates when more information is available.

Comments
(6)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
VoteHoboken
|
February 20, 2013
If I am not mistaken this issue was one of the few times all of the City Council were in agreement and I do not think any of the would label themselves radical rent control advocates.

Cxgormally
|
February 14, 2013
You actually raise some interesting questions Dancing Rudy but you evidence a misunderstanding about what our election laws require.

First as noted by the court in the decision voiding the election, there are at least 114 and as many as 186 voters whose ballots did not contain any Hoboken public questions or candidates. Thus the reference to nearly 200.

To your point about who among those came forward to complain about it, the state law does not require those whose rights have been violated in an election to come forward and complain. What is required is that 15 people who are registered voters file the election contest. That is what happened here. If you would like to speak to any or all of the people whose ballots violated the law, I would be happy to give you the list Os names and addresses.

That said, we did speak to MANY other voters who never got their ballots to vote at all until days after the polls closed. Your next questions suggest that one should have to explore how someone who was denied their right to vote, would have actually voted in the election. Here is where you really go off track. How someone voted or would have voted is considered confidential and no one can compel a voter how they would have voted. Voting is considered a confidential matter. That is why the court followed the state law on the subject and did not consider this irrelevant issue. Since more than 52 voters were denied their right to vote for or against the public question, that is sufficient grounds to void the election.

Where you are most wrong is you conclusion that this was not about voter rights. While radical rent control advocates must be disappointed because this illegal election result has been declared void, this claim was fully focused on voter rights. All voters must be given a full and equal opportunity to participate in the election. When that doesn't happen our democracy demands that the election must be conducted again.
Jabberwock
|
February 14, 2013
Wow, that's a LOT of spin! So, if I understand you correctly, no one complained that they couldn't vote but 15 people were really angry that they getting get their way so you found some loophole and legal mumbo jumbo to overturn the election results on a technicality. This is unbelievable! No way that this decision will stand on appeal.
VoteHoboken
|
February 20, 2013
Since you so kindly offered and the names and addresses are part of the public record, it would be interesting to see a list of who was involved in the litigation.
Cxgormally
|
February 13, 2013
"Not again! For real?"... is not journalism. You should at least make an effort to get the story right. The judge hearing the election contest confirmed that at least 114 and as many as 186 voters cast ballots that did not even have the public question on the ballot. Since the election was decided by 52 votes this was sufficient under the law to mandate a new election. This is a victory for voter rights and gives all Hoboken voters a chance to have their vote count.
DancingRudy
|
February 13, 2013
Actually in light of the fact that Hoboken voters just voted by a 3-1 margin to have fewer elections, the phrase "Not again - For real" is probably a pretty accurate expression of the public sentiment.

Your previous comments have claimed that 200 voters were "denied" the right to vote. Now your admitting that it may have been as few as 114. That's not lawyering. That's lying.

Just curious - how many of those 114 (or 186 take your pick) who didn't get to vote on this issue came forward who you are supposedly advocating for came forward to complain that their right to vote was taken away?

Would people who voted out of town have voted virtually unanimously for your proposal when people who voted in hoboken split almost evenly? Why do you think that? Since you're so interested in "voter rights" how many of those voters whose rights you claim to be defending have you spoken to? How many say they would have voted on rent control if they had the chance? How many of those would have voted yes and how many would have voted no?

You won't answer these questions because sadly the one thing this decision seems to have had nothing to do with is voter rights.