Dear Editor:
We have an important election coming up on November 8 and the chance to reject the recent changes to the rent control ordinance that harm renters. Real estate developers want rent control protections gutted in Hoboken and these changes, despite the misleadingly harmless description of them which will appear on the ballot, could have a significant role in destabilizing our community.
Many in the real estate industry have nothing to lose and much profit to gain if Hoboken is turned into a bedroom town of short term residents with no real investment in the community. Imagine every weekend being another Saint Patrick's Day celebration in Hoboken! That could happen if the changes to the rent control ordinance becomes law and succeeds in driving out many long-time residents.
When residents took to the streets with petitions to repeal the changes the City Council and their allies in the real estate industry worked hard to ignore the desire of thousands of voters to have a chance to vote on these changes. They turned their backs on democracy and continually threw obstacles towards having this referendum on the ballot.
A powerful, well-funded anti-rent control group of developers/investors along with the real estate lobby have sued to require voters to say “yes” if they don't want these changes to take effect.(And to have the question worded the way they wanted it to read) I don't believe that it is an accident that we have to vote “yes” to say no to the changes to this law. But people who care about keeping the community stable will show that they are not that easily confused.
Voting to reject these harmful changes by voting “yes” on November 8 will send a clear statement to the powerful and very well funded real estate industry that the people of Hoboken aren't going to be pushed around. Please vote yes on question number 2 to reject these changes which reward landlords who have been breaking the law by illegally overcharging tenants and giving them an incentive to harass current residents out of their homes in order to raise sky high rents even more.
Thank You,
Rebecca Lewis
To be honest, your writing, grammar and punctuation is challenging but I'd like to try to clarify a few points.
I don't know what a CRAAH is but as I understand it the referendum that is on the ballot is one that was tenant driven. Are tenants now a special interest group? As I understand it the referendum is a response to Mile Square Tax Payers Association's $11M class action law suit which has the city over a barrel. If there is any special interest group at work here it is this group. Why would a group of tenants want to keep everyone in court? Doesn't that cost money? As I understand Mile Square Tax Payers Assn charges their members dues - $100 per unit. So it would seem that Mile Square Tax Payers Assn is the group with the money - and who is going to pay those dues? Developers and professional landlords, that's who.
Here's what I don't understand: if rent control is such a terrible thing, if it's hurting so many landlords, why is the housing market booming in Hoboken? Why do so many multi-units bldgs keep getting sold? You and I both know that there is a glut of apartments on the market and they are being bought by investors who never set foot in Hoboken. I think that is what Lewis meant by her reference to St. Patrick's Day - with rents sky-high already there is a high turnover of residents cycling in-and-out because one false move, one layoff, one setback, and that rent is unaffordable. We already see this with the increase in shares and roommate situations.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "the courts directed the language based on what was in the referendum petition..." I think you are wrong there but it's hard to parse your sentence. As for the rent control hearings held by the council - my understanding is that the council heard what tenants had to say and then did what was financially and politically expedient. Hard to be fair with an $11 million dollar gun at your head.
In closing Mr. MeadowlandsCVB let me just say you sound bitter. Are you a landlord? Or friends with a landlord who didn't follow the law and got caught by their tenant? We all roll the dice from time to time and many get away with it. But some get caught. Landlords who follow the law - and there are many out there - have nothing to fear from rent control. But landlords who prefer to view their tenants as ATM machines must be very frustrated with it.
There's always Atlantic City, right?
This letter demonstrates exactly why a not vote is essential in Hoboken.
Rebecca Lewis is a member of CRAAH, a special interest group organized by an attorney who works on contingency fees that exploit gaps in the old ordinance. the group is comprised mostly made up of tenants who already have squeezed unconscionable settlements from landlords.
her letter is a manipulation of the facts. nothing in these amendments effects the term of tenancy in Hoboken nor are they related to st. patrick's day. landlords do not want to destabilize hoboken -- how would that benefit them?
the CRAAH position is to just keep everyone in court, but when they lose they claim the courts have "turned their back on democracy."
the truth is, the courts directed the language based on what was in the Referendum petition. the truth is, the tenants were heard by the council during months of hearings on the matter and their testimony was considered in the drafting of a law that passed 9-0. the truth is the council acted in a way that protects tenants and landlords.