Dear Editor: We want to make clear that though both sides are talking with each other about Rent Control (RC), there is no "compromise in the works," as the June 4, 2000 Reporter headline states, since no compromise of tenant protections under RC is contemplated. We are two of the five members of the Committee of Petitioners who organized the circulation of a referendum petition protesting RC amendments that the Council majority passed on March 1. The petitioners did not believe that the amendments were intended "only to bring government financed housing under RC" because the amendments included many provisions which clearly were aimed at undermining RC and depriving tenants of its protections. Our petition, signed by 1,863 Hoboken voters, successfully prevented the amendments from going into effect and gave the Council two choices: repeal the amendments within 20 days or put them on the ballot. The Council did eventually repeal the amendments, though not in the time frame required by state law. Since then, two new versions have been introduced and withdrawn which had many of the same problems as the amendments we protested. They would allow landlords to make deals with state agencies to jack up the rent far about RC levels and then come under RC at these decontrolled rents. Whether it is legal for these new RC amendments to be considered while others with overlapping content are supposed to be put on the ballot is an ongoing controversy which the courts may ultimately decide. Nevertheless, we agreed to talk with city officials about their avowed objective of "protecting tenants in government financed housing by bringing them under RC." We have consistently pointed out that no changes in the RC law are required to accomplish this goal, since this housing is already under RC except when pre-empted by legitimate federal or state rent regulatory agencies. All that is needed are regulations adopted by the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board to define how the base rent is to be calculated when the government financed housing makes the transition from federal regulation to local RC. There are some other thorny issues to deal with, however. In 1998, Joseph Barry, President of the Applied Companies, asked Norman Sweeten, the attorney for the Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board, to provide "an opinion that upon HUD decontrol, the Municipal Rent Control Ordinance would not effect [sic]" nine of Barry's government, financed housing properties "until a true uncontrolled market rent was established by the owner." Norman Sweeten complied. He advised Barry that "once the HUD mortgages are paid off and the properties are no longer under the control of any federal rules and regulations the owner will have the right to set the first market rent" before coming under RC. This opinion was not supported by valid legal arguments or court rulings, and in fact is contradicted by the RC law itself. Also, according to Councilman Steven Hudock and Rent Control Officer Carol McLaughin, Sweeten's opinion was never authorized or sanctioned by either the Rent Leveling Board or the City of Hoboken. Nevertheless, this unauthorized, unsubstantiated and untrue opinion was submitted by Applied Companies as evidence that nine Applied projects were not under RC and used to convince the NJ State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to approve a "Regulatory Agreement" which allowed Applied to jack up their rents to market levels, bypassing RC. If this unauthorized opinion had not been submitted as evidence, the DCA Regulatory Agreement would never have been approved. In fact, since RC should have regulated the rents after federal regulations ended, the DCA had no authority to even make the Regulatory Agreement, since its authority to pre-empt RC is predicated upon it functioning as a rent regulatory agency, and the DCA was in fact deregulating the rents! We advised the Hoboken officials at our May 31st meeting that the City of Hoboken should join in a lawsuit that is being brought by the Public Interest Law Center of New Jersey to overturn the Regulatory Agreement between the DCA and the Applied Companies because otherwise the affordable housing in those nine buildings will be lost, setting a precedence for the decontrol of thousands of other affordable units in Hoboken. The City officials with whom we met seemed to be interested in our input, but we have yet to see what they will do. For the time being, at least, all RC amendments have been withdrawn. Along with other members of the Committee of Petitioners, we acted to stop amendments to RC which we considered to be extremely dangerous to tenants. But, if we did not have the involvement of more than 20 petition circulators and the signatures of 1,863 Hoboken voters, we would have failed. Therefore, in contrast to the image given in the Hoboken Reporter, it is not members of the Committee of Petitioners who must be convinced that RC amendments are acceptable, but all the tenants and voters of Hoboken. No "compromise" that ould weaken the existing RC protections can be acceptable to tenants. Daniel Tumpson and Annette Illing