FUTURE OF RENT CONTROL PROTECTIONS ON NOVEMBER BALLOT IN HOBOKEN

[RandySF]

On the ballot this election cycle is an important referendum question for all registered voters in Hoboken pertaining to the future of rent control protections within the City of Hoboken. Voters who receive a Vote by Mail ballot will have this referendum question on the reverse side of the ballot (which will need to be flipped over to access). 

According to current Hoboken law, annual rent increases imposed by landlords in residential units subject to rent control are capped at either 5% or the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate, whichever is lower. However, when a unit has been occupied for three years or more and becomes vacant, landlords can raise the rent by up to 25%—a process known as "partial vacancy decontrol." This increase can only happen once every three years for the same unit. 

If adopted, the proposed referendum ordinance would allow landlords to increase rent to market rates without the 25% limitation when a unit becomes vacant, regardless of how long the prior lease was. In exchange, landlords would pay a $2,500 fee to the City of Hoboken, which would go into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to support affordable housing initiatives in the City. 

A “No” Vote Means: You support maintaining the current Rent Control Code and increases upon vacancies as they are currently limited -- to the above-referenced "lesser of the 5%/CPI" increase or to a maximum of 25% if no 25% increase had been charged in the prior three years, or longer.  There would be no option for an unlimited rent increase upon vacancy coupled with a $2,500 fee paid to the City of Hoboken to be deposited in the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund. 

https://www.hobokennj.gov/news/future-of-rent-control-protections-on-november-ballot-in-hoboken

[oldsoftie]

1. As a landlord I dont think this rule is TOO restrictive, but it may be a bit low for NJ

5% a yr isnt much where I am. And the CPI doesnt show local tax increases or insurance rate increases or maintenance cost increases.
If we had such a law, it would likely just make lots of landlords not renew a lease in order to get a bigger raise
Personally I keep rents well below market. That way people stay put longer. If they start looking to move & see they'll pay MORE for LESS house, they stay put. And I'm not 35 anymore so I prefer taking in less than dealing with turnover & upgrades

[hueymahl]

2. Rent control doesn't work or has unintended consequences worse than the problem it is trying to solve

NY has tried it forever, and you can see the issues there. Plus, it drives out smaller landlords. People think they are "putting it to the man" but in reality it punishes families that may own only one or two properties. The big landlords can make it work and suffer less. The smaller ones are hurt severely.

[ColinC]

3. As a landlord who owns "only 1 or 2 properties,"

I promise you I would not actually be punished if I could not arbitrarily and consistently raising the rent on my tenant to the point they cannot live there. That being said, the people being punished without rent control are tenants.