I am unequivocally opposed to the amendment to Hoboken’s rent control ordinance being considered by the City Council at its virtual special meeting tonight.
In arriving at this position, I have listened to the input of a diverse group of stakeholders: tenants, landlords, elected officials, and other concerned residents. Simply put, I am opposed to this amendment because it would severely diminish our stock of rent stabilized units in the City of Hoboken.
I also understand that this amendment has been characterized as a “compromise” amendment in lieu of a potential referendum question this November. There is broad consensus that the potential referendum is a more severe attack on rent control. The logic I have heard is that if this “compromise” passes then the more severe referendum question will be withdrawn, but if this “compromise” does not pass, and the referendum does pass, the end result will be worse for tenants. Therefore, rather than risking a worse outcome, it is better to “compromise” by passing an amendment that avoids a worse outcome from a referendum vote in favor of landlords.
I understand this logic. However, I reject it because our primary obligation as elected officials, having taken an oath of office, is to advance the public interest. Tonight’s amendment does not advance the public interest. It advances the interests of special interest groups and wealthy, corporate landlords. It would result in displacement, further gentrification, further loss of below-market housing stock, and further erode the character of our city. I do not want to be a part of any such action.
I also do not take kindly to having a metaphorical gun being placed to my head by the Mile Square Tax Association, an aggressive corporate landlord lobbying organization, essentially being told to take this “compromise” or possibly face a worse consequence for tenants at the ballot box. As the Jersey Journal pointed out this morning, it’s time for the City Council to “grow a spine,” do their jobs, and push back against these bullying tactics by corporate landlords and their lobbyists.
I also reviewed communications from these same landlord special interest groups suggesting that tenants who oppose gutting rent control are “socialists” that are connected to an organization that is “pro-Hamas.” This tactic is just plain weird and shows a lack of respect for the intelligence of our voting public.
Before entering politics, I had the privilege of serving as Hoboken’s Rent Board Attorney and its Special Litigation Counsel. I also spent years as a private citizen serving as Tenant Advocate Attorney for the City of Union City and witnessed firsthand the need for public investment in protecting tenants’ rights, which is why I brought a Tenant Advocate Attorney to Hoboken once in office. While on the City Council, I led the effort to pass Z-88, a historic amendment to rent control. This is all to say that my record on rent control and affordable housing is well established. It’s something I believe in and am willing to fight for in November.
In conclusion, I want to be clear: if the amendment passes tonight and lands on my desk, it is dead on arrival. I will veto this amendment because it’s the right thing to do. I also have full confidence that should a referendum that proposes to further gut rent control be up for a vote in November, Hoboken voters will make the right decision at the ballot box.
Sometimes the veto pen is the last defense against corporate greed and tyranny. This is one of those instances.
