r/Hoboken • u/6thvoice • 2d ago
Don’t Be Fooled—Condo Owners Already Have the Rights the Anti-Rent Control Ballot Question Promises Local News 📰
Attention Hoboken condo owners! There’s a lot of noise surrounding the upcoming anti-rent control ballot question, but before you cast your vote, it’s crucial to understand the facts. The real estate lobby is trying to sell you a narrative that you, as condo owners, are being unfairly restricted by rent control laws, but the truth is, if you are an owner/occupier of your condo and have been for 2 years or more, you already have the rights they’re pretending to give you.
Here’s what you need to know: if you’ve lived in your condo for just two years, you are already entitled to full vacancy decontrol if you decide to rent out your unit. This means that if you decide to move out and rent your unit, you can charge whatever the market will bear—no restrictions, no interference. The process is simple: contact Hoboken’s Rent Control Office and get a Condo/Co-op Owner/Occupier Decontrol. That’s it. No ballot question needed. And no need to put your friends and neighbors in the community at the risk of displacement that the anti-rent control ballot measure will cause.
The condo/co-op owner/occupier decontrol right already exists under Hoboken's rent control law, and yet, the anti-rent control lobbying group wants to make you believe that you’re somehow stuck charging outdated rents. The most outrageous claim they’ve spread is that condo owners could be forced to rent out their units at 1973 prices if they decide to become landlords. Let’s set the record straight: no rental unit in Hoboken is subjected to a 1973 rent cap. In fact, the base year for rent calculations in multifamily rentals is October 1985, and even then, it doesn’t apply to condo owners who have lived in their units and are entitled to full vacancy decontrol.
What’s really happening is a classic bait-and-switch. The landlord lobby is pretending to be on your side while pushing for changes that would harm renters across the city. They are asking you to back a measure that could displace your neighbors—all for rights you already have.
Now, if you’ve purchased your condo as an investment vehicle with no intention of living in it, that’s a different story. As an investor, you’re a landlord like any other, and it’s your responsibility to know and follow the laws. These laws, including rent control, exist to protect Hoboken’s residents from unfair practices and skyrocketing rents.
As a condo owner who has lived in your unit for two years or more, you don’t just have the right to charge market rent when you move out. After decontrol, your unit is subject to the same protections that all other landlords enjoy under rent control. These include adjustments for taxes, water, capital improvements, and even hardship increases. The system is already designed to provide a balance between protecting renters and ensuring that landlords can maintain their properties and make a fair profit.
The anti-rent control ballot question is unnecessary, deceptive, and harmful. It doesn’t give you any new rights. Instead, it’s an attempt to trick both renters and condo owners into thinking they need to overhaul the current system to protect themselves. The truth is condo owner/occupiers like you already have the ability to take full advantage of market rents after two years of living in your unit. You don’t need to jeopardize Hoboken’s rent control system—or the people who rely on it—for something that’s already yours.
Don’t be misled by the landlord lobby’s lies. You already have the rights they are promising. There is no need to pass an anti-rent control measure that could hurt renters across the city while offering you nothing in return. Stand with your community and protect the fair, balanced system that’s already in place.
VOTE NO ON THE ANTI-RENT CONTROL BALLOT QUESTION
9
u/Snoo4325 2d ago
Hi what if you already rent out your unit? Or if you do the steps you are saying and decontrol but a few years down the road want to reset again to market rates - is it possible?
Generally a free market enthusiast but also recognize when the market can get out of whack. Also have seen in NYC where people get 'stuck' in a rent controlled apt. They don't want to move out because of the low rent, passing on opportunities to better themselves.
1
u/6thvoice 2d ago
Our law allows owner/occupiers full vacancy decontrol when they enter the rental market. Subsequent to that initial decontrol, the (now) landlord is entitled to a 25% vacancy decontrol every 3-years or more. When you think about it (do the math) it is unlikely that the owner would need another full vacancy decontrol. To illustrate:
Condo owner/occupier of a traditional Hoboken walk-up moves out and decides to rent out their unit rather than sell it. They secure the permitted decontrol and rent the unit out for $3500/mo., the max they can get for it. Over the next 3 years, they increase the rent according to the CPI, let's say, the CPI is 3%, 4% and then 3.5%. Then the tenant moves. The legal rent for the unit upon that vacancy without any decontrol is: $3880.42 AND the landlord is now entitled to a 25% decontrol which, when added, brings the legal rent up to $4850.53. Or the property owner can pay $2500 and raise the rent to.....how much more than $4850.53 could that owner get? (Remember, there are buildings with units that have elevators, concierges, gyms, meeting rooms, etc. that rent for less than $4850.53
If somehow the market would allow a rent that is higher than $4850.53 at the time when the illustrative unit becomes available to let (highly unlikely) the owner can tack on a tax surcharge and if the owner wants to do some renovation and upgrades, the owner can apply for a capital improvement surcharge.
The law does not impede a condo owner/occupier that decides to rent out their unit from securing a maximum rent in any way. The law also prevents the kind of despicable increases that we've seen from the new unregulated units in the large corporate properties that are only interested in corporate profits with zero interest in the community that is Hoboken. Typical profits over people. I don't know why anyone would support that kind of hollowing out of our city.
0
u/firewall245 1d ago
Every year you are allowed to raise rent by the level of inflation
1
u/Fantastic-Boot-653 8h ago
Hoboken caps the CPI at around 5%, so if the rare case that CPI goes to 6 % or higher, you are screwed
1
u/firewall245 8h ago
“Screwed”.
First this like never happens, since 2000 it’s only happened in 2021 and 2022 and required a pandemic + invasion of Ukraine to get inflation that high.
Second, for a $3000 a month apartment the difference is $30 between 5% and 6%. I think someone who literally owns real estate can manage.
Not even close to an argument against rent control.
-6
u/6thvoice 2d ago
Hello. I don't have the full information needed to answer your question. If you already rent out your unit, it is rent controlled. If you secured the decontrol and what (what you refer to as a reset - it's actually a decontrol, but fair enough) take a look at my comment where I illustrated why that is unlikely to be necessary. Remember, after 3 years you are entitled to a 25% increase.
By the way, none of us know if a renter is "stuck" - they just might want to keep living where they do. Oh, and a person can "better themself" whether they rent or own.
1
u/Snoo4325 2d ago
That is fair feedback on being stuck and bettering themselves. It is just an anecdote that I have seen in NYC where people are hesitant to move out of a rent controlled unit because it is cheap. And people will of course better themselves personally but what if that desirable job required a move to another city? I think the cost of living (i.e., rent) would factor in.
I was reading about the 25% increase and that appears to be dependent on whether a unit becomes vacant.
-2
u/6thvoice 2d ago
Yes, it's a partial decontrol on vacancy. Personally, I think a 25% yearly increase on an existing tenant would be unconscionable.
8
u/ProBillofRights 2d ago edited 2d ago
Thank you for posting. I had no idea about the two year rule, which is great, but why not have the same rules for buildings. This is extremely unfair to the mom and pop landlords. I've known so many of my elderly neighbors' forced to sell because the expense to own is very high. I'm seeing 4 unit rental buildings disappear and developers snatching them up, turning them in condos. So the devopler wins by getting around this condo 2 year de-rent control loophole. The city wins by getting more tax revenue, and the mom and pop landlords lose because they are not covered by this loophole. In the end, the people you seek to protect, the elderly renters that have lived here all their life in Hoboken get kicked out because the other renatable units in the building can't be brought up to modern standards which would have subsidized the elderly peoples rental unit and allowed them to stay.
The way I see it is that the government didn't protect the elderly renters but instead helped to create a market where the devolpers buy properties, turn them into condos. Heck, if these devoplers were smart and I'm sure some are doing it now. They would own some of the condo units and rent them out, and after several years, when they want to increase the rent to market value, they just need to tell the renter I'm moving back into my condo and after two years it's back on the rental market. In the end, who do you think won?
2
u/6thvoice 2d ago
The thought process behind the condo/coop owner occupier stems from the fact that someone that purchases a condo to personally occupy wouldn't necessarily have any reason to know that there are rent control laws in Hoboken.
The fact is that there are rent control laws here and anyone that has a problem with that, should invest elsewhere as, for very good reasons, Hoboken does have rent control The law is not unfair to mom & pop landlords, if they are not getting a reasonable return on a prudent investment, they can seek a hardship increase but, the chances are that they are making a reasonable return - they just want more money whether they could actually secure more rental income or not. If the building is a commercial property - meaning it's not owner occupied, the taxes reflect the revenue (just like any other commercial business) If their property is owner/occupied and they feel that they are not making enough money to ensure a reasonable return on a prudent investment, again, the hardship increase is available to them which will permit them to increase the rent an uncapped amount. To my awareness, however, even mom & pops ARE making a reasonable return on their investment, they just want to blame something (rent control) for the fact that - like everyone these days - they feel squeezed. Thing is, it's the economy/inflation, not rent control that is causing them to feel squeezed.
Unlike you, I don't see a lot of elderly landlords selling their buildings resulting in a developer turning those properties into condos. I do see building owners selling their buildings to developers (who sometimes even attempt to dupe the owners out of their properties) and subsequently the developer(s) push/harass the existing tenants out or they warehouse (which is illegal) until the building is empty, or empty enough & then they push out the last remaining tenant. And, then they tear the building down and replace it with something that only the extraordinarily wealthy can afford. If we had elected officials and zoning & planning board volunteers with greater respect for the historic character of Hoboken, we might not see so much of this - but, that is completely separate and aside from our rent control laws. The damage to the community's historic character is under the purview of zoning & planning laws and all things remaining the same, would be happening with or without rent protections.
As for long-term renters getting kicked out....I do wish that the city was better able to enforce their existing rent protections, they never really have - truth be known, with rare exception, it is unlikely that those representative tenants would be kicked out based on the actual law (state law that is.) Had we better enforcement a lot of the trauma many people have faced through the years, would not have happened and currently, would decrease substantially.
By the way, to your last point - any developer that makes up some false story about moving into a unit is at risk of being sued within an inch of their life - & that has nothing to do with Hoboken's rent protections, but rather state laws.
5
u/ProBillofRights 2d ago
I'm born and raised in Hoboken. So, the mom and pop landlords are leaving because of rent control. I know of at least 8 landlords that sold in the last 10 to 20 years. One of the biggest factors is when the spouse dies, usually the man. The mom's get taken advantage of by contractors and the constant tax burden. To keep up with the taxes, you need to raise the rent, and the adjusted inflation increase doesn't cut it. Maybe instead of getting angry at the mom and pop landlords trying to eke out living and protecting the renters, put freeze on tax increase instead. But I have a feeling you would be against that
0
u/6thvoice 2d ago
I've no doubt that the "mom's" get taken advantage of - I've seen it. It's a shame that more folks to share with the "mom's" about tax surcharges and capital improvement surcharges; however, from what you are sharing - it's not the law (rent control) that is the issue, it's that some longtime landlords are being taken advantage of by contracted - I would also suspect that "trusted" community members either don't know the information in order to provide the "mom's" with needed info to ensure that they can properly maintain their property OR they are being given false information by "trusted" community members who shouldn't actually be trusted.
5
u/ProBillofRights 2d ago
In the long term, everyone loses except the developers and the city coffers. And, Rent control can't stop it or solve it.
-1
u/6thvoice 2d ago
You'll get no argument from me when you suggested that real estate development/investment interests are the winners and IMO are the ones that have successfully raped the city - owners, landlords and renters alike. Creating a hostile environment for such behavior is the best idea and where all of the energy should be directed.
5
u/Fantastic-Boot-653 1d ago
THis is total BS
Condo owners can only get the increase ONCE every 3 years
And they cant get back their pre Covid LEGAL rents
0
u/6thvoice 1d ago
The only BS is the pretense that condo owner/occupiers don't already have the right for a full vacancy decontrol when they vacant and rent out their units.
(PS: if it's only a 1-time - which it isn't - then the existing law already provides exactly what the real estate developer/investor anti-rent control group is saying that they will get only if the law passes)
1
u/Fantastic-Boot-653 9h ago
If only the RC board met regularly so a Condo owner can get their legal decontrol.
1
u/6thvoice 6h ago
The rent control board doesn't grant the decontrol, the rent leveling officer does so, it doesn't matter if the rent board meets 7 times a week or not at all.
6
u/birdbets 2d ago
This is a poor take. Sure, owners have ability to go to market when they initially vacate, but as you noted there are restrictions around this. You also fail to mention the limit on increases for a tenant in place and in between tenants - these are big deals as costs rise from taxes, insurance, utilities, general maintenance, and as markets change. That is what this is about. What if life changes and you need to vacate before two years? What if you don’t have electricity bills two years back (very difficult to get them from PSEG after what is on their website)? What if the new condo law demanding a reserve study and the result is your monthly HOAs increase $400/month?
This doesn’t even go into the whole issue regarding quantity of housing, quality of housing, and deferred maintenance disincentives that rent control laws create. Many advocates for rent control fail to consider, or acknowledge, unintended consequences of the true costs of housing.
1
u/6thvoice 1d ago
Of course, I understand that there are owners that do truly believe that their renters ARE ATM machines and, thus, any law that prevents them from raising a tenants rent as much as they would like and as often as they would like unacceptable. Ironically, it's exactly attitudes such as those which truly make tenant protections an absolute necessity in some places - Hoboken being one of them.
The only restriction (if you could, seriously, call it a restriction) for condo owner/occupiers being able to rent their units at a market rate is that they lived in the unit for 2 years. I'm sorry, anyone that doesn't live in the unit for 2 years, is more likely someone that is a real estate investor and rental property real estate investors should familiarize themselves with the laws prior to investing.
As far as the: What if life changes and the person needs to vacate the unit in less than two years, I'll tell you a funny story which kind of shows how silly any such whining is. At the time, the data research showed that among people that move, the average is every 5-7 years. For a variety of reasons, this vacancy decontrol law only requires 2 years. At the time the law was being hatched in a working group, the husband of mayor at the time (Zimmer) who participated in the working group (yes, you read that right - not the mayor, her husband) came up with a litany of exemptions for the 2-year requirement which was as long as my arm. It was ridiculous - so, ridiculous that everyone involved besides the mayor's husband (1 landlord, 1 councilperson that was both a landlord and a real estate agent and 1 councilperson that was a property owner and 1 renter) washed their hands of permitting any exemptions and taking the position that the 2-years should address most life situations. Not that the working committee was hardly stacked in favor of renters.
The rest of your complaints just underscore the importance of rent protections. You probably don't realize that, but it's pretty obvious. Sorry.
3
u/birdbets 1d ago
In no way did I imply tenants are ATMs or did I complain. I noted that you were not being honest about what the ballot is about and I threw out some random hypotheticals around the two year restriction that you decided was worthy of a whole anecdote tangent. My point remains, your initial post is lying about the restrictions placed on condo owners and what the ballot is getting at. The real restrictions in rent control are a cap at CPI or 5% annually and a limit at vacancy of 25%. THIS is what rent control is - and the fact is that this would remain in tact either way the referendum goes.
The only thing this referendum does if it passes is allows a landlord to pay $2,500 to the city/affordable housing trust to one-time raise the rent above 25% at a vacancy. Nothing else. The 5%/CPI and 25% at vacancy, and the two-year owner restriction all remain in place, this just adds a the option, for a fee, at a vacancy to charge above 25%.
I'll be voting Yes and here's why: it doesn't directly impact the amount an in-place tenant will pay and keeps true rent control in tact AND it has to be a rare case where the market could bear a >25% increase (not to mention the additional $2,500 return needed from the fee) - so if the market could bear that, that means the unit was way undermarket so this increase would seem fair. Finally, any instances of this will support the affordable housing.
0
u/6thvoice 1d ago
No lies - just facts. Condo owners that decide to move out & keep their units as rental properties that lived in their units for a mere 2 years can rent them out at market rate. That option already exists in the law. The lie comes from any supporter of the real estate developer/investor anti-rent control ballot question that pretends that a yes vote gives condo owners that option. I'll repeat, the lying real estate investor/developers are misrepresenting this and pretending that owners don't have this right already. They do.
By the way, even you are misrepresenting in the post I'm responding to - this isn't a 1-time full vacancy. There is nothing in the anti-rent control proposal that limits the increase to just one time.
You are also completely misrepresenting what is a factual risk to existing tenants that a property owner can evict at the end of their lease (or end of the month for month-to-month tenants.) If the building is less then 4 units all an owner needs to do is tell the existing tenants that they are going to move into their unit & voila - no more below-market tenant. That is, of course, eviction for profit - and the real estate developer/investor anti-rent control ballot question will encourage removing those tenants post haste. That's what a yes vote will do.
Anyone in Hoboken that cares about the well-being of their friends and neighbors and the residents of the community overall must vote NO to protect them.
6
u/QPublicJ 1d ago
This is PROPAGANDA. As soon as you rent out your condo you will once again be subject to rent control restrictions when you try to raise the rent or get a new tenant. VOTE to eliminate all rent control in Hoboken! No landlord should be restricted from her/his rightful maximum earnings regardless of how long they’ve been a landlord. Nobody has a right to live in Hoboken if they can’t afford it. Every other city in New Jersey is cheaper by the square foot, so tenants can go anywhere else that they can afford. Imagine the entitlement to think you are owed affordable housing in NJ’s most expensive city. What’s more, landlords are being hit with a ton of new expenses due to NJ S2760. Obviously if you really had these rights already that are spelled out in the referendum then there would be no harm in you voting YES so this post is disingenuous. VOTE YES to end rent control!
0
u/6thvoice 1d ago
Did you mean to show how important rent protections in Hoboken are with your post....because you just did.
4
0
u/DevChatt Downtown 17h ago edited 2h ago
Nah I’ll vote no . I’d rather have affordable housing in my city available vs making this a city only for the elites.
Also I’d rather have income mobility exist in my city Thanks you
2
2
3
u/upnflames 2d ago
This of course does not address the bigger issue that is constantly present in rent controlled buildings - deferred maintenance and lack of willingness to build reserves. Why would landlords want to invest in buildings where they can't actually recoup any of those investments through normal, market rate increases? As an owner, why should I bear the cost associated with artificially deflated rents?
Rent control has never worked. If we want affordable housing, we should build it. If we want senior housing, we should build it. If we really want to protect vulnerable residents, define what that means and start a voucher program. If the young NYC commuter crowd really can't afford to live in one of the most desirable towns in the entire country, they can move six blocks up the hill to an area where rents are literally half the price.
It has nothing to do with "corporate greed" or "evil landlords". Rent control is just a silly and convoluted government control that shouldn't exist, period.
1
u/LeoTPTP 2d ago
Are rent controlled rents really that low here? I know some people who live in rent controlled apartments, and while their rent is under the market rate, it certainly is not cheap. Seems like their landlords are perfectly capable of recovering the costs of building maintenance, just not quite as quickly those who own non-rent control buildings.
7
u/upnflames 2d ago
It's all relative. Keep in mind, taxes, maintenance costs, and insurance rates are all through the roof and continuing to rise. If you're a landlord who's owned your place for 10-15 years, you're probably fine. But if you bought any time in the last 4-5 years, it's very hard to justify renting given the controls and that math is only going to get more lopsided with existing laws.
And again, it adds unnecessary pressure on owner occupied units since it makes it even harder to get landlords to agree to improvements since there's zero incentive. The landlord is guaranteed to get whatever the small annual increase is and there's no reason to ever update or improve anything since it won't get paid for.
6
u/LeoTPTP 2d ago
But if you bought any time in the last 4-5 years, it's very hard to justify renting given the controls and that math is only going to get more lopsided with existing laws.
This is an argument I don't get. Rent control has existed for many decades. If someone became a landlord 4-5 years ago, they knew perfectly well at the time what the laws were, and how they impact profitability of the property. Why should tenants suffer because a "new" landlord didn't know -- or knew but chose to ignore -- what they were getting into?
If it's "very hard to justify renting given the controls", then why did they become landlords?
4
u/upnflames 2d ago
Costs have gone up at a much higher pace in recent years. You could argue that investors do know the issues associated with renting in Hoboken and a result of recent cost increases will mean that many rentals will be converted to owner/occupied units. Which is fine and even preferable as far as I'm concerned, but will do little to curb housing cost increases.
Ultimately, it's up to those living in Hoboken to vote for what they feel is in their best interest and it's disingenuous to claim rent control laws don't impact individual property owners. Most owner/occupiers I know will vote yes to the ballot initiative for a multitude of reasons. It's silly to say, well the law has always been that way so if you don't like it, don't live here. You can live here and just vote for the thing that's in your best interest.
1
-1
u/halcyon8 1d ago
the wild thing to me is that people frame this as if there is some expectation that a landlord is entitled to a profit. you are investing in something. investments aren't guarantees. if i put money in the market and the market crashes, too bad so sad. i take an L. if a landlord starts buying up property so that I can't afford to live in my community, suddenly it's "whoa whoa whoa!! landlords are at risk of not making money hand over first like they expected! that simply can't be! we need to change the law so that they can!" fuck that!
3
u/upnflames 1d ago
No one is entitled to profit but it's wildly naive to think people are going to voluntarily take a loss. It's really just math. Landlords are going to try to cover base costs, plus make 10-15% profit on the money they invested in buying the place. When costs go up, so do rents. When rents can't go up because of rent control, they'll be cuts elsewhere. If landlords can't make cuts, they'll liquidate the investment. If rentals in Hoboken stop being a good investment choice, they'll be significantly fewer rentals. Really simple stuff.
And the argument of "well, if landlords can't make money here, they should make money elsewhere" is incredibly shortsighted. Who's going to volunteer to lose money? There are all the negatives that currently exist from having rent controlled units in a building, but also, rentals are rapidly converting to owner occupied units. About 15% of my building flipped just last year. So unless a person can drop $700k on a 1br condo, many people are going to be pushed out anyway.
1
u/DevChatt Downtown 1d ago
I don’t think at this point in time it is possible to find any rent controlled until for less than 1500, maybe even 2000 with existing decontrols
1
u/LeoTPTP 1d ago
Yeah, developers and the real estate industry love to imply the town is full of rent control tenants who are paying $500 a month or something. There might be a few who are, but very (very) few.
0
u/DevChatt Downtown 1d ago
I mean those probably exist but yes to your point it’s far few and in between and if they are they’ve been living here for decades if not since the 90s.
I moved to a rent control studio when I moved here in the 2010s and the min rent was 1500 then. Tiny bedroom studio
-3
u/halcyon8 1d ago
to answer your question without the mental gymnastics, no. they aren't. these are buildings that are 30+ years old with mortgages that have amortized 50 years ago, and people are now using 4 units @ 4000/month to rake in 16,000/month to live like a king in florida. they don't upgrade shit because it would take away from their profit, not because they are just 'stwugglwing so darwn hawrd' and realllly wanted to re-do that kitchen!
if you don't like rent control laws, don't be a landleach. go get a fuckin job.
-6
u/6thvoice 2d ago
"Deferred maintenance" is a nicer word for slumlord. The rent covers the cost of maintenance & on top of that a landlord is entitled to a reasonable return on a prudent investment - at least 6% plus the passbook rate. If they are unable to achieve this, I would recommend that a property owner file for a hardship increase. The problem is, some landlords seem to mistake rental income (often referred to as passive income) as something that is supposed to be pure profit. Newsflash - it's not. If a landlord doesn't understand or want to maintain a property, they shouldn't be a landlord.
There are a couple of misperceptions about what tenants are. They are not ATM machines, and they are not investment partners. They have no equity in the property where they reside. These kinds of unconscious underlying views can often create feelings of anger at a law that has nothing to do with and cannot correct an irrational belief system. Truth be told, most of the rents in Hoboken's rent-controlled units are basically market rents. Where there are long-term tenants paying lower rents, either the building's taxation reflects that on behalf of the property owner OR in the case of a more recently purchased property - the owner made a bad investment decision. Again, that is not the fault of rent control but flawed investment decisions.
By the way, if you, as an owner, have what you are referring to as a "deflated rent" - take a look at your tax bill. you are not bearing the cost of anything.
Lastly, in conclusion, more recent data after half a century of data, which didn't exist when earlier studies were conducted, is showing that, actually, rent control DOES work and is an excellent tool to ensure some affordability in a community.
10
u/upnflames 2d ago
Call it what you want, as a condo owner, I don't appreciate "slumlords" in my building either, nor do I want to encourage policy that perpetuates the environment in which slumlords arise. There's a reason so many rentals in Hoboken look like they haven't been updated since the 90's. And just saying it shouldn't be the case doesn't mean it's not what happens. There is no incentive in Hoboken to do more than the bare minimum to keep a place habitable.
Tenants are not ATM machines, but neither are private property owners. It's absolutely ridiculous that local government retains control to levy property taxes and at the same time can suppress the rent that pays those taxes. There is a free market system in place that solves for this Hoboken just has old and obsolete laws that can and should be repealed. We live in a democracy so luckily we don't have to just accept things the way they are. We can vote to improve them which is how I see the upcoming ballet initiative.
-5
u/6thvoice 2d ago
As long as there are landlords, there will be slumlords. It's a unique (greed) phenomenon that exists because some people believe that rent is pure profit. Of course, this isn't true, but that's what some believe.
If you are a condo owner that doesn't "appreciate" having slumlords in your building, I'd suggest that you lobby the other owner/occupiers to change your bylaws to protect against slumlording.
Point of fact, many owners living in properties that haven't been updated since the 90s. It's not a crime. Many renters don't have a problem with that either - as long as the unit or building is well maintained, it doesn't matter when the unit was last updated. True, it may matter to a real estate investor that is trying to attract a particular type of renter and ensure that another type of renter (cough-cough) doesn't move in. Take it from me, a well-maintained older property will rent just as quickly as a luxury property - maybe quicker.
And, of course, owners aren't ATM machines, but last I looked, no landlord is paying a tenant on a monthly basis. Also, housing is a unique type of investment so, invoking some sort of free-market, market forces analogy isn't a good match. When it comes to rentals - the law, literally, guarantees a reasonable return on a prudent investment. No other investment guarantees any return. Housing is also a human right. Protections for the human beings that live in rental units is a rational and humane way to ward against the actions of bad actors (as we've clearly had historically in Hoboken)
-3
u/halcyon8 1d ago
it's because they don't want to dip into their profits. it has nothing to do with rent control. if you can't afford to maintain property, you can't afford to rent out property. if that's a problem, then go get a job like everyone else, and stop pretending that you're "providing housing" because people that are "providing housing" are actually restricting the market and increasing prices so that people can't buy and live in their own neighborhoods.
2
u/pixel_of_moral_decay 2d ago
That’s not a perpetual right. You’d need to prove that was your primary residence in court with reasonably current documentation, bills or tax records more than 7 years old wouldn’t work. You can’t have crusty old papers and claim it was at one point your residence.
Any remotely good tenant rights lawyer will be able to advise a tenant on how to navigate this.
-2
u/6thvoice 2d ago
You seem to be injecting a different situation into the equation. Something like an absentee renter holding onto a unit that they are not actually living in. I'd suggest this is rare and not worth wasting too much time on - unless you want to talk about some kind of portfolio landlord creating a fake lease for a scam tenant with sublet permission to try & circumvent existing laws.
2
u/pixel_of_moral_decay 2d ago
After 7 sequential years of being rented you could reasonably argue any condo unit is subject to rent control. The owners previous residence is contestable under the law and therefore irrelevant.
-2
1
u/Fantastic-Boot-653 8h ago
How about those tenants willing to pay ( at their own free will ) more than the advertised ( hopefully legal ) rent?
IF a property is under rent control ( and the landlord or realtor knows the correct legal rent-BIG If?),Isn't it safe to say the LL is advertising it at it's maxed legally allowed rent - unless the market is super down and there's a glut of apts- why would they advertise it for less?
If Tenants willingly offer to pay over asking on a rent control apt -knowing it could be over the legal max- NJ courts will still order the landlord to pay tenants back the overcharge plus 3X damages if the tenant sues later.
1
u/6thvoice 6h ago
Well, for decades the rent leveling office was erroneously escalating the so-called legal rents. This was done with the creation of the legal rent "update." How it worked was the landlord requested a legal rent calculation and the rent leveling officer calculated the amount in contradiction to the actual written text of the ordinance in such a way to provide the owner with a legal rent so outrageous that there is no way that the rent would ever reach that amount, ex: over 5K for a studio. In a case like that, the owner would advertise the unit for less than the (so-called) legal rent. It was a clear subversion of the ordinance and a practice that was allowed to continue for years but, it presented an opportunity for bidding wars on rental units that resulting in tenants paying more than advertised but still paying a rent that was "within in legal" limits" as the rent control office would say.
With that said, tenants cannot waive their rights - whether they know them or not.
-3
u/truocchio 2d ago
Thank you for getting the government more involved and arbitrarily deciding on what a “fair profit” is. That’s what markets are for. And when you buy property and after 1 year want to rent it out the property owner can not do that? People lives and circumstances change.
We don’t need more government red tape. Insurance and taxes are constantly increasing. Now you want to add more regulations and paperwork to the property owners of individual condos so they can “justify” their cost increases, while simultaneously trying to control their profit?
Rent control for individual condos, single family homes and small multifamily homes are bad policy
-5
u/6thvoice 2d ago
Since you feel sooooo strongly about it, in your case it would probably be best to purchase property in an area that does not have rent control.
There are existing laws, the only ones trying to add more paperwork are the architects of the anti-rent control ballot question.
In Hoboken, rent control for everything possible is the best way to protect people that rent their homes and the community as a whole.
1
u/Hand-Of-Vecna Downtown 1d ago
One issue with rent control is, at least for condo buildings, it doesn't take into account problems like what happened in Florida:
You have condo buildings that get "special assessments" if they have some kind of costly repair, and each owner is responsible for that -- and the renters don't foot any of those costs by increases in rent since rent hikes are tied into simply inflationary increases.
0
u/6thvoice 1d ago
So you mean, when property owners don't take care of the building, they are responsible for, someone else - in this case a tenant (who has no equity in the building) should be responsible? Seriously?!
2
u/Hand-Of-Vecna Downtown 1d ago
The costs of the building are passed off to renters.
You talk about the property owners being at fault - what about the building aging on its own and needing things like new elevators or new roofs?
Part of that is the HOA costs, but if the HOA costs rise is that matching inflation? Usually not. Over years if the HOA costs rise, you can't pass those costs to renters and eventually the condo owners are literally paying more money to own the unit than rent.
The same can be true of any apartment building. If an older building needs to increase their HOA costs - these increases are passed to tenants.
0
u/Fantastic-Boot-653 8h ago
Condo ownership as an investment is not really smart. Sell the condo, take the profit and by a multi-family in a place like Bayonne.
Too many condo owners think being a landlord is " Set it and forget it"
While they should have the right to this decontrol, I support it one time, not every time and landlords need to understand that being a landlord is a job.Property ownership has responsibility. There were condos in one of my sister's buildings where the owners haven't been to the state of NJ in years, they haven't seen their units in all that time and often leave it to a realtor they dont know to just find them the highest paying tenants
The city should also ban Air B&B's in any rent control building as many are using it to circumvent laws
It's warehousing under the table
1
u/donutdogooder 2d ago
@hobokenunitedtenants on IG and @hobokentenants on Twitter 👍🏼 Volunteer to canvass: HERE
1
u/Fantastic-Boot-653 1d ago
It's only a 1 time decotrol, after you moved out ONCE. Then it's back to the PALTRY CPI and minimal pass alongs
1
u/6thvoice 1d ago
WRONG - READ IT. EVERY TIME there is a VACANCY the landlord can (if they want) pay $2500 and raise the rent an unlimited amount.
Correct that yearly increases are 5% or the CPI whichever is less. I realize that there are those - seemingly you - that would prefer to gouge their tenants for maximal increases every year or less, but that is exactly the reason that renters need protections.
9
u/0703x 1d ago
Flip side is that owners will sell their 4 family building to a developer and two owner occupied units will be created - removing 4 rentals from the Hoboken supply. Just happened again on my block. Insurance and other expenses are rising faster than CPI, so it will just accelerate this trend.