Earlier today, Gossips reported about the amendments Alderman Rebecca Wolff (First Ward) wanted to make to the "good cause" eviction law, which the Common Council voted to enact in September--with eight yes votes, one abstention, and two aldermen absent. The amendments would make the law even more stringent, eliminating "significant market changes" as justification for raising the rent more than 5 percent and an owner's ability to sell a property free of residential tenancy obligations. This afternoon, in his public hearing on the law, Mayor Kamal Johnson said that, on the advice of counsel, he would be vetoing the law, "so it is heading back to the Common Council." It is heading back to the Common Council to be amended in the manner Wolff requested.
Although Johnson said he would be vetoing the law in its present form, two members of the public made comments about the law. The first was Margaret Morris, who is running as a write-in candidate for First Ward alderman. Morris expressed concern that some of the provisions of the law would hurt people seeking apartments in Hudson. She warned that, if a landlord cannot terminate a lease, new tenants will be subjected to a much higher bar in terms of credit scores and job stability. She argued there had not been "sufficient conversations with landlords" and asserted, "Landlords and tenants have a shared interest, and that has not been explored." She urged, "Take a step back, and think about the problem we are trying to solve."
It should be noted that, after a brief mention of this law at a meeting of the Common Council ad hoc committee devoted to drafting inclusionary zoning legislation, this law was presented to the Council on August 17. Here's what Gossips reported about it at the time:
Another new law that made a sudden appearance this month without any vetting in public was an amendment to the code prohibiting evictions without cause. The proposed law appears to have been modeled after the good cause eviction law passed in July by the City of Albany Common Council. Gossips believes copies of the Albany law were passed around to members of the ad hoc committee pursuing inclusionary zoning at its meeting on Wednesday, August 4, but the law was not discussed at that meeting.
Also commenting on the law at the mayor's public hearing this afternoon was Kristal Heinz, who said the law had been rushed and suggested had not been "thought through." Heinz predicted that the law would "push a lot of people out of the rental market" and would "make more rental units inaccessible." Heinz cited the eviction moratorium in New York, which is effective through January 15, 2022, and said, "We don't have to rush this right now." She argued that the goal should be "to make rentals more affordable and more available." She also asked why the mayor had been asked to veto the law, but that question went unanswered during the hearing.
COPYRIGHT 2021 CAROLE OSTERINK
Ms. Morris counseled more thought? Before an action is taken? By the Hudson city government? Kinda makes me wish I lived in her ward, or she in mine.
ReplyDeleteGood for Ms Morris, she lives in my ward (1st). I'll vote for her as a write-in candidate for 1st Ward Alderwoman.
DeleteThe number of eviction petitions filed in Hudson is actually pretty small and, according to official sources, shrinking. According to the NYS Unified Court System, there have been 4 eviction proceedings filed in 2021. This compares to 18 in 2020 and 76 in 2019. These numbers can be found here: https://ww2.nycourts.gov/lt-evictions-33576
ReplyDeleteA version of the Good Cause Eviction law was part of the package of landlord-tenant law reforms proposed statewide in 2019. It was roundly rejected by legislators of all parties. They recognized it was just as problematic for tenants as it is for landlords.
Evictions are not to blame for the affordable housing crisis in Hudson. It's a popular place to live and people from out of town have a lot of money. Stopping evictions won't solve that problem. It would only make landlords unable to sell their buildings or evict problem tenants. No landlord will take a chance on a tenant who has less than perfect credit or has modest resources.
These statistics are in the context of an eviction moratorium so I do not think the numbers can be used to support your argument directly. Evictions will likely go back up once the moratorium is over, whether or not this bill is passed. Most evictions happen for failure to pay rent, which remains a "good cause" under the law.
DeleteThis moment though is an interesting time to debate this legislation in that the moratorium (with essentially zero evictions happening) is sort of an extreme version of what the law proposes.
It seems most likely the law will make Hudson less affordable for new arrivals while slowing price increases for those who are here and renting already. That's certainly what has happened to rents during the pandemic. This seems narrowly desirable given how traumatic, expensive and destabilizing evictions are for both society and the people who experience them.
I'm less certain and optimistic about the long term unintended consequences for affordable housing investment, how this might discourage property owners from renting units out to tenants at all and how it will likely cause rents to increase for new leases once landlords realize they are agreeing to rental terms that may last the tenant's entire lifetime.
It all depends on what the goals are. Stopping displacement for renters who currently call the city home? Ensuring there is affordable housing in Hudson for a wide range of income levels long term? Slowing changes caused by newcomers who mostly tend to live in owner-occupied houses, which used to once be rentals? To me as an armchair observer it seems like this legislation is likely prioritize one of those potential goals at the cost of accelerating the others.
I'm philosophically inclined to support the intent of legislation like this, but it sometimes feels like these issues are not considered very carefully before they are passed. I guess it's good that the council is going to take it's time and improve this law some more before it is enacted, but surely we can all agree whatever our policy preferences that passing bills and then urging their veto is a wildly haphazard way to set policy.
Woodhull: There is no evidence that the Council "is going to take its time and improve the law." The mayor vetoed the law because that was the easiest way to make the amendments requested by Rebecca Wolff at the Legal Committee meeting on Wednesday. There is no reason to believe the Council will reconsider the law beyond that.
DeleteWoodhull: the most likely result of passing the law, with or without Comrade Wolff’s amendments, is a lawsuit.
DeleteWoodhull:
Deleteyou make some valid points:
"It seems most likely the law will make Hudson less affordable for new arrivals while slowing price increases for those who are here and renting already. "
Unfortunately, Carole is correct. The veto is not so that the Council can engage in a more deliberative approach to evaluating the law. It is so that the Council can amend it based on Ms. Wolff's requests.
This legislation may well have negative impacts on the availability of rental units in Hudson. I do not say WILL have negative impacts, because I do not have the data to support that view, because no one has presented any data. My personal opinion is that it WILL have negative impacts, but that is an opinion. I have spoken to landlords in Albany and Hudson about this legislation. Full disclosure, I am not a landlord and not a renter. I have also spoken to renters in Hudson. The renters are less concerned about whether their lease will be renewed or not, and more concerned about rent increases. As someone who rented for 25 years, that was always my concern. This legislation is too focussed on a non-existent problem -- landlords not renewing leases.
We need to have meetings with landlords and tenants to craft a policy that will a) protect current tenants, b) make it possible for landlords to continue to rent properties and c) make it possible for new tenants to get leases
Margaret Morris
Woodhull: Journalist, free love, women's rights and equal rights shero Victoria Woodhull is rolling in her grave. Why should we take your fiction and your fake screen name seriously?
DeleteMy basic point is that evictions are NOT the cause of rent increases. There have been relatively few evictions in the City of Hudson for the last several years.
Moratorium or not, there is no tidal wave of evictions to be addressed. You're making that up out of whole cloth. The evictions which have occurred are not for "no cause." No judge would grant an eviction for no reason, not in Hudson. That's another big lie. The evictions that have occurred are all because the tenant has been a nuisance or danger to others or (pre-pandemic) for back rent owed.
Meanwhile, rent still goes up in Hudson, as it does everywhere in the U.S. Your law preventing evictions would do nothing to solve the affordability problem. Or the problem you refer to as "displacement." In fact, it would do the opposite, making it more difficult for tenants of modest means and landlords alike.
Thank you Margaret Morris for your thoughtful discussion. The voters of the 1st Ward will be lucky to have you.
Dan,
DeleteVictoria was a Woodhull by marriage and sadly even then, not a close relation of mine.
I do however share with her an enthusiasm for suffrage, free love and a family name that is not particularly rare. There are a bunch of us knocking around.
I'm not sure who you in the world you think I might be, but the proposed legislation is certainly not "my law".
I don't think we disagree about why rents on new leases are increasing and whether this law would help. I'd direct you back to my comment which you should re-read in full, which noted that evictions for the causes you listed (failure to pay, etc) would still be legal grounds for eviction. I found your logic about eviction rates faulty, given the moratorium; no need to try and create a conspiracy where there is none.
Regardless: it's not in my view primarily a law about reforming eviction practices specifically despite the name -- the most consequential changes will be to introduce a form of rent control and the option for lifetime tenancy.
I remain skeptical about the long term consequences and the ways it might unintentionally harm other worthy goals. I'm an engineer by trade -- I'm most comfortable when there is data to play with and well deliberated decisions. Big changes of any kind done in a rush gives me pause, especially when the moratorium means the city can take it's time with few downsides.
Anyways, happy to have a coffee sometime as neighbors and talk these things out. Maybe we'd come up with some good improvements to send along to the council that would make the city more equitable for everyone. You can even give me a squeeze to know I'm real. ;-)
Nathan Woodhull
And next will be free rent for all tenants, with real estate taxes RAISED by 50%.
ReplyDeleteSocial Democratic Economics
I sent a letter to the Common Council outlining several issues with the law as written in September. As a displaced Hudson resident who is still invested in the well-being of the community, I felt my concerns regarding several key flaws in the law were relevant.
ReplyDeleteMs Wolff, a self-proclaimed champion of the housing-displaced but apparently unaware of the irony (and side note not great at metaphors) responded as follows:
'Tom, do we include non-resident comments?'
My letter was included in the record, but I'm going to paste it below for reference:
Common Council Members,
I am writing to encourage a more thoughtful and engaged process to better consider the proposed Good Cause Eviction resolution before you tonight.
As a tenant myself, recently displaced by Hudson’s housing market, I support reasonable limits on rent increases and I understand the desire to prevent families from relocating, but there are real issues with the resolution before you tonight that might worsen the existing housing affordability and population decline problems that were erroneously attributed to eviction in some of the letters copied and pasted to you by other members of the community. Specifically:
A(8)-does nothing to prevent buyers from evicting tenants and converting multi-family properties into single-family residences for themselves. This was a major source of population decline over the last ten years (while my experience as a Census enumerator is anecdotal, I literally knocked on hundreds of doors in Hudson and saw this issue repeatedly) and more stringent rental regulations in New York may dissuade buyers from renting if they may do otherwise. This will only hasten the transformation of Hudson into a bedroom community/weekend getaway for NYC commuters.
A(9) will force out long-term property owners, many of whom live in Hudson, whenever property taxes spike. This is a special concern as Hudson property values are so high relative to other communities in the HCSD. As a condition of these properties selling, as carved out in the proposed resolution, owners may be forced to evict tenants to deliver units vacant.
A(10)a(iv)-a 5% increase does not adequately address the possible range of annual cost increases to the property owner, to address both tax burden and materials and labor for maintenance. Small landlords, those most likely to both be active members of the Hudson community and to lack funds to address these cost increases, will be forced to sell, inviting properties to be snatched up by institutional investors with no connection to Hudson.
I support reasonable restrictions on rent increases, but they should reflect the needs of property owners to address their financial burdens as much as tenants. Spending some time doing due diligence on the resolution before you rather than rubber-stamping a resolution copied and pasted from another municipality (these laws have invited litigation that Hudson can ill afford) is both poor legislation and poor stewardship of the community trust.
Regards,
John Kane