Last night, the Common Council Legal Committee held an emergency meeting to consider what Alderman Jane Trombley (First Ward) referred to at the meeting as the "Rebecca Wolff amendments" to the "good cause" eviction law, which was passed by the Council in September and vetoed by Mayor Kamal Johnson in October so that those amendments could be made. The major amendment was the elimination of the ninth "good cause" for eviction:
The owner-landlord has in good faith entered into a contract for the sale of the housing accommodation and such contract requires that the housing accommodation be transferred free and clear of any and all residential tenancy obligations as a condition of such sale where the owner-landlord has no shared financial or other interest with the potential buyer other than the sale of the housing accommodation in question and submitted sufficient proof to the court thereof.
Given the circumstance, it would have been helpful if a red-lined version of the law had been made available to the public prior to the meeting. Instead, a version of the law that did not include the Rebecca Wolff amendments was posted on the city website.
At the outset of the meeting, Council president Tom DePietro announced that members of the public would be allowed to speak for two minutes each. Council members had no such restrictions. Speaking for the urgency of enacting the law, Alderman Rebecca Wolff (First Ward), whose request for amendments prevented the law from already being enacted, called it "a really important law for the city" and asserted, "We are in a time of unprecedented difficulties for people who do not own their homes."
DePietro cited two articles that appeared recently in the New York Times: one that reported significant rent increases nationwide; another reporting that the pace of evictions has accelerated. This article, which may not be one that DePietro was referencing, appeared in the NYT on November 8: "Evictions are mounting in the United States, but at a pace slower than many tenants and advocates feared." Alderman Ryan Wallace (Third Ward) commented that the pace of evictions in New York State has not been as rapid as in other states.
Steve Dunn used his two minutes to complain that the wrong version of the law had been posted on the website. He also declared, "To rent out a single-family home to anyone is insane under this law," and told the committee he had instructed his contractor to stop work on a house he was renovating with the intention of making it available as a rental.
Margaret Morris, First Ward alderman elect, predicted that Hudson would lose rental units as a consequence of the law, saying, "Landlords will no longer want to rent out properties in Hudson." She suggested that instead of pursuing a "cut-and-paste law from Albany," the Council should have conducted focus groups with landlords and tenants to find a solution to the problems.
Alderman Tiffany Garriga (Second Ward) responded, "All of a sudden people are worrying about landlords. This law is for the protection of people who are living in this city. . . . Landlords are taking their money, and nobody is standing up for them." She adjured the Council to "stop forgetting about the people that brought you here."
Wolff argued that it was "an alarmist idea that landlords will not be able to evict tenants who are not paying their rent" and asserted, "This law is intended to make landlords into good landlords."
Rebecca Garrard of Citizen Action, which has been advocating for the passage of this law in Hudson and other cities, claimed that "transfer of ownership as good cause [for eviction] does not exist in the state law passed in 2019" and concluded, "Hudson is not stepping out in front or leading in a radical way." Her reference was undoubtedly to the "Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019." That law addressed co-op and condo conversions, but I don't recall it addressing transfer of ownership. In that, I could be wrong.
In the end, it was decided that the amended law would be forwarded to the full Council at its next meeting on Tuesday, November 18.
Update: The amended law, as it will be presented to the full Council of Tuesday, can now be viewed here.
COPYRIGHT 2021 CAROLE OSTERINK
Tiffany Garriga continues to exemplify the know-nothing mindset for which she's become known during her useless tenure on the City Council: who needs an economy, or even a sense of what one is and how it works when you can just espouse inane sound bites and enact legislation knowing but ignoring all the negative externalities it engenders. She's so bad she makes Abdus Miah look good -- that's quite some feat.
ReplyDeleteI'm in favor of some version of a proposal like this as a way to slow changes in rent for current tenants. I think its important to acknowledge however that any version of a law like this will also inevitably constrain rental housing supply in the medium term.
ReplyDeleteI do not think I can support the radical version currently proposed however, since it will do more harm than good.
When I was a kid, my parent's work took them away from the town we lived in for a two year tour of duty. They knew they planned to return at the end of that period, and rented their house out in the interim. They still live in that house today.
I do not think anyone in a similar situation would rent out their home on a temporary basis under this law.
Removing the option of ever selling a home that is currently a rental to someone who has other plans for the building is honestly a quite radical change. This law as constructed would turn any property that is currently a rental in Hudson into a rental until the death of the tenant. It creates a new type of ownership.
Given the current market for single family homes, if I owned a rental property in Hudson, I would be looking to sell it as soon as possible.
I think a version of this proposal that provides some stronger affordances to tenants and slows down rent increases could be wise, but this law goes far beyond that (especially in this new version) and radically changes the nature of rental leases, ending their traditional term-limited nature. This is likely to have wild side effects vs. a more limited change in the law.
Woodhull:
DeleteI agree with you. The 2019 State law provides protections against evictions. In talking to renters -- and I was a renter myself for 25 years - what I heard was concern about rent increases. That is why I have been advocating for some kind of forum where tenants and landlords could discuss the challenges both parties are facing and come up with a proposed solution that addresses key issue - rent increases - in a way that will work for both sets of stakeholders. I fear that this law will reduce available rental properties in Hudson, which will hurt, not help, the people it is intended to protect.
Margaret Morris
I read through the law, and it looks like the carve out for homeowners who wish to re-occupy their home remains in the proposal. See A(7) and A(8) for carve out that varies based on the number of units.
Delete"Slowing down rent increases." Sounds nice, doesn't work in reality. Markets push prices down, not up. When prices are going up, it's because demand is rising relative to supply. In other words, people want to live in Hudson. But not everyone can. And NO ONE has a "right" to live here. Or anywhere else, for that matter. If you can afford it, you can live there. If you can't . . .. This is precisely why home ownership is the key, not low rents. Want to help renters pay less? Help them purchase a home they can afford.
ReplyDeleteIf Hudson is good and people want to live here, let's make more Hudson. For all of the hand-wringing about the two square miles, there are plenty of vacant lots, parking lots, and other poorly used pockets of land that could be built on.
DeleteI support the desire to slow change for renters in order to soften its blow, but the change is inevitable and you are correct that the only solution is home ownership, and the easiest path to affordable ownership is radically increasing housing supply to make housing here less scarce.
I can't support proposals passed in the hope that they might slow down rent increases if they will in my view do nothing of the sort, but instead reduce the supply of rental housing overall.
I also agree that we should encourage future development on underutilized land, as well as discouraging people who are warehousing property. I’m not one of these people that thinks we should limit growth or the population of Hudson. If we can scale up the infrastructure to keep up, it would be win-win and add to the tax base and economy. But if we can all agree on how hot and desirable Hudson is, I don’t understand why we need to give pilots to developers. I’m not even against the Galvan development by nature of its location and design, I just don’t want to pay their taxes. Simple as that. I also believe that you can help keep the rental market stable by increasing supply, rather than depending on subsidies.
DeleteLet's make more Hudson? What you are suggesting is making Hudson and Greenport into an upstate version of Paramus, New Jersey. Good luck with that.
DeleteSomeone help me out here, so under this law, as proposed, does this prevent a landlord from not renewing a lease if they intend to sell? Or does it just prevent the termination of lease through eviction; which I always assumed you could not do anyway until the lease expires and the tenant has held their end of the agreement. My understanding is that if you have tenants and you intend to sell, you either wait for their lease to expire and give them notice you do not intend to renew, or you can sell it with the tenant and the new owner must honor the lease as one would assume the assets and liabilities of that property. Then at the expiration of the old lease the new owner can decide whether to renew the lease or not renew, like if they or their relatives intend to move in?
ReplyDeleteAlso, to avoid the burden on small landlords and the situation mentioned by Woodhull, above, why can’t they include an exemption for single family or duplex properties? If I’m not mistaken, NYC differentiates many of the tenant laws by the number of units of a property, with the stricter rules applying to landowners with over 5 units, etc. This way you can put restrictions on corporate landlords, but not be overbearing on middle class families or retirees renting out a single property that they may return to or leave to their children.
Or is the point here to create an environment in Hudson where there is only a single corporate landlord? I hate feeling cynical but I really want to understand the intent of the past council’s policy. Is it well meaning, but not fully informed of the economic impact? Is it resentment and class warfare aimed at the wealthy, but the middle class gets caught in the crossfire? Is it outside influences like Galvan working the long game? I really don’t know.
As I understand it, under the proposed law, leases are automatically renewed and in practice never expire after a term unless one of the conditions of the law are met (like non-payment). This is how the rent control provisions of the law are enforced.
DeleteI was wrong and the home owner wishing to occupy their own home again. This seems like it remains a reason a tenancy could end, for properties with fewer than five units unambiguously, and with caveats for properties with more than 12.
I'd recommend reading carefully reading the law.
Anyone selling a unit subject to a lease that the buyer wants to reside in, is buying a lawsuit. Great for lawyers with time on their hands, hell for anyone else.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.
ReplyDeleteCould it be this law preventing an owner from occupying a home they purchased for their own use because someone is renting there is a violation of constitutional property rights. If so every one of them should be sued personally in civil court and subject to punitive and compensatory damages, plus paying the attorney fees.
Provisions 7 and 8 in the law make recovering the use of a house for an owner's own use or that of a relative a "good cause" for eviction. Take a look: https://cms3files.revize.com/hudsonny/Common%20Council/Agendas%20Meeting%20Documents/2021/November/Evictions%20without%20Cause%20-%20Proposed%20Local%20Law.pdf
DeleteNot really, who is to say what an immediate and compelling necessity is? It also must be used as a principal residence, this targets second home owners. A lot of people live in small apartments in urban areas and buy a second home upstate that is not their principal residence. It also would prevent people who are not related, who are just friends and who would share a house, from occupying it, "friends" are not on the list. Also restricts someone from occupying a house they purchased if someone over 62 years old, or "disabled" is renting there. Why 62 and what is "disabled"?
DeleteThis law imposes arbitrary, targeted restrictions that seem to violate constitutional private property rights. Aren't the rights of people to acquire, use, and dispose of property freely protected by the US constitution?
Well , who’s to say which home is your principal residence? The law permits the homeowner to make that determination when it comes to voting …
DeleteI don't see how that matters. You can't pass a local law that says you are not allowed to own a rifle unless it is used for hunting and say it is constitutional because anyone can say their rifle is used for hunting. Plenty of people also are perfectly healthy and employed at 62, they keep working for years after that, but this law says if a 62 year old is living in a house you buy you can not use all of your house because you are required to house a total stranger, who could be an attorney, nurse practitioner or independently wealthy, simply because they are 62.
DeleteAlso, according to this, if you buy an old house to live in that has three tiny apartments jammed in it, you are only allowed to empty one of the apartments for yourself and are required to house the other people in the two other apartments. That's insane. If the government is unable or unwilling to provide housing for the citizens, they can't mandate private citizens to take on the role of a social service organization. And what if you are a home renovator and your job is to buy old houses, gut them, rehab them and resell them? According to this you can not buy a decrepit old house if there is a slumlord rental situation there and renovate that house, because you have to continue to house the people inside of it. It is a very intrusive and controlling law, something you would expect from a totalitarian government, not a liberal democratic one.
DeleteI think you need to take a breathe. It matters because the law only partially applies to "principal residences" per its terms as I understand it. That said, you're absolutely right that this is a terrible law. It might rise to the level of a constitutional taking but it's not clear that's the case until it's enforced. As for the distinction between "totalitarian" and "liberal" I'd say that's arguable. The people pushing this paean to poorly conceived and written legislation perceive of themselves as "progressive." Are they? No. They're communards or, at best, fellow travelers. They are poorly educated, non-thinkers with no ability to think more than 2 steps in the future. They care not a whit about outcomes, only ideological noise. Their controllers, on the other hand, are avaricious slumlords and shitheels, abusers of the poor and the hopeless at the expense of the toiling classes for their own gain. Note that they rarely deign to show their faces in the various watering holes and restos that spot our city -- likely, correctly, assuming they will be the subject of verbal abuse if they do. Besides, they don't really like the people who comprise the heart of Hudson. We are merely a source of funding for them.
Delete