The Common Council is expected to vote on opting in to the Good Cause Eviction Law at its meeting next Tuesday, October 15. For readers not familiar with the law, which was enacted by the State of New York in April 2024, a useful summary and discussion of the law can be found here. To date, the Council has received 168 communications about the law, urging members to take one action or the other. (At the beginning of the week, there were only 74 communications.) Of interest is one from someone identifying themself as "Feather No Name." There is some uncertainty about whether the letter is sincere or satire.
Three members of the Common Council have recused themselves from the issue: two because they are landlords--Rich Volo (Fourth Ward) and Vicky Daskaloudi (Fifth Ward); and one because he is a tenant--Dominic Merante (Fifth Ward). Legislation is passed by affirmative votes, so their recusals constitute three negative votes. (Six affirmative votes are needed to pass the legislation.)
Volo published a statement today explaining his recusal on his blog FourthWardHudson.com:
I chose to recuse myself from the Good Cause Eviction vote because I am a landlord. Since the majority of my income is from long-term rentals, I have a large personal interest in this legislation.
I do not think it is right or ethical that I weigh in on the discussion, since it may be considered self-serving.
Daskaloudi has provided this statement:
I have been a landlord in Columbia County and the City of Hudson the last 25 years.
I have a lot of experience at the topic, but I also have a lot of strong opinions that I don't find it would have been ethical for me to vote. I chose recusal out of fairness towards my constituents.
Merante, as a tenant, believes it is unethical for him to take part in this deliberation and vote because he could benefit financially from the outcome.
Although the recusals derive from good conscience and ethics, they have been criticized by supporters of the legislation. At the informal Common Council meeting on Monday, Mayor Kamal Johnson suggested that if councilmembers were going to recuse themselves from this vote, they should also recuse themselves from the vote on the city budget, since that has even more of an impact on property owners. Claire Cousin, county supervisor for the First Ward, called the recusals "extremely irresponsible," declaring it was "not what people elected them to do." (It will be remembered that when the Columbia County Board of Supervisors voted on the purchase of 11 Warren Street, Cousin was absent.)
Today, more than half the front page of the Register-Star is devoted to an article about the Good Cause Eviction law.
The most interesting quote from the article, the title of which was wisely changed in the online version to "Debate over Good Cause Eviction Law in Hudson continues," is this one, reporting comments made to the Register-Star reporter by Brahvan Ranga, political director for the Poughkeepsie-based organization For the Many. (Ranga has been in attendance and spoken at the past few Common Council meetings.)
"It's passed in every city," he said. "In Kingston, Poughkeepsie, and Newburgh, I know off the top of my head, it's passed unanimously. So, it would be pretty monumental for them to vote it down, which is why we don't think it's likely. It could also be pretty huge if this is the first city where it votes down. We fell [sic] really confident that that's not the case because of the grassroots support we have."
Peer pressure applied at the municipal level, with no acknowledgment that Hudson is quite different from Kingston, Poughkeepsie, and Newburgh? The report of Ranga's comments continues:
The law is the first step in creating stronger protections for renters, Ranga said.
"What Good Cause does is it gives tenants a baseline to feel secure in their homes, to have some basic protections, and that allows them to take more action. It allows them to ask for repairs. It allows them to do some longer-term planning. It allows them to really build a life for themselves in these communities," he said. "It also allows them to take more action. They can continue to engage in the political process. They can continue to ask for more, and we can build off of this to win more housing affordability for Hudson."
This morning, two councilmembers, both representing the First Ward, made statements about the law on Facebook. The first statement was from Gary Purnhagen:
As a Common Councilmember for the First Ward, I have received many emails regarding the Good Cause Eviction Law. I want to share my thoughts and how I plan on voting on this proposed law. Thank you for getting in touch regarding the City of Hudson's Good Cause Eviction Law. I truly value your input, and I want to share my thoughts on this important matter.
When considering this proposed law, I asked myself the following questions:
Do the current eviction laws require further enhancements?
How would this law impact a homeowner renting a few apartments to make ends meet?
Current Eviction Law:
Initially, I assumed that New York State had robust tenant protections in place. To my surprise, I discovered that NYS does not currently have sufficient tenant protections against evictions. While there were temporary protections during the COVID-19 pandemic, these measures are no longer in effect.
At present, the only requirement for eviction in NYS is providing sufficient notice. This means that landlords are not obliged to state why a tenant is being evicted, and there are no restrictions on the amount of rent that can be increased.
What about homeowners renting out a few apartments? If they rent fewer than ten units, they are exempt from this law.
Additionally, there are several exemptions from this law:
- Owner-occupied buildings with ten units or less
- Multifamily rental buildings for 30 years after their construction date
Can a landlord evict a tenant? Yes, for a variety of good reasons:
This law outlines the good causes for evictions, including nonpayment of rent, violation of tenancy obligations, nuisance, substantial damage to the premises, and more.
Does this law cap the amount of rent an owner can charge? No, it does not. Landlords under this law are allowed rent increases between 8.4% and 10% annually, with provisions for charging beyond this range to recover unusual expenses.
Thoughts:
Hudson currently faces a shortage of affordable housing, which is consistently identified as one of the city's challenges. Evictions, especially those resulting in 20% or higher rent increases, negatively impact Hudson as a community.
I have heard arguments for further study on this issue and how this law may negatively impact those it intends to help. Meanwhile, tenants will continue to have no protection from evictions or outrageous rent increases leading to eviction. I believe it is crucial to conduct further research on the housing issue in Hudson after enacting this law.
This law, enacted at the State level, is a compromise and, like most compromises, is not a perfect solution. However, it aims to be fair for both landlords and tenants.
I will be voting to approve the Good Clause [sic] Eviction Law next week. Thank you.
Margaret Morris, who also represents the First Ward on the Common Council, made this response to Purnhagen's statement, correcting some of the errors made there and sharing her own thinking about the legislation.
I am also a Council Member for the First Ward and Chair of the Legal Committee--a committee you were a member of until you withdrew a few months ago. I have also heard from many constituents--both in person and via email.
At our September meeting of the Legal Committee we reviewed the NYS law in detail and I provided a full report of our discussion to the full Common Council in September.
There are a few significant inaccuracies in your statement:
1. Exemptions
a. The version of the law we will be voting on does not exempt a landlord with 10 or fewer units in NY State. The threshold in our local law is set at 1 unit in NY State--not just Hudson. In other words, unless some other exemption exists (see item b), all landlords in Hudson will be subject to this law. The 10 unit threshold apples to NY City. This is one of 2 elements in the NYS law that municipalities can modify. The other municipalities--not comparable in size or housing stock to Hudson--have set the threshold to 1.
b. Units with Certificate of Occupancy (COO) issued after 1/1/2009 are exempt. It is not based on date built. This is an important distinction in Hudson. There are many buildings that have been rehabbed since 2009 and issued COOs after 1/1/2009. We do not have a count on that, so we do not know how many would be exempt.
Exemptions also apply to units rented where there is an income threshold.
So who will be impacted? Landlords who have been renting with COOs that predate 1/1/2009.
Unfortunately we do not have a count of these units. Nor do we know how many units are owned by small landlords (e.g. less than 10 units in NY State). The Legal Committee recommended that we try to quantify that number. Why does it matter? Because setting the threshold at 1 may incentivize a landlord with, say, 2 two-family homes to take them off the market and sell them. This will result in a reduction in the number of rental units available. We are not NYC. We are not even Poughkeepsie or Kingston--populations of 32k and 24k. Our housing stock, other than the new developments that are income based, is largely single-family homes or converted single-family homes. The loss of units owned by small landlords would have a significant impact on the availability of rental units in our small city.
Other unintended consequences include:
- Heightened screening of new tenants--landlords will not want to take a risk on a tenant who does not have a perfect credit score and references.
- Units coming on the market will be listed at the highest rental rate the market can bear--actually increasing rental costs.
- Barriers for new tenants with disabilities or older than 65. The NYS law prevents a landlord from terminating a lease arrangement, even if it is for the landlord's own use, for these populations.
I was a renter for 25 years--TX, NJ, NYC, and Long Island. It is my opinion that this law is bad not only for landlords, but also for tenants. For these reasons, I will be voting against this law. It is bad for tenants.
As suggested by Ranga's statement that it would be "pretty monumental" for the Common Council to vote this down, there's is a lot of pressure for the Council to adopt the Good Cause Eviction Law. More evidence of that pressure is a letter to the editor from Claire Cousin that appeared in the Albany Times Union today: "City of Hudson must pass good-cause eviction protections."
It is strange, though, that among all of the voices speaking on the subject, we have heard nothing from Michelle Tullo, Hudson's Housing Justice Director. Surely this is a subject someone with her title would be expected to weigh in on.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK
It seems that once again, Hudson will be passing a law that does more harm than good.I agree with Councilman Morris on all points.
ReplyDeleteBecause other citites adopted a law Hudson should also ?
What I pointed out in my communication to the council has now been corroborated by Brahvan Ranga who, in his own words, sees this legislation only as "the first step in creating stronger protections for renters".
ReplyDeleteThese people will be back and they will turn Hudson into a battleground for the other six housing-related initiatives they are lobbying for.
As for Gary Purnhagen, he deserves respect for the announcement of how he will vote. At the same time, he deserves criticism for not knowing what he will be voting for. The corrections that Margaret provided are not minor at all. He needs to pay more attention at council meetings.
If this law is enacted by the council, it will mark the end of private rental ownership in Hudson. The only landlord will be governmental — and I think we all know how well government runs things, especially Hudson’s dysfunctional government. In a state with the strongest tenant protections in the union, there will only be externalities and they will all be negative. As for the housing czar, perhaps she’s too busy counting her extravagant salary to weigh in on such an important matter that is clearly in her portfolio. Did I mention Hudson’s dysfunctional government?
ReplyDeleteThe only landlord being governmental, isn't that our mayor's design? This is Hudson's version of "Project 2025".
DeleteI am not surprised that our housing czar isn't weighing in. Her hands are tied lest she disappoints her Romeo.
How would this law, that from what I read does not regulate the amount of rent a landlord can charge, end private rental ownership? This sounds like fearmongering. Most likely all it will accomplish will be to make landlords more careful who they rent to. This could negatively impact renters as landlords could demand a lot more information, credit reports with high ratings, financial documents, tax returns etc., to all prospective tenants. I don't see this law doing much to benefit tenants at all. A law regulating the amount of rent a landlord can charge would actually do something, but no one is talking about that.
DeleteThat seems to be the goal, and I'm sure policies and zoning changes will be forthcoming from the handpicked low information focus group in the new Comprehensive Plan, AKA "Project 2035."
DeleteAnd yes, our Housing Justice Director should be a subject matter expert to the council, offering up antidotes and the very statistics the members are asking for. Surprising she wasn't with the mayor at the meeting to lend support, they're usually inseparable.
Slow Art, there's a few unshakable laws of nature in economics that have never been disproven. One is that you cannot compel the provider of a good to provide the good at a loss. Instead, the good will disappear if you try it.
DeleteThat law in isolation probably wouldn't quite do that yet but landlords will see it as a sign of what might be to come.
The Common Council on Monday for the duration of the meeting allowed itself to be turned into a crazy place. I don't know how else to call it when a 20-something fetus from the Columbia County Sanctuary Movement can make the unrebutted claim that good-cause eviction could somehow foil ICE deporting someone.
The current proceedings as they are unfolding do not make the City of Hudson look like a good place to be a landlord anymore. We've seen in some of the responses to Gary's original post in the public Hudson FB group that people are worried already.
Slow Art,
DeleteThe law does indeed have price controls. The text of the law before the council is short and mainly just refers to the state law, except on the couple points where local municipalities have the option to make changes on the definition of a “small landlord.” But, as far as price controls, it states that one can’t be evicted for not paying unreasonable increase in rent, with guidelines given to define that, yet also leave an opening for judges to make their own decisions about what is unreasonable. Another poorly written part that will invite litigation:
“The Good Cause Eviction law establishes a “local rent standard,” which is the amount of rent increase considered reasonable in a given year based on inflation in the local area. The local rent standard is set every year at the rate of inflation plus 5%, with a maximum of 10% total. A rent increase is considered unreasonable under Good Cause Eviction if the rent increase is higher than the local rent standard.
For example, if the inflation rate for the New York City area were 3%, the local rent standard would be 8% (5% + inflation).
If a covered tenant’s rent were $1,000 in this situation, an increase of more than 8%, or $80, would be above the local rent standard.
If, however, the local inflation rate were 6%, the local rent standard would be 10% since the maximum local rent standard under the law is 10%.
If a covered tenant’s rent were $1,000 in this situation, an increase of more than 10%, or $100, would be above the local rent standard.
As of May 1, 2024, the rate of inflation for the New York City area is 3.82%, meaning that the current local rent standard is 8.82%. Therefore, a rent increase of more than 8.82% could be found unreasonable by the court if the rent was increased after April 20, 2024.
However, in an eviction case the court will have the final decision on whether a rent increase is unreasonable. Landlords may provide reasons for a higher rent increase for the court to consider, such as significant repairs or increased property taxes”
The irony is that there was one person in City Hall that night who was deported by ICE.
DeleteAnd that person was not a member of the Sanctuary group or the HCHC. And that person snuck back into America and into Hudson to avoid bad socialist policies, like this law.
Good comments from Friedman et al. Hudson keeps trying to do housing the way the Soviet Union did business: we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us. And housing gets worse -- and more expensive. I can think of half a dozen fixes. Habitat for Humanity remains a model for creating affordable housing. But that requires open government and free enterprise. --peter meyer
DeleteEveryone wants more affordable housing, be it in Washington DC or on Warren Street, or Columbia County or Columbia Street.
ReplyDeleteWe agree on the problem, we simply disagree on the wisest solution. In these situations good leaders convene communities and find shared solutions. Bad leaders coerce and condone conflicts of interests.
Let's consider the…
📈 Data driven perspective:
This will negatively impact tenants and the middle class who work for a living. Not public housing recipients or Galvanizing and Sparkly Opportunity Zone investors. See evidence from San Francisco, CA, vs Cambridge, MA rent experiments.
⚖️ Corruption driven perspective:
How much money have Brahvan Ranga and his employer, both non-Hudsonians, given or donated directly to Hudson's 1st Ward County Supervisor Ms. Cousins, Hudson Mayor Johnson, their current and future state office campaigns, and other entities in Hudson under their effective control?
In other words, can Hudson be bought for $10k, $100k, or $1m? There are other millionaires, centimillionaires, billionaires, and SuperPACs who would like to know.
📈 Fiduciary duty perspective:
Did the Council review the Federal Fair Housing data (there are no recorded violations), the legal perspective (Council attorney stated she is expecting the law to be litigated for years), and the City tenant/housing provider data (Council admitted they do not have data).
😇 Ethics driven perspective:
How many of the elected and unelected persons browbeating and coercing the Council live in public, affordable, or Galvan housing, or have not declared certain conflicted relationships?
🐳 Comedic perspective:
Who will be first to sell a scripted version of this fiasco as a Parks & Recreation or The Office style mockumentary:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DA6u1O_PJOq/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
DPW Rob or the Hudson Wail?
⌛️ Long-term perspective:
Whether this law passes or not… Hudson has already lost.
Under the current Common Council President there is no good faith debate or compromise.
Common Council President DePietro and his allies seek out divisive and virtue-signaling (often national) issues that the City has no control over, while avoiding virtuous and unifying issues (often hyperlocal) that the City can control.
⌛️ Global perspective:
As immigrants from the 3rd world we see the signs…. the marching mob of intimidation, the Orwellian Doublethink, the suppression of dissent, and we know where it leads; loss of equality and democracy.
🚨 The radical centrist immigrants who can't vote or run for office but pay taxes, as well as the silent American majority in town who avoid the 🤡 show, would like to know if the Columbia County Republicans or the Columbia County Democrats, or both the 🐘 and 🫏, would like to step up and clean up the county's capital.
📟 Paging Greg Fingar and Sam Hodge. Can the wise Americans please stand up, please stand up.
I think a lot of the confusion around this legislation is due to the deceptive, albeit clever, name given to it by its proponents: "Good Cause Eviction." Why would anybody be against evicting someone without good cause? It's a contract that cannot be broken on a whim. Well, in all states, but especially in NY, you ALREADY cannot evict without good cause. Because it is a contract, one that's already afforded special protections by the state. If a tenant is in breach of the lease, say for unpaid rent, the landlord can not just kick them out. They must file for eviction in court and demonstrate the breach. This can already take more than a year. A better name for this new law should be something like "Forever Lease" or "No Contract Tenancy." This extends the tenants contract indefinitely, and also adds in a factor of rent control, going beyond the original agreement/lease and thumbs at the basic principals of contract law in the United States. But tenants don't have to abide by this commitment because if they wish to move at the end of their lease because (got a new job, want a better rental, found a cheaper rental, are buying a home...) for any reason people move, they can simply not renew. But now landlords would be required to renew, even when they have logical reasons to not offer a new contract after they have fulfilled their obligations (tenants are noisy and bother other tenants, tenants are late with rent, tenants keep unit in unsanitary conditions...) things that aren't worth or at the level of eviction, but sane people would rather part ways. To address this unequal balance housing activists would say that to a landlord, the property is a business, and to the tenant the property is a home. That may be true, but the tenant does not own it and is not ultimately responsible for it. That may be fine to these activist since, as "Feather" so eloquently put it, these fellow travelers are agnostic to individual property rights and would love to ultimately end all landlordism, homeownership and put housing in control of "the collective." That's ok if that's their opinion. Don't hide, be loud and proud!
ReplyDeleteThe astroturfing is astounding. Coming from both sides of the issue: the NYSAR (real estate trade group), For the Many (dark money front subsidiary of the Tides Advocacy).
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why Hudson is so special for it to become a proxy battleground for all these groups. Why not Greenport? Our neighborhoods are side by side and many locals don't understand the difference.
I'm also not sure why Columbia County Sanctuary Movement is pushing for this. Good Cause Eviction is not a magic forcefield protecting tenants, one would have to use it as a defense in eviction court and I don't see many undocumented people wanting to go to court. Furthermore, per their argument, I don't see how it would help defend their members from a vengeful landlord from reporting them to ICE, if anything, this law could embolden a heartless landlord to report them if they feel it's their only option. I'm not saying it should happen, but it's another unintended consequence to add to a pile of unintended consequences.
It should also be noted that Galvan and similar developers give money and support to some of these groups. Private (taxpaying) landlords are their primary competition.
To see how astroturfed the issue is, Council Member Purghagen's Facebook post, mentioned in this article, got mostly a handful of replies from a few engaged citizens. At the same time, a post about a Greenport Chinese takeout spot will get 200 replies. It sadly demonstrates the organic attention span of the community.
By the way, it seems Purghagen's post was recently deleted from the public facebook group. The conversation seemed to be getting interesting and maybe someone called their cousin and said their boss wanted it taken down. Or maybe it was a glitch, who knows?
My hypothesis is that Hudson is being built up to be the battleground for a number of issues perceived to be progressive. There is going to be more of this. Kamal and DePietro will make sure of that.
ReplyDeleteThe presence of the Sanctuary Movement at Monday's CC meeting is an indication of that. "For the Many" calls the Hudson/Catskill Housing Coalition and the Columbia County Sanctuary Movement "close partners" here: https://forthemany.org/blog/columbia-county-for-the-many/
I totally agree with you, by the way, that good-cause eviction will do nothing to protect someone from ICE. I also agree that it now provides additional incentives for a landlord to report a stubborn tenant to ICE.
Meanwhile, why not Greenport? Living in Greenport, my guess would be that the demographics here are far less amenable to this. There's on the one hand a much higher rate of home ownership but also a population that leans more conservative. Greenport folks are going to be less welcoming to the Columbia County Sanctuary Movement people.