 |
| From LA's Halloween booty bag |
...who do you think they'd elect? The candidate packing the 2" or the 6 1/2 inch"? (Candy bar)
Thank goodness, voters are not children. Voters know it's not the size of a candidate's candy bar, but the flavor of his/her agenda.
To get a taste of what you can expect from a candidate once elected, you simply have to sample their record.
Let's talk about THAT. All THREE candidates have a record
Zimmer is running ON her record. Ramos is running FROM his record.
It is AMAZING... Ruben Ramos declared his candidacy MONTHS before anyone, but has NOT talked out his TEN YEARS on the City Council since! Nope, GA checked his mailers... take a look:
GA wouldn't even call Ruben's record undistinguished... that would be a compliment.
Ruben's LEGACY is a $11.4 Million Budget DEFICIT that triggered the State to put a FISCAL MONITOR in control of Hoboken's finances!
Why do you THINK those are the 10 FORGOTTEN YEARS of Ruben Ramos!
Folks, anyone who would ELECT a man for MAYOR with a 10-year Council record so lousy HE won't talk about it... just imagine the mess he'd create in City Hall?
Folks, candy bars and jokes aside.... Finboy 'Get-Ravi' Barracato and Jamie Cryan have mangled Timmy's campaign beyond rescue, it is effectively a 2 person race.
WE NEED TO GET OUT THE VOTE.
Complacency will SCREW Hoboken.
 |
| Eat the candy, then VOTE for ZIMMER, BHALLA, MELLO & DOYLE |
Mayor Zimmer urges all her supporters to vote NO on Hoboken Public Question #1.
ReplyDeleteNo stories on this battle, GA?
Umm... I sit on the Zoning Board of Adjustment. No stories.
DeleteBut GA is not the only 'game' in town.
Local voters should be allowed to approve or disapprove of rent control without professional anti-rent control people coming in from out of town -- especially when these operatives are suspected of faking signatures against rent control in other communities.
DeleteBut GA is the only 'game' that's not commenting.
DeleteAnd she explained why she is not commenting
DeleteAnon @ 2:28 PM, you being a dipshit?
DeleteActually voting yes on the rent control question is the way to go.
ReplyDeleteVote YES on 1 if you want to see EVERY 3 unit brownstone in town converted to million dollar condos in the next 10 years...because that IS the agenda behind this developer backed measure.
DeleteI'm voting YES !!
DeleteProblem with the developer group that is supporting the initiative is that they don't even have the moral center to say that what they are asking people to vote yes in order to weaken rent control. Their deceptive flyers say vote yes to keep rent control (and then in smaller type that they hope nobody reads) under control. It's really disgusting just like submitting false evidence to the courts to overturn last year's certified election was disgusting. These things alone are a big red flag that the group behind this initiative are trying to do something bad to our town. They literally will not stand up and say, 'we want to end rent control on as much of Hoboken as we can' and they are trying to trick people into voting contrary to how they want to. The analogy would be like Tim Occhipinti asking people to vote 1J for Dawn Zimmer (although Dawn Zimmer is 5J.) To protect our town from these outside creeps - Vote NO on Hoboken City Public Question #1 on Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea how to vote on the public questions.
ReplyDeleteWould someone explain it in simple terms please.
In simple terms this initiative would totally and forever decontrol Condos and 1-3 family houses when current tenants left. It adds no enforcement mechinism to keep them from being forced out, and the economic incentive to do so will be compelling to some.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Rent control is complicated; there are plausible arguments on both sides. Most economists assert rent control actually raises rents for new tenants. But even so, Hoboken’s population has nearly doubled since I moved here in 1981. You see the crowding for busses, backed up traffic, and jammed parks. Is making rents a little cheaper for new residents really a pressing concern? I’m skeptical. Or take taxes: It sounds logical when rent control opponents say that if some pay more, the rest of us will pay less. But often, when a rent controlled building is vacated it is renovated or replaced to maximize density, bringing more people to town, increasing demand on city services, parking and the rest. Studies have shown new residential construction actually adds more to the cost of city services than it brings in in ratables. If taxes are your issue – and they are one of mine—the most important thing to do in this election is vote for Kid’s First: Gold, Sobolov, Evans; they’ve held the line at the Board of Education. And then re-elect Mayor Zimmer and her team who did the same for city taxes. The impact on our tax bills from any change in rent control will be negligible compared with the cost of reverting to the old ways of doing business.
Admittedly, Hoboken’s rent control law was once broken. But improved administration under Suzanne Hetman, and the passage of Z-88, resolved most issues, and when new ones arise they are being addressed. Case in point: a recent court decision prohibited condo owner-occupants from setting a market rent if they later decide to rent it out. Councilwoman Giattino found this unreasonable and introduced an ordinance to allow the charging of market rents, only to have it stalled by the four-four gridlock on the council. The council opposition’s “solution” is to support the rent control rollback initiative, which does protect condo owner-occupants who rent out their units, but goes much further, giving investors the right to buy any condo in a residential building and rent it at market rates to multiple unrelated new residents. This means families trying to purchase a condo would compete with investors, and will likely lead to what once were largely owner-occupied buildings filling up with tenants.
Initiative #1 totally decontrols small buildings as soon as a tenant moves out. Its supporters claim families won’t be forced out, but with no enforcement mechanism, how meaningful is that protection? Look to the sad history of arson and death in Hoboken in the 80’s for one answer. Rent control isn’t perfect, but part of Hoboken will be lost if long-term residents of modest means are forced out. For a real impact on taxes, the candidates for council, mayor and school board are where the action is. If you’re concerned about property values, improve schools by helping Kids First – Vote 3-5-8. I’m a taxpayer, I’m a landlord, I sit on the Rent Leveling Board and I’ll be voting NO on ballot question #1. I encourage you to do the same.
Mike Lenz
Doesn't the state provide eviction protections to tenants?
DeleteAre you saying the state's eviction laws will no longer be in effect
No I'm saying they have proved ineffective in Hoboken.
DeleteYou stated "no enforcement mechanism"
DeleteIs this correct?
NO enforcement mechanism?
NJ state law says otherwise. I am confused. You are saying the state laws are ineffective? How so?
A tenant can be evicted only if the landlord follows each of the steps in the eviction process and if a judge is convinced that there is cause for eviction under the Anti-Eviction Act. A tenant can defeat an eviction complaint by showing that the steps in the eviction process were not correctly followed, or that cause for eviction does not exist, or that the landlord has not met other duties under the law, particularly the duty to provide the tenant with safe and decent housing. This section explains the most common defenses used by tenants to defeat an eviction in court.
Eviction
ReplyDeleteAs in all states tenants cannot be unlawfully ejected from a rental property. Proper written notification must be received by the tenant from the landlord. In some counties of New Jersey the statute of notification is less that 4 days, in other counties it is up to 30 days. Your local housing authority or HUD department can provide you with books and brochures explaining your rights.
Non payment of rent or rent increases, destruction or damage of rental property, disorderly conduct that disturbs neighbors, violation of lease agreement, and illegal use of drugs or other illegal activity are some things that can get you evicted in New Jersey. There are a wealth of things that you can be evicted for and it is wise to research them for the town you live in. For the most part all of rural New Jersey follows the same tenant protection laws. Sometimes you will find amendments that apply only to residents of city and suburb areas.
In New Jersey it is illegal for landlords to cut off heat and water as a means of eviction. Heat must be provided from October 1st to May 1st every year or when the outdoor temperature drops below 40 degrees fahrenheit. The temperature must be maintained at 65 degrees fahrenheit or warmer. It is also illegal for landlords to change locks, remove tenant belongings, bar tenants from entering or leaving property, or harass tenants as a means of eviction. Landlords that commit these crimes in New Jersey are subject to lengthy jail time and possible revocation of their rental permits.
If you can meet the terms of the eviction, please do and then vacate the property. This will save you from having to go to court, which can take up to 6 months. If you don't receive a notice of eviction and instead get a summons you need to seek legal representation immediately. It is against the New Jersey Tenant Protection Laws for a landlord to begin the eviction process without first notifying the tenant.
As always, document everything and call the police or proper authorities when necessary. As in every state, New Jersey does not practice rental discrimination. Anyone in New Jersey can live anywhere they please. If you feel you have been discriminated against contact your local housing authority. They will be able to direct you to the proper legal services for discrimination. Sometimes legal services are offered free because of the nature of the crime committed. In New Jersey landlords that practice discrimination will most likely serve some jail time, pay fines, and can possibly loose their rental permits.
Knowing your rights when renting in New Jersey will help you save a lot of time and headache later on. Alway document everything from the condition of the property and rental unit, to any issues that you may have with your landlord or property manager. Remember, in New Jersey if you do not have documentation you have no case.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html
ReplyDeleteThere can be no doubt that rent control creates housing shortages. For almost 20 years, national vacancy rates have been at or above 7 percent--a figure generally considered normal. Cities such as Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix, where development is welcomed, have often had vacancy rates above 15 percent. In these areas of the country, there usually is a surplus of housing rather than a shortage. Landlords commonly advertise "move-in specials," where rent is reduced for the first month or even where they pay moving expenses.
In rent-controlled cities, on the other hand, vacancy rates have been uniformly below normal. New York City has not had a vacancy rate above 5 percent since World War II. (The state's rent control law, supposedly temporary, would automatically expire if it did.) Before giving up rent control, Boston's vacancy rate was below 4 percent. (There are no figures as of yet on the rate since rent control ended.) In rent-controlled San Francisco, the vacancy rate is generally around 2 percent, and in San Jose the rate is 1 percent, the nation's lowest. Meanwhile, comparable nonrent-controlled cities, such as Chicago, Philadelphia, San Diego, and Seattle have normal vacancy rates at or above 7 percent.
Rent-controlled cities absorb these shortages in a variety of ways. Higher rates of homelessness are a manifestation of rent control. [6] Another is the traditional difficulty individuals have in finding a new apartment in these cities. An article in New York magazine entitled, "Finding an Apartment (Seriously)," recommended such techniques as "joining a church or synagogue" as a useful technique in meeting people who might provide good leads on an apartment. [7] Young people who migrate to New York or San Francisco usually must settle for paying $600 a month to share a two-bedroom apartment with several other people or commuting from a nearby city. Crowding is a manifestation of rent control.
In large metropolises a housing shortage can severely damage the city's economy. Experience shows that when such cities adopt rent control, they usually try to avoid outright housing shortages by leaving segments of the market unregulated. Unsatisfied demand is diverted into this unregulated sector. Because of the shadow-market effect, people in this sector pay higher-than-market prices. Still, they are rarely conscious of the causation. Instead, they simply regard the city as "an expensive place to live" and often become a constituency for extending rent control to their own apartments.
ReplyDeleteThe Effects of Rent Control
ReplyDeleteEconomists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”1 Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.2 The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners milton friedman and friedrich hayek on the “right” to their fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal, an important architect of the Swedish Labor Party’s welfare state, on the “left.” Myrdal stated, “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.”3 His fellow Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck asserted, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.”4 That cities like New York have clearly not been destroyed by rent control is due to the fact that rent control has been relaxed over the years.5 Rent stabilization, for example, which took the place of rent control for newer buildings, is less restrictive than the old rent control. Also, the decades-long boom in the New York City housing market is not in rent-controlled or rent-stabilized units, but in condominiums and cooperative housing. But these two forms of housing ownership grew important as a way of getting around rent control.
Economists have shown that rent control diverts new investment, which would otherwise have gone to rental housing, toward greener pastures—greener in terms of consumer need. They have demonstrated that it leads to housing deterioration, fewer repairs, and less maintenance. For example, Paul Niebanck found that 29 percent of rent-controlled housing in the United States was deteriorated, but only 8 percent of the uncontrolled units were in such a state of disrepair. Joel Brenner and Herbert Franklin cited similar statistics for England and France.
ReplyDeleteThe economic reasons are straightforward. One effect of government oversight is to retard investment in residential rental units. Imagine that you have five million dollars to invest and can place the funds in any industry you wish. In most businesses, governments will place only limited controls and taxes on your enterprise. But if you entrust your money to rental housing, you must pass one additional hurdle: the rent-control authority, with its hearings, red tape, and rent ceilings. Under these conditions is it any wonder that you are less likely to build or purchase rental housing?
many tenants, usually rich or middle-class ones who are politically connected or who were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, can gain a lot from rent control. Tenants in some of the nicest neighborhoods in New York City pay a scandalously small fraction of the market price of their apartments. In the early 1980s, for example, former mayor Ed Koch paid $441.49 for an apartment then worth about $1,200.00 per month. Some people in this fortunate position use their apartments like hotel rooms, visiting only a few times per year.
ReplyDeleteThen there is the “old lady effect.” Consider the case of a two-parent, four-child family that has occupied a ten-room rental dwelling. One by one the children grow up, marry, and move elsewhere. The husband dies. Now the lady is left with a gigantic apartment. She uses only two or three of the rooms and, to save on heating and cleaning, closes off the remainder. Without rent control she would move to a smaller accommodation. But rent control makes that option unattractive. Needless to say, these practices further exacerbate the housing crisis. Repeal of rent control would free up thousands of such rooms very quickly, dampening the impetus toward vastly higher rents.
Currently any building built after 1985 , any building that was entitled to section 8 federal housing and any home that has been completely renovated and file proper applications are exempt from rent control.
ReplyDeleteAfter intitial rental of a completely renovated home, the renovated unit/home is then placed back on rent control.
So which units are left?
Older homes built before 1985 and those who have been unable to fully renovate their homes under the full rent control ordinance.
public housing has income verification. In public housing the government provides the subsidy along with tax exemption in the municipality.Conversely, Rent control does not provide any income verification and as such provides below market rent regardless of income. Small, older homeowners provide the subsidy of lower rents for rent control.
It was so much simpler in Hoboken when landlords just burned the tenants out .
ReplyDelete