Rent Control Rally Concert

“Save Rent Control” performance at Maxwell’s in Hoboken

To add yet another giblet to the whole Rent Control Debate in Hoboken – is a “Save Rent Control” concert over at Maxwell’s (11th & Washington) next week.

The performance takes place on Thursday, October 25th at 8pm.

Acts include: The Demolition String Band, Jamie & the Della Faves, The Benson Ridge Project, Karyn Kuhl and much more.

It was arranged by the Hoboken Fair Housing Association (who urges the public to vote “No” on election day to Public Question #2.)

29 Responses

  1. spiffy says:

    Rent control is nonsensical. Let the free markets decide going price.

  2. YipYap says:

    Free markets? In housing? Hahahahhaah that is a good one.

    • picard477 says:

      There’s so much misinformation floating around. Just walking around town I see tons of neon flyers stating that residents should vote NO to Public Question #2. The proposed change does not get rid of rent control but allows owners to rent apartments at the fair market rate AFTER a resident moves out. Jersey City does not have rent control on 1-4 unit buildings and downtown JC is doing just fine. Rent control keeps property values down and hurts the community because people don’t want to invest in the area. I was very interseted in buying a building in Hoboken but was disgusted by all the hoops I had to jump through since one of the units was dramatically below the market rate. Does it make sense that I have to ask an administrative office what the rents on a unit were in 1985 when I want to rent it in 2012? I just walked away. Condo owners should also be interested in rent control reform since if you want to rent out your condo, you have to charge the “approved” rent. Although Public Question 2 is not a cureall, at least it’s a start. [quote comment=”217583″]Free markets? In housing? Hahahahhaah that is a good one.[/quote]

  3. MidnightRacer says:

    solution: disallow rental properties

  4. keenobserver says:

    Everyone should definitely vote YES on this ballot question. We have just about the most restrictive, unfair rent control laws of any place in the country. If we don’t rein in rent control at some point, many buildings will become run down as owners start maintaining them less.

  5. MidnightRacer says:

    Rent control violates the Equal Protection Clause.

    Pro-rent control activists basically argue that government should exercise social engineering, which clearly lacks authority. They abuse the meaning of fair not to mean equal, but unequal. To them, fairness is built on favoritism. They argue that a temporal contract for use of a property is infinite.

    Private property owners accept the passivity as victim, say nothing, and do nothing when government exercises authority it does not have under the Constitution. The Bill of Rights bans the federal government from unequal treatment. The Fourteenth Amendment bans state and local government against same.

    The definition of mobocracy is rule by the mob.

    The definition of autocracy is unlimited and unchecked power.

    The solution is to no longer legally recognize rent as a legal concept. All investment properties can be incorporated as a business in which usage rights are purchased as shares with temporal usage and prices according to market demand. In this case, all parties who use the property own it. There is no unequal treatment under the law.

    Apparently, there are those who say the free market would change the entire social make up of the town, by freewill of course. They argue and demand that government intervene and utilize unequal treatment to equalize fairness, by rule of the mob, eff the rule of law.

    • 212transplant says:

      Racer, do you know of any rental properties in Hoboken that are set up like incorporated businesses with shareholders? That is very interesting.[quote comment=”217594″]Rent control violates the Equal Protection Clause.Pro-rent control activists basically argue that government should exercise social engineering, which clearly lacks authority. They abuse the meaning of fair not to mean equal, but unequal. To them, fairness is built on favoritism. They argue that a temporal contract for use of a property is infinite.Private property owners accept the passivity as victim, say nothing, and do nothing when government exercises authority it does not have under the Constitution. The Bill of Rights bans the federal government from unequal treatment. The Fourteenth Amendment bans state and local government against same.The definition of mobocracy is rule by the mob.The definition of autocracy is unlimited and unchecked power.The solution is to no longer legally recognize rent as a legal concept. All investment properties can be incorporated as a business in which usage rights are purchased as shares with temporal usage and prices according to market demand. In this case, all parties who use the property own it. There is no unequal treatment under the law.Apparently, there are those who say the free market would change the entire social make up of the town, by freewill of course. They argue and demand that government intervene and utilize unequal treatment to equalize fairness, by rule of the mob, eff the rule of law.[/quote]

      • MidnightRacer says:

        212transplant said, “Racer, do you know of any rental properties in Hoboken that are set up like incorporated businesses with shareholders?”

        I thought I was clear that the concept rent plays no part in that model.

        If you meant any investment properties, then no, I don’t know of any. But you could always start one. With condos, and co-ops, there are bylaws, and cooperative rules of which you might not be allowed to rent. Then there are titles, or contracts. At least with a condo, you own real property, whereas co-ops you don’t. Not sure how similar timeshares are to this. But might be better to have a corporation own the property, and contract out shares as ownership that can easily be bought and sold. Definitely would need a business lawyer.[quote comment=”217599″]Racer, do you know of any rental properties in Hoboken that are set up like incorporated businesses with shareholders? That is very interesting.[/quote]

  6. HansBrix says:

    Once rent control is abolished will you be willing to pay your maids and nannies more once they start having to commute in from some remote suburb? Or will you hire from those warehoused in some dangerous but nearby ghetto?

    Anyway why isnt there equal concern over AWARDABLE housing — the kind of sweeet rental deals that go to the friends and families of the politically connected regardless of income? Too much of a time honored tradition in Hoboken?

  7. YipYap says:

    Hans they already get a mucho premium here. You can get a 2k sq ft house cleaned for $35 in the sticks. It cost about $80 for a two bedroom in Hoboken. Child care is about double as well. The rich in Hoboken move their kids onto the gov teat of this Abbot district as soon as the kids hits 3 years old.

    • HansBrix says:

      I wonder then what working class labor will cost after the fact. Maybe well hear complaints that the costs are so high we need more illegal alien slaves…er…low wage “immigrants” to do those “jobs Americans won’t do (for dirt cheap). “[quote comment=”217607″]Hans they already get a mucho premium here. You can get a 2k sq ft house cleaned for $35 in the sticks. It cost about $80 for a two bedroom in Hoboken. Child care is about double as well. The rich in Hoboken move their kids onto the gov teat of this Abbot district as soon as the kids hits 3 years old.[/quote]

  8. LobstaGirl says:

    Vote yes & you will be living in JC Heights soon……vote NO & you can stay & enjoy Hoboken! The comments alone here tell it all as if you knew the TRUTH, you would vote NO……..

  9. whineanddineinhob says:

    Keep this town diversified and vote NO. Don’t give landlords the chance to evict tenants to renovate and then charge twice the rent. You’ll have to pay the price later if you don’t. Keep this town for everyone– not just the wealthy who like to seclude themselves with vanity named condos and buildings. VOTE NO.

  10. briank says:

    I think that some subsidized housing is a good thing, but the law and its enforcement in this town is horrible. I always think laws should pass a “reasonable test”. If you want to buy a building in town, you are responsible for the rents charged by previous owners going back decades, with poor record keeping in town to rely on for research. Then damages are tripled. Since when we do we hold people accountable for the actions of someone else 20 years ago? If you buy a used 10 year old car, can you sue the first owner for not maintaining it when it breaks down at 150,000 miles? That is what this law does. I don’t think a rational person would think it passes the “reasonable” test.

    • whineanddineinhob says:

      You have some logic there briank for someone who believes that everyone who disagrees with you is irrational. If you buy a 10 year old car and don’t get maintenance records or don’t have it checked out by a mechanic, then you deserve to be screwed. Seems that everyone that disagrees with rent control is either a landlord or owns a condo. Is that the case here with you and midnight? It would explain your condensending tones on this isssue.[quote comment=”217617″]I think that some subsidized housing is a good thing, but the law and its enforcement in this town is horrible. I always think laws should pass a “reasonable test”. If you want to buy a building in town, you are responsible for the rents charged by previous owners going back decades, with poor record keeping in town to rely on for research. Then damages are tripled. Since when we do we hold people accountable for the actions of someone else 20 years ago? If you buy a used 10 year old car, can you sue the first owner for not maintaining it when it breaks down at 150,000 miles? That is what this law does. I don’t think a rational person would think it passes the “reasonable” test.[/quote]

      • briank says:

        I am a private homeowner. I am not a landlord. I don’t have a horse in this race. But you did not address my concerns. You only came after me personally. Address the issues instead. I think a reasonable person would find the law has simple adherence. Keep rent control if you like, but the law needs to be re-written, and owners should not be responsible for the actions of previous owners. You didn’t address that either- where else in the world are people held responsible for the actions on unrelated other people like with this law? If the law is not re-written, someone should and will challenge it and get it thrown out entirely.[quote comment=”217624″]You have some logic there briank for someone who believes that everyone who disagrees with you is irrational. If you buy a 10 year old car and don’t get maintenance records or don’t have it checked out by a mechanic, then you deserve to be screwed. Seems that everyone that disagrees with rent control is either a landlord or owns a condo. Is that the case here with you and midnight? It would explain your condensending tones on this isssue.[/quote]

  11. MidnightRacer says:

    It’s unbelievable that people here believe that the government is your lord, who can tell you, force you to charge not what the land owner and free market values, but for what social engineering feels entitled. This is an Old World legal concept. It’s called feudal land tenure. In the Old World, in Europe, feudalism was a concept in which the ruling elite told you how to live your life, and you complied or your land was taken away, since title to land might bear your name, but you were not a sovereign.

    The basis of the Declaration of Independence was a clear middle finger to King George and the feudal system of government of lord over subject. That was replaced with the sovereign individual who gave consent to the government to protect inalienable rights, and on topic for this thread, that includes private property and land. Under the feudal land tenure model, your lords (the government) not only controlled how you “owned” and operated the land, but controlled how much you could charge for your labor and products, tax you, then maybe even take your land away from you to give to someone else just because they could. This system was set up where the land owner was not a sovereign, but a subject under the lord (government).

    People abandoned Europe because of this feudal model, came here, declare themselves free persons and limited the government restrictively so as to not repeat this. Yet, there are people here who believe in the old ways. Except now they call in rent control.

    • HansBrix says:

      Building codes and auto safety features are not products of the free market yet I somehow believe we’re better off for them.[quote comment=”217620″]It’s unbelievable that people here believe that the government is your lord, who can tell you, force you to charge not what the land owner and free market values, but for what social engineering feels entitled. This is an Old World legal concept. It’s called feudal land tenure. In the Old World, in Europe, feudalism was a concept in which the ruling elite told you how to live your life, and you complied or your land was taken away, since title to land might bear your name, but you were not a sovereign.The basis of the Declaration of Independence was a clear middle finger to King George and the feudal system of government of lord over subject. That was replaced with the sovereign individual who gave consent to the government to protect inalienable rights, and on topic for this thread, that includes private property and land. Under the feudal land tenure model, your lords (the government) not only controlled how you “owned” and operated the land, but controlled how much you could charge for your labor and products, tax you, then maybe even take your land away from you to give to someone else just because they could. This system was set up where the land owner was not a sovereign, but a subject under the lord (government).People abandoned Europe because of this feudal model, came here, declare themselves free persons and limited the government restrictively so as to not repeat this. Yet, there are people here who believe in the old ways. Except now they call in rent control.[/quote]

      • MidnightRacer says:

        Since this was a response to mine, you’re well aware you used a straw man.

        The government has the authority to protect. This is mutually exclusive of the inalienable right of private property and the sovereignty of the owner over their property. What I wonder if you understand is that when you purchase a property, you volunteer to subject yourself to the town, state, and if applicable federal regulations. In that relation, you agree to a lord (government) who has the consent of you to tell you how to live on and what to do with your property. This is part of the title process when you buy with a mortgage, etc that’s not free and clear. However, if you buy property cash and own it outright, or after you pay off your property, there’s a different title that you should acquire. I could tell you what that is, but want to see your response first.

        The problems of control come from when you want the government to legally recognize rental or sale of the property. In order for the legal recognition, they pretty much demand that you become a subject over the land over which you grant them lordship. While you own the land, you allow them control.[quote comment=”217622″]Building codes and auto safety features are not products of the free market yet I somehow believe we’re better off for them.[/quote]

  12. MidnightRacer says:

    Basically, when you own a property and want to rent it out legally, a privileges is needed with the government. Currently, that subjects you to rent control by the government. How that rent control is implemented can vary widely based upon the details, which this thread discusses. If the residents feel it helps, they support it, if not, they try to convince the council to repeal it, or at the least refine it. The refinement can be disproportionately favorable (unequal treatment) towards the borrower and against the interests of the owner. So you’ve got a problem here when government plays favorite. A balance is hoped for which can compromise (equality of treatment) between the parties, but then activists hit the council hard and the favortism swings back to the borrower at the expense of the owner. Throw in politics and pandering, and you’ve got a mess.

  13. HansBrix says:

    Is RC a restriction on your use of property or a restriction on the income you can generate from that property? The gubmint dictates all kinds of rules over your sovereign property. And it’s probably a good thing. You an make a ton of $ turning your place into a boardinghouse or a check cashing joint. Do you begrudge the rules that say you Can’t?

    Besides this reminds me of people who complain of parking in their urban neighborhood or jet noise after relocating to a house near runway 4.

    You knew that RC laws were in place when you bought in. You “moved to the nuisance “. In fact you may have benefitted on the front end since the laws affect values. Can’t blame You for arguing in favor of a perceived benefit. But at the same time I don’t have much sympathy.

  14. MidnightRacer says:

    Rental income is part of your personal business income. So you file and pay taxes on revenue. As a business, you assess your costs and add a profit worth your risk. Your investment property is a business to which you apply the same considerations. For the government to regulate for safety is the same as any regulation of same to protect the public’s safety. For government to then argue they can regulate and fix prices and increases of any business lacks any authority. A rental property is your business. It would be the same as the town going to all the restaurants and bars and enacting legislation to limiting how much businesses can charge and increase their prices. To claim rent control is needed to keep the town diverse is not only insulting to races or classes of people, but definitely without valid authority.

    When gas prices go up, is government there saying you can charge only so much? Let’s use the same argument that raising gas prices favors the rich, and let’s say gas price controls are needed for diversity on the roads. Let’s say dinner price controls are needed for diversity in the restaurants. How insulting it is to pretend that some groups in society will always be poor because of race, or other broad category. Government cannot do that. But they do without being checked when applying rent control.

    HansBrix, “The gubmint dictates all kinds of rules over your sovereign property.”

    You do realize that’s not legally possible, right? A sovereign property explicitly excludes and lordship over the owner. Maybe in the Old World of Europe under feudal land tenure, but not in the U.S. with allodial title. Nope, you actually have to volunteer your subjection under the control of the government, or in other words surrender your sovereign authority. NJ actually recognizes your sovereign and absolute ownership under Title 46. You can thank Thomas Jefferson for that.

  15. shootyz23 says:

    Holding landlords responsibe for overcharging for rent in the past is insane. After all, the tenant did not need to sign the lease in the first place is he/she felt rent was too high, artificially so or otherwise. This shoud be changed.

    However, where are all of these “rent controlled” rental units? Has anyone looked at the cost of rental units in Hoboken? I just did, my wife and I moved 3 months ago. I did not see too many units that seemed rent controlled! As for the argument, “the tenants of rent controlled units do not move out”……how many of us know of these tenants? I do not know a single person in Hoboken that pays a “rent controlled” rate!

  16. HansBrix says:

    “Holding landlords responsibe for overcharging for rent in the past is insane. ”

    Is any more or less sane then the prospect of losing your property due a defect in title, or an illegal conveyance in the past of which you were unaware? How about finding out that you are responsible for cleaning up that oil plume coming out of a leaking underground storage tank that some owner in 1940 installed?

    RC didn’t sneak up on anyone. Anyone who buys a place where RC is on the books needs to perform an extra layer of due diligence if they want to make it a rental property. That’s all. If you think the laws are onerous then don’t buy. Simple. If you didn’t do your homework and want to have your mistake legislated away, or if you want to have long standing rules changed to increase your profits, how is that really different from traditional rent seeking behavior?

    • shootyz23 says:

      Seems to me that the instances you mention are also insane, but the common thread among all is insanity……does this somehow make your point?

      Agreed, due diligence is in fact the responsible thing if one wants to own rental property. But mistake, lack of due diligence or whatever you want to call it requiring a new property owner to pay for the sins of a previous owner is just wrong.

      BTW, I rent. In fact, I support rent control and frankly I think this issue is full of shit. I just do not see too many of these rent controlled apts around. Though, admittedly I may just not be in the know so to speak. Where are these? Simonici quoted in the Reporter “landlords……getting $600 per month”. What apt in Hoboken is $600 a month?

      Landlords not making enough? Really? Rents over 2k for a shithole apt…..Again, I just moved so I saw much of the rental stock….some of these “oppressed” landlords should be ashamed of themselves with how the properties are kept (including the common areas!)

      That being said, still feel can’t hold new owners responsible in my eyes….[quote comment=”217636″]“Holding landlords responsibe for overcharging for rent in the past is insane. “Is any more or less sane then the prospect of losing your property due a defect in title, or an illegal conveyance in the past of which you were unaware? How about finding out that you are responsible for cleaning up that oil plume coming out of a leaking underground storage tank that some owner in 1940 installed?RC didn’t sneak up on anyone. Anyone who buys a place where RC is on the books needs to perform an extra layer of due diligence if they want to make it a rental property. That’s all. If you think the laws are onerous then don’t buy. Simple. If you didn’t do your homework and want to have your mistake legislated away, or if you want to have long standing rules changed to increase your profits, how is that really different from traditional rent seeking behavior?[/quote]

  17. HansBrix says:

    “You do realize that’s not legally possible, right”

    Ever hear of “zoning”? How about “eminent domain”? Your “sovereignty” means little when the govt has different ideas. We even learned not too long ago that your property can be taken so that a Walmart can go in (Kelo), or high end high rise condos can be constructed (Long Branch, nj). I don’t agree with those decisions but here we are.

    So I don’t think you see RC as a public good, or recognise that RC rules rest on a time honored principle that public authorities may intervene in markets driven by scarcity to ensure fairness in bargaining relations. These are no so much price controls but protections against widespread abuses and predation than WILL happen in the absence of such laws.

    What would happen if RC was scrapped? Eventually we’d see a forced exodus of a large portion middle and moderate income people and families. Where will they go? Who cares right? We’d see higher rental turnover as people see their rent shoot up by double digits as their pay stagnates and job market sputters. People who work in low paying but socially valuable professions will be forced to make hard choices. Double up? Commute from further out? Quit? Doesn’t matter so long as LLs can maximize their return!

    But these people are society. And forcing them out will have a destabilizing effect on that society. You’ll end up with lots of rich, a layer of permanently poor welfare class, and little else. Who’s gonna run the shops with razor thin margins? Who will enforce parking, cut your hair, pour your Blue Moon, or look after Dakota and Hudson as you shuffle paper under flourescent lights in NYC? You’ve banished them to the hinterlands and they cant justify the time or costs of coming in to serve you.

  18. MidnightRacer says:

    HansBrix, read up on allodial and land patents. Only in a few countries can a person be an absolute owner. Texas, Nevada both have a much stronger version of it.

    The rest of your response is an argument in support of social engineering. Unfortunately, it relies heavily on an appeal to emotion.

    I wonder about your understanding of rent control, and am curious if it’s more of a political posture. Apartments in Hoboken are more plentiful than ever before, so where’s this scarcity? Even if Hoboken doubled it’s units, there’ll be more people who want (demand) to live there than spaces. Rent control isn’t affordable housing for only low income residents, since you’re well aware of high income residents living in rent control units. You know this, but still include that fallacious argument in your post. So what is rent control, if not merely government price controls?

    Under your argument, why are there no price controls on gas? When rents go up, people move to more affordable units. But when gas and milk goes up, the poor are hurt more than anyone else since these are essentials. Where is the government to control these prices? Where is the government when inflation cause prices increases well above % moves of rental increases? What happens when people who work in Newark and live in Hoboken can no longer afford the gas for the commute and have to move to Newark, when rent remains the same? Where is the government when the government makes it harder for poor people to get by when everything costs more because the government effed up the world by doing the very thing of over reaching their authority as with rent control?

  19. HansBrix says:

    In a prior post I say…

    “These are no so much price controls but protections against widespread abuses and predation than WILL happen in the absence of such laws.”

    I guess you skipped over that part.

    No this is not the same thing a capping gas prices. It’s about helping to bring about fairness in bargaining relations where one party is significantly stronger than the other. Maybe you see that as social engineering and if so I’m clearly pissing into the wind.

  20. MidnightRacer says:

    HansBrix said, “No this is not the same thing a capping gas prices. It’s about helping to bring about fairness in bargaining relations where one party is significantly stronger than the other.”

    It would be the same as putting price controls on gas. Where do you get capping from?

    Businesspeople have something to sell (gas, milk, property usage).
    Customers want to buy something they have (demand).
    Government puts prices controls on rent, but not all others.

    As (government neglect) inflation increases, where is the government on all the others? Would not price increases in all gas, milk, groceries, utilities, taxes, etc in town not also cause some to flee Hoboken, which undermines your social engineering goals?

    Your notion that government intervenes to bring about bargaining relations in no way is fair, as the term is, not what you want the term to be. Fair is when two parties agree to price. Unfair is when one party doesn’t like the price, and instead of living in another unit, demand the government intervenes on their behalf at the cost (discount) of the owner. In no way is that fair. When someone signs a lease to property for one year, they’ve agreed to 1 year, but in reality stay forever, regardless of how many zeros are after their salary or children’s children’s salaries. Ironically, rent controlled units are for the most part inherited through generations of those who don’t even own the property. Funny.

Leave a Reply,