Rent Control Signs battle becomes nutty

Hoboken Rent Control reaches final day – plus sign battle

The Hoboken Rent Control Debate has been bizarre, interesting and odd.

Bizarre, because of the confusing wording that has turned the real debate into “we need to explain this confounding public question to you better…” rather than focusing on the true matters at hand. And to this day – because of the “yes” and “no” confusion – I bet no more people understand the question than when it was first published.

And interesting – because this last push to election day, there’s been an peculiar “sign battle” on street poles around town. The Mile Square Taxpayers Association (who wants you to vote YES in order to curtail the outdated law to become more balanced) posted signs supporting their argument.

Meanwhile, Zimmer supporters who want to continue the obsolete law (for political purposes only), have been defacing their oppositions signs with magic marker – and taping their own (illegal) signs above them. This immature battle for street sign dominance just confuses the laymen even more!

This whole sign battle is odd – because the vandalism to the MSTA’s signs is sort of funny. While all street pole advertising is banned under city law – it kind of makes the vandalism a moot point. But the pro-rent control people then add their own illegal advertising. Sort of a red-light district of desperation. I doubt those poles make a damn bit of difference to anyone – because the 2012 General Election Ballot is like reading an encyclopedia, and they probably won’t get an accurate vote one way or another.

We’ll see what happens.

20 Responses

  1. MF says:

    I could be totally wrong here. I come to this issue with no prior knowledge of the history by which the referendum made it to the ballot. Sometimes that is best so that it’s not a biased view. But it seems to me that this referedum is designed to have people who bought condos at overinflated prices (which some people knew were overinflated before the bubble burst) recoup some of their loss via higher rents, as they now obviously can’t see their units anywhere close to what they bought them for. Anyone agree?
    With this view, I voted no. That’s not the way capitalism works.

    • homeworld says:

      The way capitalism works is that you set your rent to a market value that a consumer is willing to pay. That’s why voting “Yes” is the true market option. [quote comment=”217978″]I could be totally wrong here. I come to this issue with no prior knowledge of the history by which the referendum made it to the ballot. Sometimes that is best so that it’s not a biased view. But it seems to me that this referedum is designed to have people who bought condos at overinflated prices (which some people knew were overinflated before the bubble burst) recoup some of their loss via higher rents, as they now obviously can’t see their units anywhere close to what they bought them for. Anyone agree? With this view, I voted no. That’s not the way capitalism works.[/quote]

      • mooshu says:

        B.S.

        If you want to rent your apartment at market value, make it worth the money. If you could see the interior of a lot of Hoboken buildings, you wouldn’t feel right paying the “market rent” some greedy bastards out here are salivating and jacking off over day in and day out.

        [quote comment=”217990″]The way capitalism works is that you set your rent to a market value that a consumer is willing to pay. That’s why voting “Yes” is the true market option.[/quote]

      • briank says:

        As a homeowner (non landlord), market price is what someone will pay for a product, wether it is a Kia vs Mercedes or a luxury apartment vs a dump. Let the renter decide what it is worth. If someone pays too much for a dump, that is their fault. Vote with your wallet. Why should the city tell a private owner what he can charge? Can they tell me how much I can sell my condo for?

        THAT SAID, there should be a difference between how large property owners are regulated vs a guy like me who may decide to move out of Hoboken but decide to keep and rent my condo.

        [quote comment=”217996″]B.S.If you want to rent your apartment at market value, make it worth the money. If you could see the interior of a lot of Hoboken buildings, you wouldn’t feel right paying the “market rent” some greedy bastards out here are salivating and jacking off over day in and day out.[/quote]

      • mooshu says:

        No, dear. You can boo-hoo about this all you want, but no…

        No dump should be rented at “market price”. [quote comment=”217999″]As a homeowner (non landlord), market price is what someone will pay for a product, wether it is a Kia vs Mercedes or a luxury apartment vs a dump. Let the renter decide what it is worth. If someone pays too much for a dump, that is their fault. Vote with your wallet. Why should the city tell a private owner what he can charge? Can they tell me how much I can sell my condo for?THAT SAID, there should be a difference between how large property owners are regulated vs a guy like me who may decide to move out of Hoboken but decide to keep and rent my condo.[/quote]

      • homeworld says:

        So should the City not allow a pizza place to charge whatever they want for a crappy slice of pizza, too? How is that any less ridiculous. If someone wants to overpay, that’s their choice and their decision.

        If you don’t like the pizza, you go buy it somewhere else. If you don’t like the apartment, you go rent one somewhere else. The local municipal government shouldn’t be telling you what price you can charge. And this is not lower rent for poor people… You can be a Wall Street Executive and still get a rent controlled apartment. [quote comment=”218026″]No, dear. You can boo-hoo about this all you want, but no…No dump should be rented at “market price”.[/quote]

      • mooshu says:

        Pizza is exactly like an apartment. Great analogy.[quote comment=”218028″]So should the City not allow a pizza place to charge whatever they want for a crappy slice of pizza, too? How is that any less ridiculous. If someone wants to overpay, that’s their choice and their decision.If you don’t like the pizza, you go buy it somewhere else. If you don’t like the apartment, you go rent one somewhere else. The local municipal government shouldn’t be telling you what price you can charge. And this is not lower rent for poor people… You can be a Wall Street Executive and still get a rent controlled apartment.[/quote]

      • MF says:

        right, but unless i’m misunderstanding the wording of the referendum, it seems to be trying to make EXCEPTIONS to the rent control laws. we could argue whether rent control laws should even exist, but that’s a different argument. GIVEN THAT THEY EXIST, why should there be exceptions for condos?? only reason i can think of (there certainly may be others) is that people are trying to recoup the losses they suffered when they paid overinflated prices 5-8 years ago.[quote comment=”217990″]The way capitalism works is that you set your rent to a market value that a consumer is willing to pay. That’s why voting “Yes” is the true market option.[/quote]

      • mooshu says:

        Thank you. That’s a huge part of what’s going on, but definitely not the whole story.

        If anyone purchased a property not for use but for the purpose of reselling at a higher price, tough tits. You can cry, or you can suck it up like big boys and girls.[quote comment=”218066″]right, but unless i’m misunderstanding the wording of the referendum, it seems to be trying to make EXCEPTIONS to the rent control laws. we could argue whether rent control laws should even exist, but that’s a different argument. GIVEN THAT THEY EXIST, why should there be exceptions for condos?? only reason i can think of (there certainly may be others) is that people are trying to recoup the losses they suffered when they paid overinflated prices 5-8 years ago.[/quote]

      • homeworld says:

        The reason there is an exception is that the intention is to help out regular people and families that own property, not big real estate corporations and developers. And any property built within the last 30 years is exempt, anyway.

        Here’s an example from someone I know:

        An elderly couple owns a 3-unit building that they live in and rent out one of the units. At some point they’ll need to move out into a building with an elevator. However, because of rent control laws, they can only rent their 2 units at 1980s prices, since that’s the last time they were rented out.

        And if they chose to sell their property the new owner is faced with the same hurdle, thus depressing the value of their property.

        How is that fair?
        [quote comment=”218078″]Thank you. That’s a huge part of what’s going on, but definitely not the whole story.If anyone purchased a property not for use but for the purpose of reselling at a higher price, tough tits. You can cry, or you can suck it up like big boys and girls.[/quote]

  2. LobstaGirl says:

    That group is so desperate but even more hilarious is that now the Mile Square Taxpayers Association should be held liable for posting flyers on public property throughout town. Now let’s see if the town does anything against these bafoons.

    § 168-23. Distribution of handbills or circulars.

    [Added 5-4-1966 by Ord. No. C-268]
    No person shall throw, cast or distribute, or cause to be thrown, cast or distributed, any handbill, circular, card or other advertising matter whatsoever, in or upon any street or public place, or in a front yard or in any vehicle or in the vestibule or hall of any building or in any place from which such matter may be blown by the wind onto a street or public place, or place on any pole or public sign any advertising matter unauthorized by the owner of said pole or public sign.

    • animal_lover says:

      LOBSTER to have your complaint as a public record you would need to appear before CIty Council. [quote comment=”217979″]That group is so desperate but even more hilarious is that now the Mile Square Taxpayers Association should be held liable for posting flyers on public property throughout town. Now let’s see if the town does anything against these bafoons. § 168-23. Distribution of handbills or circulars.[Added 5-4-1966 by Ord. No. C-268] No person shall throw, cast or distribute, or cause to be thrown, cast or distributed, any handbill, circular, card or other advertising matter whatsoever, in or upon any street or public place, or in a front yard or in any vehicle or in the vestibule or hall of any building or in any place from which such matter may be blown by the wind onto a street or public place, or place on any pole or public sign any advertising matter unauthorized by the owner of said pole or public sign.[/quote]

  3. YipYap says:

    homeworld – Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest. You are forgetting the transfer payments over the last 4 years perhaps?

  4. animal_lover says:

    Ballots can be turned in until FRIDAY. Your vote counts!

  5. hoboken411 says:

    RESULTS FOR THREE PUBLIC QUESTIONS (PROVISIONALS AND OTHER BALLOTS NOT INCLUDED):

    Hoboken Public Question No. 1 (ELIMINATE RUNOFF)
    37/40 92.50%
     Vote CountPercent
    Yes7,58959.55%
    No5,15540.45%
    Total12,744100.00%


    Hoboken Public Question No. 2 (RENT CONTROL)
    37/40 92.50%
     Vote CountPercent
    Yes6,40148.35%
    No6,83751.65%
    Total13,238100.00%


    Hoboken Public Question No. 3 (NOVEMBER ELECTIONS)
    37/40 92.50%
     Vote CountPercent
    Yes8,44477.95%
    No2,38822.05%
    Total10,832100.00%

    • MidnightRacer says:

      Before the results are certified, all you have to do is incinerate the percentage of winning votes by the margin greater than last election, then give yourself a few xeroxed copies in all sections. That should do it. Hope the garbage collection and CO2 levels aren’t detected.[quote comment=”218006″]RESULTS FOR THREE PUBLIC QUESTIONS (PROVISIONALS AND OTHER BALLOTS NOT INCLUDED):[/quote]

  6. BklynHobo says:

    Do we know if this includes emailed and faxed ballots?

  7. animal_lover says:

    RE: RENT CONTROL -Regardless of positioning, the language alone is presumptive.

  8. HansBrix says:

    I wonder what reaction the public would have had if gas stations charged market clearing prices in the week following Sandicane. They would have met a screeching mob with pitchforks and torches. “What? $20/gallon for 87? PRICE GOUGING!! Throw the bums in jail!”

    We’ll never see THAT on a referendum even though it’s really the same underlying issue.

    • MidnightRacer says:

      4 years ago, the price was $1.65/gallon. These days, it’s about $4.00/gallon. 4 years ago, if any gas station raised their prices from $1.65/gallon to $3.00/gallon, that would’ve been price gouging. Yet, we’re at $4 and you think that’s not? You claim that gas stations exist in the vacuum of the free market; there’s nothing free about it. The petro industry is one of the most regulated industries out there. If it truly were a free market, I could open an oil and gas business and charge a fraction of the current prices out there. The federal government impedes a lower price for gas. If you’re not aware of it, a large portion of the gas price you pay goes to an increasingly higher rate of hidden taxes in the gas per gallon. Part goes to the federal gov, state gov, and the remainder goes to the business. Every time a state over spends, it goes to the gas tax and increase it, which is why California is higher than the rest. You pay more for gas because of government involvement in the industry, from denying permits on federal controlled land, to killing pipelines, and letting foreign nations have priority to drill in the Gulf of Mexico by stopping US companies from the same. Bad metaphor.[quote comment=”218084″]I wonder what reaction the public would have had if gas stations charged market clearing prices in the week following Sandicane. They would have met a screeching mob with pitchforks and torches. “What? $20/gallon for 87? PRICE GOUGING!! Throw the bums in jail!”We’ll never see THAT on a referendum even though it’s really the same underlying issue.[/quote]

Leave a Reply