Did the "well-financed landlords" win?
The makeup of the new Council suggests that full vacancy decontrol will not become a reality in Teaneck (see below). If the bogeyman that haunted the New Beginnings slate in the final days of the campaign, was, as they alleged, a "well-financed" group representing the landlords, the money may not have been well spent.
Opposed to full vacancy decontrol
- Feit
- Honis
- Kates
- Parker
- Gussen
- Rudolph
- Katz
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 9:19 AM
5 Comments:
You do not "bold" Honis and Kates as being opposed to full vacancy decontrol, presumably because they voted in favor of the ordinance that abolished it while maintaining rent control. However, Ms. Kates has stated (and I assume Ms. Honis agrees) that they voted for that ordinance in order to preserve rent control, not because they favored vacancy decontrol.
Therefore (unless the council looks at the election results and concludes it was a specific "nay" on repealing vacancy decontrol) it is still very possible the ordinance could be revisited and rescinded.
Personally I am conflicted on this issue, but I'm concerned about the inherent inequiities vacancy control creates and the temptations such inequities might engender. (E.g., favoritism, cronyism, and outright bribery in deciding who gets the lease on a below-market-value apartment.)
Actually, the boldface letters were there only to highlight the newcomers to the Council. But your comments are very insightful.
Interestingly, the arguments you cite on the anti-vacancy control side (famously presented in a Paul Krugman column several years ago) are not those that Gussen and Rudolph used to explain their opposition to government intervention in the rental market. It sounds like their opposition stems more from the long-term damage done to the tax base from having a lot of unprofitable units in town. Both arguments are quite compelling.
The problem with vacancy control is that it places the burden of bad regional and national housing policy squarely on the backs of landlords.
The problem with the Gussen and Rudolph rationale for vacancy decontrol, is that it presumes that the benefit of increased rents gets passed on to the town through increased taxes. The burden of bad regional and national housing policy is therefore displaced from landlords to tenants with no apparent benefit to landlords.
Another problem with vacancy control is that the municipal crystal ball isn't always that accurate when anticipating rises in costs, such as heating oil, insurance, and yes - even property taxes.
Get the formula wrong, and many landlords (who are not all inherently evil, as some of the election materials would suggest)end up with losses and no chance of making it up.
I'm FOR vacancy decontrol, but was very disturbed by the anonymous mailings and phone messages that came out at the end of the campaign. As I understand it, this type of thing is actually illegal under the state election laws and I hope it gets investigated.
Post a Comment
<< Home