Council Meeting Wrap-Up: April 17, 2024
Happy Earth Day Hoboken! Without further ado… let’s get into the summary of our council meetings from last week! Today we’ll discuss the budget, outdoor dining, lead paint, cellars, and affordable housing.
The 2024 Budget Introduced!
On Monday, April 15, the Council held a special meeting to re-introduce the 2024 budget. Although not all Councilmembers were present, we did have a quorum and we were able to successfully vote to introduce the budget. As a reminder the current version proposes a 6% tax increase, due almost exclusively to costs out of our control, such as increased state-mandated payments to pension funds like the Public Employees’ Retirement System and the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System of NJ. Other costs within the City’s control remained flat, including a reduction in certain staff salaries due to a re-organization late last year.
Following the vote, we proceeded with our budget workshops. On Monday we reviewed budgets for Administration & Finance, the City Clerk’s Office, and Corporation Counsel. Another workshop was held on Tuesday to review Parks, Recreation & Public Works; Community & Development; and Transportation & Parking. The next and final workshop will be Wednesday, April 24, and will cover the Water Utility, Climate Action & Innovation, and Public Safety (which now includes Health & Human Services).
Affordable Housing
During our meeting on Wednesday we discussed affordable housing in two ways – the first was via a Zoning Board appeal at the start of the meeting; the second was as part of an emergency vote on whether to oppose a potential referendum which would allow rental units under rent control to be brought up to market rate. Both conversations were emotional and at times contentious, but they raise an important point that affordability in Hoboken is a serious issue and one we need to address as a Council.
Hoboken’s Zoning laws permit individuals to appeal Zoning Board decisions to the City Council. If they do so, the Council is supposed to essentially step into the shoes of the Zoning Board and decide the case within the same parameters that the Zoning Board would. In this case, a property owner was seeking a variance for a building where there are currently three rent-controlled buildings. The appellant largely argued that displacing of these tenants should be considered in the decision; however, unfortunately per land use law that simply isn’t something the Zoning Board (and therefore the Council) is permitted to consider. The Council voted 5-1 to affirm the Zoning Boards approval of the project.
But the story doesn’t end there, although I don’t want to put words into the mouths of my Council colleagues, I believe we all empathized with the appellants arguments; yet, felt that the Zoning Board was not the right venue for it. Yes, I agree we need to step up renter protections, enhance accountability for property owners seeking to remove tenants, and seek ways to build affordable housing; but we need to do it the right way and in the right venues. My commitment is to seek ways to improve our local policies on each of these topics in the short term.
At the end of the meeting my colleagues Phil Cohen and Emily Jabbour introduced an emergency resolution addressing a potential referendum being pushed by the Mile Square “Taxpayer” Association (I put Taxpayer in quotes because I’m a taxpayer yet have never been offered membership). This referendum proposes to permit property owners with units subject to rent control to bring those rents up to market rate if they make a one-time $2,500 payment to our affordable housing trust fund. This sounds good, but when you consider it would provide a significant windfall for the cost of less than a month’s rent and would have devastating effects on our current rent control stock, it’s actually quite bad.
So, the emergency resolution asked Councilmembers to denounce any deceptive practices which may have been used in the petition gathering process and to state their opposition to the referendum in general. The measure failed 4-5 (Phil Cohen, Emily Jabbour, Jim Doyle, and me voted Yes).
Outdoor Dining Moratorium Continues
A few months ago, during a question on whether to ban future Parklets (i.e., outdoor dining with permanent structures), the Council agreed to a moratorium on new Parklets through April 2024. The idea was that we would take that time and get feedback from multiple parties, including the Hoboken Business Alliance, on how to move forward with construction rules for these structures which would aid in addressing any concerns that they contribute to our rodent problem. On Wednesday the Council agreed to extend that moratorium through July so additional discussions can be had. While most of the Council agreed (it passed 7-2), Councilman Cohan and I voted No as we both believed that sufficient time has passed to have these discussions, and any further delay would put new businesses seeking parklets at a competitive disadvantage.
First Reading Ordinances – Lead Paint and Cellars
We moved forward with two interesting ordinances on first reading.
One related to a state-mandated requirement to inspect rental units built before 1978 for lead paint problems. If passed, this would require the City to inspect such properties and would require property owners to remediate any identified issues. On the face, this seems sensible; however, I have gotten feedback of concern from some tenant advocates which I’ll be thinking about in the next few weeks.
The other ordinance would permit businesses in non-flood zones to extend their operations (if appropriate) into their cellars. Again, on its face this seems sensible to me and a good way to promote business growth within out community. I’ll be interested to see the views of anyone opposed.
