A battle in state court over rent control in Elizabeth ground on last week, when landlords argued against the City Council’s decision to reinstate a decades old $20-a-year cap on increases it had replaced with one more generous to landlords.
Superior Court Judge John Deitch heard arguments Monday and Tuesday regarding the validity of a July petition by tenants and their advocates asking the council to reinstate the cap, after the council had replaced it in 2022 with a maximum annual increase of 3%.
The council granted the petitioners request to rescind the 3% limit and reinstate the $20 cap. A coalition of landlords then filed a lawsuit, prompting Deitch to issue a stay temporarily blocking the council’s action, pending his final deciioun in the case, which is expected in January or February.
The landlords’ lawyer, Matthew Moench, argued the tenants’ petition was invalid.
“It did not contain enough valid, compliant signatures to move the proposed ordinance forward,” Moench said.
The landlords’ suit also asserts that the council violated the state’s public meetings law.
“When the City Council acted in July to restore the $20 cap, we challenged that specific ordinance because it did not comply with the Open Public Meetings Act and state statutes governing how ordinances must be adopted,” Moench said.
Under the law, an ordinance requires at least 10 days between readings and proper advance publication. In this case, the landlords’ suit argues, the council acted with only six days between meetings, and the notice was published the same day the action was taken.
Moench said the judge will decide on the validity of the petition first. If he finds that it’s invalid, he could invalidate the ordinance restoring the $20 cap on those grounds. If he finds the petition is valid, he would then decide whether passage of the ordinance complied with the state meetings law.
Rent control is a critical issue in Elizabeth, where rental apartments accounted for 74.6% of all housing in 2023, or more than twice the national rate of 3.48%, according to Census data.
Ricky Castaneda, 27, is a member of the Freelizabeth group that filed the petition. He said the difference between a $20 cap and a 3% limit is significant for working families.
“Those extra hundred dollars mean a lot to a working-class family,” said Ricky, who is an admissions recruiter at Essex County College. “That money could go toward medicine, food, or childcare.”
Renee Steinhagen, the lawyer for the tenants, said if the judge does rule that the petition and the ordinance are invalid, the council could take a do-over vote to reinstate the $20 cap.
“When a city council passes an ordinance and doesn’t follow procedure, they can cure it,” she said. “They can hold another hearing, give proper notice, and pass it again.”
Even so, Steinhagen said landlords could impose a 3% increase on leases that expire in the meantime.
“What’s frustrating is that even if we ultimately win, tenants could go a year without this protection,” Steinhagen said. “The citizens didn’t make a mistake here. The city made a procedural error, and it shouldn’t be used against tenants.”
City Council President Carlos Cedeño said he and fellow members will base their next move on how the case plays out.
“Our commitment is to act in the best interest of the entire community,” Cedeño said. “And to do so with a complete and informed understanding of the situation.”