On November 5, 2024, Hoboken residents headed to the polls not only to vote for the next president and other local officials but also to decide the fate of a proposed amendment to the city’s rent control code. The referendum asked whether landlords should be allowed to increase rent to market rates after a tenant vacates a property, subject to a one-time payment to the Hoboken Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The outcome of the vote was a clear rejection of the amendment, with a large majority of voters choosing to maintain the current limits on rent increases.
The proposed amendment, if approved, would have removed the restrictions that currently limit rent increases after a tenant vacates a rent-controlled unit. Under the existing rules, landlords can raise the rent by either 5% or the rate of the Consumer Price Index, whichever is lower. If a tenant had occupied the unit for three years or more, rent increases could not exceed 25% and could only occur once every three years. However, the new amendment would have allowed landlords to increase the rent to market value, with no cap on the amount, as long as they paid a $2,500 fee to the city’s affordable housing fund per unit — the amendment aimed to provide landlords more flexibility while contributing to the city’s affordable housing efforts.
The issue arose after Hoboken City Council voted down a proposal that would have directly modified rent-controlled property pricing. As a result, the decision fell to the citizens through a voting referendum. The referendum asked Hoboken residents to vote “yes” or “no” on the proposed changes. A vote in favor of the amendment would have effectively reduced the restrictions on rent increases for newly vacated units. Conversely, a “no” vote would maintain the current rent control policies, which have long been a staple of the city’s housing regulations.
The referendum was part of a broader conversation about affordable housing in Hoboken. In this city, rising rents have sparked debates over the balance between tenant protections and landlords’ ability to operate their properties effectively. Supporters of the amendment argued that allowing landlords to raise rents to market value could incentivize property maintenance and boost the city’s affordable housing fund, ultimately benefiting residents by supporting future housing projects.
Opponents of the proposal argued that the changes would only make housing even less affordable in a city where many residents already struggle with high rent prices. They stressed that maintaining the current limits would help preserve affordable rental options, particularly in a city where rent control serves as a safeguard against rapid price hikes. In August 2024, when the amendment was first being considered by the City Council, Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla expressed his strong opposition to an amendment to Hoboken’s rent control ordinance in an online statement. He argued that the amendment would severely reduce the city’s stock of rent-stabilized units, stating, “This amendment does not advance the public interest. It advances the interests of special interest groups and wealthy, corporate landlords.” The proposal had been introduced as a “compromise” to avoid a potentially harsher referendum on the issue, but Bhalla rejected this, emphasizing that it would lead to displacement, gentrification, and a loss of affordable housing.
Stevens student Chloe Brenna, along with alumni and roommate Saoirse Mooney, joined the Hoboken United Tenants (HUT) group—a local coalition opposing the proposal and encouraging Hoboken residents to vote “No” on the changes. With many Stevens students living off-campus and potentially impacted by the decision, they spread awareness through canvassing and social media, urging students to register to vote using their Hoboken addresses. Brenna, who notes that she is grateful to live in a building with relatively low rent, emphasized the importance of preserving affordable housing, stating, “Hoboken should not be a destination city or one that has its character destroyed for exclusively luxury housing.”
In the end, the majority of Hoboken voters chose to preserve the status quo with over 16,000 residents or nearly 75% of voters voting “no.” Residents decided to keep the current rent control code in place, which includes the existing limits on how much landlords can charge after a tenant vacates a unit.
Hoboken United Tenants said the result was a victory of compassion, extolling that “Hoboken said we want to take care of our neighbors.” Conversely, the Mile Square Taxpayers Association (MSTA), which had spearheaded the proposal, said that it had won in policy forums but couldn’t overcome the Mayor’s portrayal of the effort as “simply landlord friendly.” According to Caren Lissner, a reporter for Patch, a similar effort on the part of landlords also failed more than a decade ago.
The results reflect the city’s ongoing struggle to balance the needs of renters with the financial realities of property owners, as well as a clear repudiation of efforts by groups to roll back rent control as an instrument of housing policy.
