good cause eviction

good cause eviction at the state level

APTS of NY is advocating at the state level against Good Cause Eviction. Please see their website for details.

rochester city council voted no on good cause eviction

On 3/15/22, in a 6-3 vote, Rochester City Council voted NO on intro 94 and in favor of supporting good solutions like improving code enforcement & grants to improve affordable housing stock.

Email members of council and say THANK YOU for voting NO to intro 94 (good cause eviction)

Or call and ask to leave them a message at 585 428 7538

Mitchell Gruber | Mitch.Gruber@cityofrochester.gov

LaShay Harris | LaShay.Harris@CityofRochester.gov

Miguel Melendez | Miguel.Melendez@cityofrochester.gov

Willie Lightfoot | Willie.Lightfoot@cityofrochester.gov

Michael Patterson | Michael.Patterson@cityofrochester.gov

Jose Peo | Jose.Peo@cityofrochester.gov

What is Intro 94?

Introduction #94

  • Mandatory lease renewals, makes leases indefinite (establishes Good Cause Eviction)

  • Puts a 5% cap on rent increases (establishes rent control)

  • Require a valid C of O in order to file for eviction

  • Requires a valid C of O in order to collect rent (unable to file nonpayment eviction without it)

INTRO 94 BILL TEXT

FACT SHEET

Opposition Letter

Signers: 126

Units Represented: 6,502

Intro 94 Opposition Letter.docx

talking points

rent control arguments

Rent regulation in any capacity has failed wherever it has been tried. It restricts housing supply and degrades property conditions. This does not address the underlying housing affordability issue, it makes it worse.

Click here for expanded arguments

Good cause eviction

The solution to the Housing Affordability Crisis is to increase the supply of housing, Good Cause Eviction reduces housing supply

1. Good Cause will reduce housing supply and discourage improvements

    1. Fewer new units will be built, distressed properties will stay vacant longer, & more buildings will fall into disrepair.

    2. Additional legal fees & litigation time will be a substantial burden on housing providers.

    3. Starved for revenue, owners’ only way to stay in business will be to cut costs by reducing improvements, repairs, and maintenance.

    4. Upstate housing is predominantly older and it is already costly to keep in good condition. Good cause is directly at odds with the more important goal of improving conditions.

    5. Less frequent turnover and fewer new units will drive up rents for new tenants.

2. Good Cause Eviction will hinder tenant mobility

    1. An empty nester will stay in their rent stabilized 3 bedroom apartment long after the kids move out, because downsizing will cost them more. This keeps the 3 bedroom off the market for the next young family to move into.

    2. A new family will be forced to stay in their rent stabilized 1 bedroom apartment because moving into a new, larger apartment will be too expensive, leading to overcrowding.

3. Good Cause Eviction will reduce local tax revenue and increase abandoned properties.

    1. Property values will stagnate or decline, development of new units will decline, & existing vacant properties will not be renovated and added to the tax roll.

    2. Good cause will increase the number of vacant properties. Upstate cities already have many zombie properties that are not economical to renovate. This will occur even more under good cause rent control.

4. Good Cause Eviction will impair the removal of disruptive and dangerous residents

    1. Housing providers will be required to prove in court that a resident is in substantial noncompliance of the lease in order to remove disruptive residents. These cases can be extremely hard to win, as not all nuisances result in physical or photographic evidence.

    2. Residents are unlikely to testify in opposition to harassing or even dangerous residents as this could place them in harm’s way.

5. Good Cause is rent control, which has been proven to fail in numerous locations

    1. Sacramento & Cambridge have comprehensive studies on Rent Stabilization & its adverse effects. Stockholm & Berlin have recently come to the forefront of failed Rent Control policies & showcase 9 year waitlist for rent controlled units in Stockholm.

    2. Rent control has been studied for decades, and economists overwhelmingly agree that it has an overall negative effect on housing.

      1. American Economic Review Poll 93% of economists agree.

6. Solutions must focus on increasing housing supply & providing rent assistance to residents in need

    1. Increase funding to rent assistance programs & housing choice vouchers

    2. Increase programs for owners & developers to offer affordable housing

    3. Empower local code enforcement agencies to follow up with routine violators

      1. Points based system currently being proposed by City government is a great solution for this


VIEW OUR BROADER PLATFORM AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

certificate of occupancy requirements

  1. This requirement would reduce the availability of quality low income housing

    1. As the below arguments outline, this will make low income housing far riskier, and therefore housing providers will offer this far less frequently and if they do, they'll considerably increase screening requirements.

  2. The courts already look into the habitability of units before granting an eviction

    1. Laura Burgess, a prominent landlord/tenant attorney in Rochester, explains this in depth in this statement.

  3. The C of O requirement would allow easy abuse

    1. Residents can easily prevent an owner from getting a C of O. Problem residents do this already in an attempt to make it more difficult to get evicted, this regulation will make the removal of problematic residents nearly impossible through the legal process.

  4. This would depress property values, reduce tax revenue, and invite slumlords

    1. Properties with problematic residents would be sold at steep discounts, or abandoned altogether, causing properties to fall off the tax roll for the city or considerably reduce their taxable basis.

    2. Good, law abiding property owners and property managers would have no tools to handle problematic residents who wish to prevent an eviction by means of preventing a C of O. As a result, these owners/managers will only operate in areas of the city which pose the lowest risk, which leaves the most at risk communities in our city with the worst housing stock.