By JAIMIE JULIA WINTERS
winters@montclairlocal.news
An appellate court’s ruling Tuesday is likely to send the question of rent control in Montclair to voters in a referendum.
Three appellate judges Nov. 30 affirmed a previous judge’s ruling that Montclair’s township clerk “acted arbitrarily and capriciously” when she rejected a group of property owners’ petition to have voters decide the subject of rent control, and she tossed out electronic signatures she found didn’t match handwritten ones on voter rolls.
It’s the latest development in a legal fight that reaches back to the spring of 2020, when the Montclair Township Council first passed an ordinance to limit annual rent increases to 4.25%, and to 2.5% for seniors. It would have taken effect 20 days after its approval on April 27, 2020, but state law sets that buffer so residents can gather signatures for a petition.
Instead, the Montclair Property Owners successfully got a court order delaying the effective date of the ordinance until after the state of emergency for the coronavirus pandemic ended — because social distancing restrictions got in the way of door-to-door petitioning. They then conducted the state’s first-ever electronic signature-gathering petition, allowed because of the pandemic restrictions.
Visit MontclairLocal.news/donations to make your tax-deductible contribution today, to keep Montclair Local strong and help us do even more to serve the amazing community of Montclair.
The appellate judges ruled it was “unreasonable, because of the limiting circumstance of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the governor’s emergency order precluding door-to-door solicitations, for the clerk not to reach out and provide voters with an opportunity to cure the alleged uncertain signatures before attempting to disenfranchise them from the referendum process.”
Although Township Clerk Angelese Bermudez Nieves previously testified she and a staff member spent more than 20 hours analyzing the signatures, the appellate court held that the clerk should have phoned individual signers for confirmation of their signatures.
The appellate court also notes the clerk had the individuals’ names, addresses, email addresses and other contact information, and said “common sense and a rational view of the clerk’s statutory role more than persuades that the time spent comparing doubtful signatures would have been more effectively utilized by reaching out to those voters for confirmation before taking the grave step of disenfranchising them from the process.”
Township attorney Ira Karasick has not yet returned an email sent Nov. 20 asking for comment on the decision.
The appellate court’s ruling sends the matter back to a trial court for further proceedings, in conformity with the appellate decision. That’s likely to result in the referendum the property owners pursued. The township could also avoid some time in court by withdrawing its opposition to the petition — still resulting in the petition being certified, and the referendum taking place.
The township could also repeal its ordinance, rendering the matter moot. Then, no referendum would take place, and no rent control measure would go into effect.
Charles Gormally, the landlords’ attorney, said he’s hopeful for yet another scenario — that in the next 10 days, township officials and his group work together on a new version of the ordinance that would address landlords’ concerns, mainly about a vacancy clause in the current version. The landlords want the right to raise an apartment’s rent to market rates when a tenant vacates the unit, but the current ordinance caps those increases at 10%. If township officials and the landlords could come to an agreement, Gormally said, the petition would be withdrawn and no referendum would be necessary.
In a press releases issued shortly after the decision was handed down, Township Communications Director described the decision as one that “would allow for a referendum on the question of rent control in the township.”
Rejected signatures
In September 2020, the property owners first submitted 1,530 signatures to the township electronically — more than 500 more than they needed to get the measure on the ballot — but Nieves’ rejected 614 signatures, 448 for reasons that weren’t contested in court. She rejected 168 for failing to match the handwritten signatures on record. That version, she found, ultimately fell short by 106 signatures.
A trial judge gave the property owners time to submit a cured petition, and a new version included another 136 e-signatures, some intended to cure those that had been rejected the first time around. That time, Neives rejected 27 signatures, finding the petition came up just 18 signatures short.
The matter then continued making its way through court.
Early this year, Judge Jefferey Beacham overturned his own previous ruling in favor of the township, and this time ruled in favor of the landlords, ordering the clerk to certify the petition. After the township filed an appeal in April, Judges Clarkson S. Fisher, Heidi W. Currier and Patrick DeAlmeida heard both sides on Sept. 21 in Trenton.
Beacham’s more recent decision would have required a special election or that the township get rid of the ordinance entirely, but it had been on hold during the appeal process.
“The question, after all, was not whether, when analyzed in a vacuum, an e-signature matched a pen-and-ink signature but whether the voter ‘intended’ that the e-signature be an expression of intent to endorse the petition,” the appellate opinion reads. It references Matthews v. Deane, which it says recognizes “the term ‘signature’ to be that which an individual intends to be his [or her] signature.”
“The clerk could have ascertained the voter’s intent by simply reaching out to the voter for confirmation,” the opinion reads.
Gormally called the decision a “complete victory for the committee” of landlords.
“Regardless if you are for or against this version of rent control that will now likely end up on the ballot in early 2022, the last few years have taught us how important it is to protect the rights of the people to participate in their democracy, whether that is voting, petitioning or simply sharing their opinions,” Councilman Peter Yacobellis, in an email sent to media, said.
Yacobellis said the pandemic demands that government be more flexible and accommodating.
“In fact, now the court has said as much. In my view, that’s a good and healthy thing for our local democracy,” he said.
Councilman Bob Russo said in an email he continues to support “our very modest rent control ordinance and an extension of the rent freeze, which I believe is necessary until the voters reject the petition and affirm our reasonable ordinance to protect our tenants and our Montclair diversity and affordability.”
Toni Martin of Tenant Organization of Montclair, a group of residents who lobbied for rent stabilization for over three years, said “gentrification has been on a rampage in Montclair and it is well past time to stop the dissolution of its diverse community.” She noted the ruling wasn’t about rent control itself, but about the procedural matter of signature-gathering.
“The [landlords’] contention that landlords have been denied their civil rights is absurd on its face,” she wrote.
In an email to Montclair Local, Ahava Felicidad, TOOM president, said: “Hope springs forward and with the same absolute certainty that this journey’s revitalization began. We at the Tenants Organization of Montclair are unwavering in our commitment to the implementation of our April 7, 2020 approved rent control ordinance.”
Montclair’s separate rent freeze moratorium, first implemented in the pandemic, is set to expire on Dec. 31, unless the Township Council extends it further. That measure is allowed because of the state of emergency, and must be renewed regularly to stay in effect.
“There is great reason to fear what will occur between expiration of the pandemic-related freeze on rent hikes in Montclair and the referendum vote on rent control, which cannot be scheduled before early next year,” Martin said. “This will be a no-holds-barred time for landlords who may have suffered diminished profit during the pandemic.”
Montclair Local is continuing to reach out to other council members and involved parties for comment.
"control" - Google News
December 01, 2021 at 02:18AM
https://ift.tt/31fntGX
Rent control referendum likely, after Montclair's loss in appeals court - Montclair Local
"control" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3bY2j0m
https://ift.tt/2KQD83I
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Rent control referendum likely, after Montclair's loss in appeals court - Montclair Local"
Post a Comment