Village of New Paltz trustees got their wish to hash out details of the “good cause” rental law at an earlier hour, by holding a workshop meeting on September 29 specifically for that purpose. The idea behind this bill is to create a right to the renewal of a residential lease, unless the landlord has “good cause” not to, such as the breaking of rules or the failure to pay rent. It’s been called “good-cause eviction,” but even the name is not yet settled. The session was lauded as “collaborative” by one member of the public who was allowed to provide input, but did not result in a draft that all five trustees felt was ready to adopt.
It appears that all five board members support the concept of keeping tenants in their current homes if possible, particularly given the longstanding housing crisis that’s been exacerbated by an ongoing pandemic. They see housing stability as being important to the health and vibrancy of the entire community. Some of the clauses need refinement before they’ll all be ready to vote on it, however. Other than the name, some of the areas of discussion included determining when a tenant must accept the renewal terms, the section that would prevent a landlord from collecting rent from any tenant if any of their properties is removed from the village’s rental registry, and pinpointing how to evaluate when a rent increase is “unconscionable.”
The reason the name is a sticking point is because eviction is generally understood as removing someone who lives in a property, an active process. Eviction can be illegal — if a landlord changes the locks or hires thugs to move someone out, for example—or legal, if it’s done through a court process. Deciding not to renew a lease is passive, but the use of the phrase “de facto eviction” in an early draft to describe it muddies the waters for some. “Good-cause eviction” is the term being used to market this concept to government officials around the area, but the officials in New Paltz mostly aren’t comfortable with that branding.
One idea that received wide acceptance is to break out the language that deals with strengthening the rental-registration law, and address it separately. Deputy Mayor Alexandria Wojcik was quick to agree to that approach. Registering rentals is required in the Village, and keeping properties on that registry involves not only paying a fee, but passing an annual inspection. The section in question would prevent a landlord from collecting any rent if a property is removed from the registry due to very serious safety issues.
Working out the timing of the renewal-notification process took much of the two hours trustees devoted to this discussion. Wojcik was resistant to the idea of setting a deadline by which a tenant must respond to an invitation to renew a lease, particularly if that date was more than 30 days prior to expiration. Much of the discussion had to do with students: when those living on campus must make their decisions for the following school year (December, according to some in attendance), how long it takes to market a vacant property, what happens if a lease ends at or near summertime, when students are out of town. There’s also the question of how to deal with the one- and two-month subleases that are often signed by those attending summer classes; a lengthy notice period could mean that notice has to be given on the renewal option prior to the lease being signed at all. Resident Matt Eyler, a landlord who does not have any student tenants, described that rental market as a “well-oiled machine” in which all participants know what to expect, and warned that changes could be disruptive to all concerned.
The student rental market is qualitatively different than renting to anyone else, according to some local landlords, but trustees believe that one cannot pass a law that makes a distinction between them and any other people because “source of income” is something that cannot be considered under state law. Adele Ruger, a landlord and real estate broker, said that it is legal to select renters based on occupation, and interprets “student” as more an occupation than a source of income. Students also often rent together in groups, and it’s not clear what would happen if one sought a renewal while others moved on. Roger Spool observed that students would not desire to rent together with an “adult,” by which Spool appeared to mean “college graduate.” Brahvan Ranga, a For the Many staff member who advocates for these “good-cause” laws around the region, said that student renters need as much protection as anyone else. One fact that hung silently over the discussion is that under current state rules, no local law has any impact on a state college campus.
Another clause makes it possible for tenants to sue if a proposed rent increase is believed to be “unconscionable.” Mayor Tim Rogers said that in a hot housing market like the current one, some landlords may determine that it’s worth it to spend the time and money readying an apartment for a new tenant if that tenant is willing to pay significantly more in rent. Many of the landlords who have been watching this matter closely claim that this is not good business sense, but missing from among their ranks are the owners of large apartment complexes, where that business decision may be weighed differently. However, Rogers is not entirely comfortable with taking that language from an Albany law that hasn’t been tested in court; the mayor doesn’t want to spend Village tax dollars on litigation if a judge doesn’t have any precedents to consider. This clause, too, may end up becoming a separate law to be considered at a later date.
The deputy mayor was reluctant to end the discussion at 9 p.m. as agreed, at least without setting a public hearing, but Wojcik was the only board member who felt that this draft was ready for a hearing. For the most part, what the others wanted was time to consider their work before taking another step. Some of the landlords in attendance clamored for another workshop, saying that entire sections of this bill have not yet been discussed in this much depth. Rogers reminded Wojcik that whether there’s a hearing scheduled or not, New Paltz residents will certainly continue to comment on this bill.
Join the family! 
