At 9:28 p.m. on November 9, Kingston’s rent guidelines board vote went the way that some renters squeezed by rising rents had been hoping for. Whether that number was too little or not enough depends on whom you ask.
Affecting the tenants of buildings built before 1974 with six or more units, the board passed a 15 percent reduction on current rents for one- and two-year leases. It also settled on three years as the period of review for which rent raises can be assessed based on a fair-market comparison by the state Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR).
The retroactive component of the vote, known as a lookback period, sets a 16 percent cumulative increase going back to January 1, 2019. Tenants whose rents have been raised more than 5.33 percent a year during that period can file fair-market rent appeals with DHCR.
Of the nine members of the board, the two property-owner representatives along with one public member voted against both the reduction and the lookback period. Both tenant representatives and the remaining four public members voted for the recommendations.
A representative of the DHCR, Peter Stecker, noted that the only example of a new municipality setting a similar guideline under the emergency tenant protection act (ETPA) was when the Village of Ossining in Westchester County a couple of years ago set a lookback period of six months.
“And there was a two-percent increase [allowable] for tenants with no leases,” said Stecker, “and a four-percent increase [allowable] for tenants with leases.”
A dire scenario
The property-owner representatives on the board and the tenant representatives delivered presentations at the start of the meeting.
Tara Perry, a property-owner representative member of the board, painted a bleak picture of the decline and fall which she said would result from what the board had been considering, a 30 percent decrease in rent paired with a three-year lookback policy.
“You will literally bankrupt the property,” said Perry. She used Stony Run, the apartment complex which has become infamous throughout these publics hearings, as an example. She estimated a six-million-dollar loss to the property owners.
“The owner most likely would abandon the property and even with the residents still living in it services would stop, and once the conditions are bad enough the building department would have to step in and condemn the property due to the unsafe conditions from nothing being maintained,” she predicted. “Then you have 267 families without housing.”
Perry described the five-percent increase for the first year that she proposed as modest. She also advocated for a one-year lookback period.
“While I do believe that certain landlords have taken advantage of the situation and have excessively raised rents,” she said, “other landlords should not be punished for the actions of a few.”
The second property-owner representative board member, Anthony “Junior” Tampone, said he did not question that Kingston was in the depths of a housing crisis, but still had made no determination on what guidelines, if any, should be recommended.
“We really do not have a significant amount of data in order to make a decision on,” said Tampone, “and I’m very concerned about that.”
Tampone noted that just two percent of the rental population from the properties which would be affected by new guidelines had turned up to the public hearings. Lack of feedback from the landlords also concerned him.
“We have almost no cost data from property owners,” Tampone said, “and I feel like we really need more data to be able to make a guideline that would not be easily challenged.”
The public testimony
Board member Michael Tierney, renter representative and himself a renter, disputed Tampone’s contention that data was lacking.
“We’ve got testimony from the public,” said Tierney. “That’s data. We’ve got the American Community Surveys, that’s data. We have data from experts in planning and sociology and economics, that’s data. You know, name any kind of public hearing that gets more than two percent of the people affected and I will show you a unicorn.”
Because of the compressed time period left to act this year, DHCR had decided that public hearings would be am acceptable alternative to the survey process, “which typically takes 90 days to administer.”
Tampone was unmoved, dismissing the existing data as non-specific to the board’s purview.
Serving on the board as one of the five members of the public, Diana Lopez noted that landowners have been given the same opportunity to attend the meetings and submit testimony as the renters.
“We heard from over 60 tenants,” said Lopez, “who took hours from their job to come and be at these public hearings. Same as you, I’m concerned that homeowners did not make the time to come here.”
Surveys are typically sent to tenants and landlords to gain information. Because of the compressed time period left to act this year, however, DHCR had explained to the rent control board that public hearings would have to stand in for the surveys, which typically take 90 days to administer.
Sorry about the landlord’s hardships
During her presentation, tenant representative Carol Soto was inclined to forestall further delays.
“This is a hardship for tenants in Kingston,” said Soto. “I’m sorry about the landlords’ hardships, but the tenants of Kingston are very much affected. The judge is allowing us to proceed, and it’s in the best interest of the tenants of Kingston to vote today.”
Kingston is being sued in the Ulster County Supreme Court by a group of Hudson Valley property owners represented by Richard Lanzarone. The suit disagrees with the city’s declaration of a housing emergency and, by extension questions the legal standing of the rent guidelines board to make recommendations.
A restraining order to halt the actions of the board has been denied.
“We had expert testimony from the institutions that are policy makers on the subject,” continued Soto, “and we have the opportunity to make a one-time rent adjustment that counters the actions of so many bad landlords. If Mr. Lanzarone is a representative of the good landlords, I want to remind you that he did whatever he could to subvert the democratic process and to scare the tenants.”
Preparing the language
In the end, according to Mie Inouye, one of five board members representing the public, enough members of the board held serious concerns about the effects on the landlords to come to an agreement on a higher amount of rent reduction.
“In my view, based on the data, a 30 percent reduction was reasonable,” explained Inouye. “Fifteen percent was a compromise figure. It seems to me to be a meaningful reduction for tenants, but also a reduction that these landlords should be able to absorb.”
DHCR has said it will draft the new policy. The agency suggested a timeline of January for the completion of that work product. The local rent control board expects to discuss it when it meets again then.
As a result of the board’s decision, tenants may now file fair-market-rent appeals with the DHCR to challenge rents retroactively to January 1, 2019.
“I feel proud of the board,” said Inouye. “I think that we worked really hard to gather all the relevant data available to us, and to make a reasonable decision. And I’m happy that we were able to make a decision that will meaningfully address the housing emergency in Kingston. And also that we were able to reach that decision with a six-three majority.”
Join the family! 
