September 12, 2011
Dear Assembly/Senate Candidate:
The New Jersey Tenants Organization (NJTO) is the oldest, largest statewide tenant membership organization in the United States.
Enclosed is the 2011 NJTO Legislative Questionnaire, which is designed to help you to address tenant concerns in a serious way, and to help us judge your understanding of and commitment to tenants' rights.
Please read and answer the questions carefully, keeping in mind that your answers, along with your record and other factors, will form the basis for a possible endorsement. Feel free to add extra pages if needed for your answers.
Please understand that, without a completed questionnaire, it is extremely unlikely that a formal endorsement will be issued. Some incumbents routinely refuse to answer questionnaires as a matter of policy. We understand this, and expect to make fewer endorsements this year than in the past. Please also understand that the lack of an endorsement does not mean that we oppose your election. It is just extremely unlikely for us to endorse anyone who does not take a formal stand on the issues that concern us by filling out and signing the questionnaire.
Please fill in the information in the box on page one and sign the bottom of each page.
Return the completed questionnaire no later than September 26, 2009 to:
New Jersey Tenants Organization
389 Main Street, Suite 215
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Following our review of your questionnaire we may contact you for an interview. Any endorsements will be finalized by the NJTO Board. If you need clarification of any question, please call me at 201-461-3586 or 201-618-8505 (cell).
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew B. Shapiro
President
P.S., We sincerely apologize for the lateness of this questionnaire and the tight timeframe for response.
Questionnaire for Candidates for Assembly and Senate
September, 2011
(Please complete and return by September 26, 2011)
Name _________________________________________________________Phone ______________
Address
AssemblyIncumbentDemocratCandidate for in District # Republican
in District # RepublicanSenateChallengerOther 1.About 115 New Jersey municipalities have some form of rent control which acts as a consumer protection against rent gouging, while guaranteeing a just and reasonable return for landlords. What is your position on municipal use of strong rent control to protect tenants against rent gouging as a way of stabilizing New Jersey's communities?
About 115 New Jersey municipalities have some form of rent control which acts as a consumer protection against rent gouging, while guaranteeing a just and reasonable return for landlords. What is your position on municipal use of strong rent control to protect tenants against rent gouging as a way of stabilizing New Jersey's communities?Answer:
2.It has long been NJTO's position that the State should not interfere with local rent control in any way that weakens it.
It has long been NJTO's position that the State should not interfere with local rent control in any way that weakens it.a.Would you oppose any legislation that would weaken or restrict local rent control?
Would you oppose any legislation that would weaken or restrict local rent control? YES, WILL OPPOSE NO, WILL NOT OPPOSE
b.Specifically, would you oppose any State bill which would force local rent control laws to allow the rent increase on an apartment to be (permanently or temporarily, partially or totally) decontrolled when a tenant moves out? (This would be known as "statewide vacancy decontrol.")
Specifically, would you oppose any State bill which would force local rent control laws to allow the rent increase on an apartment to be (permanently or temporarily, partially or totally) decontrolled when a tenant moves out? (This would be known as "statewide vacancy decontrol.") YES, WILL OPPOSE NO, WILL NOT OPPOSE
Explain:3.The NJ Law Revision Commission has just completed a landlord/tenant project which would rewrite all landlord/tenant law if enacted by the legislature. We expect to see this 180 page project introduced as a bill in the near future. The New Jersey Tenants Organization has opposed this project from its inception, as has Legal Services of New Jersey. Their multiple requests that the project be dropped were rejected. If enacted the project would undo 40 years of the legislature's work in balancing the playing field between tenants and landlords ensuring some degree of fairness for tenants. From just cause eviction rights to security deposit reforms, the clock would be turned back, taking away many of the important rights that have been established for tenants.
The NJ Law Revision Commission has just completed a landlord/tenant project which would rewrite all landlord/tenant law if enacted by the legislature. We expect to see this 180 page project introduced as a bill in the near future. The New Jersey Tenants Organization has opposed this project from its inception, as has Legal Services of New Jersey. Their multiple requests that the project be dropped were rejected. If enacted the project would undo 40 years of the legislature's work in balancing the playing field between tenants and landlords ensuring some degree of fairness for tenants. From just cause eviction rights to security deposit reforms, the clock would be turned back, taking away many of the important rights that have been established for tenants.Will you do everything in your power to make sure that this project NEVER sees the (legislative) light of day?YES NO4.The Eviction for Just Cause Law is the bedrock of tenants’ rights in New Jersey. It lists 17 reasons that would allow a landlord to evict a tenant. Originally there were 13. This law gives tenants the security that every family deserves. They are safe in their homes unless they violate one of these 17 known "rules."
The Eviction for Just Cause Law is the bedrock of tenants’ rights in New Jersey. It lists 17 reasons that would allow a landlord to evict a tenant. Originally there were 13. This law gives tenants the security that every family deserves. They are safe in their homes unless they violate one of these 17 known "rules."a.Would you oppose any proposed legislation to weaken the Eviction for Just Cause Law – by either adding new unnecessary causes for eviction, by removing categories of tenants from protection, or by changing procedures or rules to make it easier to evict? YES, WILL OPPOSE NO, WILL NOT OPPOSE
b.Are there any additional reasons for eviction that you would support and why?
Are there any additional reasons for eviction that you would support and why?Answer:
5.When the Homestead Rebate program was first enacted in 1990, the formula for calculating the benefit was the same for tenants and homeowners alike. It was a fair method based on property taxes paid in comparison to income, where tenant property taxes were set at the average of 18% of the rent for the purpose of the calculation. Successive administrations and legislatures since then have changed the program so that different formulas apply to homeowners and tenants, each time shrinking the tenant share of the rebate program. Last year, senior citizens and the disabled, the only tenants remaining in the program, were taken out completely. This year, tenants are still out, while homeowners rebates are being doubled. Where’s the justice in that
When the Homestead Rebate program was first enacted in 1990, the formula for calculating the benefit was the same for tenants and homeowners alike. It was a fair method based on property taxes paid in comparison to income, where tenant property taxes were set at the average of 18% of the rent for the purpose of the calculation. Successive administrations and legislatures since then have changed the program so that different formulas apply to homeowners and tenants, each time shrinking the tenant share of the rebate program. Last year, senior citizens and the disabled, the only tenants remaining in the program, were taken out completely. This year, tenants are still out, while homeowners rebates are being doubled. Where’s the justice in thatTenants have done nothing wrong. They should not be punished. They should not be treated as second class citizens when it comes to New Jersey tax policy. Tenant benefits should be based on the same formula as that used for homeowners at each income level, recognizing that approximately 18% of the rent goes to pay property taxes. This would still result in lower rebates on average for tenants than homeowners, since tenants generally pay less tax, but at least the formula would be fair, as tenants would receive their proportionate share.
Will you make it a budget priority to fully restore the Homestead Rebate for senior citizen and disabled tenants, as a first step toward restoring it for all tenants?
YES NO6.A-2216/S-1758 (and A-3478/S-819) would allow landlords to install water sub-meters and require tenants to pay for water (and sewerage) use based on the amount of water measured by the sub-meters. This bill would override rent control laws prohibiting diminishment of services and current BPU rules prohibiting sub-metering in existing buildings. Despite committee amendments and floor amendments, this bill remains overwhelmingly unfair to tenants currently protected by rent control. Lower income renters will be particularly hard hit. Furthermore, although this bill is supposed to promote water conservation, the parts that require landlords to conserve are very weak in the area of enforcement, and use outdated standards that could actually cause more water to be used.
A-2216/S-1758 (and A-3478/S-819) would allow landlords to install water sub-meters and require tenants to pay for water (and sewerage) use based on the amount of water measured by the sub-meters. This bill would override rent control laws prohibiting diminishment of services and current BPU rules prohibiting sub-metering in existing buildings. Despite committee amendments and floor amendments, this bill remains overwhelmingly unfair to tenants currently protected by rent control. Lower income renters will be particularly hard hit. Furthermore, although this bill is supposed to promote water conservation, the parts that require landlords to conserve are very weak in the area of enforcement, and use outdated standards that could actually cause more water to be used.Will you oppose these water/sewage sub-metering bills which are about money, not water?YES, will OPPOSE NO, will not oppose7.A-480/S-279 is our real alternative to A-2216/S-1758. It will save an incredible amount of water (and waste water) without harming tenant families or landlords. It would require every multiple dwelling landlord (not just those who want to submeter) to replace every water wasting toilet and showerhead with truly low-flow devices within 12 months without passing the cost on to the tenants. The replacement toilets would use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush and would meet standards insuring that they actually work with a single flush. The bill would be enforced by an inspection program and fines of $1000 per toilet and $500 per showerhead (significantly more than the replacement cost).
A-480/S-279 is our real alternative to A-2216/S-1758. It will save an incredible amount of water (and waste water) without harming tenant families or landlords. It would require every multiple dwelling landlord (not just those who want to submeter) to replace every water wasting toilet and showerhead with truly low-flow devices within 12 months without passing the cost on to the tenants. The replacement toilets would use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush and would meet standards insuring that they actually work with a single flush. The bill would be enforced by an inspection program and fines of $1000 per toilet and $500 per showerhead (significantly more than the replacement cost). If the bill caused fixture replacements in only 500,000 of the 1.1 million rental units, we could end up saving up to 9 billion gallons of water and waste water a year, without increasing tenant housing costs, without undermining rent control, and without harming landlords, who will get their money back and more in lower water and sewerage costs and tax write-offs. It is a "win" for everyone (although not quite the windfall that the landlords would like to have).
Will you co-sponsor/support A-480/S-279?
YES NO8.S-2795/A-3835 would prevent municipalities from establishing or enforcing stronger health and safety standards in multiple dwellings than the minimum standards in the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law. It would also prevent municipalities from inspecting units in multiple dwellings at any time other than when there is a change of occupancy.
S-2795/A-3835 would prevent municipalities from establishing or enforcing stronger health and safety standards in multiple dwellings than the minimum standards in the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law. It would also prevent municipalities from inspecting units in multiple dwellings at any time other than when there is a change of occupancy.While the bill seems to have exceptions, they all must conform to the above two rules, and are therefore not really exceptions.Municipalities have valid reasons for enacting stronger standards than the state provides. Newark, for example, requires cameras in certain multiple dwellings, and Jersey City requires uniformed security personnel and has strong standards for landlord liability for bedbug eradication. Not only should such stronger standards be allowed, even encouraged, but a municipality (like Orange) should be allowed to inspect more often than once every five years (or when a tenant moves) to try to reverse or at least slow down deterioration that almost seems planned on the part of some landlords.There are about 115 municipal rent control laws in New Jersey. All of them prohibits the diminishment of services. Otherwise, control of rent increases would not be meaningful. If the maintenance and safety standards in a rent controlled building are higher than the minimum standards in the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law, those higher standards currently have to be maintained. That would no longer be the case if S-2795/A-3835 passes.S-2795/A-3835 is a deceptive bill. It purports to be about eliminating duplication. It is really about preventing municipalities from enforcing better maintenance and safety.On June 29, 2011, S-2795 was passed in the Senate by a vote of 23-13, after having been added to the agenda at the very end of the day before. Because of this unfair last minute addition which we were unaware of until the morning of the vote, we could only e-mail Senators our objections to the bill, as there was no time for anything else. Some incumbent Senators may not have seen our e-mail until after the vote.If you are an incumbent senator who voted for S-2795, please explain your vote. Use a separate sheet if necessary. ________________________________________________Will you oppose S-2795/A-3835 in the Assembly, regardless of which position you are running for, and please explain what you will do to oppose it.Answer: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________9.S-2195 would allow a landlord to require a tenant to pay the rent for a year in advance or for the entire lease term in the case of a multi-year lease. This bill would effectively eliminate the tenant’s remedy when the landlord violates the most important right established in case law – the Warranty of Habitability. In Marini v. Ireland, the NJ Supreme Court held that if a tenant’s apartment is not habitable, or has reduced habitability, the tenant has the right to withhold rent after proper notice to the landlord, and the rent would not be due for any period without habitability. How can a tenant living in horrible conditions withhold rent if the tenant was forced to pay it all up front at the beginning of the lease?
S-2195 would allow a landlord to require a tenant to pay the rent for a year in advance or for the entire lease term in the case of a multi-year lease. This bill would effectively eliminate the tenant’s remedy when the landlord violates the most important right established in case law – the Warranty of Habitability. In Marini v. Ireland, the NJ Supreme Court held that if a tenant’s apartment is not habitable, or has reduced habitability, the tenant has the right to withhold rent after proper notice to the landlord, and the rent would not be due for any period without habitability. How can a tenant living in horrible conditions withhold rent if the tenant was forced to pay it all up front at the beginning of the lease?Will you oppose S-2195?YES, will OPPOSE NO, will not oppose10.A-2072/S-395 may have been well intended when first introduced, but amendments added to appease the landlords have made this a bill that endangers the rights of tenants when it comes to bedbug eradication. The Warranty of Habitability and the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law make it clear that it is the responsibility of the landlord to remove infestations, including bedbug infestations. A-2072 started out reiterating the landlord’s responsibility in order to correct a couple of erroneous lower court decisions. But so many amendments were added that shifted responsibility to tenants under so many different circumstances without even making absolutely certain that the tenants were aware of their new responsibilities and potential financial liability that the bill actually became anti-tenant. It would reduce the rights tenants currently have.
A-2072/S-395 may have been well intended when first introduced, but amendments added to appease the landlords have made this a bill that endangers the rights of tenants when it comes to bedbug eradication. The Warranty of Habitability and the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law make it clear that it is the responsibility of the landlord to remove infestations, including bedbug infestations. A-2072 started out reiterating the landlord’s responsibility in order to correct a couple of erroneous lower court decisions. But so many amendments were added that shifted responsibility to tenants under so many different circumstances without even making absolutely certain that the tenants were aware of their new responsibilities and potential financial liability that the bill actually became anti-tenant. It would reduce the rights tenants currently have.A-2935/S-275, on the other hand, retain their original purpose – to just make it clear that the landlord is responsible for eradicating bedbugs.Will you do everything in your power to oppose A-2072/S-395 and support, instead, A-2935/S-275?YES NO11.When a building is in really bad shape, and code violations and fines don't convince the landlord to fix the place up, a very effective tool is a receivership. A court can appoint a receiver to collect the rents and spend this money on fixing up the building instead of lining the landlord's pockets. To get a court to do this, either the tenants or the municipality must file a lawsuit. Unfortunately, the tenants usually cannot afford the legal costs and municipalities usually don't want to get involved. Something needs to be done to stop the cycle of disinvestment, abandonment, and demolition that plagues much of the rental housing in New Jersey. Will you sponsor legislation which would require either the municipality or a State agency to seek a receivership in court if the building's condition is bad enough and the tenants request it?
When a building is in really bad shape, and code violations and fines don't convince the landlord to fix the place up, a very effective tool is a receivership. A court can appoint a receiver to collect the rents and spend this money on fixing up the building instead of lining the landlord's pockets. To get a court to do this, either the tenants or the municipality must file a lawsuit. Unfortunately, the tenants usually cannot afford the legal costs and municipalities usually don't want to get involved. Something needs to be done to stop the cycle of disinvestment, abandonment, and demolition that plagues much of the rental housing in New Jersey. Will you sponsor legislation which would require either the municipality or a State agency to seek a receivership in court if the building's condition is bad enough and the tenants request it?YES NO12. Non-refundable "refurbishment" fees, demanded at the inception of a tenancy, have been used by a number of landlords to evade the requirements of the Security Deposit Law. Will you sponsor/support a bill which prohibits these non-refundable refurbishment fees.
YES NO13. S-129/A-1760 undermines the Eviction for Just Cause Law, in the name of dealing with overcrowding, by adding a new cause for eviction -- violating the landlords written standards for overcrowding -- whether or not they are reasonable -- whether or not they are part of the lease or rules and regulations -- whether or not the tenant has agreed to them, and regardless of when the tenant was informed of the standards. All of this, despite the fact that there are three ways to evict a tenant for overcrowding already in the Eviction for Just Cause Law that do not violate the tenant's rights. Also, instead of focusing on overcrowding situations that also involve fire/safety violations or unabated noise problems, this bill is a steamroller treating all overcrowding the same, allowing towns to fine tenants or landlords from $2,500 to $10,000, giving the landlord a way out, and making sure the tenant is the one who pays the fine.
We need to know if you will oppose S-135/A-785, or any bill like it which undermines the Eviction for Just Cause Law and targets tenants (who are, for the most part, just victims of the lack of affordable housing in New Jersey) instead of the landlords who profit enormously from these overcrowded units that they somehow know nothing about.
YES, will OPPOSE NO, will not oppose14. One solution to the overcrowding problem is to allow a limited number of single family homeowners in each municipality to create an affordable, legal, safe, accessory apartment in their home. Municipalities should be able to equally distribute these apartments throughout the neighborhoods of the community. This would help homeowners struggling with high taxes at the same time as it provides affordable housing to those most in need in the right locations (near employment opportunities; not restricted to urban areas with high unemployment). Will you support/sponsor a State law which would establish this right for a limited number of single family homeowners in each community?
YES NO15. New housing built with State financing (FMHA) or to meet COAH obligations which is designated as "affordable" often looses its affordable status over time because of weak or non-existent continued affordability requirements. When rents in a low or moderate income building go up faster than the incomes of the residents, the promise of affordability is being broken, and State money is being used improperly. Will you support legislation that requires continued affordability in such buildings by insuring that rents do not rise automatically without agency approval based on proof of need and, in any event, do not rise faster than inflation?
YES NO16. S-805 would clarify that post 1987 buildings with units reserved for seniors at least 55 years old (instead of 62), would be covered by municipal rent control, and not exempted as are other buildings. The 30 year exemption from rent control for buildings built since 1987 was never a good idea. It allows landlords to entice tenants in with lower rents (or one or two months free rent) and then hike the rents up once the place is full. It's classic bait and switch. Rent control NEVER controls initial rents in a new building. It merely insures that future rent increases are reasonable. It insures that prospective renters are told the truth about what their rents are going to be. This protection is especially important in the very popular 55+ complexes, since the senior population, usually on fixed income, is so vulnerable to the harm caused by sudden, high rent increases. S-805 is an important step in the right direction. Will you support s-805?
YES NO17.Tenants suffer from lack of health insurance in greater numbers because tenants, on average, have half the income of homeowners, and the only barrier to decent health care is the extreme cost of quality health insurance. Most tenants just can’t afford it, and are either not insured or under-insured, which amounts to the same thing. Even seniors on Medicare often have great difficulty paying Part B and D premiums, deductibles, co-pays, medigap coverage, dental expense, eye care, long term care, etc. We have concluded that, rather than cutting Medicare benefits (a horrible, cruel idea), Medicare should be improved by covering all the necessary health and by eliminating the part B and D premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. Furthermore it should apply to EVERYONE, not just seniors, while maintaining complete choice of doctors and hospitals. All of this can be accomplished on the federal level by a small addition to the current payroll tax of about 3.5%, which, for 99% of us, is MUCH LESS than the outrageous health insurance premiums currently being charged.
Tenants suffer from lack of health insurance in greater numbers because tenants, on average, have half the income of homeowners, and the only barrier to decent health care is the extreme cost of quality health insurance. Most tenants just can’t afford it, and are either not insured or under-insured, which amounts to the same thing. Even seniors on Medicare often have great difficulty paying Part B and D premiums, deductibles, co-pays, medigap coverage, dental expense, eye care, long term care, etc. We have concluded that, rather than cutting Medicare benefits (a horrible, cruel idea), Medicare should be improved by covering all the necessary health and by eliminating the part B and D premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. Furthermore it should apply to EVERYONE, not just seniors, while maintaining complete choice of doctors and hospitals. All of this can be accomplished on the federal level by a small addition to the current payroll tax of about 3.5%, which, for 99% of us, is MUCH LESS than the outrageous health insurance premiums currently being charged.By eliminating the 30% insurance companies take off the top and negotiating reasonable prescription drug prices, we could SAVE $400 billion. Wouldn’t that be nice?In New Jersey the State Government would save about $2.5 billion, county governments about $500 million, municipal governments and school districts another $2 billion. All told, about $5 billion in government savings in New Jersey. How do you think that would play with the taxpayers of the state? Businesses would likely save even more, and New Jersey residents would have truly affordable health care and lower taxes.The questions:a.Do you support, and will you urge our congressional delegation to support H.R. 676, which would establish expanded and improved Medicare for All on the federal level?
Do you support, and will you urge our congressional delegation to support H.R. 676, which would establish expanded and improved Medicare for All on the federal level?YES NOb.Would you support a study commission to determine the economic impact on all levels of government, business, and families of instituting an expanded and improved Medicare for All system of health care in New Jersey? Note: such a system would put NJ business at a tremendous competitive advantage.
Would you support a study commission to determine the economic impact on all levels of government, business, and families of instituting an expanded and improved Medicare for All system of health care in New Jersey? Note: such a system would put NJ business at a tremendous competitive advantage.YES NOc.Presuming an excellent economic forecast by the study commission, would you support legislation in New Jersey to establish an expanded and improved Medicare for All health care system?
Presuming an excellent economic forecast by the study commission, would you support legislation in New Jersey to establish an expanded and improved Medicare for All health care system?YES NO18.Often legislators believe they are introducing pro-tenant legislation, only to find out that we have valid reasons to find it unnecessary, counterproductive, or even anti-tenant. We are then forced to oppose the legislation, even though there were good intentions. WILL YOU CONSULT WITH THE NJTO BEFORE introducing tenant legislation?
Often legislators believe they are introducing pro-tenant legislation, only to find out that we have valid reasons to find it unnecessary, counterproductive, or even anti-tenant. We are then forced to oppose the legislation, even though there were good intentions. WILL YOU CONSULT WITH THE NJTO BEFORE introducing tenant legislation?YES NO19. What tenant legislation do you think is needed or have you introduced or will you want to introduce (as of now), and what should we know about your record on tenants' rights?
Answer:
