Garrett provided detailed financial information, including an Excel spreadsheet that outlined a monthly deficit exceeding $400. This shortfall was attributed to mortgage interest and utility costs.

The board considered various proposals for rent adjustments. Some members suggested retroactive application of a 3.8% compounded increase based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), while others deliberated on the fairness of retro applying such increases. A point of contention was whether pre-ordinance agreements between landlords and tenants should be upheld, especially in cases where rent increases had been negotiated but not yet executed due to the new law.

The meeting also revealed the challenges faced by tenants, including graduate students like Michelle, who are often on limited incomes. Tenants articulated their financial constraints and the difficulty of coping with potential rent hikes, with one tenant describing a proposed 50% increase as unmanageable for a single person. The board members recognized the need to weigh these concerns against landlords’ requests for a fair rate of return, particularly in cases like Garrett’s, where there is a claim of financial hardship.

The board’s discussions extended beyond individual cases to broader policy considerations. There was a recognition of the potential for future financial pressures on landlords, such as anticipated interest rate hikes. Some members questioned whether the 3.8% CPI-based rent increase was sufficient to cover landlords’ rising costs, particularly in gross leases. The debate touched on the definition of hardship, with one member comparing it to the Supreme Court’s approach to defining obscenity: “You’ll know it when you see it.”

For specific units like apartment 1040, which was considered the least improved yet rented for $1985, the highest in the building, the board debated the fairness of the rent in relation to the ordinance. They discussed whether a 30% increase would be appropriate and considered spreading any potential increase over three years.

The members also reviewed rent increase proposals for different properties. There were discrepancies in the figures presented, leading to a discussion to clarify the proposed rent increases and their implications. For instance, for unit 25-2, the board eventually agreed on an increase to $1680 after a straw poll, splitting the difference between two suggested amounts.

The board’s deliberations highlighted the nuanced nature of rent control issues, with the dual goals of protecting tenants from exorbitant rent increases while ensuring landlords receive a fair return on their investments.