Amry Colona, a long-term resident, articulated her apprehension about the potential for a 100% rent increase, emphasizing that it would endanger her family’s financial stability. Colona criticized the lack of consultation with tenants. She called for a more inclusive solution that would not disproportionately impact renters.

Several other residents echoed Colona’s concerns. Marlene Franklin, a former teacher and lawyer, highlighted the risks for senior citizens, warning that unfair rent increases could lead to the displacement of long-term tenants, particularly those on fixed incomes. Franklin stressed the importance of maintaining economic diversity within Hoboken, stating, “Diversity is not only a moral issue; it’s an economic one.”

Rosemary Markle, a small landlord, argued that the amendment would help maintain properties and provide a fair opportunity without displacing tenants. She expressed, “We are not looking to remove tenants… we are asking to allow us to raise rent so that we can maintain the property.” However, this perspective was met with significant resistance from tenants and their advocates.

Lucinda Mercer opposed the compromise, labeling it undemocratic and insisting that voters should have a direct say on the referendum proposed by the Mile Square Taxpayers Association. Mercer criticized the quick generation of the compromise without adequate discussion with tenants, expressing concerns about the council’s lack of transparency.

The debate revealed a clear divide between those advocating for the amendments as a necessary compromise and those who viewed them as detrimental to tenant rights and housing stability. Zachary King, a social science PhD student, argued that the proposed measures would increase homelessness and primarily served the interests of corporate landlords. King criticized the idea that the compromise was meant to protect renters, asserting that the council should trust residents to make their own decisions.

Shannon Ray, a nurse who moved to Hoboken during the pandemic, described the compromise as a capitulation to corporate landlords and questioned the concessions landlords were making in return. Ray rejected the notion that policy decisions should be based on fear and intimidation, insisting that the amendment would threaten the availability of affordable housing and push long-term residents out of their homes.

Matt Shapiro, president of the New Jersey Tenants Organization, presented a dire picture of the potential consequences of the compromise, characterizing vacancy decontrol as a dangerous incentive for landlords to evict tenants. Shapiro asserted that the compromise would harm tenants far more than the current law, allowing landlords to dramatically raise rents once they evict long-term tenants.

The discussion also included procedural challenges, with council members attempting to manage the participation of speakers and the public input process. A motion to close the public portion of the meeting was made. Council members expressed appreciation for the high level of public engagement, noting the attendance of nearly 200 individuals and around 70 speakers.

As the council deliberated, members acknowledged the difficulty of crafting compromises in light of prior vetoes and emphasized the importance of transparency and public participation. They reflected on the emotional toll the ongoing debate has taken, with one member stating, “I can tell you anybody here the sleepless nights and the stress that it’s had on all of us.”

One member expressed hope for unity against the referendum, stating, “I look forward for all of us standing up together.”