##VIDEO ID:SqGIpwvlMfU## three named tenants but only two units have a person currently resided in that the other unit that that tenant is in a nursing home I believe in any event um the board has the discretion to phase in rental increases over a period of time a reasonable period of time uh to allow for residents who feel as though they may need to move as the result of this increase to move in a orderly fashion but I would stress that the bureau's recommendation is consistent with the ordinance and with the proofs my client provided um so under the ordinance my client is entitled to this rental increase uh but we would be amendable to some limited crafting by the board in a order to make the uh effective it not so immediate oh and there's one other item uh the livein superintendent yes it do you have one we do have a living superintend yes uh he signed a lease I believe at the end of September he's currently living there now um that yeah that's been satisfied all right thank you thank you I have a question you have you like an increase of 762 16 per W uh that's that's correct I believe so that that that's the increase to which my client is entitled under the ordinance the ordinance provides a mechanism for calculating uh an increase to alleviate a hardship based upon the gross rental incomes as well as the cost to the landlord it it is a a steep increase which is why I mentioned that we be open and the board has the discretion and authority to sort of phase this in over a period of time to allow any tenants who are unable to bear that increased cost to uh find alter housing is that for the tenant is is it going to be for the new tenants or the tenants that are already living there any any new tenant that's not currently occupying the property I I think would be paying the rent that the board determines my client is allowed to charge tonight what I'm proposing is that if the board has concerns uh with how current tenants could handle this increase in their rent you have the authority to structure the increase and have it become effective in in steps over a period of time what do what do you think is an acceptable period of time I'm just curious I would say 3 to four months would be acceptable um that would permit the residents to find alternate housing uh we have this application was filed quite some time ago again it's at the board's discretion but I I think it is reasonable that length of time is reasonable and it would allow my client to begin renting out the unoccupied units to new tenants uh the rent the board determines it would allow the current residents if they no longer wish to remain there to find alternate housing that's thank you yes that's it thank you anybody else can we now speak to someone from 336 tenants my name is Mark Rosenthal y r o s n t h l i do good evening ladies and gentlemen of the of the rent leveling board uh my wife is a 20 plus year tenant of this building she would now have three months according to the people to find alternative housing in the area so that she can just move right along uh based on the needs of this owner uh this management company who unfortunately although we've been told on many occasions um there that that this board won't hear anything but the numbers uh regarding the hardship is a bad faith landlord who has treated the tenants awfully and continues to and is looking to get all of these tenants out of the building as quickly as possible and has upon arrival in fact representative of the owner himself told me in person word for word that he was guaranteed an empty building and therefore he will not spend another Penny on the building until all of us are out because he won't put in his his words bad good money into bad money bad money would be providing for the legal tenants that pay their rent in this apartment building okay uh as far as uh the live in super is concerned you were just told a complete lie it's possible that some paperwork will appear with the lease uh post-dated or rather you know backdated to September the super spoken of is a gentleman that I met the other night when a vacant apartment below me I heard noise down there and I live with my wife and two-year-old daughter so I went down close to midnight on a Saturday night to see who was there and spoke in Spanish with a gentleman who told me that he had just become the super he didn't know how long he'd be there but Holland told him to stay there and he would be there for he didn't know how long long that's what he said to me in recent correspondence with the Municipal Court of New Jersey regarding the harassment charges that we tried to get on before the municipal still still pending uh for this landlord zie Stein the person that's sitting right there with the attorney said that I was the Super because he had offered me the position and I had accepted and therefore he had given me a rent discount as my payment as the super we once had a conversation with in mid coners ation zie said how about you be the Super I said you know I'd have to talk to my family about that that was the end of our conversation and yet in writing we have Mr Stein saying that I was the Super and that I was taking care of the building and I was maintaining it and therefore getting a rent discount from Holland management because of my work as the super months went by there also were other documents that were shown to this board with another man named Pedro named as the super did not live on the premises did not recognize himself as the super I knew the man personally because he came to do work every once in a while in some of the apartments for Holland he was not the Super but he was named as the super now we have a super that signed a lease in September who lives there now and has a lease and he's he's a resident according to them well great it's all solved now and so now we can raise the rent and everybody can leave in three months after my wife has lived there for 20 plus years and paid rent on time however our rent isn't getting cashed recently and it hasn't been for months and we' received no answer to Holland for why we have records from the bank showing that we pay our rent on time every month and yet is not being cashed why perhaps it'll be held against us at some point we'll be told that we're in non-payment and therefore we have to go to court about it yet another form of harassment over and over again once again I was told that the the rent leveling board will not consider items other than the numbers in this case but this is a once again 100% true fact with police records to show it these people put rancid materials in closed apartments behind locked doors to make the quality of life bad for the tenants we had the fire department bust open an apartment and they found it there the only people with keys to these apartments were Holland management this is their idea of of dealing with the situation of the tenants that they were guaranteed I don't know by Magic I don't know exactly how by murder they were they were guaranteed would not be in the building make their life uh you know the life of a two-year-old and a family uh unlivable on the place so they'll want to leave 3 four months from now we can leave yeah sure we'll just figure out another place in the area to leave with comparable rent or somewhere in some other town somewhere we'll do it in three or four months Holland management got a building that was a bargain why was it a bargain because it was a rent control building these humble people that owned several buildings in in multiple cities bought a building at a bargain because it was a rent control building as soon as they assume ownership of the building they complained that it's a financial hard to ship to them and they need to get those rents up so they could make a profit they didn't have to buy the building nobody bound and gagg these people and forced them to buy a rent controlled building and the price was so good because it was a rent controlled building and now it's it's a crime that the building doesn't turn them a profit so it's a responsibility then it would be the responsibility of the board and of the city and of the tenants the low-income tenants to subsidize their bad business deal and make it a big money earner for them that's would that be the priority of this board okay sir what's the status of your Municipal case uh another tenant who who answers has as more of the the dates and the everything in question we've had a couple of adjournments and uh the representatives of Holland named in the case have never showed up and in fact have warrants for their arrest because they've never showed up at any of the hearings thus far you have the young lady would have to be sworn okay I'm I'm finished thank you I just have one question is the super present tonight no unless it's me then no okay clarify that no problem maybe I was annab Basset spell it a an n a b a s s e t yes okay am I should I read I was trying to support the question that you asked about the court cases so to answer your question we have been to court multiple times um there is a current warrant out for zin's arrest and a Simon Feldman's arrest um we don't know truly who Simon is on the documentations that you guys have some they've sent to tenant landlord some they sent to rent leveling it He's listed uh as the landlord then there's an Luther Feldman in there somewhere we don't know who's who but we did go to court we took them to court multiple times for the harassment and they chose not to appear and um we recently got an email from them what two weeks ago and to their response for the harassment is uh this for I'm sorry for the court appearances that they should have a attended and now have warrants for that we have evidence to provide that we were hoping to have our time to share this is the response concerning the baseless allegations such as orchestrating a break-in they are so unfounded and without evidence we find no need to dignify them with a response and that's for the failure to maintain Services petition that we're currently in line for now with an act of warrant and a need for them to appear in court they respond to the petition saying that you're responding to something you should have shown up in court for we've been we've been com this has been going on and on and on and now they're taking this hardship application and using it as a a smoke screen to cover up all of the things they've done prior to it we had been filing complaints and they have been ignoring us and ignoring us I'm sorry I had something prepared to write but I don't even know how to start or where to start because it it's so unconscionable I can't even I I can't even wrap my brain around it what we understood too is there are police reports there's many it's this is I'll just say I think this is moving out of the scope of our perview here I would not be comfortable on this case let me you speak yes um you know one of the things when I was looking at this case and here in the other uh the testimony on the cas and and also in reading some of the material yes I was uncomfortable with several elements but in terms of what we can do here as a board in a way yes our hands are tied in terms of dealing with any kind of increases um that's not within what we can do uh we can have some say in terms of yes when s these rent increases be implemented something along those lines I would like to go on record yes there were there was information that was shared that did make me quite uncomfortable but I can't make a decision based just on that it has to be based upon the information that we are within our rights to be able to really deal with am I is my time done no no go ahead go ahead okay that's the essentially the ask um ultimately I think we are asking for the rent leveling board to either deny the increase given the the evidence that they've provided to you that is inconsistent they've they've literally been lying to multiple people including us and we've been dealing with this trying to respond to it for some time now and so I I think that the complexity of the situation I feel like it warrants a Judicial scrutiny which we we're hoping for except they don't show up to court okay anything else anybody else I think we have a question for for Eric for a question and this uh concerns verifying the onsite landlord as far as off file there was no landlord on site super super super you're fine I do um you all know me assistant director Eric bth I was the hearing officer for uh this case I'm sorry again the uh question the question was now there's whether there really is a on-site superintendent so how is that verified so um independently well okay um so uh both two ways first uh we would have an updated registration submitted to us uh if there's any tendency turnover if there's any uh change whatsoever uh if there's an approval on a uh heart uh was it a um um landlord application of any kind um again you you're required by the ordinance to update us so again we have not received an update on a rent registration uh establishing who is the superintendent of that building uh two we would have our inspector go out to the site and uh speak with the superintendent verify that uh as per 254-4537 through 29 um that uh this is not only a a person uh living there but also is actually the superintendent and they have all the necessary contact information uh in the case that there are violations that they cannot Abate in a lot of cases the superintendent um you know you would think oh this is the custodian this is the janer they're going to fix my hot water heater or something that isn't always the case it's more of the Personnel that's going to take out the garbage and address minor needs um but has the information that they need to contact someone a contractor that's on contract with the property comp uh property management company or the owner that can come out and facilitate the needs of a unit or tenant so that still needs to be verified that needs to be verified yes 100% thank I'm sorry go ahead Sol no no I'm I'm comfortable we're wondering where we you know if there's a municipal court case so that impact us yeah to make a decision I've I've been in contact with um the tenants um as you know they they file petitions um they have also mentioned to that they were summonses filed uh and I believe uh I don't want to misquote them but I believe they also have a superior court filing uh either way um we would ask too that we get those docka numbers and those summons numbers uh just so that we can track that um but as per substantial compliance is concerned defined it is also you know city and state um violations uh you know that need to be abated so um I'd have to check but uh it it should be substantial compliance per the property uh i' I'd have to I'd have to re revisit that and and and look that up um I don't know if it's if it's again uh violations that are brought against an individual person um you know in this case uh well it would be an LLC that owns the comp that owns the property okay property management company there I I again I'd have to look at the summonses and the dockets just to make a a decision on that okay I mean we as a board try to make a good F Faith effort to work with the evidence that we have uh but if we're hearing and you know it is we're just we're hearing these things we don't as you say we haven't seen summonses right we don't know anything else but it might it seems like it would be wrong of us in a sense to just work with uh you know the simple facts and try to apply the ordinance when there may be other things going on outside of this case that right yeah I'm sorry and I don't mean to cut you off makes it difficult for us to make a decision right and that that's why too when I I recommended that um if they're you know um again we recommend that it's uh approved approved provisionally for 6 months um because uh again um at the point that that it was uh that that recommendation was drafted we had only confirmed with uh quality of life task force that all the violations that they have issued were abated uh we confirmed uh again with our own inspector uh Chief Inspector Tom Colleen that the violations he found found were um were abated uh I do know that the office of landlord tenant relations uh issued a 260 that was deated in court as well however um the on-site superintendent um again it we cannot confirm whether it's it's there or not so that violation remains open uh we had we have not issued a summons for that yet um we have noticed it have noticed for that the the property owner does know that they they are required to have an on-site superintendent uh present and housed uh at the property um getting back to uh this was again uh if you remember right it was originally remanded uh to provide to allow the property owner um to submit uh additional documentation uh once I received that additional documentation everything seemed to um uh you know pan out uh with the exception of uh two issues there was um the property management company um and the owner uh were not were found to not be an arms length transaction they were one and the same Mr Luther Felman um is a member of the LLC that owns the property uh and he also owns Holland Property Management um there were no uh third-party vendor estimates that could substantiate the amount of fees so I remove that from the equation the other um issues that we uh found were that some repairs quote unquote were actually uh Capital Improvements and we did not include them in this application that does not mean that the landlord cannot submit a capital Improvement application based on that it's just that we're not including that in this this recommendation this determination um so yes so that is where we are and again as per the recommendation uh if you grant an approval uh the recommendation is that it's a um approval provisionally uh for six months so that we can make sure that any violations that are open uh are are Abad and in this case this would be the on-site superintendent issue um and again once I look into the summonses that were issued uh uh against the property owner and property management company and if there 's a superior court matter that's open um I'll have more information on that um and that's that's really it again you know it's a recommendation so question U Eric you know in terms of the det that determination of substantial compliance that would have fallen Under the Umbrella of having the superintendent present at this property 100% absolutely sure yeah so you have um you know you obviously have 26-10 the uh subsection 10 covers hardship uh increases um and then there is subsection uh 26-3 which is allowable increases um you need to uh as per 26-3 G um have an in a full building inspection done of the property uh within 6 months prior to applying okay um we we we had that and we we continued that uh inspection that investigation uh again our uh Chief Inspector is not here tonight um Tom Colleen uh found that all those violations he found were Abad um but again you need a you need an on-site super for for this property uh they do not have one or we have not seen that there is one or or can prove that there is one at this at this property okay okay Eric thank you okay hear from director I may just say something first I do good evening boy so just wanted to um in the case of the failure to maintain Services right right the petition has been filed um though we are behind because we understood this hardship situation we have expedited that so we have a hearing set for next month within that hearing that deals with some of the issues that they're complaining about this wasn't done this wasn't done our office does have the power to reduce um their rents even issue some refunds so that's something that you can also keep in your determination if you want to remand this until after that hearing because that's going to happen next month and so then you have documentation because after that hearing there will be a determination that actually speaks to some of the failure to maintain services that the tenants are complaining about so then you do have something paperwork that actually says here are some of the the complaints and this is what our office found in terms of were they AB absolutely harassing and things like that so we can if you would like to we can that's something to think about you want to remand this until after our hearing that you have some type of documentation that actually deals with some of the things that they're talking about right okay thank you thank you so there's just a few points that I made like to make and and first I apologize that we weren't able to confirm that the Liv in super actually does live in there prior to this hearing uh until appearing tonight I was under the impression and this had been confirmed by Mr bwith that we had completely passed the inspection uh either the super was not part of that inspection or the inspector was under the impression that there was a super in either event if we had been aware that there was an issue with the super we could have had an interview with the superintendent prior to tonight so it could have been confirmed it was not Our intention to sort of alide that subject it was oh oh sorry so the again up until a few moments ago the most recent communication we had was that we had Abad all the violations and had achieved substantial compliance um if a additional interview with the super is required by all means but I would ask that the board Grant provisionally the increases sought which can I guess be clawed back if in fact the super does not reside there but I would I would not would ask to be brought back in one month because that something that can be done very quickly it's a matter of visiting the property and confirming that the super lives at the property it's not something that should delay this for much longer uh on the subject of the dimition of essential services or I guess um reduction in Services I'll just note that that's a separate process that's a complaint that's filed with the Bureau of rent leveling uh they do their investigation they have the authority to reduce rents so whatever rent the board determines tonight is the appropriate rent The Bureau has the authority to reduce that amount if there is found to be a reduction in the essential Services these are separate independent things that can run alongside each other so there's no reason why because we have substantial compliance with all what the superintendent confirmed as of now that the board can't issue a decision tonight and then if there are other issues that arise they can be dealt with in the ordinary manner um I just also note that from what I've heard tonight testimony from some of the residents I've heard complaints of harassment I would say that harassment is not within the board's purview but also that police reports are not evidence of harassment they're a record of what the person making the report said to the police now these issues again are independent they can be adjudicated in the Municipal Court there's a process for that if there was harassment then I'm I'm confident that the Jersey City Municipal Court will reach the right decision one minute one minute sure one minute finish up oh oh okay I thought you wanted to say something um so and that's really what I'm asking for if provisional um approval is what's required then I'd ask for provisional approval tonight um with the only issue being whether or not there is a live-in superintendent and finally I'll also note that although this property is rent controlled it's it was not operated prior to my client's acquisition as an ordinary rent controlled property the board will note that the highest rent at this building is $534 my client is seeking approval of a rent increase to bring these Pro units still to below market value no one's required to leave they'll still be paying below Market value there and the board has the authority to phase in the increases so they're softer thank you than one more time from the attendants apologize I because he came up I didn't anticipate all right I'm going to read what I wrote go ahead all right okay so when we were last here I'm okay when we last stood before the board we presented a list of egregious acts committed by Holland management acts meant to harass harm and force us out of our homes we came here pleading for justice asking you to consider the full scope of their violations in your decision at that time the board directed us to the Municipal Court citing the limitations of the rent leveling board since then and prior to the city has issued summonses and we've gone to court multiple times Seeking Justice for the criminal activities deliberate neglect and harassment inflicted upon us but despite our efforts Holland management has refused to appear in court they now presently have active warrants out for their arrest and I'll be specific zie Stein has an active warrant right now out for his arrest right now right now while ignoring court orders and continuing to abuse tenants they continue to pursue their hardship application manipulating the system by exploiting the fact that the different processes within landlord tenant and hedc and municipal courts are treated separately this is no accident this is Holland management and this has been and and it's and it has been deliberate attempt to deceive deceive the city and confuse the process Holland management the primary operators by zevi Stein and an individual we know as Simon Feldman has shown complete contempt for the law and for us the tenants have been exploited their abuse didn't stop until they saw a potential legal loophole with the hardship application Simon Feldman has introduced himself as management many times he has repeatedly told us that he works for the owner and zevi addresses him as hiss business partner for months we lived in dangerous unbearable conditions I personally have spent over $8,000 just to have basic necessities running water a safe and functional place to sleep and use of the bathroom and to be able to think straight in the midst of these attacks I work from home Holland management deliberately withheld hot water failed to maintain security and ignored urgent repair requests like fixing locks that were deliberately glued shut to uh to uh to a break-in on the same day and failing to provide footage after the break-in that they had full Vantage points of with their hidden cameras they refused to cash tenants checks and intimidated the elderly tenants which by the way they helped move out uh last month they got the gentleman that was here the last time they helped him move out while they had an active warrant so he's gone now um they refused to cash the rent checks and intimidated elderly attendants by falsely claiming that they never received them as a retaliation to the fact that he would not pay the decreased amount until holl managed put management put it in writing and this was after uh receiving we all received a a a rent increase letter they said here as of this date you pay this increased amount so we all paid it and then they chose to just not cash the checks and then found this way to file for hardship so there's that their behavior has been emotionally and financially abusive and now they have the audacity to ask for a rent increase uh we are not here today asking for exceptions to a fair process we are demanding that Holland management zevi Stein Simon Feldman El Luther Feldman whoever they are be held accountable for the harm and damage that they've caused and the laws that they have broken long before they filed hardship we are asking the board to require Holland management to be held to the same Fair process that they stand before you here asking for their decision to not acknowledge Us in court of the law has been insulting and we have been uh we have an overwhelming amount of evidence displaying the egregious Behavior of Holland management and the harassment that we endured rather than imping in court they chose two weeks ago to respond to us through the landlord tenants failure to maintain Services petition process that we are currently waiting in line for so and I okay sorry okay thank you okay motion to close [Music] second motion to close second sorry about that all right we have motion to close the public hearing public speaking I'm sorry do I have a second second motion is CL open and second no we don't need a roll call yeah no included included the the super right you asked the was included okay we asked uh Ren leveling boy please um you you have whatever confir you have it has to be set on record so I'm sorry and for the record I also want to say that I said remand but I really meant adjourn if you if you so choose so okay director may I ask a question I just don't know if this is appropriate or not but can we actually take a two-minute break where we can go and have a consultation inside the conference room or is that inappropriate I think we could yeah yeah every officially everything is actually supposed to be on the record okay yes all right all right okay motion to adjourn 3:36 New York Avenue to a further date uh due to the open um violation violations from the tenants that need to be addressed also in order for us to make the proper um ruling on this case based on the information that was given to us from the director um we need to have that information in order to come to a ruling that is appropriate for both parties second okay we have a motion to adjourn this case to a later date uh and we have a second okay and the second from Alexander okay okay so we going to have a vote motion to adjourn to uh to a later dat possibly the December rent rent leveling Board hearing uh we have Alexander Hamilton yes Danon Hill yes James eock yes Mark off yes Sullivan C Johnson yes LP pitcher not yes okay motion yeah we have six yeah motion carries motion carries all right thank you um again I just uh wanted to make an announcement before we start the the next case uh two cases uh folks if you have any testimony uh please reserve that until you're called and brought before the microphone so that our stenographer can um take take everything down and record it properly okay um again you just have to motion and then if the board allows it they'll they'll call you up okay um so we have two cases but it's really one case it's two properties uh it's 2011 St Paul's Avenue and 10 Huron this is both uh claim number h-20 24-4 and h-2 24- 00005 uh property manager Sean Kilby attorney for the uh owner William Goldberg Esquire and uh this is for the St Paul's condominium corporation that is the uh property owner uh we have a number of individual uh units on here um that is that's on the agenda um again we're open to uh the public portion of this uh hearing um do you have any preference as to anyone that you would like to hear first uh Commissioners you guys want tenant first no no we can hear from the tenants first we can okay I mean it's more is is the the the owners of the uh two set properties here is anyone representing the two set properties here are there okay no and and none none have checked in with with us prior to this uh the okay so let's let's let's hear from the representative of the uh the the the lawyer from or the person that's speaking for both parties I uh I don't believe that we have an attorney present uh for the attendant but anyone like to start I'm sorry man is here the property manager is here okay okay so this is uh sorry Mr Sean Kilby okay if you could step up to the microphone here he was just running a little late so I ran out to grab him um be better if he spoke or okay uh sure yeah your I'm sorry this is your attorney okay okay uh Council if you step up to the microphone just give state your name for the record step to the podium to the podium right here Council right here there you go [Music] is it was it clear for the last case that good evening good evening good evening I presume that each of you has reviewed the submissions of the applicant and if you look at the documents you realize the cases very straightforward rents paid expenses incurred the reasons as you know are also straightforward taxes and monthly maintenance costs sorry for I don't want to I'm sorry to interrupt but Council you could just state your name for the record oh I'm sorry yes thank you Council my name is William Goldberg and I represent the applicant okay thank you thank so sorry it's fine Mr Kilby who is the property manager is here to answer any questions about the building about the the tenants not personally but about the individual units so when I look at this I say okay here are the numbers the numbers are straightforward if we're missing a piece of paper to prove something we'd be happy to provide it but from my standpoint the only real question before this board is a question that the board has groped with over the years and that is how do you re determine a fair return for a building that converted back in 1986 and I'm guessing that 90% of the tenants who are here today are the beneficiaries of that conversion and you might say well why are they the beneficiaries of the conversion well they all know why because and it's simply stated over the last 38 years the costs of maintaining apartment units have increased more than the yearly increases as a result of rent control as you can see by the losses incurred by my client and those losses are a matter of record currently they $496,000 worth of tax leans against them for these apartments why that's the accumulation of debt as a result of inability to pay to pay monthly expenses and that's the way it is I can't change that and you can't change that I read some cases from the rent control board and I was completely confused in determining the basis upon which a rent control Bo would determine Fair return one of the cases I read said that if if a landlord breaks even that's the equivalent of fair return well that's not true the landlord has $10 of expenses and he has an income of $10 from rents that's not fair return I will concede it's not a matter of conceding state with categorically that the issue of fair return is very tricky because it changes or should change from building to building it could be based on uh Equity but how do you determine Equity do you want to go back to 1986 and say well if he paid these apartments were worth $8,000 with $10,000 in 1986 he should get a fair return on that well that's complete nonsense nobody should nobody should be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in excess of what they bring in and be told that if they want to make a a profit it'll have to be based on costs in 1986 so if it's not if that's not the basis what is well is it value you look at the value of his individual units and determine Fair return based on value or do you determin on Fair rental value there's a chart which was prepared by an expert which tells you that the average rental equivalent rental uh in Jersey City to the ones that the tenants are living in the rents are twice as much the person's paying $1,500 for a two or three bedroom here that apartment if you look at that chart and they' done a lot of homework is renting out of $3,000 I uh have done a lot of work over the years in this area I was chairman of the uh landlord tenant study committee before us and Cahill when we drafted the just cause law so I represented over a hundred tenants associations starting with associations in Jersey City so it may seem that the role that I have now which is to represent a landlord is a switch but it's really not a switch it's just seeking from this board to do the right thing regardless of whether it's landlords or tenants there aren't any good guys and bad guys you know what what there are extremely fortunate lucky people who are sitting in this room all of whom know what the world outside really looks like and it's harsh and that's why they've been sitting in these apartments for 38 years because the world is Harsh outside and they are paying premium when I say premium rent I mean on the plus side for the existing tenants they've been doing that for 38 years without anybody saying a word Morton Ginsburg who passed away in 2020 didn't do a thing about advancing his own interests for over 30 for over 30 years in 2019 he said I've got to do something about this I've got to break even so I told Mr Kilby in 2019 to prepare a rent control application to get a hardship Increase five years ago and he was told at that time Morton was left with about 30 units he was told he couldn't do it for the whole building he could only do it for four units at a time and he had to do all the inspections I remember this very clearly had to do inspections before the application the inspections had to be completed before the application for the four units well we spent a year trying to get those apartments cleaned up so he could make an application for the four units but Mr Ginsburg got discouraged and decided not proceed and three months later there was covid and that was the end of that then Mr Ginsburg passed away in 2020 and his daughters Ann and Ellen are not now taking I think it's $1,500 and have been for the last four or five no I shouldn't say that that's incorrect have not been taking $11,000 out of their own pocket it only really got to be horrendous with the increases in maintenance costs and the increase in the taxes 32% increase in taxes which pushed up their losses to the breaking point so that over the last year they've paid I think our experts said $137,000 out of their own Pockets which they haven't paid it's just there are tax leans which keep growing and growing but that's the situation councelor you just one more one more point and I will keep my mouth shut it ain't about the good guys and the bad guys it's about fundamental fairness nobody I mean every single complaint that was ever registered to the best of my knowledge because this is what the instructions they gave if there were complaints take care of them so as of the time that we filed I made certain that there were no outstanding complaints and if there were I don't know about them but that's it you know I don't have to say anything more because you have all the documents Mr Kilby is here to answer any questions about the building uh I don't even have I don't I don't even have a suggestion on the issue of how you would determine Fair return it's such an unusual situation to try to figure out which of these Alternatives which of these Alternatives do you utilize present value past value value in 1986 rental Value Rental value minus X very difficult question but the Supreme Court in three cases and not only talking about the New Jersey Supreme Court talking about the United States Supreme Court has told you a landlord's entitled to a fair return and a fair return doesn't mean he's breaking even so that's what you've got to figure out if you's got $10 of expenses and he's and now he's only getting in $9 well we know he's got to get the extra dollar we know that nobody's forced nobody after this proceeding is over is going to be forced to live by taking losses that's not going to happen question is in addition to not taking a loss how are you going to structure his relationship with his tenants so that they are treated fairly I am in no way suggesting that you should look at the value of these apartments and give him a percentage of the value because that would that would defeat the purposes of rent control purposes of rent control are to control rents so if you give someone a percentage of current value that would be that would be not a violation but it would be inconsistent with really with with the purposes of rent control but if you gave them nothing that would also be inconsistent with the objectives of the law and the clear statements of of the uh New Jersey and United States Supreme Courts and I cited the cases they're very simple they keep saying over and over every landlord is entitled to adjust and reasonable return the problem is they stop after the word return that's the problem they don't say based on X if they only told us that then your job would be very simple but they don't tell you that it's always a just and reasonable return period Mr Gober I think that youve presented your your points pretty clearly I think we all have that just in the spirit of fairness to the U remaining individuals that are in here um I just want to try to see if we can give an opportunity for one of the tenant to speak as well but I clearly understand what you're saying oh no no no no I I'm sorry if I said too much I presume you've all you all understand what's involved here and I will uh that's enough thank you thank you can we hear from a tenant someone representing the tenants Steve lipsky resident 201 l i as in Peter ski I do so I'm not an attorney I'm a former councilman I uh was chairman of the Redevelopment Agency for seven or eight years I was on the planning board under mayor Cunningham and currently on the planning board um I was asked by my neighbors uh if I could help and uh in the spirit of Jersey City and the spirit of this great country I couldn't say no so with that being said not being an attorney I reached out to the water for project uh Carol St hir and I spoke to her secretary three times they could not provide an attorney so that and you all know the ples of Jersey City and what's going on so but I want that at least on the record as why they're not represented and collectively uh this group of tenders I know the 2011 group because I live in that building uh the 10ur and I know some of them but more familiar with the 2011 so that being said uh let me just go through Section uh 260 uh -10 so the application notice of application was done check said and done um section c the board must decide any hardship case within 60 days from the date of completion of application by the landlord provide that all necessary inquired documentation for set application has been submitted by the landlord to the hearing officer of the board if that application has been completed it was not part of the packet uh that was supplied to the tenants so a my question is is has the application been completed and if so when uh because then I think that would kick off the 60 uh six-month period of abating any conditions within the units and what does it look like because the tenants have not received that so but I'm in the spirit of trying to move this forward I'd ask Mr bth or director Chiron if he could Richardson if that application has been submitted in its uh completion and then maybe Mr Gober could answer why it wasn't supplied to the tenants section uh 26-10 part A the board shall deny all or any part of the relief requested where specify findings of facts support the conclusions that the landlord purchased or operations not reasonable prudent or efficient Mr Goldberg represented that Mr Ginsburg applied for a hardship application in 2019 fact is is that the application was sought in 2017 by uh a previous lawyer I believe his name is sapio then Mr Goldberg got involved um it was uh shephered through the courts and the courts heard it and was remanded back to this board in 2019 and I'll accept for the record that in 2019 Mr Ginsburg probably was frustrated and decided not to pursue it any further so um I understand that the application back then also uh when or I believe that it was in incomplete application insufficient documentation and failure to provide rent rolls for every year as the annual LED on the annual landlord registry which I still believe is the uh fact of today so with that being said let me go straight to uh section 26-10 uh part A it says the board shall deny any and all part of the uh release I I I'm sorry I just did that one F I want to talk to the board shall only include expenses that are reasonable necessary and usual operating expenses um any expense connected with repairs and miscellaneous items shall be substantiated with bills or other documentation for a 12-month period prior to the application the packet that Mr Rooney was supplied uh the documentation for uh repairs had nothing to do with his unit in fact it had nothing it had some other units in the building and uh some units in 10 euron and the amount was it's reported but it wasn't clear as to Mr Rooney as as to why or what had been done on his apartment and in speaking to the tenants there's been no Capital Improvements in the 38 years that um the building had been converted or minimal Capital Improvements um since that time but here more specifically let me just say is in 26-10 uh section g it says document documentation presented by the landlord and the hardship application must include the following the title closing statement or other proofs of purchase well that was answered in the letter of September 17th that was supplied by Mr Kilby to the residents because this was a building that was built in the 60s and and I don't know if Mr Ginsburg was part of that initial uh phase but by the time 1985 came in the conversion there was no original document so fair enough but it says number two it says cancel checks or other proof of payment for all expenses uh claimed in the hardship application and number three all cancel checks or other proofs of payment for all expenses claimed in the hardship to both of those points no cancel checks or proof of payment have been supplied in this application I mean I have it here uh what was supplied um was 2002 and 2003 taxes um but before I get to that um it says all invoice bills or other proof of work uh performed supplies purchased Andor equipment purchased as claimed in the hardship application again in the packet that Mr Rooney received there were about four or five uh invoices not pertaining to his apartment but to two or three other units not only in that building but in the 10 euron building so there was you know some confusion as that why that was part of his packet on the whole but then number five it says a compilation statement of income and expens relating to the subject property only for the preceding 2 years or from the date of acquisition of title of the property uh for if it's owned for less than two years so what Mr Kilby supplied to the residents was um a compilation sheet I have it here and I could put it in as a um an an article if need be um it's a projected income statement for 2024 from January to June and then there's a projection from uh July to December now if you look at this statement um and Mr gilberg Mr Goldberg had said the two preponderant cost to the uh estate of Mr Morton gimberg because that's who um the taxes are filed under um the combination of Maintenance fees for 10 euron and maintenance fees for 20 1 come out to 145,146 18 the taxes on here for one year come up to $139,800 so those two combined would bring a grand total for this year alone with the projection of 285 63048 285 63048 the collect rent or at least is reported of 215,00 673996 so if you took the taxes and the maintenance and it's rounded out to 285 and you took the collection of rent 218 the difference is about 69,000 for 2023 the 2011 uh St Paul's conversion Mr lipsky just one second I'll wrap up in three minutes thank you so if you took if you took the 69,000 and they're reporting that they uh their 20 um 23 income was 19 million uh it would be uh this percentage of War would be 3 1000 of 1% if you took 3 1000 of 1% and you appli it to a income and some people here do work of $50,000 the LW would be $150 $150 for the year so if there's a hardship my my position is is as Mr Goldberg said and I think it's pretty offensive to say these people have been privileged you know for 38 years had they been out on the street maybe they would appreciate more where they're coming from but I'll leave you to decide that um in the tax return it says that for 2023 under the re um real estate portion it says for uh interest uh that they lost 80,90 but in the letter that they sent to the residents it says that they would not nor are we claiming Debt Service as an expense so if you take the 800,000 that they're reporting and yet as he mentioned by n in this report in 1993 they reporting that uh about including with the expenses for the unit that they were collecting about $2.7 million so I don't know how you go with 30 units for 1993 fast forward to now that you're in in the debt for 800,000 but yet I'll take on phas value that their letter dated September 17th they're saying they don't want to bring that in so to close I would say to you is this these are people who work for the city who work for the county who work for the state who were medically handicapped who've lived in this building from 18 years to 55 years in this building God bless Martin Ginsburg that he allowed them to have the dignity to serve our great City we have a woman here who Sons up in MIT one of the first Latinos to be accepted up there to put upon them at this stage after Was Defeated five years ago when we have a woman in the first floor Pat manogue she's 95 years old was in her apartment she's got a letter from president Dwight D Eisenhower commending her for being a model citizen in 1950s members of the board if there's a hardship to be found here it's right here thank you and God bless you I am [Applause] resp most of what he said is true but some of what you said is in error number one so I'm sorry I just asked that you speak into the microphone number one it was Mr Sachs who owned other units who had a legal case that was rejected not Mr Ginsburg Mr Ginsburg had nothing to do with that so everything he said about that other case and it was rejected he didn't want to go to court he never did go to court the only time he went to court is four or five months ago when I was concerned that he would not get a fair hearing before this board and that was based on the fact that for a period of one year I tried to actually apply I never did apply sir to the board five years ago I never did apply because we were required before the application to complete all the inspections and at that time we were required to complete 30 inspections but we could only have four units inspected at a time and after the four units were inspected all defects had to be corrected so after the first three or four months we were able to do the first group but after the second group and we hadn't filed an application we were never permitted to file an application so that was the situation 5 years ago there was no judgment because there was no application Mr Ginsburg was always concerned with his tenants he never ever considered even when he was losing money I've represented him since 2001 I probably have been involved in payments tax payments for tax deficiencies for 20 years where he was taking losses 20 years my every time he sold a unit he'd write out a check for past payment of taxes and his attitude about the tenants was leave them alone and he did he left them alone and nothing really was done or wanted to be done until 2019 I just ask you to look at the documents whatever has been submitted you'll of course consider that uh I rely on the Integrity of those documents if there's something we haven't done correctly if there's another document that's necessary before you can make a decision if you need a b or c advise me or Mr Kilby as to what has to be done in a application like this affecting so many people it's more likely than not that we made mistakes or that something wasn't done the right way we're not the bad guys all we're trying to do is get it done just get it done if there's a missing something tell us what it is we will get it to you and rely on your sense of fairness to just do the right thing thank you Mr Goldberg and can we also ask to we can't have side conversation you know I understand that you know a lot of people might be emotional about this but we have to kind of keep order so I understand but we can't have side conversations can I have 30 seconds and that's it if 30 seconds 30 seconds right because there's something that we have to first off I just want to apologize to Mr Goldberg I stand corrected and I'll accept that and secondly you know when I heard that and it'll be 45 seconds when we heard this hardship case before uh that landlord sounded evil he's completely right Mr gins B and also Sean Kilby been Class Act and I've lived in the building I've served on and he'll tell you I was B President we do a lot of great work up in Journal Square but here's where I end and as Mr cerg just said he said they may have made mistakes so I'll I'll leave with to you this under uh section 26-10 uh section H it said claimed expenses that are not supported by bills or invoices and canceled checks money orders or appropriate proofs shall not be allowed we and so in the part G I said to you on part two and three there have been no cancel checks that have been submitted to in this packet and I would ask if Mr B Mr Richardson could confirm that thank you um I actually do have a question of Mr bullworth if I may Logan Mr Goldberg has stated you know he's totally open if there's something that's missing that we take the time in which to get anything that might be missing my question to you are we in true compli total compliance for 2610 to to my knowledge I I honestly do not know um uh this was again um remanded from Judge Costello to the rent leveling board uh before I could even review or um do anything uh you know we we were being asked by the um Property Owners attorney to put it before the board as requested I'm sorry as uh you know stated by uh judge Costello in her order so we did that um but yes I mean if uh you know you want us to review it the bureau we most definitely will be able to review this and we can offer a recommendation um but to date hardly have even touched this application or looked at it okay AR can uh in the package we had uh exhibit 13 which you did lay out uh a number of findings for both is this on yeah so you did lay out a number of findings for both 2011 and Tenon so I think our interest is to find a path forward so if you've laid out to them certain findings and we also had the issue of the inspections which through my reading of the file seemed to indicate uh the inspections have been completed so yes there was an inspection on the building uh I cannot answer as to whether those violations have been Abad we need our hearing officer to um again go back to that property and and uh you know confirm that the that these violations that that were found initially are fully abated okay so sticking with the theme of a path forward uh you have the findings that you you know you've developed findings in exhibit 13 that right now we don't know if they're addressed or not addressed and I guess you'd have to put a formal uh document together and the second thing of the adequacy of the inspections so after after these fin ings are addressed and the inspections are confirmed what's the next step then is the rent increases decided or is there an interim step so in other words we're trying to move along and so get this to some completion right the the process is we receive uh the application um then we invoice upon payment then we start the review process of each uh submitted document um I did get get through some of that uh there was an issue with the affidavit being submitted it was not notorized it was then resubmitted um it is in the exhibits as well uh but again there was no stamped um notary number uh there was a a signature there appeared to be something a seal or a stamp I couldn't really make it out in the copy uh again I would have just it's not something we're going to decide again you have to affirm that whatever you're submitting to is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth or I mean we're not going to even go as far as to review or do any calculations and again I understand Council uh is concerned at one point in time there was a 6% there was now you know 2.5% Fair return we've reviewed many hardship applications okay I mean you you are well aware of that there is a very fair return on on those and case in point the last hardship application that we just heard you saw the fair quote unquote return and that was per the ordinance um yeah so yeah again you know if I had the time um yeah I'll fully review this I'll make sure that the building is in substantial compliance uh and if there's anything missing there will be deductions I I won't include that in the uh the the expenses um but again I we the bureau didn't have uh uh enough opportunity uh to to fully review this or I would have provided you with a recommendation yes because the case is it it was definitely uh documented differently than what we normally uh see so especially we had um the the court case you know the auditor show cause which which I wasn't something we usually uh review but in any case mhm uh I think if you could give Mr Goldberg and Kilby whatever the I maybe you have already it's difficult to determine but give them the path forward what they need to do exactly what of course 100% this was just you know at least we could again this is you know as per the ordinance you can appeal the board's uh decision to uh a higher Court um I don't believe this case went back in 2019 for the board but I mean again correspondence was sent from the bureau Jose canero um Carlos Vasquez I believe Deja Anderson at the time they were they had all been corresponding to get this case uh to move forward but I believe at that time the issue was uh including a praise value as opposed to equity uh in the property in the ordinance which is the the definition uh in the ordinance um so there there was that issue um but I think what happened was that yeah it just went straight to Superior Court and now here we are uh judge costell has remanded back to the board but I don't again I don't know that the board ever made a decision really to be appealed to a higher court but yeah I'm willing to you know submit the documents I'll take a look we'll take a look at them and we we can offer our recommendation to the board thank you thank you one second I would like I have a problem just listening to those people who spoke they said there was no Capital Improvement so any landlord who what to make profit they just say oh this is the value market and we raise they raise the however they want um so they'll so no in in it in when it comes to a capital Improvement again you'd have to provide proofs that there were improvements made to the buildings or units um uh that isn't the case here you know in the hardship it's again Pro providing proof that there you know the um expenses of the property in this case uh outweigh the the income the annual income um but now if there are any Capital Improvements included in the hardship they AR they they they are deducted we don't include Capital Improvements in a in a hardship how do we come up with those numbers this is I'm sorry the numbers for we have a you have a paper no that's probably different num but so yeah what you're referring to is there um there was uh submissions by the attorney and the property owner um that yeah those are their their numbers but the bureau has not come up with any calculation or recommendation for the board in this case all right this is just all correspondence between Court Bureau um and then you know proofs so sorry chairman okay thank you your testimony thank you um may I have one word please one word one word I fully expected this board to make a decision this evening I fully expected that Council would have submitted his response he's had certainly two or three months to respond to what I have submitted that if they wanted to submit something to this board for the board's consideration had ample opportunity to do it they've submitted nothing he submitted nothing my application subject to the verbal comments here today stands unopposed so my expectation was that you would review count whatever whatever Council submitted to you as courts do and when that information is before you then you look at it and you make a decision I don't know why my client has to continue to take $1,000 month losses every month because because the board isn't ready to make a decision on information that's been sitting there for two months now that may seem harsh except for the fact that my responsibility is to my client thank you councel motion to close public speaking second we have a motion to close the public speaking and the second motion carries you want to motion is there motion I do yes i' like to oppose the right right now I just want to try to get a you know because I do believe the landlord in this situation is in a pretty precarious position but the challenge that I'm having right now is what is this number that should be used used um and so I guess what I'm trying to get for myself is you know what is the best way to go and approach this in terms of trying to come up with a number and that's where my challenge is so I don't know if I can get that from the bureau or so as so as as uh Eric has stated the problem that we have is that there was never anything submitted to us in order for us to make a determination so if that happens you can you have the uh you have the choice to remand that back to us they can submit the documentations and then we can give you an official determination from our office right so that's an option that you guys have right I'll make a motion to remand this case uh back to the Bureau of rent leveling uh because for this board to decide we need uh solid numbers that would State what is the rent increase per room for each apartment so we don't we don't have those calculations so we need uh to make it brief our motion would be to remand this back to the Bureau of rent leveling for concrete numbers uh to determine what the increase should be per apartment uh in addition all any uh items that need to be abated or addressed would have to be abated and addressed and that would include the rent leveling Bureau of rent leveling providing uh the attorneys with uh what's necessary to move forward so then the calculations can be made uh speaking the motion sorry sir a motion has been made yeah i' second the motion public sping is closed yeah so we have a motion second the motion motion has been uh Rec motion been made to uh remand this to the rent leveling Bureau uh it has been second so we're going to have a vote Alexander and this is on let's let's let's split these cases so this is uh case h224 00004 10 hurin Avenue and so in this case to remand it back to the bureau Alex hamilt Alexander Hamilton yes Danon Hill yes James eock yes Mark isakov yes Michael T brown oh he's not I'm sorry Sullivan C Johnson yes Elder P pitchard yes okay motion carries uh to remand uh case h224 004 10 heing Avenue back to the bureau in the case claim of h224 00521 St Paul's Avenue we have a motion to remand uh Alex ham to Hamilton yes Dana Hill yes James zock yes Mark exov yes suany Johnson yes Elders P pitchard yes motion carries is there any other businesses uh so that is uh the that is the agenda um do we have a motion to motion to adjourn adjourn tonight's meeting second okay so motion a motion dojn the meeting okay there's a motion to adjourn the meeting yes second again I'm sorry second right there's a second yeah all right all in favor I I okay we have closed dur the meeting thank you thank you thank you everyone that came out tonight you you