Jersey City Municipal Council members moved forward with the first reading of ordinance 25-107, a proposed overhaul of the city's rent-control rules, drawing hours of public comment that described the measure as a threat to existing tenant protections.

The ordinance, introduced at first reading, includes a hardship formula tied to an owner’s net operating income (NOI) and other mechanisms advocates said would let landlords pass fines and compliance costs onto tenants. In response to speakers and council questions, Council President Joyce Waterman told the chamber the current draft will be withdrawn and replaced with a revised, enforceable ordinance.

Why it matters: Tenants and housing groups said the draft would weaken rent-control protections at a moment when many Jersey City residents are already struggling with unsafe housing conditions, wage insecurity and rising rents. Speakers argued that the draft’s financial formula would create a guaranteed profit floor for some corporate landlords and remove meaningful board discretion that historically constrained rent increases.

Speakers and key points
- Jessica Brand, tenant advocate, asked the council to explain who drafted the ordinance and “what data supports the 40% guarantee,” saying the proposal looked like it "serves landlord interests while appearing to help tenants." (public comment)
- Kevin Weller, Portside Towers tenant, described how the city’s rent leveling process has protected tenants historically and warned that the draft would “delete all of these time-tested safeguards.” (public comment)
- Daniel Feldman, Portside tenant organizer, documented repeated requests to enforce existing security and safety code provisions and said the building has repeatedly lacked the required 24/7 uniform security, urging the council to address enforcement before major policy changes. (public comment)
- Council President Joyce Waterman said the council will withdraw the introduced draft and collaborate on a new, enforceable ordinance, noting the current text raised legitimate enforcement concerns and would be revised before a later reading.
- Councilmember James Saleh said on the record that “the 40% guaranteed profit is not in there” as a simple entitlement and noted the hardship process contains multiple evidentiary requirements; he also acknowledged continued public concern about enforceability.

Details and next steps: The ordinance was introduced for first reading as part of the evening’s docket. Numerous speakers — tenant leaders, housing-policy experts and Portside Towers residents — urged immediate withdrawal. In response, the council president and other members described plans to produce a revised draft that will be discussed publicly and vetted with department directors before a second reading. No final legislative adoption took place at this meeting.

Context: Tenants and tenant-rights organizations noted that recent code-enforcement efforts have been uneven; many speakers urged the council to prioritize enforcement of existing ordinances (security, superintendents, registration statements and fines) rather than enact a complex new hardship formula that could be exploited by landlords.

Ending note: Council members said they will continue to work with tenant advocates, department directors and legal staff to produce a version of the proposal that is enforceable and responsive to the concerns raised in public comment.