The City Council on Oct. 15 held a public hearing on proposed local law Intro 6 of 2025 to opt New Rochelle into Article 6-A of the New York State Real Property Law, which would establish statutory “good cause” reasons required for evictions or nonrenewal of leases and set presumptive annual rent-increase limits (the larger of 5% plus CPI or 10%).

Speakers were divided. Tenant advocates and legal-service organizations urged the council to adopt the ordinance with a low ownership threshold (one property owner) and broad coverage to protect long-term tenants. Diana Lovett, a New Rochelle resident, said the measure would offer “protections tenants have never had” and argued that preventing arbitrary no-cause evictions guards against displacement and trauma. Vilma Gamara of the Hudson Valley Justice Center described cases where tenants faced sudden no-cause holdovers after requesting repairs and urged the council to adopt the law to preserve stability for households, children and communities.

Representatives of landlord and real-estate groups spoke in opposition or asked for changes. Alex Rothmeier of the Hudson Gateway Association of Realtors said the association generally opposes good-cause eviction and warned that it could push rents up and discourage investment. Other speakers representing small-owner interests asked the council to consider targeted assistance for small landlords rather than broad regulatory coverage.

Several speakers raised a key detail about local implementation: the proposed local law’s coverage is limited to buildings constructed before Feb. 2009 (as written in the proposal discussed at the meeting), which commenters said would exempt many newer downtown rental developments. Multiple speakers—supporters and opponents—asked for clarification about whether high-rise or post-2009 units would be excluded; a council member noted state law limits on some local adjustments but did not give a full legal determination during the hearing.

Speakers urged the council to consider thresholds and exemptions carefully to avoid unintended consequences for small owners and to maximize protection for vulnerable tenants. Speakers also suggested pairing regulatory protections with programs to help small landlords maintain and upgrade properties.

Ending: The council heard detailed testimony both for and against opt-in; supporters urged adoption to prevent arbitrary evictions and preserve community stability, while opponents urged caution and incentive-based alternatives. The ordinance remained under council consideration.