Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Good Cause Eviction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
White Plains council discusses opting into state "good cause" eviction law; no vote taken
Summary
Councilmembers discussed a proposed local law to opt into New York’s state-level good cause eviction law, including exemption thresholds and unit-count exemptions. Council agreed to move the item to a work session for further review; no formal vote was recorded.
Councilman Pete Preybeers said Thursday that the council is considering a local law to opt White Plains into the state’s good cause eviction statute, which allows municipalities to extend tenant protections against no-cause evictions and limits on rent increases.
"Good cause eviction is a law that senator mayor, passed through or shepherded through the state legislature that provides extra protection to tenants, against eviction and against rent increases," Councilman Pete Preybeers said, summarizing the statute’s intent and origins.
The measure would not change landlords’ ability to pursue eviction for nonpayment of rent, nuisance conduct, illegal activity or other violations of lease terms, Preybeers said. Instead, he said the law limits involuntary evictions for nonlegal reasons and caps rent increases for covered units.
Preybeers laid out the two main policy choices the city must make if it opts in: the fair-market exemption threshold and the definition of a "small landlord" exemption based on the number of units owned. He said the packet recommends setting the fair market rent (FMR) exemption at 345% of FMR, the figure used by other Westchester municipalities. Under that level, Preybeers said, some high-rent units would be exempt; "a house, an apartment ... would be exempted if the cost were $7,000 or more a month," based on the Westchester chart in the materials.
On the landlord-size exemption, Preybeers urged the council to adopt the approach used in nearby Croton: include owners who own one or more units (i.e., broadly covering non-owner-occupied landlords). He said doing so avoids an "LLC loophole" in which owners use multiple limited-liability companies to hide the number of units they control and frustrate tenants’ ability to claim protections.
A member who identified themself as a housing lawyer warned the council to consider impacts on small, local landlords who operate one to a few rental units as a livelihood. That speaker said many small landlords carry debt and face long eviction timelines that can leave them financially strained.
Preybeers and other councilmembers thanked organizers from Make the Road and State Senator Mayer for advocacy on the issue and said they had attended a recent community forum where tenants described housing insecurity.
Preybeers summarized the statutory cap on annual rent increases: the statute sets either a 10% limit or a formula tied to inflation ("5% plus the increase in the cost of living," whichever the statute makes applicable). At the time of the meeting the inflation-linked figure cited was 8.82 percent, which Preybeers said made the statutory limit effectively 8.82 percent under the current numbers.
No final vote on adopting a local law occurred during the meeting. Multiple speakers said they wanted more time to review the draft ordinance and data from other municipalities. Councilmembers indicated support for placing the proposal on a future work session for further review and drafting; no motion to adopt the law was made.
The proposal will return for additional discussion; council members asked staff and colleagues to circulate further details and suggested refinements on the exempted unit-count and rent thresholds.
