The Schenectady City Council on July 28 voted against a proposed local law that would have added Article 5, Section 210‑20 to Chapter 210 of the Schenectady City Code — a prohibition on eviction without good cause — and approved a separate resolution establishing a city housing stability task force.

The local law was defeated in a roll call vote, 4‑3. The council then approved a resolution to form a nine‑member housing stability task force by the same margin, 4‑3. Both items drew the largest public turnout of the evening: council staff recorded 33 people signed up to speak on the legislative agenda and dozens of residents and landlords addressed the council during the public comment period.

Why it matters: supporters argued the ordinance would protect tenants from retaliatory or arbitrary nonrenewals and reduce housing instability; opponents — many of them small landlords — said the change would strip property owners of necessary business discretion and raise operating costs. Both sides urged the council to pursue other remedies, including stronger code enforcement and expanded tenant legal services.

Public comment and council debate: dozens of speakers took the podium. Chris Morris, introduced as director of SLIC (Landlords Influencing Change), told the council, “landlords are not in the business of evictions…a good tenant is a most valuable partner,” and urged investment in code enforcement, a strengthened landlord registration system, and tenant training. Several self‑identified small landlords described maintenance costs and one‑time capital repairs — for example a $15,000 roof and a $9,000 sewer connection cited during testimony — and said those expenses make eviction proceedings costly and risky for small property owners.

Tenant advocates, students, social workers and community organizers urged the council to adopt the local law. A high school student, Hema (identified in the record as a student speaker), told the council: “Please vote yes. Opt in. Protect our neighbors and please protect our futures.” Organizers and attorneys noted that similar protections have been adopted elsewhere in New York and argued the change would reduce displacement and its effects on children and families.

Council discussion focused on competing concerns: several councilmembers said the proposed language already allows eviction for lease violations, criminal activity and nonpayment, and that the bill would not prevent landlords from removing tenants for these causes. Council President Porterfield — who voted in favor of adopting the local law — said she had read the legislation and spoken with landlords and tenants before voting. In explaining her vote she said she supported the protections but acknowledged the measure failed on the floor, noting the final tally against the ordinance.

Housing stability task force: after the local law failed, the council considered and passed a resolution to establish a city housing stability task force. Councilmember Joseph Mancini, who sponsored the task force resolution, described it as a forum to “bring together those that can actually impact this and what solutions we can come up with” and said the effort was intended to produce ideas and incentives local officials and partners could implement.

The approved resolution calls for a nine‑member task force whose members are to be selected by the council (the resolution text specifies selection by the council). The resolution passed 4‑3. During debate some councilmembers and public speakers criticized the task force concept as a delay tactic and said the city should instead adopt the local law now; others said the task force would allow the city to gather local data and build practical incentives for both tenants and landlords.

Votes at a glance:
- Item 1 — Local law to add Article 5 §210‑20 (prohibition of eviction without good cause): Defeated (roll call recorded in the meeting as 4 no, 3 yes). Transcript records councilmembers Joseph Mancini and (a colleague identified as) Mutavarren voting no and Council President Porterfield and Councilmember Williams recorded as voting yes; the clerk recorded additional yes/no responses during roll call and the final tally was 4‑3 against.
- Items 2–14 — Consent items listed on the legislative consent agenda (resolutions accepting reports, grant awards, intergovernmental agreements, waivers, settlements): Approved on consent as part of the legislative consent agenda. Notable items announced at the start of the meeting included a HUD hazard reduction grant of $30,967,061 (item 4) and an agreement with Development of Bridal, LLC d/b/a Capital District YMCA for $201,722 (item 12). Other consent items included DCJS grant acceptances, a public‑safety services agreement with the Schenectady City School District, a waiver of the apprenticeship requirement for Central Park Tennis Court improvements, and several settlements (items 13 and 14).
- Item 15 — Resolution establishing a city housing stability task force: Passed (4‑3). Transcript records Joseph Mancini voting in favor; Councilmember(s) Patrick and others recorded opposition; final tally recorded as 4‑3 in favor.

What happens next: the local law will not take effect because it was not adopted. The newly created task force will begin work as directed in the council resolution; the resolution text names council selection of members and sets the structure for the group but does not itself set a statutory deadline for reporting back to the council. Multiple councilmembers during debate asked for a relatively short timeline for a report (references were made on the floor to 60‑ and 120‑day targets by several members during discussion), but no firm deadline was specified in the meeting record.

The meeting also included routine legislative business handled on consent, including HUD grants and intergovernmental agreements. Several councilmembers and public speakers asked the city to pair any process with stronger code enforcement, tenant legal services and targeted incentives for maintaining affordable units.

Ending: Council members and dozens of members of the public left the meeting divided but engaged: supporters of the rejected local law signaled they will continue public outreach, and supporters of the task force said they will press for a timetable and broad, inclusive membership. The council will next consider follow‑up actions as the task force is formed and begins its work.