Tenants and tenant leaders told the Jersey City Municipal Council on Jan. 2, 2025, that a December rent‑control determination for 108 Sussex Street was reversed days after it was served and that Portside Towers remains without the city‑mandated uniformed security guards and resident superintendents, and they urged the council to enforce existing ordinances.

Anna Cruz, a tenant at 108 Sussex Street, said the Bureau of Rent Leveling issued a determination on Dec. 12 confirming the building is subject to rent control and that the landlord signaled an intent to appeal. "That day felt like justice at last," Cruz said, adding that a later notice issued on Dec. 24 reversed that determination and was described by staff as a "correction." She told the council the reversal undermined tenants' expectation that a properly served determination would be followed through the rent‑leveling process.

Kevin Weller, president of the Portside East Tenant Association, said Cruz’s case fits a pattern his group has documented since 2023. "Anna's story isn't just her story, it's a pattern," Weller said, and asked why tenants should have to repeatedly appeal determinations that tenant advocates believe were correct. Weller also said he had discussed draft letters and metadata from prior staff with a director transition in 2023.

Tenants at Portside described multiple safety and habitability problems they say flow from the absence of required on‑site personnel. Drew Koschnowski, who lives at Portside Towers, told the council there is still no uniformed security and no resident superintendent in either building; he described incidents in which injured residents had no on‑site help and plumbing failures went unaddressed for long periods. Mark, a Portside resident who described repeated disturbances and threats in the neighborhood, said the building has been out of compliance for years and called for enforcement by the Office of Code Compliance.

Michelle Hirsch, president of the Portside Towers West Tenant Association, urged the council to restore the Dec. 12 determination if it was properly issued and to require that any party believing the determination incorrect use the normal appeal channels. "To director Richardson, we're not calling you a liar, but your actions make it really hard to trust the system you represent," Hirsch said, and she asked the council to demand transparency and accountability.

Other residents raised related concerns about landlords' municipal‑court cases, outstanding warrants in other jurisdictions, long delays for boiler repairs and continued vermin and mold complaints. Liv, a tenant at 429 Bergen Avenue, said she has paid rent for a year while living with leaks and roaches and asked the council what enforcement steps it will take. Joel, a Portside resident, said his building lost hot water for several days and that vendor timelines indicated repairs would not be complete for another day; he said he had not been told a resident superintendent was resident on site.

Speakers cited local enactments and city rules in urging action: one speaker referenced ordinance 24055, passed in 2024 and signed by the mayor on June 27, to strengthen the city's uniform security requirement for multiple dwellings; another referenced a city ordinance provision (07‑153) that calls for a chain to be placed at the south end of Washington Street at 8 p.m.; and residents asked the Office of Code Compliance to enforce municipal code 218‑1. Tenants also urged an investigation into why the Bureau of Rent Leveling issued a reversal shortly after a determination that favored tenants.

Councilperson Rivera, who had previously spoken about 108 Sussex at a 2023 meeting according to speakers, told Cruz during the roll call vote later in the meeting that he would "get to the bottom of that" and ask the necessary questions. The council did not take formal enforcement action on the rent‑control dispute or the Portside compliance issues during the Jan. 2 meeting.

The public comment period was the meeting’s primary forum for these complaints; no ordinance changes or enforcement orders were presented on the agenda and staff did not announce any new, immediate enforcement steps during the session. Tenants and tenant leaders left the meeting urging the council and city enforcement offices to follow up.

Votes later in the meeting approved unrelated council resolutions (see separate "Votes at a glance" article).