The Jersey City Municipal Council on Tuesday voted down city ordinance 25‑1‑25, a measure intended to limit institutional ownership tactics that some advocates say are eroding the city’s affordable housing stock.

The ordinance would have changed Chapter 2‑60 to treat multiple small properties under common beneficial ownership as a single portfolio for rent‑control purposes, aiming to stop real estate investment trusts and shell LLCs from evading local tenant protections.

Tenant advocates and tenant‑rights lawyers urged passage, saying the proposal would close well‑documented loopholes used by corporate owners to aggregate properties and avoid rent‑control obligations. Kevin Weller, representing Portside Tower tenants, and others urged the council to “stop the bleeding” and pass the measure as a first step, while promising to return with technical fixes.

Many small, long‑time property owners, realtors and landlord groups testified against the ordinance, warning it would unintentionally sweep ordinary mom‑and‑pop owners into rent control, create administrative complexity, and depress small‑owner investment. Several legal and drafting critiques were presented to council staff before the meeting; multiple speakers said proposed amendments they submitted had not been incorporated.

Council debate reflected the split in public comment. Several council members said the draft was a start but had drafting flaws that could hurt small homeowners in parts of the city where one or two additional properties would push an owner into the new definition. Others argued the ordinance needed to pass as an incomplete but necessary measure to protect tenants now.

Final vote: city ordinance 25‑1‑25 was defeated (tally reported as 3 yes, 3 no, 2 abstentions). Council members who explained their votes cited competing priorities: the need to protect tenants versus the possibility of harming small property owners and the city’s capacity to enforce a more complex rule.

Next steps: advocates who supported the change urged the incoming council and legal staff to take the drafts and return with tightened anti‑loophole language; opponents asked for more study and outreach to affected small owners.