Council declines rent‑control amendment aimed at closing institutional‑ownership loophole

The Jersey City Municipal Council on Tuesday failed to adopt an amendment to the city’s rent‑control ordinance that would have targeted institutional investors who aggregate small residential buildings under multiple LLCs to evade rent‑control limits.

The proposed ordinance, 25‑125, would have expanded the definition of institutional ownership to capture owners who control multiple one‑to‑four‑unit properties across the city, a move tenant advocates said was necessary to stop large investors and real‑estate investment trusts from evading protections. "This closes one of the biggest loopholes corporate landlords have been exploiting," said Anna Medyuk, who urged passage on behalf of tenant and housing advocacy groups.

Tenant advocates, tenant associations and several community speakers urged the council to pass the ordinance quickly, saying loopholes are enabling portfolio buyers to raise rents and displace long‑term renters. "If you own five or more units, regardless of how many LLCs you hide them under, you should follow the same rules as everyone else," said Anna Medyuk.

Opponents included small local landlords, realtors and attorneys who warned the ordinance as written would sweep ordinary mom‑and‑pop owners into institutional status, increase administrative burdens, and raise the risk of litigation. Laura Skolar, a Jersey City real estate agent, said the measure would misidentify many long‑time local owners as institutional investors and could encourage sales to larger buyers. "Many are long‑term local residents who invested in these buildings — this ordinance penalizes the very people who contribute to a stable housing market," she said.

Legal and technical questions also animated the hearing. Tenant advocates and a coalition of legal advisers told council members they had drafted anti‑loophole amendments that had not been incorporated in the version before the council. Several council members said they were sympathetic to the ordinance's intent but worried the current draft would impose unintended harms on small homeowners and could be difficult to enforce.

Council discussion emphasized both the urgency of slowing displacement and the need for more precise drafting. At final consideration the ordinance failed to pass, recorded as defeated 3–3–2: Councilmembers Hulings, DeJise and Rivera voted no; Councilmembers Ridley and Boggiano abstained; Councilperson Solomon was absent. Council members and advocates said tenant protections remain a priority and encouraged further drafting and a possible return of a revised proposal in the next council session.

Speakers on both sides urged continued collaboration: tenant advocates asked for stronger anti‑loophole language and enforcement capacity; small landlords asked for safeguards so ordinary homeowner‑landlords are not swept into new regulation. The council did not adopt the ordinance; supporters said they will continue working on targeted amendments for future consideration.