Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Passaic council sets proposed 3% annual rent-cap for second reading after hours of public comment
Loading...
Summary
On Aug. 5 the Passaic City Council voted to set a proposed amendment to Chapter 2-31 (rent stabilization) — which would cap annual rent increases at 3% — for a second and final reading on Sept. 2, following extensive public comment urging the lower cap and vacancy control.
PASSAIC, N.J. — On Aug. 5 the Passaic City Council voted to set a proposed amendment to Chapter 2-31 (rent stabilization) — which would cap annual rent increases at 3% — for a second and final reading on Sept. 2, after more than an hour of public testimony that largely urged tighter limits than the city’s current 6% cap.
Supporters said the lower cap and vacancy control are needed to prevent displacement in a city with a high share of renters and steep rent growth. “Most of the tenants in this room have been paying rent increases double and triple and quadruple and quintuple the inflation rate for many, many years,” said Mitchell Khan, vice president and director of organizing for the New Jersey Tenants Organization. “I strongly urge you to adopt it.”
The petition-driven measure — listed on the agenda as an amendment to Chapter 2-31 — drew a steady stream of speakers representing tenant groups, legal aid organizations, immigrant communities and service providers. Antonio Hernandez, a member of Make the Road New Jersey, told the council he and his family split about $2,000 in monthly rent and asked leaders to “stabilize rents at 3% and make vacancy control and support efforts to make Passaic tenants live with dignity and respect.”
Why it matters: Several speakers said rent growth is outpacing wages and pushing residents into overcrowded or substandard housing. Adrian Orozco, who identified himself with “32 AJSCIU” in remarks to the council, cited figures he said show 73% of Passaic households rent and a cited surge in eviction filings in Passaic County. Domestic-violence advocates warned rent spikes undermine survivors’ ability to stay in safe housing.
Council action and next steps: Council members first closed the public hearing. Rather than adopt the 3% measure on final reading that night, the council voted to reject immediate final adoption and instead set the proposed ordinance down for a second and final reading on Sept. 2. The roll-call on that procedural vote recorded unanimous “yes” responses from Councilmen/women present: Joseph Monk, James Love, Maria Mello, Daniel Mayer, Luis Garcia, Ana Colombo Montanez and Council President Schaer. The motion therefore passed to schedule the Sept. 2 hearing.
Council President Schaer told the public the city and organizers had discussed the timeline and that the council expected a short period to finalize language with petitioners before final consideration. He said the item would return for formal action at the Sept. 2 meeting.
What supporters asked for: Multiple speakers asked the council not only to lower the annual cap to 3% but also to add vacancy control — which proponents say prevents large rent jumps when units turn over — and to preserve hardship and capital-improvement exceptions for legitimate landlord needs. “A 3% cap protects tenants even when politicians fail, even when enforcement is nonexistent,” said Daniel O’Kirschner, who described experience with local rent-control efforts in Jersey City.
What opponents said: Some landlords and small property owners urged caution, saying small, multi-family landlords face rising taxes and maintenance costs. One owner described mortgage and tax burdens on two- and three-unit properties and urged the council to allow time to evaluate the 6% cap the council adopted earlier this year.
Context: Speakers and advocates repeatedly referenced a rent-stabilization ordinance the council passed earlier in the year that set a 6% cap; several public commenters said the city’s experience under that cap has not stopped large rent increases and urged the council to adopt a tighter limit and vacancy control. The council’s vote on Aug. 5 does not adopt the 3% cap — it only places the proposed amendment on the Sept. 2 agenda for second and final reading, at which time the council may vote to adopt, amend or reject it.
The council accepted public testimony on the ordinance that evening and will hear the measure again at its Sept. 2 meeting.

