Opinion: Reaffirming support for good cause eviction legislation

This is an opinion piece by Ithaca City Council member Ducson Nguyen. It was not written by The Ithaca Voice. To submit opinion pieces, please send them to Matt Butler at [email protected].

During the Common Council’s discussions on protections against good cause termination (GCE) in 2021, I wrote a letter to the editor outlining its merits. Last year, the local GCE laws I mentioned in the article were repealed through state preemption. And earlier this year, New York State passed a statewide version that unfortunately requires local consent. My general views on GCE are still expressed in this letter, but I thought I would address some specific concerns that have been raised more recently.

On contracts: The government regularly sets guardrails for contracts. A recent example that affects nearly all workers, whether in retail, technology, or other industries, is the ban on non-compete clauses in employment contracts by several states and soon by the Federal Trade Commission. Consumer, tenant, and other citizen protection provisions in contract law are not uncommon.

Regarding New Jersey: I mentioned in my letter that New Jersey has had eviction protection for good reason through its Anti-Eviction Act since 1974. New York’s version has more Property exemptions and more “good causes” as New Jersey, which despite stricter laws has consistently outpaced New York in the construction of new housing. Speaking of which…

On housing supply: Several speakers at the recent GCE public hearing pointed out that this law does nothing to create new housing. That is true. That is why I have long advocated for legalizing accessory dwelling units (an issue the City Council will finally address now that we have implemented short-term rental regulations), comprehensive zoning reform (which Mayor Cantelmo has committed to alongside me), and continuing the strongest political support for affordable housing in the country (few communities welcome these developments as much as we do).

On small landlords: As I mentioned in the letter, I am a small landlord. This can be quite annoying at times. But it is obviously unfair and confusing to the tenant, who cannot and should not figure out whether they are afforded basic protections based on the ownership structure of their apartment.

On unfair exceptions: One of the exceptions added to New York State’s version of the GCE is a 30-year time limit for buildings built after 2009, ostensibly to account for financing (commercial mortgages rarely have terms over 20 years, by the way). I agree that this is ridiculous and adds to the confusion mentioned above, but it is not a parameter that municipalities can control. Nor is it a sufficient reason to insulate themselves from it.

On unintended consequences: I have seen a lot of consternation from landlords who are concerned about how the implementation of the GCE will affect tenants. These concerns are not shared by tenants and I trust tenants to advocate for themselves. I have also heard competing concerns that the local rental market is brutally competitive and that the GCE will force landlords to raise rents to the maximum allowable rate, which I find difficult to reconcile. As I mentioned in my letter, 50 years of history in New Jersey is a compelling case study.

On timing: I have been advocating for GCE since 2021 and testified before the New York State Senate on the issue in 2022. Several of my colleagues specifically advocated on this issue when they ran for office last year. Albany and Kingston have already passed the GCE opt-in option with the same small landlord threshold we are considering. Additionally, it is quite common for the Council to pass legislation within a month. Ultimately, the timeline is up to my Council colleagues, but I am happy with this pace.

The City Council will consider this bill on Wednesday, July 10. As always, your comments in person and via email are welcome and will be taken seriously.