The Jersey City Property Owners’ Association is challenging the recently approved right-to-counsel law, claiming it is unconstitutional, in a new court filing.
By John Heinis/Hudson County View
The 13-page, 5-count lawsuit filed in Hudson County Superior Court yesterday notes that the group is made up of property owners, who collectively own and or manage thousands of units of multifamily property who actively engage with legislative and judicial processes.
Through their attorney Charles Gormally, JCPOA contends that tenants’ right to counsel “is not a power delegated to municipalities by the State of New Jersey.”
“A tenant’s landlord-tenant relationship is not a fundamental right that due process or equal protection require a right to counsel. Rather, it is a contractual right between two private parties. There is no rational basis for the adoption of this Ordinance,” the lawsuit says.
After months of fine tuning, in June the Jersey City Council unanimously approved (9-0) the measures related to establish an RTC office at City Hall by 2026, with the possibility to start earlier if the anticipated funding mechanisms are in place.
In short, the local legislation would require the city to provide an attorney to tenants, free of charge, in the event that their landlord takes them to court.
The city would utilize development fees to cover the costs, with 20 percent of the money allocated to the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund used to fund the RTC, with 80 percent earmarked for other miscellaneous affordable housing policies.
According to one of the main sponsors, Ward E Councilman James Solomon, the city would collect about $20 million a year in development revenues, leaving an annual RTC budget of about $4 million.
Ron Simoncini, the executive director of the JCPOA, spoke out against the measure at this meeting and was heckled by some of the audience on hand during his remarks.
He claimed that this would not help the affordable housing stock and/or tenants who are unable to pay rent.
In addition to claiming the ordinance exceeds the powers delegated to New Jersey municipalities by the state legislature, the JCPOA asserts that the law is preempted by NJ’s “Just Cause Eviction Act,” as well as violating state and federal equal protection rights.
Furthermore, they assert this is a violation of a municipal taxing authority, as well as the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.
Overall, the lawsuit seeks to overturn the municipal law, as well as reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs, along with any relief deemed just and equitable.
In a statement, Solomon blasted the lawsuit as “frivolous” and indicated he looked forward to having their day in court, also noting that he spearheaded the legislation because only three percent of tenants in Jersey City currently receive legal representation for evictions.
“ .. Since Right-To-Counsel was first announced, my office has received threats of legal action, including from far-right activist groups who worked to overturn abortion and affirmative action in this country. I won’t be cowed by people who align themselves with these radicals to expand their profit margins,” he declared.
“You want to sue your way out of your responsibilities to tenants, Jersey City residents, and the city that allowed you to make the profits you’re using to fund this suit against us? You want to waste your time and money on this frivolous lawsuit? Fine. See you in court.”
In a phone interview, Gormally pointed out that the the ordinance was drafted under a false premise claiming that thousands of people are being wrongfully evicted regularly, noting that a judge ultimately must perform evictions, not landlords or developers.
Expectedly, the Jersey City Right-to-Counsel Coalition was dismissive of the lawsuit in their own statement.
“We’re not surprised by Ron Simoncini’s baseless, frivolous lawsuit meant to slow down much needed aid for Jersey City residents. We plan to fight the suit and also bring accountability to these shady actors who are hindering much needed aid for Jersey City tenants,” they said.
“JCPOA claims to actively participate in legislative and judicial processes, but doesn’t seem to have existed until now. We don’t expect this to change anything with regard to RTC’s implementation.”
Nevertheless, Gormally doubled down on the fact that the current ordinance does not comply with state law and was founded on a false premise.
“Unlike most other states, eviction of a tenant in New Jersey cannot happen unless a judge sitting in a public courthouse, in Jersey City, enters an order permitting such eviction—and only after evidence that the landlord has complied with state law that protects tenants,” he asserted.
“The Council has decided to create a new right for a small subset of tenants, even though the local government is not authorized by the state to do so. The taxpayers money would be better spent on contributing to the already existing free legal services programs that do a wonderful job despite the absence of sufficient funding for their efforts. We hope that the Council remains open to modifying the ordinance so that it complies with New Jersey law.”
The RTC proposal had the support of Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop and other key members of the Hudson County Democratic Organization came out in favor of it just before the final vote.
Solomon initially had Ward D Councilman Yousef Saleh and Ward F Councilman Frank “Educational” Gilmore on board as sponsors and they were later joined by Councilman-at-Large Daniel Rivera.
After the latter and Councilwoman-at-Large Amy DeGise indicated they’d be supporting the ordinances, it was a foregone conclusion that the RTC proposal would be approved by the council since they had publicly announced five affirmative votes.
Editor’s note: This story was updated with an additional comment from Jersey City Property Owners’ Association counsel Charles Gormally.
