Does Maplewood Have a Rent Control Ordinance

When I Google I get a Municipal Ordinance but does anyone know if it is still in effect?

Far as I know, the rent control ordinance which dates back to Bob Grasmere’s time is still in effect.  If any ordinance needed being amended or repealed, it is this one. As written, it is so favorable to existing tenants that it will be extremely difficult to change even if a change grandfather’s income existing tenants.

From speaking to residents of Maplewood Crossing it is apparent that no one is paying any attention to the Ordinance. Additionally I do not believe there is any enforcement mechanism. 

STANV said:

From speaking to residents of Maplewood Crossing it is apparent that no one is paying any attention to the Ordinance. Additionally I do not believe there is any enforcement mechanism. 

Maplewood Crossing is pretty new.  I thought these ordinances were more about protecting long-time tenants staying in the same place (?)

There are many current media stories about landlords imposing very high rental raises for current renters. If Maplewood landlords begin raising rents at similar levels it would not surprise me if there is a  public cry for enforcement of this ordinance. Maplewood Crossing was built in 2017...long enough time for renters to consider themselves long-term renters.

Background, please?

krnl said:

There are many current media stories about landlords imposing very high rental raises for current renters. If Maplewood landlords begin raising rents at similar levels it would not surprise me if there is a  public cry for enforcement of this ordinance. Maplewood Crossing was built in 2017...long enough time for renters to consider themselves long-term renters.

They should definitely push it if the ordinance applies to their situation.  (I'm not familiar with the ordinance so I don't know what sort of conditions it includes.)

STANV said:

From speaking to residents of Maplewood Crossing it is apparent that no one is paying any attention to the Ordinance. Additionally I do not believe there is any enforcement mechanism. 

Relevant ordinance: https://ecode360.com/9420567

https://ecode360.com/9420623 remedy for the tenants 

https://ecode360.com/9420642 penalties

https://fb.watch/dM7eAg2Kxi/

John Oliver did an excellent piece on rent last night

Rent Ordinance. Maplewood rent increases are allowed under several circumstances. Current rent increases are probably affected and permitted by increases in operating expenses, property improvement, increases in local tax and increases in the 3 year average Consumer Price index (C.P.I.).

C.P.I. has increased by more than 25 over the past 3 years. I don't know the amount of increases in local rents are, but they may be justified and allowable.

STANV said:

From speaking to residents of Maplewood Crossing it is apparent that no one is paying any attention to the Ordinance. Additionally I do not believe there is any enforcement mechanism. 

It would be unlikely to have an ordinance adapted that did not have an enforcement mechanism. In this case, the remedy is a petition to the town's Rent Leveling Board. . That body will adjudicate and can issue fines and jail time. Either party may appeal that Board's decision to the town council

Maybe it is this part of the ordinance that needs to be corrected. Municipal court should be the resolution and not the town council... especially since jail time is a provided penalty.

WNYC. This morning..... N.Y.C. rent board approves largest rent increase since Bloomberg era for rent stabilized units....3.5% for one year leases and 5% for two year leases. Building owners' arguments for the increase

Arguments for the rent increases, included increase in maintenance and insurance costs.

Average rent for unregulated NYC apartments is $3,200. 

The TC pays lip service to affordable housing. They continue to approve new developments which do the bare minimum required by law in regards to affordable housing.  Good luck finding any support from the TC.

yahooyahoo said:

The TC pays lip service to affordable housing. They continue to approve new developments which do the bare minimum required by law in regards to affordable housing.  Good luck finding any support from the TC.

I don't think you can blame the developers who are in business to make money.  If the law is inadequate, then that is where that blame lies. As far as the TC is concerned, has anyone approached them about this?  (I honestly have no knowledge about rent control locally or how it has been handled.)

Maplewood had rent control until May 17th, 2005, after which apartments in multiple dwelling buildings (ie, 3 apartments or more, none which are owner occupied) that are occupied by the tenant prior to 5/17/05 remain  rent controlled until vacated.  Those that were vacated after May 17th, 2005 are no longer rent controlled. See below:

Per the Maplewood rent control ordinance passed 5/17/05: "A. This article shall apply to all multiple dwelling units as defined in § 209-3 of this article as of the date of passage of this article. Any multiple dwelling unit that becomes vacant after the date of this article shall not be subject to the terms and conditions of this article, provided the landlord notifies the Board as required in this section. Thereafter, the vacated multiple dwelling unit shall be deemed decontrolled.  See https://ecode360.com/9420592

So, the answer is if you still live in an apartment in a multiple dwelling building that you've occupied before May 17th, 2005, it is still rent controlled (ie, grandfathered in). If you live in an apartment in a multiple dwelling building in Maplewood that you moved into after May 17th, 2005, it is not rent controlled since per the above ordinance it was decontrolled as soon as the tenant living in it prior to 5/17/2005 vacated it (if the landlord gave the town proper notice).

Are there any ordinances for front yard/lawn parking or vegetable gardens? 

Lawn parking has ordinances that are related to DEP, storm water runoff and stuff like that. I don't know the specifics. Robert Roe may.

Gardens and stuff that are "weeds" in most people's eyes, are protected. This is becoming more of an issue as there is incentive to have "natural" vegetation growing and there is a growing negative reaction to grass lawns. 

We're talking about 60 years ago. Friend had a house on South Orange Avenue. What was a lawn on the front of the house was allowed to overgrow with "God knows what." So she gets a summons and shows up at municipal court with photos of the lawn and photos of the various "weeds" on the lawn.  Also accompanied by a book, along to topic of foraging and colonial remedies and such.

Friend, to court: "This is -----. It is used for flavor. And this is......, it was used in colonial times for impotence." And.. on....and on...

Summons was dismissed.

In our area, we are seeing more and more front lawns without grass but rather, 2ft high grasses and such.