City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Province City Chambers for Tuesday, March 17th. today for a regular meeting of special committee on health, opportunity, prosperity and education known as also of hope. Would the clerk please call the role? Chairman Pichado, present. Vice Chairwoman Peterson, present. Councelor Andera, present. Councelor Royas, present. Councelor Sanchez,

five present, no absent. You have a quorum. Thank you very much. Uh would everybody rise please and do the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Clerk. Uh would you please uh read item number one? Item one, an ordinance amending chapter 13 housing of the code of ordinance of the city of Providence to add the next appropriate article, the Providence R Stabilization Act. Thank you. Uh before us, we have the sponsor of the legislation, Council President, uh Rachel Miller.

Thank you, Chairman Pardo. Uh, I am right now um flanked very officially on either side by our chief of staff, June Rose, and Aaron Easter Gardner, our deputy chief of staff and policy director. Um, but I'm just going to go through the initial amendments in front of you. Um, two things. One, I want to thank this committee in particular, of course, every committee of the council. Um, but this committee in particular and the the other counselors who have joined for every one of these meetings, um, we have heard hours of public testimony. We'll continue to hear probably hours of public testimony. This is a a really important process and you are incredible stewards of it. So, I just wanted to thank you. Two, I wanted to wish you a very happy St. Patrick's Day. Uh so the amendments in front of us um are based on feedback from public hearings, from public comment, from some meetings we've had with a variety of uh developers and um low-income housing developer organizations and many um many of these changes are just tightening up the language. So I'm not going to go over those. Just making sure that we refer to the board in the same way on every page. um making sure we affer we refer to an apartment in the same way on every section of the ordinance. I won't go over those. I'll just go over what's substantial. Uh so number one on page three, which is in the definition section. Um and this is something that came up repeatedly from both uh proponents and opponents of this legislation. Um just a more comprehensive definition of substantial rehabilitation. Um that includes, you know, we're talking about two major building systems getting redone. Um we're talking about costs that exceed or equal to 15% of the fair market value of the property. Um and so we're just being

crystal clear about what we mean by substantial rehabilitation. We do not mean ongoing maintenance, which is already required by law. on page four, section 1371, um again heard this from a number of sources, um that there's times that weren't articulated in the ordinance already when an apartment might be uh empty for a period of time and not on the market. So in that case it is very likely that uh the property owner will want a process to go to the board um and make adjustments in the base rent. So we just included a few more cases um during which an apartment would be vacant for a period of time. Those include um involuntarily from foreclosure, receiverhip, tax sale um into the already existing definition. under the section C of the same section 30 1371 under the utilities section um we heard concerns raised about um specific circumstances where utilities are not metered by the unit. Um and so just giving the board uh specific instructions uh to a process for which landlords might seek relief in those cases. Um on that same section 1371D um and appreciated feedback from many renters that January is not the right time. If we're going to set an annual time of year, it ought to be July 1st. um in January there are many other um expenses that happen and so being able

to plan around an annual increase um in July makes sense. Okay. 1372 page six 1372 uh C which is major renovations and reconfigurations. Um, four, we just put substantial rehabilitation, that same definition, um, into the body of the bill. And now we are at 1374 section J. Um we heard a lot of feedback from again people speaking in for speaking people speaking against people who are yes anding um in public testimony that uh we just wanted to be more specific about what the board um is doing and so you'll see a few amendments that address that. In this one in particular, um we are saying that the board sets the date by which the rule, regulation and ruling um on a certain property takes place. Um so that is not left up to chance. Section 1377. Uh that is the next one, right? Yes. 1377 A2. So, um, this is a hat tip to the Rhode Island ACLU, um, for calling out that that particular definition, misinformation, spreading false or misleading information, is protected speech, um, under the Constitution, under the, uh, free speech. And so, we removed it. Page 12, section 1377E. Um, this we move to a later section in the ordinance. I will cover when we get there. um section 1378. Okay, so now we're into the section that covers exemptions, um

which is probably where we're talking about some of the most substantial changes that are before you. Sections I and J. So, we rewrote those to more clearly define and cover the various different programs that are subsidized, affordable, subsidized lowinccome. They match state programs and federal programs. Uh we did that in alignment with uh the community of nonprofit and low-income housing developers in that operate in the city of Providence. Uh section K also under exemptions moved the um and we did this in another section as well but to be in alignment with housing programs statewide um moved it to four units. So in this case from five to four units in the next case from three to up to four. So equalizing them all to four. In this case, we're talking about um this is the 1 plus one. So, a rental unit located in a housing accommodation containing no more than four instead of five. Um where the uh owner uh owner occupied, it's a further definition of that in 1378. Okay, so this was probably universally the least uh supported by everyone uh piece of the ordinance. This is where we were talking about exemptions for new construction. And so there's two uh well really three primary adjustments to exemptions for new construction. The very first changes the period from of exemption from 15 years to 10 years. We heard from sponsors of the ordinance

in particular, so from many of you and other uh colleagues on the council. Um we heard from housing developers, smaller sized housing developers and low-income developers. We heard from advocates um overwhelmingly um that 15 years was uh a little too long. So down to 10 years of exemption. However, if um there is a 20-year exemption available if housing if labor standards are adhered to, these are the same labor standards that we outline in the tax stabilization agreement. So, on the fir on the first uh we're talking about apprentice utilization at 10% of labor hours, talking about prevailing wage. Um and finally in this section uh we established that from passage we will go back in time five years um to exempt new construction over the last five years. Section N of the same section moves uh this is where we go from this article shall not apply to rental units in a building containing one to four units as opposed to one to three. Again, just to adhere to state uh and federal policies around uh that talk about buildings of units of one to four. Okay. Okay. And now in section 1379 enforcement um we created a home for enforcement of the um ban that we passed last year on algorithmic algorithmic pricing. Um this is critical. This is just to remind all of us this is uh a ban on the use of tech that has been proven to artificially increase rent. Um, so that in many many places that it was used, uh, property owners were

charging a rent much higher than they would have if they used their own market information, if they used, um, the other data in front of them. Section 1384. So, these amendments speak to advice from other people who have served on boards of across the city of Providence. Um, it was something we knew we wanted to address. Uh, as my co-sponsors, I know we've all talked about addressing how to speak about compensation for, um, members of the rent board. And so, uh, the ordin the amendment sets compensation for the board chair at $12,000 per year and for each of the four other members at $10,000 per year. Um, that is a $52,000 additional cost. Um, and is something that can be of course amended by ordinance and by uh subject to the salary review commission. and 1385 in the administration section um by request of Mayor Smiley's administration we removed a sentence um that they felt could be construed to be overly permissive. So uh 1385E uh we struck funds shall be sufficient to ensure full implementation of the board's duties. And then finally, um this was really at the advice of good government um proponents everywhere. So we heard it from a lot of different places um that we wanted to we had already kind of nodded to public rulemaking procedures as uh designated by the city and the state, but we spelled those out. So there is a publicly uh vetted um that includes notice that includes uh

what has to be included in that notice, right? So every rule that the rent board might make um spelled out made made clear before the public open to a public hearing prior to finalization by the board. Um and then finally in 1392 again just being explicit on the types of rules expected to be um set by the board um and the executive director of the rent board. Um and that covers the amendments in front of you. Again, anything that I didn't cover is just to create some consistency um in how we're naming things. So I just want to again thank you for the way and the process by which you are vetting this. Um I believe in these amendments. I believe in this ordinance uh quite quite clearly. Um and then I think there's two two pieces that I just want to share. Um we have heard from so many people uh some of them uh sharing like hope for their families, hope for their neighborhoods, hope for themselves. Uh some of them sharing um strong uh concerns that we are addressing and trying to address. Some of them sharing um just just misinformation. And I think that is challenging and we will do our best as we always do to make sure that people have the information in front of us. And and I just like we there's uh two things. One I think as humans we not just elected officials but as human people we have an opportunity to work with whatever power is in front of us. Um and this is the power in front of us right now. uh to change the rules

for people who live in poverty, for people who live in fear, for people who live in instability. Um this is our one of our moments to do that. We have done that in the past. We have a moment, the sec part of that, right? is we have a moment to do that without undoing the good work that this council has already done this term to uh build more housing to develop more housing to create more access uh to housing and so again thank you these are the amendments and I'm happy to discuss them further

thank you uh President Miller uh also So with you um and for our benefit we have obviously our chief of staff Jun Rose and also Aaron um as deputy uh chief of staff and senior policy and also we have Miguel on the left hand side. So if you have any uh points of clarification from this committee uh please ask now. If not we'll move on. In addition to having the staff at hand, we also like to recognize uh Councilwoman uh Mary Kay Harris. Thank you for being here. And also Councilwoman Jill uh Davidson uh and also Councilman John Gonals. Uh we also have uh city solicitor Sophia Weaver for joining us and also our staff uh and our team from the clerk's office, Lauren Gutierrez and and Tyler Crowder. Um, so seeing no further question, I would like to uh question Councilwoman Peterson.

Thank you. Um, sorry, I just I felt that it was important to highlight um, and I was hoping you could elaborate a little bit more. You have a definition here of substantial rehabilitation. Um, and I'd like to ask if you could just go into a little bit more depth about specifically what um what substantial rehabilitation means um because I know that there are people here that are um eager to understand. Thank you.

Yeah, happily. And I know this came up again from everyone um in some of the public hearings. So it defines in a few ways. Um comprehensive renovation that extends the life of the apartment of the dwelling unit. Um that offers replacement or substantial upgrade of two kind of two or more um major systems like plumbing, electrical, HVAC. um absolutely refers to structural elements, roofing support, foundation, beams, um covers, direct labor, material cost, and um soft fees like architectural and service fees. Um and we're talking about renovations that equal or exceed 15% of the fair market value of the property um following the completion of the rehab. Sure.

Yeah. So that that definition is new. Um but also the ways in which we now will treat those properties um under the ordinance is new. Um so as the council president explained, we're talking about rehabilitation that functionally brings bring this brings this up to being essentially a new apartment. Um, and so it will be it will have the opportunity I'll say it first kind of in a a wonkier term and then I'll explain what it means. So the way that substantial rehabilitation will be treated once they've petitioned the rent board is as receiving a one-time vacancy deontrol. Um, and so what that means in uh, you know, the the ways we actually speak um, is that rather than only being able to increase the rent by 4% if the rent board determines this was substantial was or will be substantial rehabilitation, they have the one-time opportunity to set a new base rent. Um, so it's not governed by the 4%, it's a new base rent with new tenants. Um, and so that's how that process will be handled. Yes.

Sorry. So, just because I need it to be broken down for me in layman's terms, um, can I give you an example and you tell me if this is off the mark or right on the money?

Yeah. um prior tenant moves out, there's a substantial amount of structural um rehabilitation that needs to be done just like what we've discussed here. But that includes like upgrades to cabinets, piping, anything of the air conditioning, painting, window, whatever. I'm not a landlord, so I don't know. Um, but all of that would allow you not based necessarily on an amount, um, but would allow you to reestablish a different market rate rent on a one-time basis.

That's correct. Yes. Not cabinets. Not cabinets. Got it. But the other ones you listed. Yes. But all the other stuff like Yes. They were structur loadbearing cabinets, I suppose. But yes. I guess I'm trying to understand because I mean we all do renovations in our own homes, right? So I know how much I've spent for the things in my house and um those are substantial um at least in my eyes and my paycheck. Um so I'm I'm trying to understand what exactly um feeds that because it's you know obviously they're different but it's it's important to know like what that would be, right?

Yes. So, it's spelled out in the in this amendment um two two of the ones you listed. So, you said piping, so plumbing, um and you said air conditioning, HVAC. Um those are two that are included. Um so, it's two major building systems. And then in the amendments, um it says which may include and then lists plumbing, electrical, HVAC, structural elements, roofing or loadbearing components. Um and it can this can also be defined by future board regulations. Um, so in those cases, it's exactly how you described it, councilwoman, where it's they would get to set a new base rent, new tenants, and a new rent.

Thank you. Any further questions? Further question? Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh, Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could please give me provide me with the list of speakers. Councilwoman Sue Anda would like to make a comment.

I just wanted to make a comment about what we just discussed that Councilwoman Peterson brought up. That sounds like a I just reflecting on it sounds like a really reasonable exception. I know I've talked with some folks were like, "Well, what if I do a really substantial rehab between tenants and that costs a substantial amount of money to really bring up the some of the really old housing we have in the city to bring it up into better repair. Um, and that is substantially different than like you did like just a paint job." And I've lived in both types of units where like someone did a really substantial amount of work in between and you can tell that there was like a lot of really great work done versus like a quick paint job and there was like a bug painted on the wall which is totally something happened in apartment that I lived in. Um just paint it right in. And those are totally different um scenarios. And so I just I thought that was we were just saying that seemed like a really reasonable uh exemption for um uh vacancy D control.

Thank you. At this moment, what we'll do is uh we'll move uh to the public comment and we'll also have an opportunity afterwards of the public comment to discuss among ourselves if you don't mind. Sorry, chair. Yes. Sorry. Could I just make one public comment? Sure. Councilman Royce,

I won't repeat what my colleague just said, but it'll be something different. What I appreciate is a spelling out of the the rule making process um suggested by the ACLU. I think we understood that uh that in my view had already existed in the previous draft, but to spell it out because I think there's maybe some uh distrust out there regarding that this board could go rogue and run away and I think having that clearly spelled out and legal jargon uh might make that better for some folks. So that's all I'll say. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And now what we'll do is move forward with the public comment. Everyone will have uh two minutes uh for cover two minutes. We're going to uh uh have uh people address the the amendments. Um perhaps many of you have received it already through our uh notification that we put out. Uh but also uh we'll let you have the the two minutes. We have a timer on the right side. she will keep keep you uh on task so that way we can get through uh this process as smooth as possible. Thank you very much. The first person I have is uh uh Shannon Russell against.

Welcome Shannon.

Thank you. Okay, this is really far out. Um so good evening. Uh I am Shannon Russell. I manage over 100 properties here in Providence with over a thousand tenants with this proposal. While this proposal is being described as rent stabilization, it clearly functions as rent control and I don't feel that any amount of amendments are going to change that fundamental reality. First, the ordinance will discourage housing investment. Reducing the new construction exemption and adding conditions creates uncertainty and sends a clear message to developers and housing providers that your ability to operate here will be restricted over time. That means less houses get built, not more. Second, it fails to reflect the real economics of operating housing. Costs like taxes, insurance, utilities, and labor continue to rise unpredictably. While the ordinance allows petitions to a rent board, that process adds a delay, bureaucracy, and uncertainty. Housing providers cannot operate effectively if basic decisions require approval from a board. Third, this creates a costly new bureaucracy the city cannot afford. Uh former mayor Angel Dvaris recently warned the warned that Providence's own chief financial officer estimated the cost would be between 10 and 17 million. Even the council's own consultant acknowledges potential revenue loss if property values decline at a time when the city faces real budget constraints. This is a serious risk. Fourth, the policy does not reflect the realities of Providence's housing market. Student housing, which I specialize in, has high turnover, heavy wear and tear, and seasonal cycles. Limiting flexibility will reduce the willingness of providers to serve the segment, a major part of the city's housing supply. And finally, the public concern is significant. The council has already received hundreds more letters opposing this ordinance than they have for those supporting it. That should signal that the risks and unintended consequences are very real. Providence needs more housing, not more

restrictions on the housing we already have. I urge the council to reconsider this approach and focus on policies that encourage investment, increase supply, and support responsible housing providers. Thank you. Thank you very much. If you'd like to also leave your statement that we leave it with the sergeant at arms. Thank you. Next uh before is uh Alton Autumn Guleti, Rhode Island AFL CIO. Welcome four.

Hi, thank you so much. Um my name is Autumn Gu. I'm the political director with the Rhode Island AFL CIO. We are a federation of unions and we represent a little over 16,000 workers in the city of Providence. Um I want to thank the council woman um and staff for the thoughtful explanations earlier that we heard and we are in full support of this ordinance. Um, we represent members who live and work in this city. And whatever these workers might win on the picket line or during bargaining sessions, is quickly evaporated in the face of unpredictable and often outrageous rent increases. Rent stabilization, like a collective bargaining agreement or project labor agreement, creates a predictable and fair environment for everybody and protects workers. Um, cities benefit when its workers are actually its residents. Um, schools are better when teachers know the neighborhoods. Um, hospitals are more efficient when frontline workers live nearby. I could go on and on. Um, but really this is just another tool for struggling workers to stay in their homes to continue serving the city of Providence and eliminates a race to the bottom environment for landlords. So, thank you so much for your consideration today.

Thank you. Next, we have uh John Shima Sherman against Uh, I want to speak to uh the exemption section of the ordinance. Um, some of this potentially affects me personally and other sections I don't understand why we're doing them. I own a two family. I would like to make it a four family. I don't know if under the one to four family I will be allowed to add that two additional units at a later date and still be exempt from the paragraph N in the exemptions. I should be, but it's not clear. And I've talked to two people involved in this process and an attorney and I can't get a consensus. I sent a letter through my city councelor outlining my concerns on February 16 that was forwarded to Miguel. I'm not sure who Miguel is, but I've received no response. Okay. There's also a special exemption that if you own two properties, you can exempt up to eight units. Why the special provision that if you own two properties? If we want to allow an exemption of up to eight units, it should be across the board for owner occupied. In other words, if I own an owner occupied six-unit building, all six units should be exempt. If it's eight units, all eight should be exempt. If I own a two family owner occupied and I own three additional two families, eight.

Why do you have to own two properties to get that exemption? Last thing, new construction. If a owner can add additional units to his property, they are not exempt even though they are brand new construction. And I don't think that is fair if what your objective is is to generate as many new rental units as possible. I am going to follow up with the committee with my letter that was sent to my city councelor. Thank you for followup. Thank you. Uh can you just restate your name and your address?

Sure. John Sherman, 28 Bolston Lane. Do you know who your city council person is? Alth Graves. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Lena Ronian uh four. If you could restate your name and and your address that' be great. Thank you.

Good evening. Uh my name is Lena Roman and I'm live on Providence 81 Messina Street 0298. Um I'm a certified community health worker and I'm here because I'm member from sister fire and I would like to um go a housing stability has shaping every major decision in my community as a community worker I do work with clients and um also um some patients that I do home visits and when I do there like I've been horriful things in the apartments I've been like seeing walls peing painting off I'm seeing like roaches I'm seeing like mole on the walls and people living in those conditions are horrible and lands don't because most of the people has uh people who has a status for immigration and they are afraid to talk to the landlords in case that they have retaliation. So um most of those families they have low-income families so they can afford it to be increasing their rents and they can ask for uh being in repairs apartments because they are afraid uh because of this most families spend most of the income and the rent and delay and also those kids has medical conditions because I work with them they have asthma they have also allergies and they have other conditions like lead and the blood so I'm here to support you know the uh redistication and uh support the stabilization because it creates productivity and products tenants increase and gives the families to room to breathe. Now people's has a question do I pay my rent or do I pay what I'm going to eat on the table so that's very hard that I hear every day from families and that's all what I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have uh Mike Pereira against.

Thank you. Good evening chair, members of the council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. This ordinance does nothing to increase housing supply which is one thing we know actually brings prices down. Instead, it discourages investment, slows new construction, and signals to both small property owners and large developers that Providence is a riskier place to build and maintain housing. In UN and the unintended consequence doesn't stop there. Take the amendment on repairs. Under the proposal, a property owner can cannot recover costs unless the work exceeds 15% of the property's value and involves major system overhauls. That is an extraordinarily high bar. It means that even significant necessary work like addressing safety issues, complying with lead laws, or replacing agent components cannot be reflected in rent. And even if the threshold is met, these costs cannot be passed on until a new tenant moves in. So what is the real world result? repairs get delayed, maintenance gets deferred, housing quality declines, and ultimately the very people that we are trying to protect, tenants, end up living in worse conditions with fewer options. There are also serious structural concerns here. The ordinance creates a board with the power to dictate pricing and determine when owners can adjust rents while simultaneously reducing incentives for new construction and increasing regulation on existing units. That combination introduces uncertainty at exactly the moment we should be encouraging for more housing, not less. If we truly want to help renters, we need to focus on solutions that work. That means building more housing. It means removing barriers to development. It means targeted rental assistance for those who need it most. We can care deeply about renters, and we should. But we also have to be honest. Policies that shrink supply and discourage maintenance will not make housing more affordable.

It will make it scarcer and it will make it worse. Thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Justice Gaines for Hello, my name is Justice Gaines. I'm an organizer with Cyifier and a resident of Ward 11. Uh we are supportive of some of these amendments and and want to name specifically the default date anniversary being changed. July is a great uh great shift based on what was said earlier as well as establishing compensation for board members. So lower income board members and residents actually can afford to be part of this board and offer their lived experience to making sure that tenants, renters, and landlords get a fair shot here in Providence. Uh also what I will say based on systemifier's mutual aid that it has done for the last eight years uh we have supported hundreds of families and individuals both in Providence and across Rhode Island around housing support, utility support, grocery support and generally making sure that their needs could be met. What happens when you only focus on rental assistance is that the need never ends. This right now is a structural change to support tenants. It is a structural change to support renters in Providence that we may not get another shot at. And it is critical that we get it done. It is critical that instead of just throwing money at the problem, throwing money at the market, we actually create something that gives tenants the ability to uh say what's going on in their building to say, "Okay, maybe I can plan for next year and have long-term ability to understand how much my rent might increase and why it is increasing." that transparency is not something right now that renters here are afforded. And this bill is the first thing that actually gives them the power to know what's going on in their life and be able to plan for the future so that we can keep our families in our neighborhoods and so

that we can keep Providence residents in Providence. Thank you for your continued work on this and we hope to see this bill continue to be improved and passed. Thank you very much. Uh, next we have uh Shannon Weinstein. Weinstein, if uh everyone that's going to speak, if you could please introduce yourself again and also where you live or who do you represent, that'll be great. Thank you.

Yep. Um, my name is Shannon Weinstein and I'm back to testify on behalf of the Rhode Island Coalition of Housing Providers. Um to answer your question, I am an owner at Reprov realy and we employ many uh residents of Providence. Most of our employees are from Providence. I personally am a landlord, property manager, realtor and contractor of almost 20 years which is reflective of the multiple hats members of the coalition wear. Although we already know that rent control ordinance is inherently unproductive and fails to meet the true needs of the community, we will say that we were surprised that the proposed amendments took a course that was clearly worse and did not demonstrate a desire to serve the needs of renters in our city. The amendments in fact restrict the housing market even more and also increased public spending towards the administration of this policy which is already expected to cost the city millions. These millions are not only in operating expenses but taxbased reduction as well as reduced res revenue growth for years to come. The regulation of section 8 units now creates a double regulation sure to create a disservice to those who rely on the section 8 program. A true positive example of public private partnership. Providence is our capital city. Every Rhode Islander has a stake in what happens in the capital city and its well-being is essential to the economic vibrancy it has to offer. Yes, every Rhode Islander are every Rhode Islander are concerned with cost of groceries, health care, utilities, and housing. And that is why we must take steps to create intentional policies that address these concerns. Any form of rent control is not it. Although I am often very assertive in statements, I will take this opportunity to ask who does this policy truly intend to serve. It is clear that at the the end result will not be favorable for renters in Providence who this policy is advertised to help. Simply put, we remain in

opposition to this policy in favor of al in favor of alternative proven policies that work towards affordability and positive landlord tenant relationships. We remain open to any constructive dialogue that achieves favorable results and stand ready to collaborate on productive solutions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Uh next we have Nancy Green. Thank you. Um my name is Nancy Green. I live in Providence. I'm a small landlord, own a triple decker, rent out the first floor, and I am in favor of this ordinance. I want to say that I agree with um the need for more housing. We seriously need more housing, but what I see being built is luxury housing and highincome housing. I am not seeing a market incentive to build affordable housing. We also young people are having a harder time living in Providence. I know so many people who would love to live in Providence. They've got a great deal to offer, but even greater Providence is just becoming unaffordable, and we're driving away some of the people who could contribute the most to our economy. In 1982, I was able to rent an apartment on minimum wage of 40 hours a week. Since then, the imbalance between the cost of living and the uh ability to earn a living has gotten so high that nobody can rent an apartment on minimum wage even if they are working major overtime. The cost of maintenance I've heard brought up and uh my husband and I have spent a lot of money on our house this year, but this is not money down the drain. When we spend money to maintain our property, we are increasing the value of our property and our better quality of life since we live there. So, it is a benefit to us as well and it's

just part of the equation. So, we need to do something. We need to do it now. And this is one modest step among others that I hope will help. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Next, we have uh Steve Stasync. Stansync. Stacy. Very good. No, nobody gets it right. Uh I am uh uh opposed to this and uh if you could just restate your name.

My name is Steve Stac. Uh I'm a property manager for Stone Lake Property Management. We uh represent uh investors and property owners throughout Rhode Island and southeast Massachusetts. Uh we represent. Um there are some pretty impassioned arguments uh on both sides of this and and we understand that uh these are things that uh require some serious consideration. I could go into how this um uh ordinance and proposal would hinder new construction, how it would affect the uh current uh properties that are out there. This evidence does exist. You can look it up. It's very simple to see that these well-intentioned proposals have negative effects on the people that they are designed to protect. I would encourage all of you to not use emotion to guide your decisions, but logic. Logic is what is going to make the best decisions for you. You're elected leaders and your job is to protect your constituents. And I think that you'll see that evidence points to that these proposals will have a negative downhill effect on our economy and on the people that we're trying to protect. And so I ask for your careful consideration uh for this ordinance. And thank you for your time.

Thank we have Janelle Severino. Janelle Severino, welcome. Sister Fire. forward. building. Abian LDCA. forchech.

Energy. But with that uh said, would you want to say that in English? Since I know you do speak English, I'll give you those two other minutes to convey that. Thank you. Sure. Do you want me to provide it now or? Yes. Do you do you have it in writing or you want to say it? I'll

um I don't have it in writing, but I can provide it because I wanted to speak um for the Latinos that exist here in Providence. You may proceed. I'll give you that other additional.

Thank you. Um, I lived in Ward 4 for about six years and my landlord by the end of those six years our rent had doubled. Um, but the building was never improved. There was mold in the bathroom, the heater was inconsistent and it was colder inside of the building than outside. Um, he would always say by the time that the spring came that the windows would be changed and they never were. By the end of it, my friend that worked from home, she had issues with her stomach because of the mold that exists inside of our home. Um, and by the end of the six years, we had to move because our rent had doubled the amount. Um, and we met as we moved to Ward 4 instead. Um, because if we're going to be paying $1,700, we might as well live in a home that the heater is consistent and there is not mold. But on the other side of that, we don't have health insurance. Um, even then, we couldn't afford to because rent was being increased inconsistently. And to this day, as I hear from a lot of other folks from SisterFire, um, we have to prioritize rent. Our utilities bill that are inconsistent. Again, the rent, the utilities bill was about $300 each because of the thermostat was inconsistent. The boiler that was never changed. Um, so I speak on that behalf. Yeah. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh, this is Councilman. We're just just for public hearing. Uh, that way we can just hear the the public comments. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. My testimony is written anyways again to show that Latinos have something to say in this city.

Absolutely. Thank you. And just for the for the public's uh and also for the committee, obviously uh that's the benefit of also having uh members that speak uh Spanish and understand it, but I knew that in essence Janelle was going um uh with her gracious also provided some English translation by herself and also she'll provide that uh uh that written testimony for our consideration. Thank you. The next one is uh Alex Gonzalez. Alex Gonzalez.

Good evening, members of the committee. Um I am a resident of Ward 15. I really feel like I don't have much to say um at the second hearing. I feel like you guys have made the amendments worse. Um, in regards to section 8, you want to regulate something that is already regulated by the government. Um, if you're going to add section 8 apartments to that, you're reeregulating something that's already there. If you're going to pay the executive director of a board $12,000, correct me if I'm wrong. Don't you all make 16,000? Well, that's what Miss Miller just said, $10,000.

Just a just a quick correction just for everyone. That's not the executive director. Oh, sorry. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that was clear. Uh, give me one second, Alex. Yeah. Councilwoman, go ahead. Thank you so much, chairman. I just wanted to make sure it was clear. That wasn't the executive director who's making that. That's the chairman of the rent board. The executive director would be paid something else.

Okay. So, the chairman of the rent board who's appointed a political favor along with the other four members who are appointed 10,000. You as a city councelor make $16,000. So, the person who's going to sit on the board is going to make $4,000 less than you. Does that make logical sense anywhere? Really?

Okay. Because it fits who? Somebody that doesn't make an income, somebody that is low income. Who is this structured for? So, if a counselor who bears the burden of every resident, why should somebody that's appointed to a board receive $12,000 as a chair committee or $10,000 as appointed committee? That's ridiculous. And that's why you guys don't have your numbers correct. So, I think you need to listen to Mr. Mancini who's been here for years and and think about what y'all are about to do because you're going to put our city in a devastation. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Uh, next person we have is Terry Wright. Uh, I'm sorry. Yes, Terry Wright for Okay, welcome.

Thank you. Good evening. Uh my name is Terry Wright and I first just want to recollect that back in 2017 2018 this is when the rent stabilization policy was created at dare direct action for rights and equality and here we sit in 2026 and there still haven't been any policy that protects tenants from being priced out of their homes. I just want to say that two to three years shy of a decade of higher rents and price gorgon by landlords, rent stabilization is a recipe for stability for rent paying tenants and providence. A recipe that meets the needs of a tenants emergency. There have been over 24,000 eviction filings since 2017. And I just want to talk about the 10-year adjustment. 5 to seven years is the standard for developers to stabilize their loans and banking business. If they can't do it in seven, then they're just exploiting lowincome tenants and neighborhoods for profit. And in this moment it feels like every word it's in and it in this moment it feels like every ward is for themselves instead of coming to the realization that tenants need protections regardless of how ward one through ward 14 all of the wards tenants need protections. And when we talk about tenant protections, we're not talking about the

snow removal or dumping the potholes in the roads, all of that. We are not talking about that. We are talking about stability for our tenants. Saving tenants from being priced out should be the first priority, but instead their lives along with mines hang in the balance of a veto.

Thank you. appreciate it. Next, uh we have Esther Odin. Good evening. My name is Esther. Stroden. I live at 451 Broadway. Uh Rachel Miller is my representative. And thank you for having me here. I have only a few words to say. When I searched for feasibility studies, I was rather surprised. I didn't find any really supporting rent control. What I did find was that wherever rent control has been or rent stabilization, and this bill is kind of a mixture of both, um there have been a decrease in property values, be they multifamily or single family. And with Providence um taxes, I think that if you continue to have a loss in property values, you're going to feel that not only will we lose multifamily development, you're going to see see single family homes deteriorate because the property values will go down. As property goes, values go down, the sale price will also decrease in the property and your tax base is going to be rapidly decreasing. I would like to know um and just bring up one of the things there are 50,000 empty units in Manhattan alone. So that's an interesting thought. My other question would be who who are the renters? What proportion are students? What proportion are

workingclass people? And maybe we there's some differentiation there. I'd like to see some numbers. I'd like to see your homework. So, if you could post online the feasibility studies you did, where you got your numbers from, why you think this is going to work other than for humanitarian reasons, and that's enough in itself, but I have to know that they actually do work as a humanitarian piece. Thanks so much. Thank you. Will Casey for

Thank you. Um, welcome. Marcus Mitchell uh will uh left so I'll be taking his place if that's all right. All right. Welcome.

Thank you. Um, good evening counselors and thank you for holding this listening session. Uh, I'm Marcus Mitchell. I'm executive director of direct action for rights and equality. Um, DARE uh has been doing advocacy work out in the community here in Providence for 40 years uh doing u social justice and economic justice advocacy uh for our citizens. I'm here to strongly support the proposed amendments to the rent stabilization ordinance. As many have noted, Providence was recently ranked the least affordable metro area for renters in the country with median rents rising 40% higher than in 2020. This isn't just a market fluctuation. It's a crisis that is displacing our neighbors, our families, and the soul of our city. The proposed 4% cap on annual rent increases combined with the new amendments regarding rent board procedures and vacancy control offers a balanced approach. It provides much needed uh predictability for renters to plan their lives without the terror of sudden massive rent hikes while still maintaining reasonable pathways for property owners to cover major expenses. By creating a stable base rent that applies to the next tenant, we pro we prevent corporate landlords from using turnover as a weapon to bypass these regulations. We need this ordinance to ensure that housing is treated as a human right and not just a speculative investment. I urge you to pass these strengthened amendments and to stand with the renters

of Providence. I'd also like to offer that um uh research shows that the uh average uh salary increase last year was uh in Providence was 3.2%. Which I think is uh well in line with uh 4% uh cap. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next we have uh Trevor Chase against Trevor.

Good afternoon and thank you for having me. I really appreciate it. I'm Trevor Chase. I'm with the Rhode Island Association Realtors. Um I just want to point out a uh a couple of um speculative comments. Um, one being, uh, the residential board. Um, the language in there saying that they may, they don't have to, but, they may consider any work that does not meet this definition of sustainable um, I'm sorry, of substantial rehabilitation into account. Um, we talked, we heard a lot about um, moldy buildings. That doesn't cover it. That's a cosmetic. So the mold in the buildings that that won't cover it. It also won't cover the lead inspection and any mitigation that needs to happen that the state had passed a few years ago. So those two things alone should be throwing up red red flags right off the bat. Um I do also want to uh make a mention that um there have been studies of homelessness and displacement in areas where rent stabilization is um is often found. Uh public policy institute of California San Francisco homeless increased by 9.8% between 2023 and 2024. I also want to add that the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research found that in 2022 about 68 of Cal 67% of California's homeless population was unshelter which is the highest in the nation and you want to compare it to Minnesota who is uh about 20 about 20 while Washington's around 50.

eviction rates. We see that eviction rates have reached an all-time five a five-year high according to Axio's reports. Uh San Francisco Examiner uh reported last September that eviction rates in cases and hit San Francisco hit a 10-year high. Thank you.

I urge you please base this off of facts. Thank you very much, Jarper. Jer Kho, is it uh Japper or Jasper? I'm sorry. Catel Catel, that's why you got to introduce yourself again. Apologies for my writing. That's okay. Um,

apologies, too. All right. Good evening everyone. My name is Jasper Catel. Um I live in Ward One and I'm here tonight as the political director of the American Federation of Teachers Local 6516. Um that means I am here tonight on behalf of about 2,000 workers or over 2,000 workers at Brown University, including research, teaching, and residence assistants and post-doctoral workers. Our members are steadfastly in favor of this bill. Um, and with that we stand with the labor movement in Rhode Island more broadly. We already heard tonight from the AFL CIO and there we have siblings and other unions who are deeply in favor of what is being proposed. You heard a few weeks ago at the last hearing from our president Michael Ziegler about why it is that we are in favor of this bill in the time or this ordinance. In the time since then, about 1500 of our members began trading proposals with Brown University for their third contract. Those members have fought very very hard for the raises that they won at the bargaining table. And yet, they still find their their paychecks cut into every single month by rising rents. We believe that it is essential that people who work in Providence can afford to live in Providence, can contribute to this community in meaningful ways. That's what our members want to do and they have trouble doing it when their rents skyrocket every single year. Looking at the amendments proposed tonight, I think that there are some generous options on the table for those who may have had qualms about the bill or about the ordinance in its original form. Um, and I deeply I would urge you to support this bill on behalf of all of our members. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next we have uh Dominique Pacelli. Pacetelli. Dominic,

how are you? Um my name is Dominic Pasarella. I'm a landlord in Providence and I oppose this rent control ordinance. I want to highlight an unintended consequence that I hope you will consider on behalf of your constituents. I'll keep my remarks brief. This specific concern I want to raise tonight is that this ordinance may actually increase rents more than they otherwise would for the most vulnerable tenants. I have a tenant who lives with and cares for her adult daughter who has severe brain damage. She has lived in my three family house since I purchased it in 2008. Because of her situation, I have always kept her rent well below market. My assumption was that I could bring up the rent to market levels once she eventually moves out. This ordinance would take away that flexibility. Her current rent is 11.25 for a three-bedroom apartment. It is only that high because I became concerned when rent control was proposed at the state level a few years ago. For comparison, the section 8 standard for a similar unit would be around 1,900. If this ordinance passes and I do not raise her rent by the maximum allowed each year, the unit will fall significantly below market by the time it becomes available again. This makes it much harder to continue offering below market rents to long-term tenants. It forces me to choose between my generous uh being generous to my tenants and protecting my own family's financial future since failing to raise rents will reduce the property's value when I eventually sell. Allowing rents to reset, even to something like the 25th percentile of comparable units upon tenant turnover, would help landlords continue providing good vent value to

tenants. At that level, it would not create an incentive for landlords to terminate leases just to raise rents, which I'm sure is part of the concern. With some kind of reset, the biggest burden of this ordinance without some kind of reset, the biggest burden of this ordinance falls on landlords who have done their best to keep their rents low.

Thank you very much. We have uh James Veto. James Veto. Uh, good evening. My name is James Vita. I live on Vernon Street here in Providence. I've lived here since I've lived um in Providence since 2012. I've lived in the same apartment since 2012. I'm on my third landlord. So, um, since 2012, my rent has increased 50% and I'm actually uh feel fairly lucky that it has. uh only increased by 50% um in close to 14 years. Uh I I'm here to speak in support of this um rent stabiliz stabilization ordinance because I think because I think that it is important to limit the rent increases that are on the table to uh for landlords so that tenants can stay in their um uh units. Um property tax increases are already regulated. um mortgage payments, mortgage agree uh uh agreements um are set for a fixed period of time and set for a uh a fixed uh interest rate. Um I think tenants should have the same um uh expectation of a manageable, predictable um uh limit to how high their rent can be increased. and the uh amendments that have been offered here um uh tonight uh I believe offer a fair compromise to landlords. But I think it is important to remember that um tenants need to be able to stay in their apartments so that uh everybody can live in Providence, not just people who um make a very high salary or who are very wealthy. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh we have Marvin Torres. And as Marvin's making his way up, uh if there's anyone sitting and hasn't signed up, please sign up now to have the ability and the chance to speak up. Uh, so Marvin Torres, Marvin Torres for the third time. Marvin Turres is not here. Uh, next person is uh, Janice. I want to say h Janice. Thank you very much, members of the council. My name is Janice Hannard. I'm a landlord in the city of Providence and I've owned property for 40 years. I'm asking you not to pass this rent stabilization ordinance because I feel it will not achieve the objective although well-meaning that it's trying to achieve. Uh the proposed amendments are also not an improvement and will make the proposed ordinance even more difficult for landlords to work with. I think at the last public hearing, the city finance director, Larry Mancini, was here who expressed his concern about the cost to the city. Landlords want to have stable, long-term tenants, and I'm afraid that this ordinance will force landlords to raise their rents 4% every year where they otherwise would not have. Um, this is going to be very disruptive to tenants, to landlords, to the community, and the city of Providence. I've been a landlord in Province for 40 years, and I do understand how this works.

Also, rent control is not need-based. If you were to take the half a million dollars or so that this will cost the city and use it for targeted rent subsidies, uh you would be able to uh target the funds to the low-income families that truly need the financial assistance. Right now, it just creates another level of bureaucracy on landlords that doesn't really add anything and it certainly doesn't add any additional housing units in the city of Providence. I myself have a historic house with wood clapboards, wood siding. I'm subject to the historic district requirements and it will cost me more to maintain my home than someone who does vinyl sighting and I'm concerned that I won't be able to maintain my home in the way it should be. So, in summary, rent control will hurt the city of Providence. As you know, the real estate taxes and the assessments are based on the rents that are collected by landlords. So, I feel this will bring down the value of property in the city of Providence. Larry Mancini said at the last public hearing that it will cost between 10 and $17 million.

I don't know where the city of Providence will be able to make up those that revenue and what will have to be given up. Thank you. Uh so, in summary, I'm asking you not to adopt this ordinance. I thank you very much for your time and I feel that the rents would be better off if they didn't have mandatory increase. Thank you.

We have uh Harry Bellu Bella Bellow Dean or Bellu and Sergeant Arms if you have another list please give me uh the list please. Thank you. Welcome. If you could please reintroduce yourself.

Thank you. My name is Harrison Bilado. I'm a property manager. Lived in Providence since uh 1969. Uh I uh Council Councelor Miller mentioned the importance of rules in a little preview that we had of the many amendments. And I I'm speaking to you counselors also of rules actually. I'm going to broaden this a little bit. I want to call your attention to the um Providence uh city charter, particularly article 8 of the charter, which is the budget. It's really of primary importance for the successful operation of the city. The first section of article 8 concerns the process of establishing the budget followed immediately by section 809 entitled reduction to balance the budget. The city charter is about a balanced budget. The charter does not call for dimmonition of investment as a means of achieving the goal of a balanced budget. Uh I see I have only 45 seconds. So all I can say is that this proposal will investment and will actually uh hurt the um people that it's supposed to be benefiting because it will in the long run lead to a reduction of tax revenue in Providence. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, we're going to have Greg Weiss. Hello, I'm Greg Weiss. Um, thank you members of the Hope Committee. Um, I'm a realtor and I've been a housing provider in Providence for over 20 years. I've carefully reviewed the ordinance and the amendments and I believe this policy ultimately will reduce our existing rental supply. The research on rent control and rent stabilization is consistent in one thing. They reduce the number of available rental units over time. Even the threat of rent control can discourage new construction. Recently, Massachusetts Governor Mora Healey noted that similar proposals have already halted housing develop developments in her state. This proposal will have a sim similar chilling effect here in Providence. The core issue we face here is not a lack of regulation. It's a lack of housing. Providence has some of the oldest housing stock in the country. Second oldest housing stock in the country. And we simply do not have enough units to meet the current demand. The most effective way to improve both affordability and housing quality is to build more housing. When supply increases, landlords must compete by lowering their rents and improving outdated units. This ordinance moves us in the opposite direction. It will make it financially difficult to invest and improve our aging housing stock, requiring housing providers to spend 15% of a property's value on improvements before qualifying for a rent increase over 4%. Many necessary upgrades like renovating kitchens or bathroom cost tens of thousands of dollars, but still will fall short of that requirement. For example, if a housing provider spends $40,000 to renovate a vacant unit, but they can raise the rent only by $50 a month, the payback period is approximately 67 years. That is simply not median financially vi viable. So the

median price for a multif family is 550,000. 15% of that is 82,000. You have to spend 82,000 and the median rent is $1,48. So, you get a $56 increase unless you spend $82,000 or more, which does not include your architectural or soft costs. It's only materials and labor per the audience. So, thank you.

One last question. Can the province afford a policy that weakens our tax base, reduce housing supply, and fail to improve affordability while shifting costs to the taxpayers and homeowners? Thank you. Chris Crutch Cret.

Hi, thank you, city council. My name is Chris Cretch. I am a small landlord and owner occupant landlord in W 3. I have uh six units for rent over three properties. I would be uh not exempt from this policy. I already testified that I have a family member who went homeless and how these policies would not rent stabilization would not benefit someone like him because the benefits would acrew to the wealthiest most qualified tenants. But I'd like to pivot to something that we haven't talked too much about so far that hasn't got much attention and that is the enforcement actions of this board. its ability to hear and adjudicate and determine uh levy fines as well as to uh interpret enforce and develop procedures and standards and also raise its own funds through the fines. So this would appear to be well beyond the any uh checks and balances from any other branch in government because the bo this city council would appoint four people to the board and the mayor would get one. Furthermore, if I were to appeal a decision because maybe I didn't feel like I h that um I was given enough attention because of, you know, the there's not enough time for the board members to hear things, I would appeal to the board itself. Conversely, as an analogy, if we funded our police department through fines on our citizens, we would think that would be pretty draconian. We probably wouldn't allow it. But in that case, at least the city council would have the ability to defund it, and the mayor would have also oversight authority, and the judiciary branch would have something to say about that, too. But in this case, there is no such oversight by any other branch of government. That is a dangerous present to set. Uh I say that as a citizen of this city. I say that as a voter in this city. And I say that as I may not know all the rules of city council, but I took uh high school civics and government. And uh division of power between the branches of governments is one of the reasons why our government has lasted this long. And uh that's all I have to say tonight. Thank you very much.

Thank you,

Anthony Thompson. My name is Anthony Thompson. Uh I live in Warwick and I'm a housing provider in Providence. Affordability is one of the most pressing problems today, but this ordinance is not the answer. We are all here because of the housing crisis that is plainly caused by inadequate supply for the demand. But the updated version of this ordinance actually worsens the climate for new development. The exemption for new construction has been cut from 15 years to 10, which is where most developers will stop reading and turn to other cities. For those few who continue, they will see two things in the 20-year exemption. They will see a city that loves its union laborers, which is by no means a bad thing. But they will also see a city that is determined to tell developers how to run their projects. A flashing warning sign that they should take an off-ramp and head to a different city as soon as possible. This ordinance is going to discourage property improvements under the 15% threshold. And it will also discourage larger projects because no owner will want to spend such large sums of money with the ability to get a return on such investments in the hands of a board that they have no control over. They will simply not do such projects at all. Some will say that this is about preventing landlords and developers from making profits on the backs of tenants. But I'm here to tell you landlords and housing providers do not actually want to see rents increase forever. We also want to see rents come down and to an equilibrium that lets tenants comfortably afford rent while also letting property owners get fair compensation for the risks and effort involved in owning and maintaining properties, but we want to see that done the right way by increasing the housing supply. Unfortunately, this ordinance does the opposite and still discourages new housing development. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot suppress rents and the income that property owners receive and thus the sale price that developers get, yet also expect those developers to act like nothing changed. Economic price controls of anything do not work. When the government comes into a market and suppresses the price of something, it removes the incentive for new actors to bring new supply into that market. Economics 101. If you enact this ordinance that will reduce the income

from multif family properties and suppress the price developers get, you will watch the same thing happen in Providence that happened in other areas that adopted rent control. Little to no new housing will be created. Our existing housing will start to decay and there will be long waiting lines to the remaining housing stock that almost never has a vacancy. Far from helping the causing crisis, this ordinance will only make it worse. Thank you. Thank you very much, Angelo. Angelo. Angelo. Sorry, I can't read your handwriting, brother. That's okay. Thank you for having me again. My name is Angelo Capsales. I'm a small Capsimal. Caps.

K S I M A L I S. I'm a small landlord here in uh Providence. Uh I'm also a member of the coalition of uh housing providers. I'm here to oppose this bill and obviously oppose the amendments. The amendments seem to be going even further the wrong direction and uh we oppose the whole thing of the rent control and uh rent stabilization. Uh like various other members said earlier, you know, this is a this is a policy that doesn't work. It hasn't worked and it's a failed policy. You know, we want to make sure that we come up with solutions. based on facts, based on studies, based on numbers, based on reality and not just basically based on hopes, feelings and assumptions. You know, uh, you know, rent stabilization is a policy that discourages obviously development and also it discourages people from coming to Providence and want to invest in Providence, you know, or start new construction, new buildings in Providence. Who's going to want to come here and buy a rentstabilized apartments? You know, nobody wants the government to become so much in their business. Tell them what to do, how to do it, when to do it. Ask them for permission. Show them slips. Show them receipts. You know, show them, you know, that you spend over 80, 90, $100,000 on a property to be able to be considered for a raise. That would be up to a bureaucratic board, you know. And I also want to remind you, you know, earlier this last last year, uh, you know, the city of province had to get permission from the state house and also the senate to raise the taxes up to 8%. you remember and I unfortunately I remember too my my taxes went skyhigh and and it's very unfortunate that you know we have to balance the budget instead of pointing the finger to the landlords for the for the rents getting high you know when the the city of province cannot balance their own

budget. So again say no to rent control say no to rent stabilization. Thank you. Yes to housing. Thank you. Thank you. Sam Levy.

Good evening. My name is Sam Levy and I had a whole bunch of things uh that I was going to say about, but bottom line is uh I belong to Rhode Island uh uh coalition of housing providers. I've been a landlord in Providence since 1972. And this is only going to hurt tenants in general. Uh and it will reduce the amount of housing uh that's available. And I uh think that you know if people want to control the the cost of housing, they uh they think housing is a right. It's also a right to have something to eat. But I don't hear anybody saying anything about Stop and Shop or Shaws or anybody else saying here's free food or you cannot raise the the price of bananas more than 4% or eggs or whatever. Uh if if this is going to be back into the control days of the 1930s uh with foods with stamps for anything and everything, you know, how about gasoline? Um, we need more housing and we need uh rules and regulations that going to make it so that we can have more housing instead of less housing. I think a 4% cap will guarantee everybody raising the rents 4% every single year, no matter what. Uh, takes away the ability to of somebody to choose their tenant. Uh, the the I'm I'm retired. My rents are my income. Uh, this is my job. Uh, and bottom line is, you know, we just need more housing and not games. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Kate Shapiro. Kate,

thank you to the council and the members of the committee. My name is Kate Shapi. I live at Fort Brighton Street in Providence. Uh we've heard a lot um throughout these many hearings about why rent stabilization is needed for the people of Providence. We've also heard many of the things that people who live and work in Providence are afraid of from rent stabilization. And so I want to try something a little different rather than repeating some of the things that you have heard. Uh I'm going to ask all of you uh on the committee and on the council and other people who are present at the hearing can do this if they want. I just want you to think about your day if rent stabilization passes. What is your day like? What is the day a day in your life like if this passes a regular day? I just want you to think about that for 20 seconds. Picture your day. Don't talk. Just think. Really imagine it. Who are you talking to? What are they saying? What are you worried about? What relief do you have?

That's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, uh Jeremy Costa. I wasn't expecting to come up after that. But anyways, I I I want you guys to understand what what you know. By the way, my name is Jeremy for the council that doesn't know me. Um I'm usually on the other side of the fence here and I know that a lot of you are kind of like holding your breath like what is he going to say? So I just I had to take a moment real quick and I don't want to take up much time. I have three important issues. Number one, the people that are coming up here testifying are from organizations that benefit from labor unions. Number two, the people that have spoken here are not actually subjugated to the rent stabilization ordinance. They most likely live in section 8 housing. This is true. This is true. Number three, this is important one. The people that have wrote this ordinance and you will see 74 verse Pinehurst verse New York City. You will see this because I've been speaking to the attorneys. You will see this. The people that are dealing with this that have authored this case to you. rent reclaim. They are also in a lawsuit with the cannabis industry. The cannabis industry was supposed to fund this housing instability in these areas that are

Where's the money? Reclaim has tied up opportunity, economic opportunity for these people that are living in these houses that are dealing with these issues. I'm going to do the research and I'm going to make sure it's sitting on your desk. I hope you guys are ready to forward all your emails because the investigation begins. Thank you, Greel. Grizzel Clemenson.

Welcome. Good evening. My name is Gel Clementson, War Three, and I'm here in support of rent stabilization. It is rent stabilization, not rent control. So, why don't you continue speak directly to the research? Bring down the mic a little bit. Yes. While you all continue to do the research, thank you.

Um, we're going to talk about rent stabilization, um, which is an ordinance that allows reasonable annual increase around 4%. One moment. And while we're hidden hearing here about solutions to build more housing, it does nothing to support families who who are struggling right now. People cannot wait years for relief while rents keep rising every single month. In Providence, at least one in every four residents is elderly or living with a disability, meaning housing stability is isn't optional. It's essential. Right now, too many families are one rent increase away from losing their homes. And yet, instead of immediate protections, we are being offered long-term promises. That is not a solution. That is a delay. And this is not rent control. This is not what Cambridge was offering where um the landlords had to couldn't wait for rents to reset and tenants had to leave. That is not what Providence is offering today. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have uh Siraj sindu Sidat. All right he's here. All right. Welcome.

Thank you. Uh thank you for having me. Appreciate your time. Um my name is Siraj Synindu. I live in the West End uh in Ward 13. Um I support this ordinance and I support these uh amendments. I'm also the executive director of Reclaim RARI. Our members, our hundreds of members support this ordinance and these amendments. Um I want to thank the president prom for reminding us all to say where we live. Uh, I also want to observe that many of those speaking in opposition have been quick to tell us where in Providence they own property and where in Providence they manage property, but have been silent on the question of where they themselves live. Um, I think this is important because it reveals something that's going on here, which is many of those speaking in opposition don't live here in Providence. They they don't live here. They don't vote here. Uh, but they own our homes and they are building wealth off of our backs. so that they can go on raking it in and buying more and even bigger homes in the suburbs or in South County or in other states. And I want to point out that uh of the pieces of testimony that the city council received in opposition uh many of them uh perhaps even the majority of them uh did not come from Providence residents. Um I would I would personally like to see a I would like to see the city council release um where those uh testimonies actually came from. But those of us who live here in Providence know the truth. We know we need rent stabilization. We know this ordinance will provide us the stability and predictability that we need. We know we need it because of the affordability crisis and the housing crisis and also because of the inequality crisis in our city. Uh some of us have to rent and we bleed money every month so that our landlords can build equity and build wealth and those landlords can charge whatever they want. We are supposed to be a society of checks and balances, but the landlord tenant relationship is unchecked and imbalanced.

The landlord has all the power and builds all the wealth while the tenant is on a hamster wheel of just surviving and not building wealth. This ordinance this ordinance provides a really necessary corrective means-ested rental assistance programs and tax incentives may help in the short term, but they do nothing to address this deep inequality. I want to thank the council for putting forward this ordinance that does take us meaningfully forward towards addressing this inequality. Thank you. Thank you. Maybe uh Barter May Barter. Here we go. Welcome.

Thank you so kindly. Hello. I go by Mayb Boucher and while I live inside my heart, I lay my head down on the south side in W 11. I'm an I'm an artist and resident of Providence for the better part of a decade decade and barely represent myself. I've moved every year of my adult life. I have experienced houselessness and I'm in favor of this ordinance. I ask only to listen to the fears in the room. rent control represented by landlords and property managers with potentially thousands of units. I am afraid of rent increases. I don't have the benefit of algorithms and consultants to advise me, but I do know this cannot go on. Recent studies have found there is no affordable housing for minimum wage anywhere left in the state, let alone our capital. My father taught me arithmetic and asked me why I didn't commute to Boston for better opportunities. I asked what he thought cost was or or what it was when he did. He said $40 a month. I asked what he thought it was. He said 200 a month. I told him it was 400. He seemed shocked. I asked how much of an increase of that and he taught me a he taught me arithmetic. So I knew he knew a,000%. He threw up his hands. He said, "Well, that was the 70s, honey." I asked him how much his wages had gone up since the 70s. Rent has increased some 70% since the pandemic. How much have wages? 4% is too little at this point. Rent stabilization would be lifesaving. Rent control, what has been pointed to as a pain and a fear point, would be lifegiving. This ordinance is the compromise. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, David Barkin. Is David Barkin here? Uh, Baskin. There you go.

Hi, thank you. My name is David Baskin and I am u an immigrant that came here in 1979. I've also invested in Rhode Island for the past 30 years. We started with small units and then we added others as well throughout the years and then we continued to upgrade all of these, you know, two family, three family units and so on for the past 30 years. I just want to give you a couple of facts. Somebody already mentioned Mora Healey, but I'll give you a bit of background. Mass Massachusetts 1970 through 1994 had rent control, rent stabilization, whatever you want to call it, it's the same thing. and the values depressed by 45%. That means tax tax revenue dep decreased by 45%. In 1994, it was repealed. Tax revenue went back up by over 45%. Mora Healey yesterday, a Democrat governor of Massachusetts, spoke about rent control. She said that rent control is never the answer. She said, "Investors have already stopped planning for investment into the state until clarity of this issue is available." I am one of those developers, and I will tell you that I will not invest another penny into the city of Providence if this passes, and I've been here for a long time. I also want to let you know that the properties we own, we don't raise rent every year, but we will have to. The reason why we will have to raise rent every year is because you're not providing us any kind of cost stabilization. Cost stabilization includes taxes, maintenance, utilities, trash, wages, construction materials, and permits. All of which you're not going to going to stabilize for us. I also just heard a a speaker just put out numbers and I hear numbers from the council and other places and I want to

just clarify that those numbers have no backing. I'd rather if anybody puts numbers out like I just did, there's research and there's backing behind those numbers. And if you put out numbers like the speaker just did and just kind of work on emotions, you're going to pass a law that will be faulty. Don't do that.

Thank you. Next we have Samantha Cody. Samantha is Samantha Cody. Yeah. How about Hopper Ken? Hello. Thank you. Um my name is Harper. I live in war 13. What does it mean for rent stabilization to not work? The risk seems to be that investors won't make enough money to want to keep building and owning and then everything will get worse. No new construction, no upkeep, a general abandonment of the city. Are owners really on such thin ice financially? If so, why not take that money and invest in the stock market and get 8 to 12%. Real estate investors make money from three sources. The first is rental income minus expenses. This can vary a lot and can even be negative on a bad year. The second is mortgage principal payown. Again, this can be modest, though of course this is the part where somebody else is buying your house for you. The third is appreciation, the increase in the property's value. Over the last decade, property values in Providence have increased an average of about 10% per year. On a $500,000 building, that's $50,000 per year in increased wealth. to buy the $500,000 building. The investor likely put down 20% or $100,000. Even if cash flow was zero, this would still mean making $50,000 on a h 100,000 investment, a 50% return. I would love to see actual profit and loss statements. I appreciate that owners can't pay bills with unrealized equity and that they need cash flow. If the math doesn't work, show us. But it seems that unavoidably what has been a period of record hardship for renters has been a period of record earnings for landlords. And respectfully, being a

landlord isn't that hard, or not hard compared to regular jobs. You can be a landlord on top of another job. A nurse can't do that. A teacher can't do that. A 4% cap would reduce landlord returns from extraordinary to merely excellent. One side is operating from a position that can't compromise, that treats any limitation on profit as theft. How do you argue with that? When is enough enough? Right now, one side gets everything and the other gets nothing. Rent stabilization asks, "What if both sides got something?" Thank you. Thank you, Robert Kugan. Robert Kugan. Yes.

Thank you. My name is Robert Couan. A little bit about me. I'm a veteran and uh at 28 years old, I was broken every way, physically, mentally, financially. Can you just uh speak into the mic, please? Sure. That way, that would be great.

I was broken every way at 28 being a veteran, alcohol, drugs. I got sober at the VA. And uh for the last 32 and a half years, I've been sober, but I had nothing either, just like some of the people maybe on the other side. Um, and thank God I, you know, I took risk. I set goals. I brought my first three tenement with about 18 months sober. And I was a single father with three daughters. Then five months later, I brought a single family because I didn't want my daughters to be living with the tenants that I had there. And I wanted a better life for them. I don't recommend that. That was a lot of blood, sweat, and fears. I turned my three tent into a men's sober house. I named it the William J. Kugan House. I work with the courts in the prison. I named it after my brother Billy who was 19 years old and hung himself. Drugs, depression. I did it for seven and a half years helping drug addicts and alcoholics. But then my heart got hard. It was always about them. Being self-employed, I always had to pay highest interest rates for mortgages and refies because I was self-employed and they told me I didn't have a standard income. So, I fought through all that stuff. I had some professional tenants playing games and experts on stretching the truth and the rules, which due to their all their acting skills, I could lose almost everything running so tight financially. I had one recently who brought brought a pit bull into my rental property. Said it was a emergency uh emotional support animal. She left it caged and she left her under two-year-old son on a Sunday night by itself with that dog. And my tenants were complaining to me and she was leaving dog all over the place. They get free lawyers. We don't. We have to pay for everything. We have to pay your fees, your taxes, your rate, your

your increases, all kinds of licenses all the time for whatever we do professionally. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Can I two more minutes? No, you can't. Sorry. I'm dumbfounded that you guys can't control your own stuff, but you want to control us. Thank you very much. Michael uh Greco was a Greek Sergeant-at-Arms, do you have any more list? Welcome, Michael.

Hello, my name is Michael Greco and I buy and repair dangerous and neglected buildings and I make them safe. I produce low-income housing. I rent the section 8. And not that long ago, I was on a project like this. And if a bill like this had passed, I would have lost my entire life savings. I needed to raise rents to pay the mortgage. I bought something in which there had been an unwritten rule that they would never raise rents if the landlords if the tenants never complained. I was afraid that a tenants's bathtub was going to fall through the floor into the basement and kill them. And I had to ask them to move out so that I could deal with it. If this had passed, I would have lost everything. This this was my 401k. I'm not a big fan of the stock market. this is how I was saving. Additionally, most of the money, in fact, all of the money over the last three years related to this project has gone back into the laborers, all of which were immigrant laborers. I'm drastically concerned with what this lack of investment, which will be the result of this, will do to the immigrant community. I think that in the end the only people who would be able to afford to invest in this community will be people who well big companies because they can knock down the buildings and build what they want there. You're going to force mediumsized landlords like me to sell to large corporations. There's a lot of unintended consequences here. This bill is dangerous. Lastly, I heard somebody say a little bit ago that our our um costs are fixed. A five-unit building is not fixed. It goes variable. It's a commercial loan. I can't lock a five-unit building for 30 years. Every 5 years, it resets. Our economy is in a very strange place. If interest rates go up, if this gets jacked up and something like this is in

place, people like me will lose our buildings. We'll lose our life savings. Thank you. Thank you. Sign it on to anyone else has signed up. Has anyone else uh hasn't spoken yet? Come on up. And this will be the conclusion of public comment after this gentleman. Um and uh then welcome. Please state your name. And uh Hello. Hi, Danny Vajjo. This time Sorry, say that slower. Danny Bajjo. Danny Bajjo.

I said that really American last time, so you said it more Hispanic and I was like, "Ah, anyways, welcome, Danny." All right, you got two minutes.

It's going to sound very similar to my other one, but it's a reminder. So, good evening, council me president and members of the council. My name is Daniel Vajjo. I'm my real estate office operates here in Providence. I'm a firefighter serving this community, a housing provider, and the father of a now four-month-old son at home. I stood for you. I stood before you months ago and respectfully opposed this ordinance. I stand here again today, even after these amendments, with the same concern. The core issue has not changed. Before I continue, I will say this and read this loudly, the scripture again. Galatians 6:9:10 says, "Let us not grow weary in doing good. As we have opportunity, let us do good to everybody." You guys are hearing a lot of people, different sides, different oppositions, for against I commend you for that, number one. But don't become tired. Don't give in to all these lies that are being told to you. That is not about short-term emotion. That is about long-term responsibility. Providence residents are under pressure. We all see that. But this ordinance, even as amended, does not solve the problem. It does not create housing. It adds control, adds bureaucracy, and continue shifting power away from the people who actually build, maintain, and provide housing. And I want to be clear about something. Landlords, property owners do not hold all the power. Many are small operators, families, people trying to provide housing while carrying rising costs, regulations, and risk. This ordinance continues a trend of imbalance that will push those people out. When that happens, supply shrinks. And when supply shrinks, the people hurt the first are the very residents that this is meant to protect. Scripture warns us in 2 Timothy 4:3 about a time when people will gather voices that tell them what they want to

hear rather than what is true. And in Galatians 6:7, we are reminded, "A man reaps what he sws. If he s policies that restrict growth, discourage investment, and ignore economic reality, we'll reap deeper housing instability. This is not about politics for me. This is not about ideology, but I will say this plainly. Policies rooted in control rather than creation and restriction and responsibility move us in the wrong direction. Do not build strong communities. I'm going to finish real quick. I apologize for taking a little bit more time. As a firefighter, I serve people whether they live on the street or not. Because community is not just where you sleep. It's who you're responsible for. As a father, I'm thinking about legacy. Not just my son, but generations that come after him. The families being formed today, the women, the mothers raising children, the men, the fathers working, sacrifice, trying to build something stable. Genesis tells us that we are called to work and take the ground care of it to build, cultivate, and lead something better. That is lordship.

All right, my brothers, keeping I thank you all. Thank you. That concludes the testimony for today. Members of the committee, um, do we have any comments or before we uh before I entertain this a motion to continue? Okay. Are there any comments? Uh, seeing none. Um, Councilwoman President Miller,

uh, I want to thank everyone who came to testify tonight. There's just two things that I heard repeated and I also see in my email and a forum email repeated many times that are untrue and I just thought it would be a shame to let tonight end without clarifying them. The first is that of course this ordinance does not regulate section 8 housing. It never did. There's a section uh by request of low-income providers where we spell out all of the programs. This ordinance does not relegate. Section 8 being one of them. So, the original ordinance didn't either, but uh by request we spelled it out. Uh number two, and this one um is really worth understanding. So, we talked tonight about an amendment that uh when you have made substantial rehabilitation, you can uh kind of reset from uh what was previously what the previous rental price was. And that is true. That is called rent uh vacancy deontrol. That is not the only path to provide relief of the 4%. So, and it's very clearly spelled out in the ordinance, but again, in many form emails in my inbox, this is wrong. And I heard it a couple of times tonight. Uh, people who own property absolutely can come before the board with uh cost in hand, with plans in hand for any project um and and seek to change uh rent in addition to 4%. So, those are two separate cases. One of them you get to decouple from what the cost of rent was in the apartment previously. The other one um you have a bigger project than you thought was going to happen relative to maintenance, relative to lead mitigation, relative to mold for example and you come before the board uh on a regular year and you uh get the exemption. So just just pointing out two things that have been repeated now many many times in my inbox and a

couple times tonight. Thank you so much. Thank you. Uh, any further questions from the committee? Councilman Royes.

Thank you, G. I just also wanted to just make a public comment. I keep hearing this. Um, I have a lot of respect for members of the administration, but it's really important uh to publicly mention this and I just feel compelled to. when they were providing the back and forth over essentially the council's fiscal note and the administration's fiscal note, the the the gentleman uh who provided the fiscal note to the council, he provided his methodology and assumptions um in terms of his analysis. the administration said that they had come to uh that you know they throw you hear a lot of the $10 million um number they the administration did not elaborate on their models their methodology assumptions um and so I just that's really important one side provide a clear methodology and uh was transparent about the assumptions they baked into the analysis the other side did not include that and so I hope in the coming days we'll get that but at this moment uh that was not provided and I think it's important to note.

Thank you very much. Uh any other comments, questions, clarific excuse me ma'am. Uh public comment is is already seized. Uh any other comments or questions from the committee? Um just have a one for uh the sponsor. Uh can you there was a a comment in reference that in one of the amendments was that uh it was changed from a three unit to a four unit and and if does that can you just expand on that please?

I might ask uh staff to jump in. There is a specific regulations related to housing uh subsidy programs in the state that talk about four units also our um tax roles and so I don't know if June or Aaron can tag in. Thank you. Uh June or Aaron?

Sure. Um yeah, this expansion came from feedback um from Rhode Island Housing. um they uh asked us to uh to make this change to align the ordinance uh with federal mortgage standards uh that are used by the programs that they administer. Um those programs treat owner occupied properties with up to four units uh as small residential properties eligible for firsttime home buyer financing. So that's why we made that change.

Thank you. Aaron, you good? All right. Thank you very much. Any further questions, clarification? Um, I'd like to entertain a a couple of motions. The first one is uh to accept the written testimony that has been provided to us. Is there a motion? The motion has been made by Councilwoman Shelley Peterson. Second by uh Councilman uh Sanchez. All those in favor? Any obstension? DA's have it. Second motion is a motion to continue. And the motion has been made by Councilwoman uh Peterson, second by Councilwoman uh Councilman uh Sanchez. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor? Any abstension? The have it? Meaning adjourn. Thank you very much. We just we just voted. Motion. Is there a motion to adjourn?

So move. Motion has been made by uh Councilman Roya, seconded by Councilwoman uh Sue Anda. All those in favor? The A's have it. Meeting adjourned.