Jackson backs 2.5% mobile home rent cap despite landlord litigation warning
Jackson, NJ – The Jackson Township council voted to adopt a revised mobile home rent control ordinance after a tense public hearing that pitted landlords and their attorneys against residents, rent board officials, and council members who said stronger local protections are needed for seniors and other residents living on fixed incomes. The measure keeps local oversight in place and sets a 2.5% annual cap, below the new 3.5% statewide standard that took effect March 1.
The debate stretched deep into the council meeting and centered on whether Jackson should defer to New Jersey’s new manufactured housing rent law or continue regulating rent increases locally through its own rent leveling board. Landlord representatives urged the township to table the ordinance, warning the proposal was procedurally flawed, economically unsound, and likely to trigger litigation.
Residents and township officials countered that local control remains critical in a community where many mobile home residents are elderly, disabled, or financially strained.
Attorney Lori Greenberg, appearing on behalf of landlords from all eight of Jackson’s mobile home parks, told council members the township was moving ahead unnecessarily now that the state has already imposed a cap and created an administrative framework through the Department of Community Affairs.
“As a result, there’s no emergency here,” Greenberg said. “Our members, most of our parks have already come in for their 3.5% increase, which starts April 1st. So there’s no emergency to do this.”
Greenberg said landlords had expected to be included in the drafting of any township changes after prior discussions with the rent board, but were shut out. “They did not. There was no meeting,” she said. “I’ve met with this town over the last 35 years. We’ve crafted and avoided litigation by modifying the ordinance. But this time you have a tenant rent board member who wrote this change and we oppose it.”
Key Points
- Jackson approved a local mobile home rent ordinance with a 2.5% annual cap
- Landlord representatives warned the ordinance could trigger litigation and conflict with the new state framework
- Council members said local oversight is needed to protect seniors and residents on fixed incomes
Landlords say ordinance is flawed and invites a court fight
Greenberg repeatedly urged the council to table the measure and negotiate instead of adopting a stricter local standard than the state’s newly enacted law. She argued the township had no documented basis for choosing 2.5%.
“Now, the CPI for the last 10 years, and it’s in this packet, is over 3.5%. There’s no basis for doing 2.5%,” Greenberg said. “I have sent an OPRA request to the town saying, ‘Where’d you get this number from?’ They said they don’t have anything.”
She warned the lower cap would “depress property values, impair maintenance and capital investment, force hardship applications, increase tax appeals, and predictably result in litigation.” While making clear she did not want to sue, Greenberg said that may be where the matter ends up if the ordinance stands. “We don’t want to litigate. I want to negotiate. I want to work with you,” she said. “Instead, I hear you say, ‘I’ll see you in court.’”
Among the other concerns she raised were what she described as excessive penalties, due process issues, and vacancy decontrol problems that could leave major rent disparities between neighbors in similar homes. Greenberg said some residents are paying a few hundred dollars a month while others are paying around $1,000, and argued the township’s approach would only deepen those inequities over time.
Mary Beth Park, representing the New Jersey Manufactured Housing Association, also urged the township to step aside in favor of the state framework.
“I believe local rent control and the ordinance have become obsolete and should be deferred to the state,” Park said. She argued that maintaining a second layer of local administration only creates more cost and confusion while the state already has a funded system in place.
She said the proposed 2.5% cap appeared “arbitrary and unsupported by economic reality” and asked what economic or financial studies supported it. He also criticized the drafting process, saying landlords were excluded while a tenant advocate and rent board chairman played a major role.
Greenberg accused Rent Leveling Board Chairman Joseph Sullivan of using his influence with the Jackson Township Council for the personal benefit of himself and his brother who are also tenants in a mobile home park represented by Greenberg.
Rent board chairman pushes back, says ordinance was years in the making
Joseph Sullivan, chairman of Jackson’s rent leveling board, directly rebutted claims that the ordinance was hastily drafted by one tenant with a personal agenda. “I’m the boogeyman that was just mentioned before,” Sullivan said. He told council members he had sent Greenberg a draft proposal on January 23 and specifically asked her to share her thoughts. “I personally reached out to Miss Greenberg and asked for her advice and got nothing,” he said.
Sullivan said the ordinance “did not happen overnight” and that many of its provisions date back four years to work done by a committee that included himself, former rent board member Gary Miller, and Diane DiCapa, a former manager at Jackson Acres. “Majority of this ordinance came out of that committee,” he said.
He also rejected the claim that the 2.5% figure was arbitrary. “If you take the average rent increase in manufactured home parks in Jackson Township over the last 30 years, it is 2.5%,” Sullivan said. “Run the number over 20 years, 2.5%. There seems to be a pattern there and a reason why this number was picked and chosen.”
Sullivan argued the real issue was not whether 2.5% or 3.5% is more appropriate, but whether landlords want to eliminate local oversight altogether. “They do not want a local rent control board. They do not want local oversight,” he said. “They don’t want to have a place for the tenants to come locally and share some of the disgusting things we have seen in conditions in certain parks and apartments in this township.”
He told council members that even if Jackson had simply adopted a 3.5% local cap matching the state law, landlords would still be fighting it. “They would still be suing you,” Sullivan said. “Why? They do not want local control.”
Residents describe hardship, deferred maintenance, and fixed-income strain
Several residents and community advocates spoke in support of the 2.5% cap, describing what they said are worsening financial conditions for mobile home residents and inadequate maintenance in some parks.
Sherry Williams, president of the Fountainhead Homeowners Association, said a 3.5% cap “would be absurd” given that many residents are seniors on fixed incomes. “They can’t go out and get a second job,” Williams said. “I couldn’t even tell you how many people I know from my park that have had to get part-time jobs at Dollar Tree because the Social Security raises not keeping up.”
Williams described a range of quality-of-life and maintenance issues in Fountainhead, including potholes, tree removal delays, crumbling curbs, standing water, uneven grading, and erosion problems along the Metedeconk tributary. “There’s just so much in there that is not being maintained,” she said, adding that new homes are being brought into the park while “no improvements have been made to the quality of life of the people that are living there.”
Carlos Martins, a Jackson resident who said he has many friends living in mobile housing communities, told council members 2.5% was “more than adequate,” especially considering the level of service some residents say they are not receiving. “You just drive around there, you could see that the complexes are not maintaining and doing what they’re supposed to do as it is,” Martins said.
Deb Jones, another Jackson resident, said she did not personally have “skin in this game” but questioned why the township should surrender authority if it believes it can better respond to local residents. “We need to be more concerned about what our residents want and not what the state wants,” Jones said
Council unites behind local control
When it came time to vote, council members from across the dais framed the ordinance as both an affordability measure and a defense of local control.
A council member said the ordinance was “not intended to help out a brother” or benefit one insider, but to protect all residents living in Jackson’s manufactured housing communities, “particularly senior citizens who live on fixed incomes.”
Another council member said he had seen firsthand how difficult cases before the rent board can be and argued some landlords “do not carry out what they should be carrying out.” He added, “If we can take control of it and not have the state run it, I am much in favor of that.”
Councilman Chris Pollak said the town is changing and that local officials should act to keep longtime residents in place.
“These people, they’re kind of the heart of Jackson,” Pollak said. “These are the people I want to stay here. We want to keep it affordable enough for them to stay in this town.”
Council Vice President Giuseppe Palmeri said he had visited every manufactured home community in town over the last two years and had spoken with many residents. “Many of them are seniors. Many of them are veterans,” Palmeri said. “This is just basic quality of life without the fear of becoming homeless.”
Council President Mordechai Burnstein addressed one of the hearing’s central flashpoints by defending Sullivan while insisting the ordinance belongs to the governing body, not one resident or board member. “Mr. Sullivan does not dictate what gets put on this agenda,” Burnstein said. “I think council is going to own this ordinance and we’re not going to allow Mr. Sullivan to get all the credit for this ordinance.”
Burnstein said he had consulted with the township’s legal team throughout the process and was confident in the ordinance before voting yes. The measure then passed, setting up a likely continued clash between Jackson officials determined to preserve local oversight and landlord representatives who say the township is inviting a legal battle it does not need.