‘Good cause’ again takes center stage in Albany. How would Syracuse-area representatives vote on it?

Onondaga County’s delegation in the New York State Legislature is split on “good cause” eviction legislation that has been a focal point of state budget talks in the last two years.

Some tenets of the bill, which would protect tenants from unjust eviction, are expected by lawmakers and advocates to make it onto the senate and assembly’s budget proposals.

Tenant advocates and lawmakers who support the bill say it could be vital to stemming the growing number of evictions in the state. In Syracuse, the number of evictions granted to landlords grew about 35% from 2022 to 2023, court records show. City court judges this year have signed off on 470 eviction warrants.

The budgets proposed by the New York State Assembly and Senate included vague gestures toward “good cause”-like protections for tenants. The state legislature aims to vote on the budget by April 1. 

Among Onondaga County’s delegation, Sen. Rachel May and Assemblywoman Pam Hunter said they’d support “good cause” eviction legislation. Hunter added she’d like the Assembly to have a broader conversation about the bill before passing the legislation.

Assemblymen Bill Magnarelli and Al Stirpe both said they’d vote no on “good cause” as it’s written but would support other tenant protections. New York State Sen. John Mannion, who is also running for the Congressional seat covering Syracuse, declined through a spokesperson to be interviewed about “good cause.” David Doyle, the spokesman, said in a statement that the state should address housing issues by increasing housing supply. 

Tenants rights advocates have pushed for the state legislature to codify “good cause,” a set of tenant protections that would require landlords to have a reason to evict tenants, for the past five years. 

“A lot of New Yorkers are facing discriminatory evictions, or as neighborhoods gentrify and our housing supply crunch continues, landlords are jacking up the rents,” said Cea Weaver, a longtime supporter of tenants rights and the campaign coordinator at Housing Justice for All, a tenant advocacy group. “New Yorkers basically have no protections against losing their homes overnight, and that’s why we need to see tenants rights expanded.”

What is ‘good cause?’

Assemblywoman Hunter and Senator Julia Salazar, of Brooklyn, originally proposed “good cause” in 2019. The original bill would’ve allowed tenants to challenge in court evictions levied by landlords without a “good cause.”

A judge would rule on the validity of the eviction. 

Under the proposal, tenants could also challenge in court rent hikes greater than 3% of their original rent or 1.5 times the rate of inflation. Challenges would be based on whichever number is higher. A judge would get to decide whether the increase is necessary or reasonable. 

The protections only apply to structures with more than four housing units or ones that are not owner occupied. 

For advocates, the bill would be a huge boon toward providing housing stability to tenants. They argue the protections in the bill are instrumental in keeping tenants in their homes as evictions continue to rise. 

“The first step to start solving this crisis is to keep people in the homes they live in.” Weaver said. 

Passing “good cause,” advocates argue, is also urgent due to meteoric rises in costs of living in areas like Central New York. An analysis of U.S. Census data compiled by Housing Justice for All suggests 46% of renters spend more than a third of their income on rent.

A recent study of rent trends found that the cost of renting a one-bedroom apartment in Syracuse increased about 22% last year, the largest one-year change in the country.

“The private market really isn’t working to produce housing that people can afford,” Weaver said.

---

Onondaga County’s state delegation on ‘good cause’ protections

---

Why Stirpe and Magnarelli oppose ‘good cause’

Magnarelli and Stirpe would vote no on a legislative housing package if “good cause” is part of the negotiations, they said. They believe “good cause” would scare off developers who might build more housing, they said. 

“Even using the terminology ‘good cause,’ even if you completely turned it inside out, developers would just freak out,” Stirpe said. “They’re already saying ‘if you do this, we’re not going to build anything,’ and that is the worst thing that could happen. We need more housing.”

Developers worry about the proposed provision that tenants could challenge rent increases in court, Magnarelli said. They believe it would prevent them from adequately taking care of properties, he said. 

Magnarelli has at times termed this provision rent control. However, the bill does not institute what is commonly known in other cities as rent control. 

Under “good cause,” tenants facing an eviction could challenge in court rent increases larger than 3% or 1.5 times the rate of inflation — whichever number is higher. Like other protections included in “good cause” legislation, the determination would be subject to judicial discretion.

Rent control, which is governed by rules set by the state’s Homes and Community Renewal agency, is executed by local boards that study local market conditions and determine a percentage cap on rent increases. Municipalities can opt into rent control through the emergency tenant protections act, a separate bill, but they first have to commission a vacancy study to determine eligibility. 

May said she does not see the bill as a backdoor way of instituting rent control, but instead as a tool to guard tenants against unreasonable rent increases.

“I feel I’m a progressive guy, but this bill just doesn’t work,” Magnarelli said. “It will stop us, it will hold people back from investing in new housing. Developers are not going to get into this field if they think that rents are going to be constrained moving forward.”

Are legislators headed toward a compromise?

All four legislators believe some form of tenant protections need to make it into the eventual budget, they said. 

They support mandating a right to counsel for tenants who appear in landlord-tenant court for an eviction case. Both budgets include a proposal for right to counsel.

May is the main sponsor of a bill in the state senate that would create a New York State Office of Civil Representation. The office would provide legal counsel to individuals facing eviction cases. Advocates and legislators say right to counsel could cost the state $260 million.

May believes expanding tenants rights will be a critical component of an eventual housing package, even if “good cause” does not pass. 

“The (housing) crisis has gotten worse in the last year,” she said. “I’m hearing people saying things that they were not saying last year, about how important it is both to keep people in their homes or to make sure there are homes where people can go to who don’t have homes now. I think there is more openness to coming to an agreement about at least something.”

Hunter said in the Assembly there hasn’t been a comprehensive enough conversation on “good cause.” Lawmakers have not conferenced “good cause” nor have they negotiated about it publicly, she said.  

Hunter, who represents a large swath of Syracuse, said the bill needs to evolve beyond its 2019 introduction. She would support a housing package that includes “good cause,” but is open to entertaining a higher percentage cap than the 3% found in the current version of “good cause.”

“I am not insensitive to what landlords have to pay; property tax increases, the price for maintenance, etc. That’s not lost on me,” Hunter said. 

She also believes courts are not currently prepared to handle challenges to rents. Hunter believes those challenges would take months, much longer than they’d need to be settled. 

So far, local landlords, developers, and advocates have not agreed on what changes would make the bill more palatable to compromise, Hunter said.

“Give me something so that we can start a dialogue,” she said. “It has always been ‘no.’ There has never ever been a conversation from either side about what one is willing to negotiate. It’s not that simple to just change words around in this piece of legislation to make it palatable for it to be able to move out the door. Without having a broader conversation, this bill can’t stand on its own.”

Where are we now?

Housing advocates are cautiously optimistic about the inclusion of “good cause”-type protections in the one house budget proposals.

“I’m cautiously optimistic, but pretty nervous,” said Cea Weaver, the campaign coordinator for Housing Justice For All. Weaver noted that the one house proposals are too vague at this point.

“The policy details really matter and we just don’t have those yet,” she said.

The assembly’s budget proposal, released last week, cites the inclusion of “statewide policies that protect tenants from arbitrary and capricious rent increases and unreasonable evictions of paying tenants.” The state senate’s indicates lawmakers would support tenant protections that align with the “core principles of good cause.”

Reports from NY1 and HellGate NYC indicate the senate and assembly budget proposals lack clear direction on what tenets of good cause will make it in because members of both houses are still negotiating.

Advocates worry about reports from Albany insiders and downstate legislators that indicate legislators could change language in “good cause” to allow municipalities to opt into the bill. A report from City & State recently indicated some legislators are treating the opt-in version of “good cause” as a baseline for negotiations.

Housing Justice for All estimates that 62% of renters in Auburn and Syracuse, CNY’s two biggest population centers, would be denied “good cause” protections if legislators choose the opt-in model. That’s about 65,000 households.

A group of tenants and advocacy organizations from all around New York, which included the Syracuse Tenants Union and the Syracuse Tenants Organizing for Power (STOP!) Coalition, quickly mobilized and drafted a letter in February calling on legislators to pass “good cause” statewide.

An opt-in requirement could hurt tenants in rural areas at the highest rate, Weaver said. Those living in rural areas might have a more conservative government that may not opt-in, creating a patchwork of regulations, Weaver said. 

Both May and Hunter said they would prefer it if the bill would pass without an opt-in option. May said she wants to see action on the bill and is willing to strike a compromise on opt-in language. 

For May, having Syracuse be the only municipality in her district to opt in could further concentrate poverty in the city.

Hunter said she opposed an opt-in option for “good cause.”

“Essentially, that is a way out for folks to not have to do anything about housing,” she said.