380-402 TENANTS ASSOCIATION
RESOURCE CENTER
REQUEST BY THE 380-402 TENANT’S ASSOCIATION
TO AMEND NEWARK’S SECURITY GUARD ORDINANCE; 18:5-1
BACKGROUND:
The proposed security guard ordinance began evolving soon after the 380-402 Tenants’ Association formed on May 1, 2007. The organization formed because security guards were improperly removed from the lobbies of 380 and 402 Mt. Prospect Avenue in early April, 2007. See www.380402tenants.org. The group first proposed the ordinance to Newark City Council President Mildred Crump at a private meeting in August 2007. The original goal was to remove the loophole found by our management’s legal counsel. Mildred Crump and North Ward Councilman Anibal Ramos sponsored the ordinance at our organization’s request. The limit for 24 hour security was dropped to 80 units when the ordinance was first introduced on October 14, 2007. This was at the request of other City Council persons who wanted a few more buildings in their districts to fall under the security provisions. Landlords in buildings with 80-99 units from all around Newark objected after being contacted by our management’s legal counsel. The ordinance was tabled. Some of the landlords’ objections were valid, and these have been addressed by our organization. Since November, the ordinance has been bouncing around through different offices at City Hall, and additional revisions have been made.
Tenants in our buildings specifically retain the right to pursue adoption of the security guard ordinance. There are no restrictions against our activities towards this goal, or against posting the information on this website.
STATUS OF THE ORDINANCE AS OF MAY 2008
This Tenants’ Association acknowledges that the ordinance will affect the entire City of Newark, and we want it to affect the entire city. As the only organized Tenants Association currently active in the City of Newark, we bear some responsibility to ensure that as many tenants as possible across Newark benefit from the new ordinance. We have to look out for the interests of all Newark tenants, much as our parent organization does on a statewide basis. (New Jersey Tenants Organization, www.njto.org)
Our argument is that if buildings with 100 units can afford 3 shifts of security, than buildings at least 80 units can afford 2 shifts, and buildings at least 50 units can afford 1 shift. In addition to removing the loophole affecting 380 and 402 Mt. Prospect Avenue, we want the ordinance to be reworded so that many buildings under 100 units will also be covered by some security, especially in the evening hours. The criteria are as follows:
- 8 hours of security in the lobbies starting at 7:00 or 8:00 PM for buildings 50-79 units,
- 16 hours of security in the lobbies, starting at 3:00 or 4:00 PM for buildings 80-99 units, and
- 24 hours of security in the lobbies for buildings that are 100 units or more. This ordinance will continue the existing provisions which require 8 hours of armed security (Guard II), although we would like to clarify that this must start at 7:00 or 8:00 PM
- Complexes with multiple entry doors over 100 units must provide 24 hour security, but those under 100 units , including Jay Calello’s 87-unit complex at Mt. Prospect and Abington Avenues, will be exempt.
- All guards must be trained pursuant to New Jersey’s Security Officer Registration Act. This will impact on the quality of security guards throughout the City of Newark, including buildings which already have guards.
At the February 6, 2008 City Council meeting, three Councilpersons spoke in favor of requiring 8 and 16 hours of security for smaller buildings. They stated that it is a good compromise between tenants who want security, and landlords who object to the financial burden that would be imposed by paying for 3 shifts covering 24 hours of security. Several council members stated that the ordinance will be passed in one form or another, and asked that tenants be patient. The process is taking longer than expected because of repeated requests to reword the proposal by various parties.
Councilman Ramos requested that the Council adopt the ordinance by the end of March at the latest. This time table is unrealistic, given the amount of steps it takes internally within the City of Newark for an ordinance to reach the council for a vote.
We have been in touch with Newark's legal counsel which is drafting the ordinance. Introduction at one of the May 2008 council meetings is likely.
REASONS TO SUPPORT THE ORDINANCE:
(1) Security guards reduce the burden on the Newark Police Department because buildings will be able to control more problems internally, and because law-abiding citizens choose to move to buildings with security. Responsible citizens, by their very nature, cause less crime.
(2) The Security guard ordinance will provide a great many new jobs for Newark residents, especially for off-duty policemen and retired policemen
(3) Security guards help protect the safety of residents by restricting access to unwanted persons, thereby reducing gang and drug activity, violent crime, burglary, and larceny. This is even more important for buildings located in high-crime areas, considering that this ordinance affects the entire city.
(4) Security guards are a deterrent against vagrants and other persons who may otherwise congregate in the lobbies , entry areas, or stairwells, or vandalize and litter in the common areas of buildings
(5) Security guards generally add to the Quality of Life, and make buildings a quieter and more desirable place to live for responsible and law-abiding citizens. These include senior citizens, families with young children, and middle-class professionals which the City of Newark seeks to attract and retain.
LANGUAGE FROM STATE REGULATIONS:
At the February 6, 2008 city council meeting, Eric Martindale spoke again and distributed material to the City Council which elaborated on the staggered security provisions. He also suggested that the ordinance would be stronger if it incorporated language from state regulations, as follows:
27101 GUARD I (Security Guard): The Guard I carries out detailed instructions and procedures primarily oriented to insure that emergencies and security violations are readily discovered and reported to appropriate authority. The primary duty is to observe and report security and emergency situations. This guard intervenes directly only in situations which require minimal action to safeguard property or persons. Duties require minimal training and physical fitness standards.
27102 GUARD II (Security Guard): The Guard II enforces regulations and procedures designed to prevent breaches of security, exercises judgment and uses discretion in responding to incidents and emergencies, determining whether to intervene directly, ask for assistance as time permits, keep situation under control or surveillance, or to report incident or situation to the appropriate authority for handling. Duties require specialized training in methods and techniques of protecting controlled areas. Commonly, the Guard II is required to demonstrate proficiency with firearms and other special weapons, and to meet rigorous physical fitness standards.
IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
(1) 380 and 402 Mt. Prospect Ave will each be required to provide 24-hour security in the lobbies.
(2) The new personnel requirements will affect almost all buildings with existing security guards. Instead of unlicensed workers off the street, every building will be required to have trained guards pursuant to New Jersey’s Security Officer Registration Act. These will be real security guards, not low paid “greeters” with canes.
(3) Buildings 50-79 units with one entry lobby will be required to have one security shift of 8 hours starting 7-8 PM
(4) Buildings 80-99 units with one entry lobby will be required to have two security shifts, 16 hours starting 3-4 PM
(5) The exact number of new jobs generated is difficult to calculate, but it’s likely to be over 100 city-wide.
The following is the original proposal, before the above modifications were made:
The following is a proposal to amend Newark City Ordinance 18:5-1.1 in order to firmly resolve abuses of the ordinance by owners of high-rise residential buildings.
This has occurred at 380 Mt. Prospect (104 units) and 402 Mt. Prospect (112 units). These 15-story high-rises were built as separate properties over 40 years ago. They have always been on separate block and lots, and to this day rent checks are written to separate LLC’s. But these two LLC’s are affiliated within the Audubon organization, and they make the case that the buildings constitute one property. The new owner has removed the security guards stationed in each lobby, and now there is only one guard in a freestanding booth near the sidewalk in front of the 380 building. The owner believe that the clause intended for garden apartments and townhouse complexes totalling over 100 units (red text) can be applied to adjacent high-rise residential towers.
This could be considered a gray area. Ruth Pomales, Newark’s code enforcement official, disagrees with the owner’s position, and she has cited the owners with a violation of the existing ordinance on the security guard issue as recently as August 3rd.
Nevertheless, the ordinance is weak and poorly written, and if the matter goes before a judge (no such action is scheduled as of this writing), it is possible that the tenants could lose, depending on how influential and politically connected the owner’s attorney is.
POTENTIAL BURDEN ON THE NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT: The 380-402 Tenant’s Association is extremely concerned about the downscaling of security. We fear that crime, drugs, and gang activity will take root in our buildings without real security guards in the lobbies. There are 216 units occupied by approximately 500 people. These building could become a time-consuming burden to the Newark Police Department for both major and minor issues.
The major issues could be largely deterred simply by the presence of ORDER, CONTROL, and SECURITY within these buildings. The minor issues could theoretically be resolved if the buildings had onsite security guards and superintendents, thus reducing the number of calls made to the police in the first place.
RENT STRIKE IN PROGRESS OVER THE SECURITY ISSUE: In August 2007, the 380-402 Tenants Association mobilized the largest active rent strike in the State of New Jersey, and the restoration of security guards to the lobbies is our #1 issue. For more information and to watch a short video on the rent strike, see www.380402tenants.org
To follow is the existing text of the ordinance, and the proposed revisions:
SECURITY GUARD ORDINANCE – EXISTING ORDINANCE
18:5-1.1. Except as is otherwise herein provided all owners/developers of public and private buildings operating an aggregate of over one hundred (100) housing units within a one (1) to two (2) block radius shall be required to have present on premises on armed security guard for eight (8) hours of every twenty-four (24) hours, as well as an unarmed security guard for the remaining sixteen (16) hours, during each day of the year. Housing units which are situated on the grounds of hospitals, regularly patrolled by a security force, and wherein such grounds are revisited by a security patrol at least once per hour shall be exempt from the requirement of maintaining an armed security guard on the premises. The provisions of this section shall apply to any dwelling unit which is a condominium development or any rental or condominium building with units each having an individual exterior entrance.
SECURITY GUARD ORDINANCE - PROPOSED REVISIONS
18:5-1.1. Except as is otherwise herein provided, all owners and developers of existing or proposed public and private residential buildings of 100 units or more shall be required to have present on premises on armed security guard for eight (8) hours of every twenty-four (24) hours, as well as an unarmed security guard for the remaining sixteen (16) hours, during each day of the year. The provisions of this section shall apply to each and every freestanding residential building which has a common entrance or lobby serving 100 units or more, or to any building that originally had a common entrance or lobby serving 100 units or more, but the number of units has been subsequently reduced due to unit mergers or other reasons. Those buildings with a common entrance or lobby serving 100 units or more must locate the security personnel in the lobby, or at the front door if no lobby is present. The provisions of this section shall also apply to any condominium development or any rental or condominium building with units each having an individual exterior entrance, and to any commonly owned aggregate of smaller buildings totaling 100 units or more that are within a one (1) to two (2) block radius, even if those units are aggregated into smaller buildings that are each less than 100 units. Housing units which are situated on the grounds of hospitals, regularly patrolled by a security force, and wherein such grounds are revisited by a security patrol at least once per hour shall be exempt from the requirement of maintaining an armed security guard on the premises.
The following provides the rationale for the proposed changes:
(a) The order of concepts in the ordinance should be the REQUIREMENTS, the INCLUSIONS, and then the EXEMPTIONS
(b) The underlined text is a minor improvement, just to make it crystal clear.
(c) The yellow text should take care of the HIGH-RISE SECURITY ISSUE. There is no way that the writers of the original ordinance intended it to allow someone to buy two separate high-rise properties, each over 100 units, and then downsize the security guards because the buildings are adjacent. This is why security guards have been removed from the lobbies. Let’s close up this loophole before legal costs are expended by the City of Newark. We also don’t want the owner to combine a few studio apartments in the 104-unit building (#380) to get the unit total down to 99, or to attach the buildings together with a brick wall, and then say they are no longer individual freestanding buildings. It is likely that there are long mid-rise buildings over 100 units in parts of Newark, but these buildings have multiple entrance lobbies, with each lobby serving under 100 units. That is why I added the words “which has a common lobby serving 100 units or more” so that the new version of the ordinance doesn’t create a violation at those buildings.
(d) The red text covers the issue of townhouses, garden apartments, and mid-rise aggregates, and it actually does a much better job of it than the original text. Plus the relevant information is no longer scattered.
(e) There is only one exemption, which is the hospital category (purple text). I left it unedited, and simply moved it to the end of the section. It makes more sense there, and it no longer interrupts the logical flow of the ordinance.
The City has the right, at any time, to amend its ordinances. It is probably best to initiate the action BEFORE this matter is scheduled in court. I’ve previously drafted ordinances for the City of Hackensack. Based on my experience, I believe that this is feasible, and that the initial request should be made directly to the Mayor & Council. These are the policy makers. This ordinance can be introduced at the September 5th council meeting, and approved on September 19th
For more info, see www.380402tenants.org
