PVD RENT: Councilor John Goncalves on Why He Voted No On Rent Stabilization, Housing Policy Ideas

The Complexity of Rent Stabilization in Providence: A Deep Dive with Councilor John Gonzalez

In this episode, we explore the nuanced debate surrounding rent stabilization in Providence, Rhode Island. Councilor John Gonzalez shares his insights on why the recent ordinance was paused, its potential implications, and the importance of thoughtful, data-driven policymaking in addressing housing affordability.

Key topics:

• The difference between rent control and rent stabilization and what the Providence ordinance proposes
• The unintended consequences and legal concerns associated with the policy
• The role of independent analysis and stakeholder voices in shaping housing legislation
• How local economic factors and federal policies influence housing affordability debates
• The importance of building more housing to effectively address displacement and rising rents
• The political dynamics behind the rapid progression of the ordinance and the upcoming city council vote
• Strategies for fostering collaborative solutions in a highly charged policy environment

Timestamps:

00:00 - Providence City Council vote on rent stabilization override

00:28 - Councilor Gonzalez’s personal background and motivation for voting no

01:14 - The core goals of rent stabilization and initial proposals

02:03 - Breakdown of the ordinance’s main provisions and targeted scope

03:25 - Influential expert opinions and community concerns about the ordinance

04:21 - Comparing Providence’s situation to New York City’s rent control system

05:24 - Potential impacts on affordable housing development and stakeholder risks

06:23 - Calls for independent legal and fiscal reviews before moving forward

07:36 - The importance of increasing housing supply to meet demand

08:42 - Addressing community fears of displacement amid rapid policy changes

09:28 - The urgency of immediate relief measures versus long-term solutions

10:20 - The financial implications of declining property values and tax revenue

11:15 - Protecting homeowners and addressing displacement fears

12:08 - Broader economic challenges impacting Providence residents

13:00 - Councilor Gonzalez’s efforts to provide rent relief and combat predatory practices

15:50 - The broader economic environment affecting housing costs

16:33 - The risk of long-term displacement versus short-term relief

17:17 - The quick legislative process and the need for careful analysis

18:13 - Political motivations behind the ordinance’s rapid progression

19:41 - The importance of collaboration and legal diligence in housing policy

22:55 - The value of patience and comprehensive planning for major legislation

24:36 - Call for ongoing dialogue to protect vulnerable residents and ensure fair policies

Resources & Links:

• MIT Department of Economics – Professor Jonathan Gruber's work and views
• Rhode Island Economic Policy Council (RIPEC) – Reports on Rhode Island’s economic situation
• Providence City Council – Official site and updates on legislation

Connect with Councilor John Gonzalez:

• LinkedIn
• Twitter

This episode highlights the importance of balanced, well-researched policies in tackling housing affordability amid complex economic and political realities. Thoughtful dialogue and strategic policymaking are critical to protecting residents while fostering sustainable development.

Transcript

Bill Bartholomew 0:00

Friday night at the Providence City Council, there's a vote scheduled to override Mayor Smiley's veto of the rent stabilization package that the Providence City Council passed earlier this year. A nine to six vote you've heard from Providence Council President Rachel Miller here on Bartholomew Town. Right now we're going to hear from John Goncalves. He's one of the six counselors that voted no on the rent stabilization package. Counselor, welcome to Bartholomewtown.

John Goncalves 0:26

Thanks for having me.

Bill Bartholomew 0:27

Why did you vote no on this rent stabilization package?

John Goncalves 0:31

Well, first, I want people to know that I take the housing crisis incredibly seriously because it's something that I actually understand personally. I'm a renter myself. I'm a working class teacher for over 10 years. I grew up in a working class single parent household in Fox Point, and I've watched displacement happen in my own neighborhood over many years. So I know what it feels like when families are worried about whether they can afford to stay in the community that they love. So this was never about opposing renters or dismissing the pain that people are feeling. And I share the same core goal as the supporters of this ordinance: preventing displacement. We need to stabilize housing costs, and we need to keep provenance affordable for working people. But at the same time, leadership means being honest about unintended consequences and asking hard questions when legislation could reshape the entire housing market of our city. So after extensive conversations with renters and homeowners and economists and housing experts and academics and hundreds of constituents, I came to the conclusion that more work and more collaboration and more independent analysis are still needed before moving forward what the ordinance is currently written.

Bill Bartholomew 1:56

Let me just level set for anybody who's not familiar with the specifics of what this ordinance would roll out, essentially. It's not rent control, it's rent stabilization. That's an important distinction. But under the broad umbrella of rent governance, so to speak, here's what would be applied. It would be a 4% annual rent cap. In other words, if somebody owns a building and they want to raise the rent, the maximum they could do year over year would be 4%. But this is a targeted scope. One of the things about all rent stabilization or rent control packages is that they're targeted. And usually there's a lot of carve-outs. This one was targeted really in theory to focus on the large corporate landlords and not so much the mom and pop property owners. And then there would be there would have been an uh enforcement board known as the residential rent regulation board that would oversee the implementation of this system that the ordinance would install, resolve disputes, and also manage critically the petition process that landlords could put forth to say, hey, wait, I have XYZ upgrades or other permitted expenses that I need to increase beyond that 4% cap. So that's the scope of how this was drafted in very we'll we'll call it overhaul sum right there. Counselor, what are the key provisions you would need to see, if any, if anything, would sway you uh to support rent stabilization in the city of Providence?

John Goncalves 3:21

That's a really good question. And I'm always open to collaborative policy making and negotiation. But I want to share a couple really important anecdotes that I think are critically important in this entire debate. So the first is there are many respected voices in our community who publicly raise concerns about the ordinance, including Courtney Nicolato, president and CEO of United Way, Michelle Wilcox, the president and CEO of Crossroads, Angel Tavares, the former mayor of Provence. You've got Deborah Goddard, the Rhode Island Housing Secretary, Carolyn Skunick, the Executive Director of the I-95 Redevelopment District Commission, uh Eileen Petroso, who's a long-term Fox Point resident, who I respect dearly, a retired teacher. And then we also got a really important letter from Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at MIT. And I can say definitively that none of these people are the enemy of the working class. In fact, it's the exact opposite. These are respected experts who have worked in their fields for decades. So I think it's important to level set that. I say that because there's a lot of politics going on. And I think when we listen to the experts, it's pretty clear that there are provisions in this ordinance that are fundamentally flooded and need to be revisited. I'll give you a perfect example. We had a meeting with the leadership from the I-95 Redevelopment District Commission, and they warned that more than a thousand planned housing units, including deeply affordable housing, that could be jeopardized if this ordinance is passed in the way that it's written. And if we want to solve the housing affordability crisis, we need to build more affordable housing. So when you've got a critical stakeholder, and that's just one example, I can give you many, many examples that are telling you that this is problematic, then it means that we need a little bit more time to study this issue. And one of the things that I think people need to recognize here is that six of my council colleagues formally requested a third-party independent study and deeper fiscal review and additional legal analysis. And those requests were denied. And I, in fact, just received a legal memo from the legal department because I have that right as a council member to ask for a legal memo. And they have many concerns about the way that this proposed ordinance is drafted. And frankly, if it's not legally defensible, and if we end up in court over this ordinance, no against rent stabilization. And I think that's something that people really need to take seriously. So, I mean, I can go through the provisions of the ordinance pretty extensively, but I think that we need to be careful about what we wish for. And if we want to address the affordability crisis, there's no way that we're going to be able to do that without building more housing. Uh, a good analogy that I like to use for this is if you go to a concert or if you want to go to a concert and there's only three tickets, well, those tickets are going to be significantly more expensive as opposed to if you've got a hundred uh different seating options. So I think that this is a very, very complicated issue. And unfortunately, it's being minimized to some sound bites.

Bill Bartholomew 7:48

No question that that is a complex issue. I think some people would argue, though, that the system has currently constituted that there's a ticket master of sorts in between the purchaser and the artist or the venue, and that middle governance of that middle ground is what is most important here. But look, there's been supply side versus Keynesian thoughts on urban planning, general development, so on and so forth for the last near part of 100 years with different types of success. And you're totally right. New York and Rhode Islander Providence, not worth a lot of time finding analogs, especially the complex rent control, rent stabilization, grandfather provisions, all kinds of exemptions that exist in New York City. It's barely a comparison. But I think the the most important thing right now is to just look at this through what I think is the lens that is probably the most felt. And while I agree, you the experts that you cited right there, people like Courtney Nicolato and uh some of some of those uh the some of those names, no doubt. Whatever they say, whatever expertise, whatever opinion they may have as prof pay well salaried, because their salaries are public, professionals in the city of Providence, it's a tough sell to the person right now who has seen a 14, 15, 21% rent increase year over year, and then says, well, I'll move, and then can't find anywhere that's in their budget and are either being forced out of the city or having to cohabitate with a ton of people, whatever the case is. So you have an urgent crisis that's happening in real time. And it now becomes a linear question of what do you do now versus later? And can you wait? Your contention is, though, that if we act now, it's not going to help in the long term. It's actually undermining the development goals that you think are or are or at least advocating for, um, really being the driver of solving the housing crisis in Providence. Is that a fair assessment?

John Goncalves 9:53

But Bill, it's it's not just about the experts in development. It's about all of the people of Providence who are going to be impacted. And so when we requested a third-party independent study, six of my colleagues, we did that with a sense of urgency. In fact, if you read the resolution, it calls for a study within one to three months. So that way we can get that independent analysis over and we can really think about all the provisions in this ordinance. Again, if if it's not legally defensible, or if we don't have an independent analysis that shows what the implications will be on our taxpayers, then that's problematic. And this is one of the biggest pieces for me, in fact. Um, so when I've spoken to hundreds of single-family homeowners who don't have a lot of skin in the scheme, right? They're not landlords, they're not renters, they had legitimate questions about how this is going to impact them. And we have two projections. And one projection is from uh uh Tom Seguris, and then we've got another projection from Larry Mancini. And he said that you know the city could potentially face a $17.5 million loss in property tax revenue if property values decline, and someone has to pay for that. And one of the things that's been consistent about my work on the council is that I've always held the line or tried to hold the line on property tax increases because the people who are getting displaced by these property tax increases are the very homeowners and people who are invested in Providence that we're trying to protect. So if there is a shift in burden, those people will pick up the tab. And I can assure you that my neighbors in Clock's Point cannot afford that. I get so many calls during re-evaluation years or during um years where there are tax increases. And those people tell me that they are at risk of displacement, and even a 100 or 200 or $300 bill is enough to make them potentially sell their homes. And those are people that I don't want to be displaced. As someone who survived uh the gentrification of Fox Point, as we've had university expansion here, uh my relatives uh experienced the urban renewal of the 1960s and 70s, my neighbors are hanging on by a threat. And so I want to know what the implications are gonna be on them. And that's a that's a legitimate thing to ask for. And I would say that look as someone who has led a lot of progressive policy on this council, the pain that we're experiencing at the local level is much in part due to the chaotic dynamic that we're seeing from the Trump administration in the White House. So families are being squeezed not only by rising rents, but also by inflation, grocery prices, utility bills, for God's sakes, Rhode Island energy, uh, and broader national economic instability outside of municipal control. And we're doing everything that we can to solve this problem. And so that's why I introduced the million-dollar rent relief fund. That was my ordinance. I drafted that. I worked very hard on putting that together so that way we could provide people with immediate relief. Uh, I think there are other things that we should be doing to address, to your point, the exorbitant rent gouging and predatory practices in the marketplace. We just had constituents recently who reached out to me about uh some price gouging that was happening in the jury district. And we acted. We sent that information to our city solicitor's office. We worked hard to investigate that, and now we're trying to hold those individuals accountable for their predatory practices. So this is a very serious issue. And I can assure you, I'm gonna work as hard as I can to address it because yes, we do need to act with urgency, but we have to do it in really thoughtful ways. And we can't cut off our nose in spite of our face uh if we truly want to address the affordability crisis in provenance.

Bill Bartholomew 15:00

No question. This is a wraparound issue. And it is without question, if people's salaries were significantly higher and rents were what they were, the increases would still be difficult for many people, but it would be lessened if food, et cetera. We could go on and on, right? No doubt. Also, no question, the RIPEC report, the economic report card, we just spoke with Michael D.Bias here on Bartholomew Town in the previous episode. Rhode Island is lagging in growth in almost every sector. We have over-reliance on some sectors. We do not have an economic development strategy right now that's going to take us to where we want or need to be. That's one thing as well. So, sure, all of that is true. So it's a tough environment that needs major corrections. But I think with the rent thing, it comes down to just a question of what can we do to keep Providence something like it is right now. Because the fear I think a lot of people face is that there's going to be this great shift, and people are going to be left behind if we get to a point where we say, Great, now we figured out economic development, great, now we've figured out transit, great, now we've figured out the schools, great, now we've figured out policing to a higher level. No one's going to be here to reap the rewards. That's the sentiment. So your response to that fear of being left behind or being chased out of the city and then the city developing in 10 years, and that's a very real fear as well, I think, for a lot of people who have invested in the city.

John Goncalves 16:33

And and yet that investment includes single family homeless. So that's the real sticking point for me here.

Bill Bartholomew 16:41

Yeah.

John Goncalves 16:42

Is should those people be displaced in the process? No. I think that we should be protecting those people at all costs. And that's why I've approached this issue in the way that I've approached it, where I've said, look, we need to actually take a deep breath. We need to figure out how we address that issue too. And I think there are many tools that we can work on collaboratively. But I think that the important piece to recognize here is that this ordinance advanced from introduction to final passage in just over two months, despite enormous implications. And I have never seen a piece of legislation move through the legislative process this quickly. And so I want the people to put that in perspective. Yes, we have urgency, but I'm also questioning, and I've questioned this since the onset, what is the rush if especially if our legal department is saying, well, there's this provision that's going to end us up to court, or it just means that we need to put our heads together and make more progress in in addressing some of the goals that we have before us. Otherwise, if we end up in court and we're in court for six months, we probably won't get, you know, heard on on superior court docket for years. No one gets relief.

Bill Bartholomew 18:22

Right. And here's the thing the uh I the council president Miller, and I'll say this first of all, to your first point, because it it is absolutely true that this was an especially quick process. And it is also absolutely true by President Miller's admission that there was a political angle to this. At nothing else, I believe that there's no question a thought process that went into let's we we'll put this in and it will create a line in the sand in the mayoral race between Mayor Smiley and Representative David Moraz, who's challenging Mayor Smiley from the left. They're divided on this issue. Now have now working further backwards. Mayor Smiley has always been opposed to rent. I don't know if he's always, as long as I've been covering him or following or known him, he's always been opposed to rent control, rent stabilization. He said as much in the debate for Providence Mayor that I'm moderated. He's said as much the entire time. President Miller says that no one from Smiley's team ever met with the council on trying to negotiate any kind of provision. So what that that really leads to is that it comes down to the ability for an over a council override. For for for speaking on your behalf or the counselors who voted in opposition, did you ever sit down with the president or anybody else to try to find a way to pause the implementation or pause this on the grounds of, hey, we'll work together, even if this takes the course of the summer, let's get this right, let's work this out. Regardless of who is elected mayor, stays new mayor, old mayor. We will have the override because we're going to collaboratively work as a council over a long period of time to get to a point where we agree that this is the move. Or was it from the jump street? Nobody on those no votes is flippable, nobody wants any rent control or rent stabilization. It's a firm. This is not going to go anywhere with the council as currently constituted.

John Goncalves 20:11

Look, we know the implications of price caps on marketplaces. Um, I think that the mayoral election is one that they're gonna have to battle at. Um, but I also think that uh we need to be working collaboratively. And yes, I have sat down with the council president and as I mentioned, the I-95 Redevelopment District Commission. Um, and I think that because this process moves so fast, frankly, we're all very busy. We are all very busy um doing a lot of things in our respective wards. I've got, you know, negotiations going on with Brown right now. I've got a lot of other quality of life issues that I'm trying to address in my neighborhood. And as you know, I'm very, very responsive to my constituents. Um but it also requires time. I mean, if you think about our comprehensive planning process, that took us years. If you think about uh an inconsequential piece of legislation like banning gas-powered leaf blowers, for example, I introduced that my first term, it failed. And uh Councillor Andrebois picked it up and it succeeded, but that took us years. This is one of the biggest policies that we've had to deal with. So a policy of this magnitude isn't something that you rush in two months. It requires understanding the legal implications, it requires clearly independent analysis because folks can't agree on the projection. And that requires a lot of refinement and compromise. And there should still be room for movement. The challenge is, however, when you rush your process and the mayor vetoes an ordinance, there's no room for any amendments because you vote on what was vetoed. And I think that there's a lot of work that needs to be done in order to address the affordability crisis. One can agree or disagree whether or not this is the mechanism, but I think ultimately we have to figure out solutions because the people are asking us to do so. Now, if there are people on both sides of this issue who don't want to come together or have real discourse and dialogue, then we're always going to be at an impasse. But we have to put our heads together. And I've always been about unifying people. I've never been about dividing people. And so my goal is to continue to listen, to learn. You know, I'm lucky enough to be on my third Ivy League degree, but I don't pretend that I know all the answers. And so that requires sitting down and really listening to people on all sides of this issue to figure out how do we lower the rent prices here in Providence? How do we lower the cost of living? And again, a lot of this stuff is out of our control considering what's happening at the federal level. But it's not about rushing a process, it's about getting a process right. And I can assure you that there are so many people in the market, for example, who aren't raising to that 4% rent cap. So if we want to address the elephant in the room, it's the exorbitant rent gouging and the predatory practices. And we should figure out how we're going to address that issue. I'm 100% on board with figuring out how we address that issue, how we hold bad landlords accountable. And I believe that we should continue to work collaboratively to think about what the solutions are forward to ensure that everyone in our city, uh, regardless of who you are, um, can be protected.

Bill Bartholomew 24:38

Your vote on Friday will stay as a no here. You'll be in the nays, or will you flip to the gays?

John Goncalves 24:47

I I'm not going to share what I intend to do or what I intend not to do. I think there's a lot of deliberation that still goes into any vote. And that's who I am. I'm a thoughtful policy practitioner. And if my constituents are upset about that, it's who I am. Again, I'm a working class teacher who has taught hundreds of students in the city of Providence. I'm someone who grew up in Fox Point in the neighborhood that I serve. My job is to do my job and to do it to the best of my ability. And if people have legitimate gripes or concerns, I'm happy to sit down and constructively have a conversation with people. Unfortunately, there's been a lot of attacks that have been waged on this particular ordinance. And I think that we need to lower the temperature. For those of us who, you know, instantly revert to attacks. I get that. There's a lot of frustration, particularly at the federal level. But I'm a progressive Democrat, you know, and I think that my track record speaks for itself. And I know that people are feeling a lot of pain given the choices that are being made from the Trump White House. But that's not a reason to be upset with your local elected official and public servant who's trying to do the best that he can. And I think we're all trying to do the best that we can. But this shouldn't be treated as some kind of binary ideological purity test that either you're for one group or for another group. Housing policy is more complicated than that.

Bill Bartholomew 26:43

Counselor John Gunzel's province city council, rent stabilization, housing policy in general, affordability in general. It's on a lot of people's minds. It's something we're going to be keeping on top of here on Bartholomew Town. Counselor, thanks for your time today.

John Goncalves 26:57

Thank you so much, Bill. Appreciate it.