Hoboken Affordability Was Not Supposed to Be Just a Campaign Slogan

Sadly, we are seeing a tale of two Hobokens: those who may view a 15% to 20% tax increase as a rounding error and are comfortable absorbing it, and those for whom that same increase may mean hard choices about daily living, rent, housing, and whether they can afford to remain in town.

I truly do not believe Mayor Jabbour, the City Council, or their supporters want the message to Hoboken’s middle class to sound like: we hear you, but we do not care.

But that is how it feels.

That is how it feels when residents are told that the city has cut what it can cut, and that Hoboken’s tax rate remains among the lowest in the county, if not the state.

That may be factually accurate. But it offers little comfort when utilities, insurance, rents, and tax bills are all rising at the same time.

The headline no one should want is this:

Mayor Jabbour and supporters to Hoboken: Drop Dead. Affordability was only a campaign slogan.

That is a modern Hoboken echo of the famous 1975 New York Daily News headline: “Ford to City: Drop Dead.”

That may sound harsh, but for many middle-class residents, renters, seniors, working families, and small landlords, this budget conversation is not theoretical. It comes down to true needs versus wants.

Take the FIFA World Cup, for example. Yes, I reached out to some people at the Hoboken Business Alliance when there was an announcement last week. I work in the event space, and I have been wondering what Hoboken would do. But as a taxpayer who has watched the city struggle with fiscal discipline, any local FIFA World Cup-related activity should be fully sponsored and should not cost Hoboken taxpayers a single nickel. Hard stop.

This is not a need. It is a want.

People also talk about Hoboken’s increasing population as if that alone explains our growing expenses. But if we look back in history, Hoboken’s population was over 70,000 in 1910. What was different then? More tenement-style housing, no central air, no dishwashers, and many residents likely worked the docks, plants, and factories. We should be careful about using population growth alone to justify continued spending growth.

Parks, recreation, and green space are important. But they are also expensive to maintain. Before Hoboken expands its park obligations, we need to ask whether we can afford to maintain what already exists.

Could the county take over Northwest Resiliency Park? Could there be a partnership involving the future Maritime Park? I do not know. But at this point, all ideas need to be on the table. Future park development should be paused until we can afford to maintain the parks we already have.

We also need to look seriously at municipal silos. Every town seems to maintain its own version of everything, even when regional cooperation might save money and improve service.

I know fire and EMS have strong mutual aid agreements, and police departments and sheriff’s departments often work closely together. That raises a larger question: has there been a true county-wide review of police, fire, EMS, city administration, DPW, purchasing, technology, and other city services?

We all want responsive local services. But in a fiscal crisis, we need to ask whether every function must remain fully duplicated town by town. Shared services, joint purchasing, regional maintenance agreements, and coordinated staffing may allow us to preserve service levels while reducing costs. I am sure some of this is already in place, but clearly we need to go further.

Public safety matters deeply. First responders are essential, as is the infrastructure that supports them. But even here, there may be lessons from other sectors. In broadcast, networks in the 1980s built for peak load and maintained resources for worst-case scenarios. Over time, they made calculated decisions, partnered with contractors, and reduced fixed and operating costs while preserving core capability. Is there room to think similarly by working more closely with county and state resources where appropriate?

From what I saw at the last council meeting, Hoboken needs to manage healthcare, retirement, staffing, and overall labor costs more aggressively. I am sure many city employees work hard, and this should not be about attacking workers or eliminating essential services. But when costs reach this level, staffing structures, management layers, compensation, overtime, and operating practices all need serious review.

That may mean more multitasking. It may mean managers working more directly in the field. It may mean salary reductions, staffing reductions, or structural changes. Not knowing each department, I cannot offer specific line-by-line suggestions, but the larger question cannot be ignored.

Most of my career has been spent in small businesses: publications, broadcast, AV, and companies supporting live events. Today, I work as an independent contractor and teach as an adjunct at CUNY, a path I took after watching two companies implode.

Whether it was the dot-com bust, 9/11, the 2008 financial crisis, the loss of a key contract, company mismanagement, or the death of a co-owner, I have seen businesses forced to adapt. I have seen colleagues, including people I mentored, lose their jobs. That is the reality of working life.

When companies cannot meet payroll, executives, myself included in the past, take pay cuts or reduce staff. It is painful, but it is reality.

If management cannot find operational efficiencies, protect line workers, or share in the sacrifice, then leadership structure and compensation need to be part of the budget discussion.

Everyone talks about AI and the cloud. I make the bulk of my income in the broadcast and live event spaces, so I understand the value of technology. Hoboken should embrace better technology, but timing matters. Sometimes you need to spend money to save money. This may not be the year to spend more money. Maybe technology upgrades start next year, after the city has done the harder work of controlling costs.

The school district side of the conversation also deserves scrutiny. There seems to be a loss of perspective about the financial reality many residents are facing. Asking principals to submit ideal budgets, without first grounding those requests in what taxpayers can realistically support, feels disconnected from reality.

In my own field, as a broadcast and AV designer, I may begin with a blue-sky concept. But I would never formally present a project at that level if I knew the funding was not there to support it. That is why presenting a budget that could lead to something like a 20% tax increase is so troubling. Why put forward a number that so much of the community simply cannot afford?

As for the tax rate, I heard this argument during the council election debates. While it may be accurate that our tax rate is low compared to other communities, that does not make the increased tax bill easier to swallow, unless someone is either very wealthy or living in subsidized housing.

Anyone who thinks this will not impact renters is not being realistic. I expect most landlords will raise rents where they can. For rent-controlled units, expect surcharges.

How does that make Hoboken more affordable?

Not all landlords are greedy. Some of us are just getting by. We live in a two-family home, and that is the only way we can afford to remain here. In 23 years, I have only applied for such a surcharge once. I do not say that lightly.

Yes, the city has done what I would call a first pass at the budget. A few million dollars sounds like a lot, but with a budget close to $160 million, we need to dig deeper.

If affordability is still truly a concern, then serious restraint must come first. The city should be targeting a budget increase not to exceed 10%, not asking residents to absorb a 15% to 20% tax increase. I understand some on the council are targeting 12.9%, while others may seek to introduce a budget with no tax increase. At a minimum, any budget increase should be consistent with CPI and grounded in the financial reality residents are facing.

We all know the reality of energy costs at home and for vehicles. The talk of relief from Trenton remains mostly talk, and I do not see meaningful relief in the immediate future. As of March 2026, energy prices in the New York-Newark-Jersey City area were up 17.1% from March 2025, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Given current events, residents should be prepared for continued pressure on household costs.

Hoboken’s middle class cannot be treated as an unlimited funding source.

Affordability cannot just be a campaign slogan.

I hope the mayor and council work together to provide a reasonable budget for all of Hoboken. At some point, affordability has to show up in the budget.

--

Barry is a 25 year resident of Hoboken