Establishes fee cap for replacement key and key fob in subsidized senior housing.
Summary
This bill establishes maximum fees that may be charged to tenants in publicly subsidized senior housing for replacement access devices. Specifically, a replacement apartment key may not cost more than $25, and a replacement key fob may not cost more than $50. The measure applies only to residents of publicly subsidized senior housing and is intended to limit the cost of obtaining replacements for lost or damaged keys and electronic fobs.
The bill supplements existing New Jersey housing law and would take effect immediately upon enactment. By setting these fee caps in statute, it would directly regulate what housing providers or managers of subsidized senior housing may charge tenants for these replacement items.
Impact
The bill would amend and supplement New Jersey law governing subsidized senior housing by imposing statutory limits on replacement key and key fob charges. It would affect operators and managers of publicly subsidized senior housing, as well as tenants who may otherwise face higher replacement costs. The practical effect is to create a uniform statewide cap on these fees in the covered housing sector.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available record suggests a straightforward consumer-protection measure with no documented opposition in the materials provided. The bill’s framing indicates support for affordability and tenant protection for seniors living in subsidized housing. No formal vote history or transcript discussion is available to indicate broader legislative sentiment.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the balance between tenant affordability and housing-provider discretion to recover administrative or replacement costs. Housing operators may view the caps as too low if actual replacement costs, especially for electronic key fobs, exceed the statutory limits. On the other hand, tenant advocates and senior housing residents would likely support the limits as protection against excessive or unpredictable charges. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided record.