[brief] Over the course of this litigation, [...], [...], and [...] have argued for three different approaches to calculating return on equity, which are outlined below.  Only the approach adopted by [...] and the lower court would raise the rent to unaffordable levels for [...].  First, [...] has argued, and [...] most recently substantially agreed in 2022, that a fair and reasonable return on its equity should incorporate an approximation of the dollar value of [...]’s unit using Hoboken’s --- \(^3\) [...]’s brief in this appeal has represented that the new rent is $2,400 per month, while [...]’s brief has represented that it is $2,440.33. tax assessment of the unit plus $76,000 of alleged capital improvements.  In application, [...]’s rent will grow along with the value of [...]’s unit as if it were a non-rent-controlled condominium unit with a market value that increases in proportion to the City’s speculative real estate market.  This method of calculating equity is the primary driver of the substantial rent increase, imposed by the court herein, which if implemented would displace a protected tenant who will no longer be able to afford his apartment.  Second, before [...]’s recent decision, the [...] chose a different method of calculating [...]’s return on equity.  They effectively employed a compromise approach that would have awarded [...] with a hardship rent increase moderated by the inherently lower market value of a rent-controlled unit relative to an unencumbered unit, [...]’s investment in the property at [...] as a whole and its subsequent equity return on ten of the building’s eleven units, and the overall need to maintain some level of affordability for [...].  The Board also found guidance in a previous decision on this same case by [...] in which the court upheld [...]’s decision to lower the property tax liability attributable to the hardship application from $6,275.00 to $1,937.22, an amount that roughly represents a 70% reduction.  (See June 23, 2021 Hoboken Rent Stabilization Board Meeting Transcript, 1T134:2-6).  The Board also noted that this reduced liability represented 25% of the renovated and unencumbered unit directly across the hall from [...]’s unit.  By using the real (meaning actual) numbers made available to [...], it was able to calculate a realistic applicable dollar amount to include for equity in the hardship calculation.  Third, [...] has taken the further position that [...] should not consider the value of his unit at all in determining his rent.  Rather, he argues [...] should only calculate return on equity using [...]’s prorated purchase investment in his unit, guaranteed them an annual return equivalent to what it would be if those funds had originally been invested in a savings account and adjusted as needed for inflation.  Either [...]’s or [...]’s above approaches to calculating rent hardship increases for a rent regulated unit in building that otherwise had been converted from rental units to owner-occupied condominium units is sustainable state law.  In contrast, the method used by the lower court not only violates the Tenant Protection Act of 1992 as we will further detail, but by raising the rent to such a high level, it frustrates one of the primary goals of rent control—creating and preserving affordable housing.