e some e I saw it well he could but I don't think he was going to since we all had to read not that transcri all right we did make it yes ready I would like to advise all those present that notice of this meeting has been provided to the public in accordance with the provisions of the open public meeting act and then that notice was published in the Jersey Journal City website copies provided in record noar Legend also placed on the Bolton board in the lobby of City Hall any objections if any shall be made to the city clerk please rise of the United States of America and to the republ for it stands one nation under God indivisible for liberty and justice for all Mr con Mr Doyle M fiser yes Mr Jabor Mr President Zano pres Mr Cano present Mr Ramos Mr Russo president gentino here former president we we have a resolution resolution a resolution for for a zoning B board appeal for 325 329 Grand Street yes councilman we'll be in charge this evening councilman do thank you very much um so we're here to pick back up where we left off uh on the April 3rd with regard to this uh this appeal to of the zoning board approval to this governing body um per state statute and local code so we got through we got through um the statements of all three parties for those who may or may not have been here um there was an there was an appeal of an approval of by the zoning board um Mr Evers is the appellant and the the applicant is represented by Mr tuvel who made a all three of the and then the planning board's decision is being challenged or appealed so the planning board's lawyer is here as well so there are oh zoning board Zone zoning board I apologize um awesome so so we're we're here to I I I explained at the last meeting this is a denovo review which means it's a new review it it unlike a Judicial proceeding had this been brought straight to a court it would be arbitrary unreasonable and capricious standard which for the non- lawyers in the room means that in that type of proceeding there would be a certain amount of difference given to the zoning board and it would be a higher hurdle for Mr Evers he would have to we this body would have to conclude that that the decision that the zoning board made back uh when it did in December or late November um was arbitrary capricious or unreasonable and um I I think that whereas a denovo review means that we here on this this board can uh we have a duty to read the transcripts from the two hearings which are 265 pages long and to we can consider the facts a new we are not bound to to uh give deference or preference to the decision of the zoning board but we are bound only to the record that was created at the zoning board hearings so new information is we cannot consider that it would be inappropriate for for us to consider if there were new arguments or you know Etc so Mr Mr Evers appeared at those zoning board hearings and his appeal is cons we did this for an hour and and 20 minutes or so on April 3rd it was concluded that we did not um M um uh Nai the attorney for the zoning board uh was uh not able to attend Beyond a certain time and we had led her to believe it would be a 1-hour proceeding so she had other plans um so we didn't want to rush to a decision so we're back the the council itself can ask questions of any of the three parties um when the questions uh are answered we can then we we should deliberate we can we can either have a motion and then deliberate on a motion or we can deliberate and then have a motion either or it uh from a process standpoint is acceptable and then there will be a vote um so with that I I would do you mind if I turn it over to you for questions that you had or would you like a refresher I don't know that we were going to planning on going back to no the three parties unless we have a question specifically for them the the one question I think I had I had a sideb with you afterwards we are there's a lot of focus on the broader bigger issue and the concern and issue that Mr ever has raised excuse me which is just in general uh tearing down a property that has rent control uh tenants in it um our denovo view is review is on the over just confirming is on the over over all approval of a property um that has multiple variances right so it's not only is it a loot coverage variance a height variance all of them combined um our denovo review we we potentially could have just disagree with the zoning board on their decision to approve variances we have that ability yes that is correct okay and and to be clear and I was going to say this a little later that if we hypothetically Mr Evers will not take offense but we don't have to agree with Mr Evers and his arguments if we choose for other reasons to overturn or remand this so we we can say had I been sitting in that seat for the two hearings I would have done something differently and it would be prudent for us all to explain our positions when you know before we vote when we deliberate so that there will be a something on the record to explain our action but so I think that answers your question it does yeah it does you don't want me to ask the first uh question yeah or I I goad I mean I no you go ahead so I guess um the the question that I have is um in my is more about the project itself um the the effectively the scale of the project for the site um and just a sec um Paul where you going you can't go it's a Judicial proceeding so if okay so we'll just wait okay yep no problem I my first planning board meeting I learned that you can't get up and walk out of the room if you're the judge you something you you might miss something I think I learned that same thing when I was on the zoning board I got up and bolted and you can't come in late I never came back well I they found me in the men's room and dragged me back so um I may have a pair of cheaters if he needs it yeah we're F this sorry about that no problem talk about Blind Justice anyway so go ahead Tiffany or Council Fischer yeah I guess um I mean I read I I read all the materials I think we all a bunch of us read all the materials at at nauseum um and the the challenge I always have is I don't understand why 100% ground floor lot coverage is ever approved period like I just it's a I don't understand necessarily the justification of it especially because we have um we have we have height creep we have we have we just constantly set precedent and we move the bar and every time we do a variance like that it just sets a new precedent for the next application to come in and say well you approved 100% lot coverage and a you know a a significant amount of parking at the base of it um and I understand the value that it creates I mean that's what our developers want right they want to have parking beneath it that's the most attractive form of residential uh development um so I don't I mean I don't know how how I'm asking the question it's more of like a view because it's just different am I asking a question about this like how they this sounds more like deliberation it does sound yeah so I I um so I guess I I guess my question is is like what how how is it determined that all of that parking in a 100% footprint is I I guess I can't ask that question it's more of a deliberation I think yeah couny it's more of a deliberation well no If This Were If This Were a prerogative WR oh thing don't touch the mic it's okay sorry it's Sac saying you're going to have to squat it's okay do you hear me now is that good okay okay I guess you can touch the mic all right oh boy no no there you go um look If This Were a Judicial proceeding these are questions that councilman woman Fischer asked a judge would ask of of based on the record below right so if it's a question it is a I think it is a fair question because um If This Were a trial um a prerogative R trial that's the type of question a judge may ask the attorney so I'm happy to answer it it would be based on the arguments and the testimony given below so I can summarize that and say why I think this the testimony was correct and why it was justified so I'll I'll summarize it in the following points if that's okay all right so this this property was very unique the testimony was that based on the garage a multi-story garage much taller than what we're proposing here and I know you were just indicating that there were multiple variances height variance was not one of the variances that okay yeah so the garage was much is was a three-foot variance I believe there wasn't a DV variance for height there was not but I don't well that but that's the that was the question I had is even if it's not a d variance do we still get it's still something that the the application sorry the appeal is here because of the D5 because there because there's a density VAR associated with respect to the lot coverage the reason for it was as follows and I'm just going to kind of take you through the the the the analysis that we did first was the fact that there was this larger wall in the back the doughnut hole that's present on most Hoboken blocks that the planning board and Zoning Board and many of you have served on that are are are cognizant of because of the rear yard is not present here so that open space necessity is not is not needed also that wall creates a drainage issue in that backyard because of of the fact that wall come water comes off that the testimony from our civil engineer and the board engineer agreed with it if you went through all the testimony and the reports was that our design utilizing just lock coverage on the first floor is 100% not the remaining floors provided a better drainage design for this specific property I'm not saying 100% lock coverage is Justified on other Lots but here presented a good opportunity to rectify a poor stor water management system that wasn't ex that does not exist at the property so we can Rectify that not only for our site but the surrounding sites and the the council indicated earlier at the last meeting that we're actually providing more storm water management than what's required under the North Hudson sewer regs so we felt that this design in this specific location was proper and justifiable for 100% lock coverage on the ground floor and there's a second reason as well and again the testimony speaks for itself but just summarizing it I appreciate it the master plan in this for this Zone calls for the density that we're providing and whenever I appear at the zoning board or the planning board both boards indicate the desire for diversity of housing stock in terms of unit size as opposed to having what's permitted here by right I believe it's 11 units where there would be larger units the master plan and the boards have indicated this as well per would like to see more of diversity diversity in the housing stock and that's what we did here the 22 units weren't by accident they were driven by what's in the master plan so that allows the 22 units that the master plan provides requires that parking how do how does it how does the master plan how are you saying that the master plan provides that okay the master plan calls for a density Factor right in the R3 of three of of 330 right so it that's where you get the 22 units we we that that number wasn't picked out of thin air we as as you heard in the testimony from our planner and also the board's planner confirmed this in their report as well our unit count is based on what the master plan calls and the master plan that was done in 2018 was extremely comprehensive and it actually addresses that concern that the planning board and Zoning Board talk about on a regular basis which is you know and every developer does something different but talks about different size units and this provides that and also allows for the affordable housing to be there as well is the 330 on the 60% lot coverage or the 330 on the 100% the 330 is on lot area the whole entire lot area not the it's a recommendation which has not been adopted there is no right but but just but just remember too yeah when when we are under the ml when we are charged with justifying a variance the ml requires us to determine whether we are substantially impairing the master plan so we have to do a master plan analysis so if we are consistent with the master plan which this project from a dencity perspective is 100% consistent then we've met the our burden as to that aspect of the negative criteria so that that to answer your question on why the 100% lock coverage just on the ground floor was was We Believe Justified and without going through the entire record again is a it improves storm order management because of the uniqueness of this property and its surroundings and two it allows us to have that density that the master plan provides great so I think those were the I like the A and two but um the that you said a and then you said two as was to a and b or one and two but um the they don't apologize uh it's it's a serious matter but we don't you know have to um I mean you could have sought a variance to to not have to build 16 seven 16 parking spaces I I think you have 17 is required five less than 22 but you you're putting in a a charger so you get one reduction so you're Building 16 parking spaces which as you've said is why 100% lock coverage is needed but I also think if you if you if the if I recall the testimony The Green Roof System and the way that storm water management was collected on that first level at with using that roof both Engineers both the applicant's engineer and the board's engineer felt that that was a better way to retain water than to have it just fall to the ground and pond and that based on the location of this property and what was surrounding it that was a better design and that testimony was unrefuted by anyone there so again I I understand the point about the parking and that you could have you could have requested a parking variant but the point of that 100% there at the ground level was to have a better storm water management infrastructure with that green roofing system and getting it into the Basin underneath the underneath the property which was which benefits not only the property itself but the surrounding properties as well right and I believe there was testimony that someone said well you could have surface parking in the backyard without without 100% lock covers and just have the whole you know like a drive-thru under the building and the yard is a parking lot which would be way worse because be wor because of the at them and the retention and so forth so so councilwoman Fischer's question was valid I thought it was stuff that we went through at the at the zoning board and I just wanted to address it because you know I think that the record reflects that it was was properly dealt with at the board thanks uh you want go ahead question Council yeah I'm sorry are you done no I'm not I'll but I'll okay I have another go ahead um just a clarification I don't know if this question is for the attorneys or for Corporation counsel but uh at the last session at least to me there was some confusion as to um some standards not the denovo I understand that but to apply with with when weighing the positive versus the negatives um in uh the original hearings and and the um the documentation uh the positives are being described as the storm water management the two affordable housing units um the uh the the one and true bedrooms going towards the master plan ADA compliance uh I think councilman Fischer at the last uh hearing had mentioned that those things aren't really positives they are uh what should happen when building a new building today um but then I think there was a clarification afterwards so I'm just going to ask if you can clarify again um whether those things can or should or or required to be considered positives or not okay so the positive criteria um and Council for the board can also uh weigh in on this the positive criteria um is whether or not we are advancing certain purposes of zoning the purposes of zoning are outlined in section two of the municipal land use law there are over 20 purposes of zoning outlined in the in section two of the municipal lus law we only have to show that we advance one of them the testimony demonstrates that those items that you just um went over that we obviously stressed great deal during the hearings were all things that collectively Advanced many purposes of Zoning for example taking living space out of the flood plane which I believe the the planner indicated U further purpose I think it was B or C of the municipal Ann use law on purpose a there were multiple purposes that those um Advanced so um I don't think a positive means you went you know you provided something above and beyond like almost like a it's not a Redevelopment project where you deal with Community benefits that's more in the Redevelopment context here in a variance proof context we're dealing with are we advancing purposes of the municipal land use law as a result of the variances that we're seeking and as a result of the project as a whole um there's many there's a lot of case law on that I'll I'll let the board counsel and Corporation counsel deal with that but there we believe that we Advanced many purposes of the ML and that's all in the planning testimony unrebutted that was um that was provided throughout the course of the of the the hearings can I can I follow up on yours I I just want to challenge that because I think what you ended up saying is the overall project um satisfies the goals of the mlu all but that's the I believe and correct me if I'm wrong it's literally just the variance so it's not you know the fact that there's Ada or the fact that you've taken you know the ground floor out of um a flood plane like that's just required in our law right now so you couldn't build at all even if you built as of right you'd have to accommodate that so really it's just the variance and whether or not the variance itself is giving you the variance um and it's not a binary it's not like oh we wouldn't build this or not because there is an as ofri right building that would be required check all those boxes so incrementally relative to as of right whatever you're asking for is it enough to uh What's the phrase you keep saying to support the goals of the ml I'll let Council for for the city and the board speak to that um I believe that there's queso that supports that the fact that you look at the project as a whole and how the project is is benefiting purposes of the ml as well as the Varian is um and I think that we we we did that and I also think that we met the negative criteria I won't you know rehash the whole testimony I don't you know you know want to do that but um you know I I think that all the testimony at from from an expert perspective was unrebutted below um and the board heard us and also had its own op own uh experts review everything as well um and I think after we made certain changes and after the the plans were revised the board felt confident that we met our Pro as to the positive and negative criteria I'll just leave you with like that argument that you just made just basically says we should take down all old buildings and just put whatever if it's new and it just if it's new we should we should vote Yes for it right if it sorry if it's new we should vote Yes for it doesn't matter how big or anything because if it's new a lot of those buildings are old and they have people living you know in the in the flood plane Etc just using that as a specific example they they're not necessarily handicap accessible those are clearly things that would be beneficial in a new building I I disagree that that's what I said if you look at the at the testimony that we provided at the meetings and I appreciate you challenging me like this because it's I I want to make sure that this record is complete when we when the council Mak a decision when we go to the board for any application on a project of this size we provide a traffic report we provide a storm water management report we provide multiple sheets of civil engineering drawings that deal with all aspects that the mlu will require lighting Landscaping drainage traffic parking the negative criteria has to be met with respect to all of those items so just because we're building new doesn't mean that we meet our burden of proof under the negative criteria in this instance we provided report after report plan after plan that demonstrated that we met our burden of proof so I just because something's new in no way me uh means that it meets the positive or the negative criteria and the tearing down of buildings that's not how I look at it I look at it is does the project that's that's proposed does the project that's proposed right does the project that proposed meet the positive and the negative criteria just because it's new doesn't mean that it does that we have to sub stantially put on the rec we have to put on the record that we meet those requirements and that's why we submit all those reports that's why your planning board and Zoning Board has a has a comprehensive checklist of things that we need to provide so that both boards can evaluate things properly so just because I just want to make it clear just because it's new does not mean it should be approved and just because it's new does not mean it does not mean it meets the positive and negative criteria for any variance I'm saying in this instance we demonstrated that we that we did the record below is it your position that the the zoning board's job was to look at that application and not look at the two the existing versus the new and and weigh them and say should we stay with this versus change to this or is it just a property owner is coming in and proposing a project and there's a variance in it therefore the board has to evaluate that the latter of of of what you said that they're looking at the project they're looking at what the zoning permits they're looking at the master plan and they're looking at the municipal land use law and they're making a decision based on what the ml requires our burden of proof to be and all the reports and plans and testimony that's been provided by the applicant by the public and by the board's experts and that if you went through the transcripts there was hours of that that one my my point is the the missing example in councilman Doyle's two choices the third choice is um comparing a project like this versus one that you would build as of right because and going back to the two things that were mentioned I think uh councilman Cano mentioned um like Ada improvements and um uh flood related flood zone related improvements um if you were to build as of right you'd have to make it ADA Compliant and you'd have to you wouldn't have to make it ADA Compliant if you built a brand new building as a right of course we would right so you'd have to build a new building as um if you're building as of right without requirement for a variance you'd have to meet a lot of the criteria that that that are required under the ml just because it's the nature of you know our ordinance the new building code Etc right like our our building code in in laws almost we're not disagreeing on that issue so now though so if you have a building that's as of right that has you know has um uh whatchamajigger has ADA Compliant has uh improved system sprinkler system Etc and now you build you ask for a different building that you need to go for before for a zoning board you have a d variance right so now with the D variance you still have to have Ada you still have to have the flood Improvement you still have to have the sprinkler system so all of which those are you're neutral like that your your the project itself is the only part I believe that you can consider relative to the variance is if there's something incremental that is happening that is a positive criteria the physical building itself and all of the characteristics that you could already have built um as of right okay those to me I'm just saying based on you know I'm not you I'm not um either one of the attorneys have done this long a long time and quite honestly on this topic I probably read almost all the cases represented in um Mr ever's case and the cases that you guys put forth like on this specific issue to really understand you know what are we measuring here and to me it feels as though and the example I'll give is by and you had corrected me on this correctly last time literally and uh uh so we have a a a a rule that says um if you need a d variance and you're building 10 or more units 10% of the units have to be affordable so in this particular case is that not a role basically the rle right so for example 22 units and two of them would be affordable that's just required because that's our law but if you built a third unit like an extra unit that you wouldn't be required an affordable unit that extra affordable unit is a positive whereas the two affordable units to me aren't considered a positive because that's just that's just required to allow you to come before the zoning board that's a required deliverable so I'm going to challenge you on what you just said okay you said to me you said before you made the last statement yeah this is all you know don't worry I don't take offense I've known Jason a long time I I think that you also said you got to compare it to what's permitted as a right so if you build as of right you don't get the affordable units if you build as of right you don't Advance the go gos of the master plan if you build as of right you don't get the extra storm water management if you build as of right you don't get the better green roofing system in the back so even if I were to take even if I were to agree with your argument that a variance proof has to be something above and beyond what's allowed I think that that'se that that's present here in this situation is present in this situation but you also you said you read all the cases you have have to look at the Grasso case for density did we did can the site accommodate the density master plan says it does all the reports and plans that we provide says that it does okay so if you look at the Grasso case we met we met our burden of at least in my opinion we met the burden of proof there on this on any c variances we got we made those arguments on their C2 basis that it was a better planning alternative again with that first floor of lock coverage you're able to accommodate the additional density with parking that the master plan en Visions variety of housing stock have better storm water management at the site so I do think that we met our bir even if I were to agree with you on on your on the way that you're viewing the variance proofs I still think we meet that met don't by the way I don't disagree that there are positives there just so we're clear and in in some of what you've presented absolutely there are incremental positives to this I just saying that we're looking at the project overall as meeting the goals of the master plan like I don't think that's right I think it's the incremental changes to what they could build as of right can only be considered I think you have I think you have to look just to keep it simple you got to look at what the gro test says for excuse me that was I'm back at the zoning board from last night you have to look at the grubs versus sloow case which is the density case um messing up my D's D D5 versus D6 you got to look at the grubs case I don't know the difference so ahead the grubs case which basically is a similar thing can the site accommodate the density which I believe that we've met and you have to look at the at the case law and the mlu on the C2 variances which is is this a better planning alternative do the benefits outweigh the detriments and I think that we clearly met that that that burden of proof so again it's up it's up to this Council based on the record below to make that determination but okay so Jason if I would ask if you could sit down just for a moment and you did this to me at the last meeting did I no I'm just trying to answer your qu I'm just trying to answer your question I'm happy for M Mr Mr Evers is is Ching at the bit Yeah champing at the champing at the bit but um so rather than going on and on I mean I think it's only fair to let you come up and and retort I mean if you could address the things that he's been saying as opposed to just general things yes yes that that's the point yep um to toward what council person um was saying um there are two pieces of case law that were raised during the hearing you can read about them in the transcript uh that address I think her concerns uh the first is a a uh Supreme Court case called calman versus the planning board for Warren Township that says the grant of approval must actually benefit the community in that it represents a better zoning alternative for the property and the case here isn't really made that destroying owner occupied properties and displacing tenants what about this particular project is a is such a better alternative that it justifies doing that um the other [Applause] case the other case which was again also raised at the uh hearing and the planner didn't really answer he just sort of said I've already talked about this already or something to that effect that's not a Verbatim quote is called 10 star Dom something or other uh t n s a r y d o m PTP I'm not 100% sure what that actually translates into uh versus Morrow m a r o 76a 3D 1236 NJ Supreme Court 2013 and my time is expired no um okay and what that one specifically says is in other words care must be taken to direct the evaluation of a request for a bulk variance to those purposes of zoning that are actually implicated or triggered by the requested relief and the point is that all these various features that John Nasi who want work for me I promised him an ad um um are nice but they don't have a heck of a lot to do with the variance that was appealed here which was the density variance okay all these things storm Waste Management have nothing to do with that okay and none of them have to do and they really never addressed this if you look through the U uh transcripts of the hearing or the discussions two weeks ago don't they don't address the central issue that at least I'm concerned about and I I suspect other people here are to uh which simply says that no this is directly from the municipal land use law section 40 toen 55d -70 57 which is called powers and its paragraph d as in D variances it says that no variance or other relief may be granted under the terms of this section including variants or other relief involving an inherently beneficial use affordable housing item without showing that such variance or other relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good now the question that was raised at the hearing was how does destroying 16 owner occupied units that are uh rent controlled and there there are two issues here one is the destruction of T the lack of safeguards for tenants being harassed out of their Apartments but the specific zoning one here is how is destroying rent controlled units which contribute to the purpose of the zoning plan by providing a variety of housing not in the sense of one-bedroom apartments or two bedroom apartments but in a variety of the kind of people who can actually afford to live in Hoboken okay that was never answered during the hearing uh it was dismissed the uh zoning officer attorneys and one of the um Commissioners seemed to think that this isn't a land use issue but of course it's a land use issue if you're granting variances that provide the financial incentive to tear down a building and if you grant them as I pointed out which is the main reason I appealed this without making sure that the applicant can legally do what they say they are going to do which they did not do in fact they seem to think that that was not a a responsibility of theirs um none of these criteria are really met you can talk about details you can talk about storm drain management and then you know these are all good things I'm not dismissing them but they never addressed the elephant in the room how is destroying 16 people's homes not a a significant impairment of the public good and according to the municipal land use law according to the municipal land use law and it's pretty definitive you don't even have to be a lawyer to understand understand the plain language of it you may not Grant the variance if you can't demonstrate that there is no detriment to the public good so it's great everything Jason that you've said but it's kind of like multiplying something by zero with the zero being being able to demonstrate that it that you have to uh make sure it doesn't have a detriment to the public good they didn't do that so can I ask you a question Michael um or Mr Evers you can call me Mike okay thank you um and I'm again this is sort of as Jason was saying he doesn't he didn't mind getting tough questions but the question that I have and I think I asked this at the last meeting and it things were we were running out of time but let's hypothetically let's say that this application were for 11 units m in this building and there was no 100% lock coverage because you could fit seven cars or uh six cars in the on the base of the building they would not have gone to the zoning board there would have been no negative positive analysis to see this MH I I I have to believe that you would not say that's a great project I I I mean at the Crux of it is it's the destruction of the existing building not necessarily the fact that the I mean I'm not trying to get you to change your position but you know the Crux of it is is that under the law under the law as we we've heard from from Council and frankly land use Council for quite some time that these considerations are not appropriate the you know whether it's demolished whether they are or are not rent controlled units you know with and so how do you how do you respond to that well the first the most obvious answer is that they had a zoning hearing about this because they were seeking a variance so in that circumstance all those features of the municipal and use law apply this is not a application for an as of right construction okay that's issue number one it's just it to say it as politely as possible that's not an entirely relevant question because we're talking about a grant of variance okay the the real issue you're asking though I think and correct me if I'm wrong is what about the destruction of those housing units um if they were going to build something as of right and the answer to your question is legally speaking they could not do that okay legally speaking according to the New Jersey eviction laws there are only two circumstances under which a blameless tenant which is to say one that is observing their lease paying their rent quiet enjoyment all that uh can be removed from a building and that's to retire the building permanently from res presidential use or to um uh the claim which I gather is going to become common now that the building is no longer safe to live in and it's too expensive to repair those are the only two exceptions to the law for blameless tenants so the answer to your question in terms of a as of right building it would be illegal for them to do that unless they could get all the tenants to agree to voluntarily vacate okay now if they lie not that developers have ever said things that were untrue ever in the history of Hoboken and issue say demolition permits uh for tenants living in rent controlled units to to sort of scare them into vacating by law they would be required to give them units back at their rent controlled rents okay that that's in the New Jersey eviction law now the point is there's certain two sets of issues here issue number one is why are we giving developers Financial incentives to do things that are are going to lead to harassment of tenants to get them out and that's just not my opinion I read it to you at the last hearing that's the opinion of the New Jersey state legislature that's why they passed these laws because the housing shortage was causing all these things to happen okay now we can't solve every single problem in one hearing the issue here is why these folks are granted a variance without the requisite conditions that they they have to demonstrate that they are abiding by the law okay that that was my principal issue here okay they haven't Dem but from the pur zoning Viewpoint a they have not demonstrated they can do this without public detriment and B just to remind you all and I apologize for having to inflict so much fascinating reading on you the reality is that the zoning resolution that they used to authorize this thing would not in my opinion which is actually based on experience uh would not pass a court test and I based that on a very succinct summary by a sitting Superior Court Judge of all the relevant case law to what's wrong with that resolution so it's it's it's it's an it should be struck down on a variety of levels but the key issue and I want to get this across very importantly um because I think the rent control part is is proving to be a little bit of a distraction though it is very important the real issue here and I think the most constructive thing you can do is require the zoning board to alter whatever they approve on this unless it's overturned to require robust and substantial demonstrations that they have followed the New Jersey eviction law to get all the tenants to voluntarily agree to vacate that unit unit those units before they can even get their first certificate of zoning compliance and that matters but you have you have said that the the reason I asked that hypothetical is because I'm I'm I'm curious about if it is if it is not inappropriate to tear down the building rent controlled or not if you have a a project that is compliant that is without any variances still could you'd still have to they can't do it anyway so this this approval is is meaningless and I I can tell you that that the approval of the zoning board does not somehow exonerate them from anti-eviction laws rent control laws that it's not like now we've given you this approval and you can ignore all these other laws so if you're correct that it is impossible to evict these people then this this approval means nothing can I can I ify that a little bit okay I've hired many lawyers in my time and and I don't need to mean to offend anybody who's an attorney here the number of times I've heard an attorney say it probably won't be an issue I always experience has taught me to assume there's a really good chance that's going to be an issue the problem here and the mechanism that causes this this grant to variance to be detrimental to the public good has to do with the Practical cause and effect of what happens when you grant the variant and I think it I think it is reasonable to say that you cannot divorce uh the legality of these things from their effects in real life okay what happens is you get a variance for this what happens is you get a variance a developer gets a variance and it is financially valuable they're not doing this as a charitable activity they are going to tear down they have now have a big Financial incentive to tear down a building that they did not have before okay the zoning board gives them that by saying you can build 22 units as opposed to building 11 and you can get 100% lot coverage and all these other things big Financial incentive they're doing this to make money which is not a bad thing we all work to make money okay but that means that they now have are highly motivated to get those tenants out right because they're going to make a lot of money and in fact this is such a problem in the state of New Jersey that is specifically cited in the findings of the state legislature in the passage of the New Jersey eviction laws so if you're going to do that if you're going to create a situation like that in the real world and and I there's there's but but you're ignoring my my question oh I'm sorry I don't need to I'm not trying to walk around I thought was adding and you're making valid points but if they can do it as a right there's no incentive they can they can there's no Financial incentive yeah I mean there's no and there's no bulk variance here there's the square footage of the the box is the same size it's just how big are the smaller boxes you know bunch of Studios or one bedrooms when you say no incentive what do you mean well you said you say that the zoning board's variance is creating an incentive for developers to do this sure and if they if they didn't go to the zoning board and didn't get an approval because they just built as of right they would still be building a box the same size yes the the the backyard would not be 100% lock coverage and that I don't say that lightly but there still is a significant incentive for a developer to tear this building down these buildings down and build something and that's not being incentivized by the zoning board's approval counselor I would I would beg to flash my credentials is having an MBA okay the decision to make a uh to engage in a construction project has fairly straightforward financial analysis I would agree it's more in morec we hav we but we we have not demonstrated here nor has the applicant demonstrated that spending all that money to buy those three buildings and then tearing them down and spending even more money to build new buildings makes Financial sense if they're building as of right in fact I argued in the letter of appeal that um uh why would it ask the question why would a developer go through all this trouble going through you know having people like meal and going to the zoning board and all that stuff to do this unless there was a financial incentive to do so why would you go through all this extra cost and expense if there wasn't a financial incentive I agree that there's a reason that this is happening not out of the the goodness of their hearts now to get to the to get to the point of a hearing there has been no discussion by the applicant and there has been no evidence presented regarding the profitability of building something as of right can't do that so your hypothetical is missing critical fact discussion at the moment though we should is isn't the point that we should be looking at the Four Corners of what the the ordinance says and the state law says and applying that not hypotheticals as to what they should have done or could have done correct right so to to councilman Doyle's point if they could have torn these buildings down building as of right what's the difference now if they have to follow the same laws and the only thing that we would be doing is granting a variance they still have to follow those eviction laws so what's the difference between the two that's what I'm struggling with well okay two things one you've given them a larger fun you may may you've given them a larger Financial incentive whether that incentive pushes it through the Tipping Point of making the project financially feasible we don't know thinking about that incentive or should we just be asking ourselves what is permissive within the four corners of the law and what is not well no because well if you're going to argue that because I could I could have been a wealthy land owner which I'm not um and I just decide that I want to just do this and because I like these new buildings and I don't care if I lose money or if I don't have as as much right I could have done that yeah lose money and I'd be a bad business sure Charities do that all the time right okay however the question here is again a we're dealing with a variance but if we were not dealing with a variance okay you're right there would be no appeal going on but to say G it's okay to give them a variance because they could they would be bound by the same legal constraints if they didn't get a variance misses the basic point they're getting a variance because they want the financial incentive you're granting in the variance but you're not putting in Place sufficient conditions to ensure that there is no detriment to the public good which is why the relief that I asked for was not to deny this project I didn't suggest that at all what I suggested is that you take the condition that already exists in the resolution granting the variant which currently reads they will comply with the anti- eviction laws and make that sufficiently robust that it would effectively prevent this applicant from causing detriment to the public good by harassing and driving out tenants in violation of the law and and you know I mean uh if you don't think that that's the business of the land use board whose fundamental goal is the public good not the good of the applicant so then we just disagree can can I just ask a or share a thought I think um right now without additional language in these resolutions and I I did read I did read those cases that specifically state that the resolutions should be more robust and I don't actually think your resolution was as robust as it probably could be especially on this issue but maybe um yours are way more robust than prior attorneys by the way but way more but still um um from a practical standpoint in the past if you got an approval and you got your zoning certificate you just basically go to the building department and there isn't really a monitor around at all around making sure the building is maintained making sure that tenants aren't pushed out you know Etc I mean that's something I think as a as a council we should think from a ordinance standpoint we should have more requirements there however I guess my question is in a resolution is there a way I know you already have that sentence that says um you need to follow the anti- eviction laws but is there a way to make that sentence not a sentence but something bigger because Mar it's a condition but but just copying and pasting like here's five paragraphs be let me just finish for a second because you know when our building department gets these I would be very surprised if they ever even look at that condition right but if there is a condition and somehow it is more satisfied like they have to maintain the property while the tenants are there they can't pull utilities out they can't let it fall and disrepair all the things that we know that are in the anti- eviction law the the big ones um you know those those are important protections because I I think I guess the qu my my question is Jim think or councilman Doyle you were saying that you think some of this may not be allowed but I don't I'm curious what is allowed because I think that is a reasonable request can I can I just address can I just answer this question first first of all they do have conditions in those resolutions of approval that are a good deal more detailed and robust there is a condition regarding abiding by the exterior lighting requirements that gives a time frame and it says who's in charge of monitoring it Etc and my argument is that they should have similarly robust ones and to answer your qu okay good you need that you need that to prevent the first certificate of zoning compliance for being issued they shouldn't be kicked over to the building department so then my question is is what thank you what could be more legally it may not be what property owners want but the reality is this is he's he's talking about a real situation where we do have predatory property owners here we've seen it we have a tenant Advocate who generally covers landlords he has said I have never seen more predatory practices of landlords than what I've seen in Hoboken so we know that to be true councilwoman fer the concern that I have is what I expressed at the prior uh meeting here we are bound by the statute uh we're basically boxed in we cannot exceed those powers that were granted to us pursuant to the municipal land use law section 70 and section 76 nowhere in those two SE of the mlul does it say that we as a board have the ability and the right to deny an application for the reasons expressed by Mr Evers if we were to do so we find ourselves in a very difficult position we end up in Superior Court subject to reversal by one of the land use judges so in order to try to balance things as best as we could when I took over the board that provision was put in place I have no objection to talk talking to my boards my planning board and Zoning Board to see if we can make that more robust as the term has been utilize not asking you to turn it down we're asking you to say like an uh an ongoing condition until you get to build is just following the details of the current laws in the state of New Jersey which you do have in there you have safety law you have a bunch of laws right that's just one of them so why not articulating it more um so that it is it is a lot more clear so I mean we can do something at a later date you know here but the building department gets it and they look at the zoning certificate they see what the conditions are and they need to know that they've been met just can can I add on to that um so for example right now it's it's a on line and and I went and I looked up the the the the statute that Mr ever had provided to us and it seems pretty robust and and put some uh significant um implications on you know whether you retire the premises rather than just have that one line let's cite the statute and maybe even the headers and and if there are uh uh you know the statutes protecting harassment include those as well uh so that it's easier for the local Administration uh when they are making sure that the conditions are met to to go through and and we can work locally I don't even think we need an ordinance for this to to provide no for to provide the guidance yeah uh on what these are so that when there are issues uh that come up which I'm sure there will be maybe not in this instance because I'm sure everybody's the best person ever here uh but uh uh that we have a little bit more on our side as a government to ensure that the tenants are protected every step of the way so now if I ask a question before you answer well if you want to answer but I mean it seems that we're we're trying to have it both ways I'm I've heard you say if we if we were to deny if the we if we tonight or if the zoning board had denied this because they felt that um losing rank control Apartments was a was a bad thing which I think we all agree is is not a good thing but if they had denied it on on that and at after you left the last meeting during the public session someone came up and said that you had said that you were afraid of losing lawsuits and we shouldn't be afraid of losing lawsuits we should fight for our tenants and you didn't say you were afraid of losing lawsuits you said um or I'm sorry they said that you shouldn't be afraid of lawsuits being filed you said we will lose and the no one will be protected if we lose and get a bad decision and so if we're treading the line of putting in a condition which frankly from what I've been told for eight years is not an appropriate consideration then if if we have that in there Mr Tel might appeal it and say I don't have to deal with this condition because because you don't have the authority to make me set up a trust fund to make sure that tenants aren't harassed and that eviction laws are complied with regardless of the citation um I've been doing this longer than my son has been alive I've been doing this for a very long time and I've seen many situations where land use boards planning boards zoning boards put conditions in that are later on challenged the developer gets its approval goes to Superior Court and ask the court to excise these illegal conditions so that's a very real has there any been where you put a condition that just is the detail about a law that they have to follow anyway well here here's here's what I am willing to do and maybe have a conversation with my boards and I think well before you say what you're willing to do one of the things if you don't mind I I I'll ask out loud is whether or not if it's approving disapproving or remanding it back and giving direction to the board to do something so for example can we remand it back three options right so we could remand it back and say we could tell you we want you to put the following language in the resolution we have the ability I think to do that it sounds like yes and we can the board can work with this body to arrive at language which is less likely to be challenged and if if that is a middle unless the more you bolster that language you get to the line of or the line what I would want to see is a case law that says putting specific language about what the existing laws are that have to be followed somehow would be challenged because they have to follow these laws this is putting it in writing so our building department you know where where it becomes more visible right it's more visible for the owner that now has a zoning certificate that says oh my God I actually you know do have to uh offer them money I do have to do something in order if I want them to leave and here it is it's written in my approval as a reminder of what the law is and then it's more of a reminder when our building department sees whatever the zoning certificate is it's making that law more visible that's not a condition so my job is to protect the boards and Council councilwoman Fischer I think that that's a good suggestion one of the things I think that might be helpful as you pointed out as the council has discussed tonight at the prior meeting is to cite the statute now once the board grants an approval subject to the numerous conditions that are set forth in the resolution board goes through resolution compliance so that now becomes another condition that the applicant the developer has to comply with before they get their permit what say I I didn't follow that last piece about resolution compliance I don't know what that is so the res the approvals are granted subject to certain conditions right those conditions have to be met and satisfied and I see Mr tval looking at me so we can waigh in at some point but those conditions have to be satisfied once the approval is is is obtained so I prepare the resolution board adopts the resolution after that board no longer has jurisdiction upon adoption of the resolution it goes to the next step the next step is for the uh developer to demonstrate that all of those conditions have been satisfied before he gets a building permit and a demolition permit it's the zoning certificate first right the zoning certificate is the first step um from the zoning officer to um determine compliance I have a little bit of a different suggestion okay because we're really I agree with councilman Doyle that we're going into like another level of the law where jurisdiction over landlord tenant issues is not a zoning issue however from what several of the council people have said there seems to be a policy issue that you want to deal with because of what's occurring within the municipality and what you could do again separate and apart from this application because you have health department regulations right that's in a separate part of the code where you with as the governing body you adopt legislation that deals with Health Department issues that an applicant not even an applicant a property owner has to deal with separate and apart from a zoning issue you want to adopt an ordinance that deals with these types of issues it would become a police power I mean Brian M Mr laer can weigh in you you can adop you can do that as a legislative body if you if you feel as though there is something that needs to be done with respect to you know when before a building is demolished how things should go I don't I don't think though it's a zoning issue necessarily but I agree that no matter what we have to comply with with all applicable rules and regulations and landlord tenant issues and stuff like that but it's not it's not really a zoning or planning issue it's more of a you know like we would have to comply with Health Department issues like we have to comply with other uh ordinances and and rules as well if the if the council feels that that's something that should be done then a police power ordinance addressing it could be adopted by the governing body I I I will just say that I think there's a gray area there because to the point that Mr Evers raised that tearing down um existing an occupied building I mean this doesn't happen everywhere right this is in a lot of towns they just build on Fields they build on you know vacant land we happen to be in a city that is progressing and so we have this tearing down properties where people are living in them issue and it is a negative issue it is and it may not be a criteria for your approval or not but having belts and suspenders in an approval does relate I think to not having a detrimental um impact on the public and if we need to just try it one time and this is the first time because what I don't want to do is you know this is a unique situation because we don't have appeals very often to the planning board Z Bo Zony board sorry I mean are were you sighing that you didn't like what I say okay Jim Jim sigh out loud when he's just like unhappy with what I'm saying so um I'd be doing it all night he does he does it all night the uh the you know it's a unique situation but it's also a situation that is um captures uh at the heart of what this issue is in our community right it's a decent sized building that is occupied with low rents and the goal is to take the building down so this is a at some point the people in this building however they leave if this new building is built they will be displaced from their existing homes and they may live somewhere else they may live back in this building under the the Mr Evers is saying that's impossible it can't happen that no one can be evicted so no no I'm not suggesting they're going to be evicted I'm just saying what whatever what we've seen across the city is these buildings ultimately empty over a period of time you know because you know they stop providing heat and they take you know laundromat out of basement and they just do things to make these buildings uninhabitable and because this is a real situation in Hoboken putting making the anti- eviction laws more obvious to Property Owners when they want to develop I don't think it's a condition and I don't think if they want to go to if they want to challenge that and take it to court and say I don't want this resolution to be more obvious like I would say then go do that I just don't think they would they wouldn't spend the money and they know they'd lose so like I don't I don't know why we're arguing over putting more detail information about what the anti- eviction laws are because of the very specific condition in this property I think because we tread a very fine line and there there comes a point and and I'm not disagreeing with everything that's being said with regard to protecting tenants I I think I've said it at the beginning that's very laudable and I and I understand that but we try to very very fine line we walk a fine line as a planning board and as a zoning board and the concern that I have and that I've had from the beginning is how do we strike that balance so that it doesn't come back against the board the planning board or the zoning board and I think that you know the the suggestion that was made by uh Mr tual is a fair one at the end of the day the the the applicant the developer has to comply with any and all existing ordinances statutes and law but if you don't have anyone administering that or enforcing that then it it doesn't always happen and I agree that we should change the ordinance is it the duty of the zoning board to be enforcing but we're here right now and so one of the questions that I have is if we change the law in the future and and say we change the law by emergency tonight we vote which we're not but in two weeks would it apply to this application I don't I actually think Michael let me answer and then you can respond the time of appc the time of application rule which is what you're citing deals with development regulations I don't believe that any a landlord tenant issue is a development regulation it would be like if you changed hours of operation but it would because we would want to insert it into the development process it wouldn't be a tenant landlord it would be oh it depends it depends where you put it in your code because of right so because of that we have a ripe situation that may or may not be subject to a future law that is a real situation where I'd rather I personally would rather take the risk of putting robust things in the resolution I don't think anyone I I think both of us are saying we agree with the spirit of what everybody is saying we're just trying to procedurally get there in a in the proper way I I think that's that's all that we're saying nobody is disputing that all of these landlord tenant regulations and I'm not a landlord tenant lawyer so I don't want to misspeak on any of these issues either but I don't think think anybody is disputing that they have to be complied with in a proper manner it's just is it part of this specific process and is that proper that's I think all we're talking about I don't think anybody's saying we're that and I don't think anyone suggested gave any the cases that I read um gave any evidence that we couldn't do something like this or that we could there was nothing that suggested we could or we couldn't and so anyway okay can I would like to sorry you want to two and a half minutes Jason will you sit down and um and maybe Miss na you can sit down too because we need to to deliberate I mean I unless there's many more questions to go I think we should I just have questions for youd I just have questions for you yeah we I mean we can so I know minutes I can do this champing um I walked over to talk to John Nasi the excellent architect who once worked on my house okay and he asked me the question that I think is very important in your instructions who would make sure that they were in compliance okay we have a city engineer who's ensure of making people are in compliance with the uh lighting regulations uh there's another person City person who's responsible for making sure that escros have been put up who's going to make sure that the developer presents the necessary proofs which in this case would be written agreements by the tenants showing that they had voluntarily vacated that needs to be assigned in this instruction okay in a perfect world they'd also provide resources for the tenants to make sure they have legally enforcable agreements okay if you don't put that in there then you're running on the honor System and quite frankly the whole land the whole land use process is not the honor System it's exactly the opposite you have inspections you have this you have that except for this big hole when it comes to people who are frequently the most vulnerable people in our community and it would seem you need to have compliance requirements within that condition they have them in other conditions so it seems It's not inconceivable to put them in this one either thank you thank you Qui down please on the enforcement doesn't the city have a tenant Advocate yes well it's a private attorney retained to provide appointed just like Miss appointed by the city to Ser not quite the way you're describing it it's not a title but it's it's a service that we offer got okay okay so and fund it to a a certain extent I apologize can I just add one thing I'm looking at the resolution of approval on one of the standard conditions by the board one of the condition conditions is that the applicant shall comply with any and all federal state county and local laws ordinance ordinances codes rules and regulations with respect to all aspects of the pro the project property and proposed use am I speaking too fast and not looking if you can want me to start again no don't start again but speak up all aspects of the project property and proposed use and with all such applicable laws and codes and shall be responsible for all costs and fees Associated therewith notwithstanding the approval granted by the board the applicant shall obtain all other applicable approvals and comply with all applicable laws codes ordinances regulations and the like as to the property thank you I purposely put that catch all in there okay which is both helpful and the average person in the building department and stuff is it's like standard language right okay so do we want to deliberate now and okay I mean so thank you I mean I I unless other questions come up where we're going to call you guys um we'll take it from there so does uh does anybody I do we want to go with a motion and then discuss and I think councilwoman Fischer indicated last meeting that that was not something and I agree with her so I think we should discuss discuss uh and then um and then we'll see what comes from that uh does somebody want to go first uh I I I'll take a stab so okay going through things and looking at uh 1961 1962 and then I got to the interpretation of the zoning um in reading all the literature I should say and ordinances and the record the record um and 1961 title this chapter be known as and shall be cited as a city of Hoboken zoning ordinance so if I go through 1961 2 and three I come up with three and correct me if I'm wrong here um I'm going to lean a little bit on you um Jim in the interpretation and the application of the provisions of this chapter they shall be held to a minimum requirements for both promotion of health safety for promotion of health safety comfort and general welfare it is not intended to interfere or abgate or anull other rules regulations or ordinances provided that where this chapter imposes greater restrictions upon the use of buildings or premises or upon the height or bulk or building structure or requires higher performance standards the provisions of the chapter shall apply so if I go back and I look at um you know the what what the intent of the zoning ordinances are we have to go with it basically says the purpose of the municipal land use law set forth in njsa 4055 D2 to ensure that all land develop in the city meets applicable requirements of federal state and local laws so essentially my interpretation correct me if I'm wrong it's just land use laws that it's not this is they are not supposed to supersede or change things that exist in other parts of our city or other laws that exist in the city correct me if I'm wrong in assuming that well I mean I'm not the expert but that's what the the two attorneys who who practice landless law but that that's essentially the Crux of the dispute because I think Mr ever would say you should be considering other laws so as part of positive and negative implications but it says pretty yeah it says pretty clearly here that it's land use laws and if I look at just a through I it's encouraged sustainability through focused Economic Development flood risk management environmentally sensitive and energy efficient design conservation of Natural Resources diversification of uses building types and affordability it was amended in D of 2013 or in Z 264 and I'm guessing that's probably going to be something with the master plan I'm going to guess or something along the lines I tried to look it up I couldn't find it okay um so my understanding is that the zoning boards strictly is Municipal land use that's it right I mean I understand I I'm just making sure I'm understanding what's I think that's what we're all struggling with right that's it's that's but if I we're listening and if I read it and I go look through some of the estate statute it's all land use it doesn't say anything about other things so that's my that's where I'm coming from and it what's written in our laws basically says that only talk about land use yep and that's it well yeah just I'm I'm not jumping in front of anyone just and I I think that's where you know with my line in questioning I was trying to tease that out as well and and then sticking it within the criteria that we should be considering and the positive elements and I think you named some of them councilman Prince andano uh that had met and I think you know uh the the appeal was based on some P some valid extremely valid public policy outcomes that uh that frankly I support but is this the right mechanism for doing so right and I often have a significant allergic reaction to uh to trying to achieve those those policy outcomes that I frankly I want to see in the wrong way because then they can be challenged and failed um and with respect to kind of the threat of being sued I worry that if we start to include uh conditions to affect those policy outcomes that we want uh in a in an instance where it is inappropriate to do so then it can be challenged in Superior Court we would lose because that would be an arbitrary and capricious uh application of law that's that's what I worry about in in the situation so is it more appropriate for us as a governing body so taking taking ourselves out of kind of this this uh specific um question at hand to affirmatively tackle those policy uh decisions I think I think it's within our power and our our responsibility to do so do we do it today with this applicant I'm not sure well and I I guess I mean I I've been thinking about this quite a bit as I'm sure all the members of the council have and the you know I mean I I sort of methodically go through these things which is sort of the way I operate but Mr ever's points um start with that essentially the resolution is was not detailed enough and you know the resolution is a 17 Page single spaced resolution which I think is two to three times longer than typical resolutions and that doesn't mean you know the phone book satisfies substantive criteria but I disagree that the resolution is deficient with regard to you know Mr Evers CES to um you know a case unpublished case which is you know it's it's hard to get your hands on unpublished case but I understand your point but I feel that having read the 265 pages and I think virtually every member of the zoning board articulated their reasons which is part of the the record as well as the resolution so I feel that that that first step is satisfied that or I disagree with your assertion that it wasn't um and then when we get to the you know the the next step in the process really it just comes down for me to the you know the negative and positive criteria and what are you considering as whether we can consider anti- invic laws rent control laws you know a host of any other laws and I've heard from Dennis Galvin for many years before M naabi and and the the every land use lawyer giving advice as well as practitioners who come for the board um have pretty clearly essentially established what councilman president zanana was pointing to that and so it it's it's not a I I can cite to um the up in the shipyard you remember the Pier 1 13th Street Pier the planning board had a a bunch of conditions that were imposed on that applicant and the applicant which were things like you know shutting down at certain time of night and music low all kinds of things to help the community up there and the applicant ignored them and went to court and won because the court said it was arbitrary for you to just randomly create 50 different conditions there were many of them I was there that night I remember I was there too um was Council then the um so the point is I I don't first and we also sworn an oath this is not a legislative decision in the sense of we can pretty much on the city council we can vote the way we think is right I mean we shouldn't be voting illegally but whereas as a in our shoes tonight we are a Jud quasa judicial decision maker and even if we don't like the outcome if the law is clear you have to apply the law law and so as far as the arguments that Mr iers made with regard to the relevance of the rent Control Ordinance and the state anti- eviction law I I don't think they're appropriate to be considered and I've discussed this with members of the public who you know we would all like perhaps aspirational that these be considerations but I don't think the law I concluded that the law does not allow it now keeping in mind that as I described at the beginning this is a denovo review it could be that we disagree with Mr ever that I and whatever the board does uh disagree with Mr ever's arguments but we nevertheless as councilman Fischer alluded think you know what if I were sitting on that board I would have voted against it not because of the reasons Mr ever promotes but just because and different reasons different reasons and I think anyone who is fair would know that I believe in N9 years on a land use board I've once voted for 100% law coverage which was the Malibu Diner and uh I'm sure Mr uh Nasi could tell you how many times I voted against them so I I don't take take that uh lightly but as I was reading this one and by the way I I I the zoning board has not been giving away variances like candy as was somewhat uh suggested at the last at our last gathering with regard to this um this I was somewhat surprised at the vote on this based on the zoning boards uh historic a good job that they do um I also want to say when I explained about the the difference that at the judicial level versus is our standard of review here the fact that we don't have to afford the zoning board decision the difference that a judge would doesn't mean that we can't afford them some difference and I I feel that the zoning board who who saw the testimony who sat through the two nights of hearings who take their job very seriously and uh in my opinion do a very good job I do can take that into consideration because there are things that we can't see reading a transcript when someone is showing you an image in real life and you and you're not there so I and if if there were not a five-story wall on the back of the property which is a municipal parking lot which as far as I'm concerned is not going anywhere we're just we just bonded how many $4 million to to to repair it um you know there are many times if it were just an old shed in the back and the the property behind it didn't have a doughnut I would say well you know let's preserve the doughnut and maybe when that property behind us gets changed it the doughnut will be created but um I don't know that a municipal garage is going to go anywhere uh and and they did explain and lastly the the part about the master plan and the density variance we do and I know people in this room who are eager for this to be overturned have been advocating for years for more smaller units rather than you know 3,000 foot duplexes and that's what this is whether I whether I I would have liked it at 16 instead of 22 or whatever the building size is not a variance the box is the same size the number of units in the box is really the the D variance that is that issue here and I I frankly the the 100% lock coverage which is a c variant uh bothers me much more than the the density uh change and and if you haven't been listening the land use board and us in our capacity at this moment we are not here approv moving demolition permits this is not what's before us yes or no that is not our baileywick and if you can ignore that if you like but our job is to to decide whether there's a reason to overturn this or to remand it with instructions or to uh affirm it and I I I feel that we should affirm this you want me to go you want yeah uh councilman you mentioned which is something I just keep thinking about what are we what actually are we doing here um and we're not here to approve a tear down I wish that was the case but it's not we're just here to approve the project and if there are issues with how tear Downs happen in Hoboken I think it's something that we all need to address and clearly there are issues there are issues with that and that's not that's not what we're voting on tonight we're voting on this project and it's hard to separate out the two and we will I give you my word tonight we will is everyone up here up for that task um I mean I've I the 100% law coverage I think it like throws all of us that's been my biggest issue with this project um but again with the storm water retention that's coming and which is actually a huge issue in that area like that is definitely positive criteria um it's obviously this is not easy for any of us because we typically get to sit up here and just vote with our hearts and not have well sometimes we use our brains but um not have to just yeah apply the law to everything we're doing where in this case we do so I at the moment am very torn on this want me to go you want to go you want me to go so um couple things I I as uh as councilman Doyle just said we have I I see this as three choices um we can approve it we can overturn it or we can as discussed we ask the resolution to be made more robust um and um I I think the the points that um both uh councilman Doyle and several people made um up here I I don't think it if there is something very glaring about this application and we I asked the you know the issue that I had with the application itself is the 100% lot coverage and I'm was satisfied that it's uh it's I I wouldn't come to a different conclusion necessarily than um the zoning board um on that the density itself I don't have an issue with I I do think that we struggle in town to you know have bigger uh we need three bedrooms because we have a shortage but we also need smaller units uh we definitely are seeing more smaller units I think the a lot of property owners woke up and realized that micro units are very incredibly profitable so making a lot of smaller ones so we should probably rethink like how we balance that because I know we we're not building enough family um units but I don't I don't have an issue with the um going through all this land use issues I agree 100% with uh Mr Evers um and I've we've said this repeatedly when I was on the planning board when I was on the zoning board um it's not up to variances to improve the profitability of uh of developers right and um and that's not something that we should do I think they've I do think they've proven that this site can accommodate you know what has been presented there what I would say is we absolutely have to do more for tenants and we have an opportunity tonight in this application to help think about setting a standard for what should be in these resolutions like the front page of the resolution should be you know whereas this existing property is X number of residents and it's occupied as at this time and it is subject to hoboken's rent control like that should be the second whereas in the front every time and that that that is just an acknowledgment that is just an acknowledgement of the existing conditions and by putting the word rent control in there right up front it's just an acknowledgement it's not a condition um putting more uh detail in the the section on anti- eviction I would move that up I know you have a lot I would just move it closer to the top of that that kind of General list and and just say with a little bit more detail um and it doesn't have to be seven pages but it should be um needs to file anti- eviction needs to needs to um you know we can pick a couple of the provisions out of the anti- eviction that are most important with the really the goal is just for it to be more VIs ible in these resolutions that this is a rent controlled building and we need I think we actually need to do it on this application for the time of application issue like we can make a law change but this is a really important building right this is this is the type of building in this area that we know over time we're going to see more and more of this and it's it's terrible we live in a town where our land values are incredibly um valuable there are reasons why people you know the math makes sense to come in and and try and take these properties and take them down and build up you know something nicer but we should make sure we're doing everything we can for the people that are occupying these buildings to have a bigger seat at that table and we can do it legislatively and we can just make it more obvious in these resolutions that it exists so I I personally by the way thank thank you it's it's these are issues that we always talk about right we're talking about it now in the case of this hearing you know we've talked about protecting tenants every fourth meeting for the last like five years right we talk about it all the time um and I know everyone up here is committed to uh changing the law for that for me my vote tonight is going to only be toand to make the change to the resolution I won't vote Yes for it I but I won't there's no reason for me to overturn it but I won't vote if if the only choice is voting in favor I won't vote in favor because I do think the resol solution we have an opportunity and do something better for uh these people tonight councilman am I allowed to speak again yeah go ahead thank you um I was wondering who councilman was me too well I think it's a good idea to add all of that I still don't think that adds a single and I'm just being logical like I don't think that adds a single protection to any tenant like so they show show up at the zoning office and they say oh I'm following the anti- eviction laws it says right here in the resolution that I must do that I did that but there's no tenant in there like it's not adding it's it's sounds good and I and I it looks good but I actually don't think it's going to protect anyone I think that's when it has to come back to us to figure out what we need to do as a council not what we're doing at this moment but as as the city council to make sure the tenants are protected um again I I wish that this was about all of you but it's not it's about the project so we're all here in this difficult situation but I really think that we as a council need to deal with this situation and having a resolution coming from the zoning board I don't think solves that uh councilman D just a question on procedure and and voting we have the three options no yes and remand I think someone puts a motion well no no no question got um what what are the totals each needs to get to to to to be kind of the one that passes uh and the reason why I ask is we have a number of people missing here and my understanding it's it's the it's the total of the number of qualified um no there there's no it's not it's not the total it's not a majority of the governing body it's the majority of the qu those of us here got it uh councilman you made the point earlier about ensuring that we have a full record um with respect to our positions this is an awful situation to be in I Echo that sentiment um because it is frustrating that this is not an opportunity to act on something that I think we all care about very deeply to the comments my colleagues have all made um I the document I keep coming back to is um the memo that we received from the zoning board attorney in terms of the scope of the power of the zoning board um and ultimately I understand the arguments that have been made I feel very strongly about um ensuring that that we protect our tenants But ultimately the considerations around these being rent controlled units are not gerain to the process that we are talking about today and I regret to have to say that because that is a deeply painful thing for the people who obviously live in that building but I don't think it's a responsible decision for me to impune meaning into something that just isn't there on its face and ultimately I think it is incumbent on Me based on my review of the documents and my understanding of the process that's before us to support the decision that was made by the zoning board I'm sorry counc council president yes the question was asked before um on the voting and you do need five it's a um it's affirmative vote of the majority of the full authorized membership is required to reverse or remand to the zoning board okay so the full authorized membership is obviously nine so five would be the majority nine nine okay to remand or all for all three votes happen Okay thank we have to agree five have to agree of us have to agree but it sounds like we have five right yeah there was there a motion that anyone would like to so we affirm this microphone so just to be clear affirming this means we carry through what the zoning board has put before us correct their decision is okay just want to make as opposed to modified or turned down no one wants to do it I'll make I'll make a motion to affirm the zoning board's decision with regard to this application second Mr Mr clerk could you call a vote excuse me Mr doel I M Fischer no Mr javor yes Mr presen Zano I Mr Cano I uh president gtino yes okay the resolutions affirmed thank you Mr clerk Mr finina I can call you by your first name or your last name okay do so do we well I'm going to turn it over to you do we want to take a break yeah well we're we're just going to go into recess for 15 minutes then we don't have to restart everything and then so we'll be able to --------- oh I didn't see that did you come in and say we're not doing it after me I emailed you I emailed no I emailed you I don't know whatever that yes no no I'm wrong I said it's already signed oh you canose it as the council like vote if they want to have it on the agenda that's what I yeah I don't know if you guys want to do that yeah that's he understood me is um oh I'm not going to suspend the agenda unless he shows up that was for Rabbi connection that's what I was also not getting got it we're good I don't think you have to read it again we're just coming out of we're just coming out of um what okay recess is adjourned recess what do I say read now good evening everyone recess has adjourned and we will continue on with the regular meeting we have a hearing on an ordinance an ordinance amending chapter 190 D7 one en tile municipally manage electric vehicle charging stations they had two DC fast charging stations to nor Street oh I apologize I just I don't know why it's on here like that but yes public portion Jimmy before second readings oh thank we officially open yeah Brian Gman yeah can you put more sheets up there for people so they can stop you do know you have five minutes I got five minutes I got a lot of guys but I only need five minutes I appreciate it my name is Brian Gilman I'm a Hoboken local since 2007 my business Nook is based here in town what I'm trying to achieve tonight I want to tell you how how I invented Nook um a little bit about what we're trying to achieve and a little bit about my mother as well my par just just so you the closer you get to the mic the easier it is for everyone to hear got you my apologies and people outside can hear Too understood my apologies in 2009 my parents moved here to Hoboken they they were living their dream my mother was a a realtor here in town um at wer realtor unfortunately in 2011 after a 30-year battle with breast cancer over a 30-year span uh she had breast cancer four separate times she passed away it was devastating for me um it was tough and these guys right here these guys are my soccer buddies um they got me through it um from there I wanted to honor my mother she was a beautiful woman she was the best um no offense anyone else else's mothers were mothers but she was the best mother ever um I decided to honor my mother by quitting my job in medical device sales to follow my dream of coaching college basketball got a job here in Hoboken at the local University as a volunteer coach to pay my bills um got a job as a dog walker I worked for two unbelievable uh women Entre r preneurs that allowed me to walk dogs for their company um allowing me to walk dogs around my basketball schedule and without those two women I wouldn't be here today they were unbelievable over a six and year a half year span I went from the division 3 level to the prep school level to division one level to the aou level even had an interview with the Dallas Mavericks in 2016 didn't get that job um after six and a half years I realized that I wasn't going to achieve my dream of being a paid assistant I actually trained uh Jen's uh three children uh in those six and a half years um I decided that I had to transition out and I started thinking of business ideas and inventions and I came across how people were storing their toothbrushes and I thought it's pretty gross and I thought there's got to be a more hygienic way so that's when Nook was conceptualized in 2019 but I didn't have any money so I pivoted and I got a job at sap moved to Arizona uh in software sales and I worked on Nook on the side uh and then uh Co happened and I moved back to Hoboken with my father and went into I said hey Dad can I use a Q-tip went into his bathroom saw how he was storing his toothbrush and I thought it was pretty gross so I came out I said Dad I'm working on this concept what do you think about it my dad is an architect and he said let me think about it after about 10 minutes he called me back into the room he's like what do you think I said that's our Shark Tank idea from that moment we've been working on Nook for the last four years and we've achieved a lot we had 38 prototypes we have five patents I've successfully registered Nook for the bathroom accessory uh space it's my word of also successfully registered a home for your toothbrush um and you're probably thinking what's Nook well Nook is the simplest most hygienic toothbrush holder and it's more than just a toothbrush holder it's a it's a product that is about following your dream your passions um loyalty um and question for you what kind of toothbrushes do you have do you have an electric toothbrush or a regular toothbrush I guess I'll start with the panel if you don't mind a regular toothbrush regular toothbrush and when you store your toothbrush when you brush your teeth and where do you put your your toothbrush when you're done my pocket now I'm only in your pocket where you put my bathroom in your in a cup and does the bottom of the cup get gross every day every day and how about you sir I know this is ridiculous and weird it is and the only thing is then I'm going to have to let every member of the public ask us each a question okay and it but how about this who stares who not electric not electric how about electric with your electric toothbrush when you hey you cannot I know you want to ask questions sure but it just I can okay yeah just like the movie The Avengers well we have the offenders we have the cupper the Sinker the cruster and the Capper so there's a high chance that your toothbrush has on it literal poop from germs bacteria and viruses and if your toothbrush is gross you're grows that's why we invented Nook Nook is our debut product our goal is to build a full dental hygiene line and this is where we're starting from um the goal is be synonymous for toothbrush storage in honor of my mother um as as long as Nook is in business we are going to dedicate a portion of our proceeds to breast cancer research so no woman ever has to hear the words you have breast cancer ever again that is our cause that is what we are about um my friends support me they believe in Nook and I'm here today because I need the support of Hoboken the city council and I'm a Hoboken dude I really need the help so if if you're a dreamer please dream with me I can use your help thank you you thank you I think that was a great shark tank pitch are you going to show it yeah what is it show it you show it can you show it to us yeah okay so this is Nook it is a unique product has an open back and bottom it works with every single manual and electric toothbrushes and it just drips right into the sink it's it's a simple product this is our debut product the goal is to it's for home and travel and they have a full dental hygiene line but this is our first product that we're we're debuting and I'm proud to announce on April 30th we're launching on Kickstarter and I could really use the Hoboken Community to support me so thank you awesome thank you so much that's [Applause] awesome you have it okay uh I am going to suspend the agenda we have Rabbi Shapiro here and we have a proclamation there he is yeah he is here I didn't see you before I apologize for that uh we have a proclamation for education and sharing day and robbi Shapiro will give us a few words about that and thank you for being pillar in our community thank you thank you I'm not selling anything so I thought are you going to you want to should I start or you start you start perfect when I did this last week at the wewen council meeting mayor Turner want to know why I'm pulling out money in public I said because we're going to give charity before we start so because we're going to honor our leader RAB schneerson so when the kabad rabbis meet presidents Carter Clinton and Bush and the second Bush and and Obama and Biden and everyone in between and Trump they do the same thing so I'm going to do it here with your permission I'm going to start by giving a little Charity in a little Arc The Arc is uh represents Act of random kindness we're living in a time when we need more good deeds and more kindness in the world so I gave a little Charity I'm just going to spend a moment and say why are we doing this little uh Proclamation um In 1902 tomorrow night was was born the laab rebbi RAB scharon our great leader every single president from President Carter for the last 50 years proclaimed the day of his birth which always falls out 4 days before Passover this year it's going to be on Friday Thursday night on Friday as education and sharing Day USA and president um um Reagan at the Congress to sign a declaration that every year we should ask Americans to do acts of education and kindness now this is a such a universal message because the rebi though he wasab rabish naris he cared for all people and all mankind and he explained that we spend so much time in our education system to educate to give kids and young adults the opportunity to get ahead in life and to have a good job and hopefully good career and make it somewhere or as we say in yish to become a mench to be a good person the re said education is much more it's about teaching kids morals and ethics and a lot of our education system is missing that we just get good grades you can get into a good college and get a good job and hopefully settle down the rebba put so much emphasis that public schools all across the country should start today with things like every child should give a little Charity to their charity of their choice or something that is known as a moment of reflection a moment of silence give kids an opportunity to start a day with something thinking about a greater power why am I here so I'm grateful that you guys have prepared a proclamation and we're going to read it it's done in I don't know 5 600 all over cities all over across the country every governor in this in the entire countes does it and I'm honored that here where I live for 22 years the city is going to do a proclamation and recognize Friday as education and sharing day so each one of us in our lives can think about sharing with someone else sharing with someone less Fortune the world is going a little bit crazy around the world so if each one of us can start tipping this scale and think what can I do to give another young adult better education and what can I do to do another Mitzvah to make the world a better place so that's my little introduction I want to thank you for the uh Declaration of uh of proclamation and I hope you could read it in honor of councilwoman fiser would you like to read it please thank you I wanted to I I was willing to okay um whereas equality education is one of the significant foundations for the continuing success of our society at large and whereas in order to achieve its highest goals education must not only impart knowledge but also teach the students how to live forming and strengthening their moral character to make a better life for themselves as individuals and for society as a whole and whereas one of the leading Global advocates for the advancement of Education the rebi rabbi mahim um schneerson stressed that a moral and ethical education empowers every individual to develop their full potential in making the world a better place and whereas such an education can nurture the unity of diverse peoples through an encouraging increased acts of goodness and kindness imbued with the awareness that even a single positive Act of an individual can change the world and Usher in an era of Global Peace something I think we all want whereas April 19th 2024 will Mark 120 years since the Reb's birth and this year begins the celebration of the 75th anniversary of his leadership of the kabad luich movement kabad is an acronym of three Hebrew words for wisdom understanding and knowledge the name lubovich comes from the city which served as the movement's headquarters and mean City of Love of All the ethical values which inform our civilization none is more important than love love of wisdom love of your fellow man and love of our creator these values are the essence of education at its best and whereas when the United States Congress has established his birth date as a national day to raise awareness and strengthen the education of children now therefore I mayor Bala mayor of the city of Hoboken do hereby Proclaim April 19th 2024 to be education and sharing day and call upon everyone to work together to create a better brighter and more promising future for all thank you thank you very [Applause] much there we go yeah of course you do we're coming to you okay per wow abolutely like [Applause] that thank you really nice yeah it was really nice thank you Rabbi thank you Jerry Evelyn Madero Madera an a the end no it's okay they usually call me wine so um I wanted to say thank you to to Ruben because he answered my email and also he had a lot of empathy for my family now oh Mr aquent please tell me if I'm saying it correctly your last name thank you for putting those flyers out in reference to Legal Service um I sent all of you's emails and this was just a little tip of the iceberg that I have to deal with housing the young lady that sent me all those emails babbling don't know what she's talking about okay I just got a little confrontation with the director before Miss um Jabar Jabar went outside sorry he's addressing me telling me that he of told me that he offered me a whole bunch of units now I have a stack of emails from Washington DC to all of Youth Council to the city to the Commissioners and on and on and on and on this man who's supposed to be a director the way he approached me as a resident is uncalled for telling me that he would not argue with me in the hallway because I don't want to entertain a meeting with him I need a support system which now for some reason is being denied and I'm saying Deni to the fact that it boggles my mind why would anybody need somebody's birth certificate when this young lady has a background every year from the FBI why do they need her birth certificate I don't know I took her to the office she gave the Social Security and everything that should have been sufficient but no it's not it's not for the director I would like to know what is wrong with this man every year Mr Russo tell me if I'm right or wrong you go to Vegas from some kind of I go to I try to go to Vegas every year but that's a whole different thing okay housing pays for this and it's supposed to be educational so the Commissioners in housing are supposed to tell the tenants what they learning I haven't heard anything from nobody of the Commissioners in housing okay so my point is why are they wasting money going to Vegas and not supply the rest of with information that they need the tools that they need to defend themselves now the mayor claims he's uh fights for rights for everything abortions and everything so where was he when I needed him to fight for my rights in housing and hold accountable okay the staff in Housing Authority where my rights were being protected he didn't protect them and I sent emails to his secretary and him so I don't know where he says that the rights are being protected maybe abortion but not the disabled not the seniors unless I'm wrong somebody please tell me now the only thing that I'm asking is for somebody in here to hold housing authority and the staff accountable for what they did to my family which is a disabled household I never asked to be moved to the first floor I never asked to move out of the building what I asked was one floor down to keep avoiding the situation that I'm having that's all so I don't know where somebody is either reading wrong or don't know how to read or don't know how to write I don't know but I would like some answers because I'm pretty sure that all of you got an email with the exception of Mr Russo and Phil Cohen I know I did not send you the email good but I had you on M other than that I mean and once again I appreciate you listening to me and you know thank you thank you Doyle Jim Doyle because he usually answers me I don't know about you Michael I give up you have a nice night thank thank you council president just a point of clarification uh Evelyn was talking about the yearly educational um opportunities for both Commissioners and Housing Authority staff I just happened to be in Vegas this year so that's very different than my trips to Vegas Evelyn just so you know but they should what they should do is show the director how to have compassion table and everybody else not just you know what's benefi him I understand I just wanted to make the point Thank you thank you Patricia Waiters Michael Evers can you read that oh Ron simonini oh I'm sorry Michael I didn't see you can you oh you did okay well I want to thank everybody who showed up for the hearing I understand you had to accuse uh the people who didn't think that display placing tenants was a serious enough issue to U uh even attend the meeting well that speaks for itself uh I would give you some numbers okay and the phrase that actions do have consequences all right uh there are 37,000 tenants approximately in Hoboken five of the people who attended that hearing decided that displacing them from their homes is isn't a public detriment and therefore you'll go ahead with developers that do that please understand that you will now be known as enemies of tenants in this town because that is what you did you have lots of words lots of smoke not as clever as Mike defusco in December but the same type of stuff all that really matters is actions in terms of votes and with the exception of Tiffany you all voted to displace people that is going to be the Practical result and you didn't think that was a public detriment now I have a little bit of optimism in the fact that you're all talking about doing something policy-wise well to be honest with you guys you talk about a lot of things you're going to do policy-wise has that census of affordable housing coming along that's been going on for 10 years and there still is no report okay so you will be made known as enemies of tenants that's the consequence of your actions if you want to take actions to prove me wrong great I would be delighted to be wrong in this particular case but the fact of the matter is I see no evidence of that all right everybody here who showed up and those that have left they all heard what you said nobody bought any of these arguments the essential argument was is this a public detriment or not and somehow which is a land use thing Mr pres Zano it's right there in the municipal land use law that you so carefully read but everybody chose to forget that not a single one of you voted on whether you considered that to be a public detriment or not instead since this is the holiday season you did a fine imitation to punches pilot washing your hands and saying this isn't a matter you should get involved in because somebody will push back okay now I'm Irish American the Irish lost 800 years of Wars until they finally won so you guys are on notice uh you've got it around your neck if maybe you like that maybe you've decided that it that the interest of 37,000 tenants because this doesn't just affect rent control people there's litigation that the city is engaged in right now for tenants who are not in rent control situations who are being pushed out by unscrupulous landlords you have a a a one of the most cynical referendums I've ever seen being having signatures collected for which is about d ending vacancy decol creating the same pressures that have caused so many people to be harassed you had a chance to do something tonight you blew it all right and I can only judge you as people who think that the interests of tenants are not as important as other interests for whatever matter they may be and I got to tell you guys nobody buys the argument that this really isn't your purview that this is not a land use issue read the land use law it most certainly is no variant are to be granted that Pro produce a public detriment if you don't think displacing 16 people from their homes is a public detriment then I'm sorry we live in a different world and I suspect more people live in my world than live in yours so have a good [Applause] evening Ron [Applause] simonini thank you council president um I'm here to repeat something that I said about a month ago when we came and announced that we would be collecting signatures for a referendum the referendum says in its first sentence that you shall be required to pay $2,500 into a fund that creates affordable housing period end of story if a canvas goes up to you and says I want you to sign a petition that will lead to additional affordable housing in Hoboken that is a 1,000% accurate statement the petition has on it it's face five names who are Committee of petitioner members in Hoboken those are citizens who are well respected people we not signning up for any flu okay that's number one number two it has the question on the top of the petition everybody who signs it has an opportunity to read that on that page number three it has the ordinance attached to the petition they all have the right to read the ordinance and number four it has the interpretive statement that will be on the ballot when the petition's offered for election if that happens then I read the newspaper and the newspaper says that we're collecting uh signatures that we're displacing people who are existing tenants in Hoboken the petition also says that otherwise the rent Control Ordinance shall remain in force there is no effect on existing tenants unless we believe in the boogeyman I don't think we can afford to believe in the boogeyman I think we put childish things away when we consider policy if you guys want to improve on the anti-harassment statute that the state passed 40 years ago the most restrictive landlord tenant policy in the United States you think you can improve upon that and protect your tenants to a greater degree how many people have come to you who have had legitimate harassment claims as tenants how many findings have there been it's zero I don't have one case I can refer to that's ever gone to a court where a landlord's been convicted of harassment site me one one I'll be happy to change what I say cite me one so I think this whole conflation of these issues is of course all political and it's something that we don't expect we are we have concluded our Signature Collection effort so we're reviewing the signatures right now and we're considering the timing for a submission of those signatures to the clerk for review that will trigger a 10day review process by the clerk which will be followed by a 20-day process in which you have the opportunity to adopt the ordinance reject the ordinance table the ordinance or work with the committee of petitioners on something that would be mutually agreeable we hope that 20-day period is fruitful I'll say the same thing I've said nothing different here tonight than I said the first day that we announced the the petition we think that a referendum is divisive we did everything we could to avoid it all we saw was equity for property owners who had vacant apartments and who wanted to improve their properties and welcoming tenants who can afford to pay those not one person who's eligible for affordable housing will be deprived of a unit under this referendum because those people do not qualify for the rents that are being offered in obok what happens is an application comes in and an application comes in and an application comes in and the property owner reviews the application and selects the tenants base on their Fitness for the apartment the landlord will never and is not forc to say who is the person who's most likely to not be able to pay their rent and who needs a sub let me pick them we don't do that what we try to do is create affordable housing for people who need subsidies I've seen a lot of criticism over oh it's not enough money we should charge them more if they're going to get vacancy decol how many units will this really create okay survey each other how many units have you created c m con how many units have you created affordab Asing obok you were a kid the last time Hoboken created an affordable housing unit a kid so I appreciate the fact that people are talking about this and making all sorts of claims about it but it's conflation it's not accurate and I think that the dialogue can be much like the dialogue that you had tonight which was considering your actual responsibility what is it that you have the right to do jurisdictionally and in this case you have the right to fix things you tried to fix last spring it got vetoed we'd like that opportunity again we think this referendum has the opportunity to do that and if we don't we think that the reactions that we've had from people who signed the petition suggest to us that we'll succeed thank you you Manny Rivera Solair thank you council president uh good evening to you and to everyone uh the gesture that I was making to you a few minutes ago was Miss waiters uh was calling and she wanted to speak uh via the phone uh it's up to you to say I thought you meant but that is also no but I thought you said she wanted me to call her right now okay but thank you message was given um so anyway I would like to say previt hello that's again in Ukraine once again I will say it to you all again Slava ukraini glory to Ukraine the response hero Slava glory to the heroes the reason I continue to say that council president and I know that I'm using valuable time it's because it is important when we make a commitment to someone as the administration did to the sister city I'm going to say the name is me Ukraine so when you make a commitment to someone is if they're not your family but then you call them your family then you should always be attentive to what they need and what they're going through so we pray for them I hope you all unite as the rabbi said we have to we have to always be um hoping that the world gets better not worse as it's trying to get and we pray for our sister city as we always do so Council uh president I appreciate uh the Indulgence on that um but I would like to speak um for a few things before my time is up and I'm going to be quick I'm just going to tick them off I spoke in the Caps meeting about the need to have some type of new I don't know just putting it out there some new type of guidelines for when we get another earthquake hopefully never but we should have some protocols in regards to how do we help our seniors the persons with disabilities again there was a list once when we uh had a water shortage um I would like to know if the city and the council is considering something new to add to that protocol and also in the Caps meeting no I don't think this was at the Caps meeting this was at the housing meeting um I spoke on ebike safety um there are people who are now having these ebikes in their homes um the safety for that um we have to also um come together and put some type of uh controls in there as other municipalities do and how you store these bikes in your homes because you may have one in your home you're storing it but it could affect me a neighbor whomever if that um is not stored properly and um God again forbid that a fire should commence in a building and it falls into another building anyway that's in a nutshell important things that I want to say in regards to the city's um importance here council president I am looking at the time because I do want to say the reason I'm a little disheveled the reason I'm a little my voice is trembling a little bit again is because yesterday I spent so much energy this is why I'm disheveled this is why I am uh always wondering why is it that we do get up and speak as zoning board meetings and c and planning board meetings I understand the statute as was mentioned by a counselor tonight and the code I understand all of that but it is hard when there is no leeway to close these loopholes is what I'm trying to say which is why I always come to say and and Council vice president um always ask me Manny which loopholes do you think we should close and I'm talking to you through him I mean to him through you pardon me that's why I'm the you see and it's because I I spent a lot of energy sometimes I say is it worth it Manny you know me council president I was working so diligently so hard to try to bring back a landmark on Third and Washington Street yesterday I was completely shut down there is no way there was no leeway to get this developer to give us something when they were asking as you were saying tonight for a variance we're giving them six feet eat of our airspace belongs to the people right away yet they cannot do something for the people to cont to to at least maintain a landmark of a clock in that building so we don't lose the Aesthetics of the street but there's no one there to back me up or back other people up so we need the council we need other people to come in that clock is going that's going to change uh there are members in the council whove lived here long enough to know like me born and raised that that clock was there way before the developers even remembered Hoboken existed so I appreciate you giving me a few seconds thank you so much even Manny Jenny leens I'm a Hoboken resident of 13 years and I'm here to talk about Israel and the devastation it continues to inflict upon Gaza this is an international issue as it's happening in another country 6,000 mies away this is a national issue as it would stop immediately if the US pulled its funding this is a New Jersey State issue as we send representatives to the federal government and contribute to its tax base this is a local Hudson County and Hoboken issue as we claim to be a diverse inclusive community that speaks out against Injustice local and international whether its Draconian ice detentions police brutality and anti-black racism anti-asian hate Trump's Muslim ban Putin's war against Ukraine or gun violence and gun laws in the US the world is very big and of course neither you as city council nor we as Citizens and residents are going to comment on or even notice all injustices some matters however are naturally in our purview because of who we are and that's one of the great benefits of living in a diverse environment you cannot you can no longer pretend that what's happening in Gaza is not in your purview your constituents hundreds of us have made it clear that this issue is hitting home right here in Hoboken and your silence is deafening your silence in all of your meeting updates your newsletters your emails your new business comments at the end of each meeting ignoring the dozens of speeches you have heard right here in this room begging you to join the court of American municipalities in issuing ceasefire resolutions ignoring the beautiful Interfaith event that Drew over a 100 people in Church Square Park last month and the rally for peace that Drew over 200 people in front of City Hall the month before that we will not forget this failure every week that you fail to put a ceasefire resolution on your agenda your iniquity multiplies you showed up and spoke out when 1200 Israelis and Internationals were murdered on October 7th as well you should have now 6 months later nearly 34,000 Palestinians have been murdered in Gaza including over 14,000 children 14,000 Palestinian children with bombs and guns that our own government has provided and you have not a word to say your silence is deafening you are silent before your Palestinian constituents who have stood in front of your face and affirmed their own identity and pain you are silent before your Jewish constituents like me whom you stereotype and dismiss the individuality of when you say you stand with your Jewish constituents as though we all speak in one voice you are silent before the allies of all backgrounds and religions who cannot stand by silently tolerating a US funded genocide that is literally being filmed and live streamed into all of our pockets you are silent before the survivors children and Grand children of previous genocides who are in hobok and now begging you not to be a silent bystander to this one why is it so hard for you to say aloud that this violence must stop that the US should stop funding the bombs and attacks that have killed 14,500 children in the past 6 months why is a ceasefire resolution even a moderate one like the one we know you have been you have been presented with so hard for you is it that Arab Li lives don't matter to you is it that Zionist voters matter more to you is it that you're confused about what's happening because if you're confused about what's happening don't go to Tik Tock and influencers for help and don't rely on my word look at every internationally recognized Human Rights group look at Amnesty International look at Human Rights Watch their websites are easy to navigate and find this material look at the reports the news reports of the Associated Press which is a nonpartisan nonprofit news source with an easy website and app for your phone it's not that complicated and it's not that controversial how many dead maimed and orphaned children killed by our tax dollars until you stop ignoring us your silence is deafening deafening the skipping the whereas is the resolution that you all have been shown and that is now in your inboxes if not has two simple Parts call upon the US Administration to immediately demand and facilitate deescalation of the military conflict and a permanent ceasefire to end the current violence including the cessation of unconditional military funding as well as the immediate release of all hostages and to call upon the US Administration to promptly send humanitarian assistance into Gaza reinstate funding to unua and to facilitate the unimpeded entry of such assistance your silence is [Applause] deafening Jane mcor Jane you're here uh Jane milor um I'm here as a renter and I want to thank everyone that came out for the hearing tonight and two weeks ago I I I appreciate your consideration and even though uh this particular um uh hearing didn't go the way we wanted it to go I I I remain hopeful that that subsequently um something will happen and that you know Michael ever's efforts were not in vain I I believe that they were not I believe this is the beginning of something and I think that you know we should all uh think about um developers buying properties that they clearly know the rent rols they clearly know how much you know they're paying and what they want to do with it and I mean how do you solve that you know how do you resolve that I don't know but all I have to say as far as the zoning meaning is that Cheryl and I we're we're at the first zoning meeting and I if you read the transcripts you'll know that what I'm saying is true um I got up just to say uh because I'm a neoi I have no idea I'm just I'm a you know web developer that just wants to have fun and I I so and a renter so I you know I took notice but I went to the meeting and I just stood up and I said I was confused I didn't know why they would be making all these plans you know these plans to develop um and knock down something that people were living in like seriously had that question and so I was told by the lawyer that this was land use this was had nothing to do uh uh with with the the renters I guess and so I sat down and then uh in the meeting they they spoke about the size of the apartments and that they were going to be I think I remember something like 460 something square feet each one tiny little apartments and um and they were having a discussion about well who's going to be in there were they going to be like single people are they going to be newly married and it dawned on me after the meeting that they were kind of talking about and were interested in the people that were going to be moving into this apartment and no regard whatsoever to the people they were kicking out and displacing so I just wanted to get that on the record and again I I I do remain hopeful that we could all kind of do something to reconcile this because it is a problem and I I've I'm you know I'm a victim of harassment myself uh from a landlord and I I just hope that we could all um just resolve this somehow anyway thanks for listening thank you Cheryl phallic Cheryl the clock the clock on the bank if that's not a landmark for anybody who's lived downtown and it's going and it sounds like oh it's not fancy enough for whoever we want to put in that building this just tears my how many come on has anybody on that city council not said oh that's why I'm cold or oh my God yeah oh I'm late like who hasn't done that and it's going whoa anyway I wasn't going to get up about that in the first place I was going to get up and say um God I wish I was as optimistic as as Jane CU I'm I'm jaded um I don't like what I sat and heard yet again tonight is there's really no place for tenants to go except out of their units when they get displaced there is no place no place no help just a lot of shrugs and nobody really likes to see people get this place but goodbye it's what I've seen for 40 something years um and I I'm going to try to is she still here I'm going to try but she reminded me of yeah that's right there was this whole discussion about the people who would be moving into these places without any care in the world for the people who are there now and that's typical of Hoboken now with all that said I God I I I hate Council meetings now and I really hate the politics because I mean I know all of you but really what I'm about is protecting people in their home I'm about rank control yes I'm about affordability I don't care who puts something forward who doesn't put something forward who supports something who does it's all about what the policy is for me and I'm told there's a uh emergency um resolution tonight um oh yeah interrupting myself it's not an affordable housing petition it's a vacancy de control petition it's okay to say do you want to sign this so when we get vacancy de control full vacancy CD control we'll put a little money over here that we can't control um but anyway there's a resolution an emergency resolution and I want to say considering what I heard earlier I guess it has to be determined if this is an emergency this is a resolution to condemn the I don't know what the word is but the sort of misguiding the public when collecting signatures and the city council opposing the anti- ren control petition that will theoretically potentially become a ballot question so this is the city council's chance to say yeah we we oppose this and it's wasn't on the agenda so I guess it has to pass this emergency vote when I hear that the signatures have been collected and you know whether or not anybody's going to do anything about that sort of misleading thing I don't know uh that says to me it is an emergency it's time it's time the other thing that says to me it's an emergency and you should approve this and then vote on it unanimously is that rent protections for our residents those who have been pushed out and those who are here now for since 1979 it's been an emergency so I look forward to this passing um my understanding is it's been sponsored by councilman Cohen probably a lot of you know he's not necessarily my best friend but this resolution is a good friend of mine so I'm all for it and I I thank you I'm also told that councilman dor is this co-sponsor thank you um please pass this and um I'll be waiting to see if the theatrics about how much we care turns into any turns into anything because I'm not I'm not expecting it but thank you thank you for your attention thank you Eric fuli Eric okay like Cheryl I'm also rather jaded I have to say and there's so much I got five minutes and I got like about three different things to talk about first of all very quickly I'll say that I think this uh city council really kind of went down the wrong track when they started thinking they're going to practice International politics I disagreed with their stance on the whole Ukraine thing and then of course we're flying flags of Ukraine we're flying flags of Israel flying all these foreign flags and I think Miss leben made a very good point about now suddenly deciding that some people aren't apparently worthy of sympathy and so I thank her for her statement on the Gaza issue as far as rent control goes I think I thank Mr Evers very much for the work he did on it and a very eloquent statement just a few moments ago which I agree with I don't know how much I have to add to that except to say that when an applicant goes before the zoning board looking for a variance that is something outside the existing law it's a variance on the existing law the default isn't they get the variance unless someone can prove it's not beneficial they have to prove it is beneficial and not a detriment that's how it works and and this was as he said this was a detriment so that that the burden is on the applicant it's not on everyone else finally last week city council was all depending on talking about autism awareness week and they had a presentation about that and that's what I spoke on last week and apparently it's come back to me that apparently some people were saying that I was apparently that I was implying that there isn't any autism or that people with it was a fake diagnosis and I said nothing of the sort I even went back and review what I said there's no way one can possibly deduce that from what I said that is not at all what I said or implied in any way shape or form you know there such a thing as intentionally misunderstanding but there really isn't such a thing as intentionally misunderstanding something because if you intentionally misunderstand something you have to understand it to intentionally misunderstand it just being dishonest you know we had here before this city council meeting we had the gentleman talking about how he's contributing to breast cancer answer research that's very that's very good but point I was making last week last meeting was that the numbers of these things keep going up the autism numbers keep going up the cancer numbers keep going up now we see all the hard Association is all you know push a big drive and those numbers keep going up all these health indicators keep going up and people contribute to hard Association contribute to the Cancer Society contribute to Autism Awareness but nobody is asking why are all these health indicators going the worst worse Direction meanwhile like I talked last week and I haven't checked lately but last last time I did check city council was still pushing this so-called vaccine which once again numerous reports of numerous deaths and Adverse Events also the city council has refused a couple years ago and there's not much going on now because basically all the so-called infrastructure is up for the 5G so the amount of radio frequency radiation we're exposed to has only increased the same thing in 30 years as the autism's gone up the heart disease is gone up the Cancer's gone up so that's another way we've toxified the environment I know if it's that that's causing all these things or if it's all the vaccines or commination or some other environmental contamination but these things keep going up our whole envir keeps getting more and more toxic and then oh we're going to like you know we're contribute to these organizations and and we're trying to help people who are injured and which is a good thing to do because you know I definitely have sympathies I mean I was just talking to a friend of mine who's who has a friend who has cancer and he's very upset understandably so of course but once again you know we do all this feel-good stuff and like I say you know this city council like I said bent over backwards I'm sorry Council woman Fischer say that because you TR to correct me on that last time and I sorry to say it because I do appreciate your vote earlier on the rent control but the fact of the matter is the city council bent over backwards to do that I know the lawyer said oh we can't do this well you know the city council doesn't work for the lawyer I know the courts have been not been friendly on things like fighting the buildout of 5G and so forth but you know you got to try and protect this residence of Hoboken and once again like the same thing with the with the rent control I mean once again you say oh we may lose in court well I think it's more important to protect the residents of the city that's who you're supposed to be working for thank you we have no other members of the public signed up to speak motion close motion second all in favor I I a hearing on an ordinance amending chapter 99-71 entitled municipally managed electric vehicle charging stations they add two DC fast charging stations to nor Street Patricia waiters we have no members of the public signed up to speak motion to close public portion motion second all in favor I council members Mr finina please call the vote Mr con hi Mr D hi Mr fiser yes Mr Jabor yes Mr Pano hi Mr Cano hi Mr ramosu Reuben you there Ru Reuben voting I'm here yeah said I I heard it we got it good enough Mr Russo I preso yes hearing on an ordinance to men Hoboken city code chapter 138 outdoor dining to place a moratorium on new park parklet applications until July 17th 2024 Manny thank you once again thank you council president um I would like to see if uh council president or Council can elaborate a little further on these this amendment on the moratorium um what ex exactly um the reason for the moratorium um can members of the public get more information as well as um our business Community uh we well speaking for myself I believe that um when actions like this come up and you're amending and amending uh a little Clarity should be given to members to the public that are here present and that are not able to read the complete packet so if you can a little bit brief and we again I put myself in the Wii um believe that um a little more information um just as to why it's beginning and ending at those specific times the purpose of it what is it and uh again I know it says moratorium but can members of the public have um again a bit more information and I will leave it there I think I have time but I'm going to be debrief today thank you C thank you Manny we have no other members of the public signed up to speak motion to close public portion motion all in favor I uh just briefly we've had one application in particular for a parklet that uh residents were not happy about and I suspect we have a lot more on the table moving forward um and I think as a council we have some different views on the approach we should take towards parklets and this should just give us some time to Iron those out before any are approved or we don't allow them other council members well council president if I could add I think part of my um and I think I may have mentioned this at some point in past meetings I think part of my understanding was that there was also going to be some working with the HBA around some of the regulations and Lessons Learned From New York I think all of us just very they sent it prior but just very recently like a kind of how things that they think that could potentially help come to some kind of um bring this all to an end so I mean I just for the stating for the record like I think that is worth the time I'm starting to get concerned that the further we wait the longer we are delaying the opportunity for businesses in town to Avail themselves of this as a feature so I think In fairness to you know I think this council did opine on whether or not this program would continue I understand that it wasn't you know a unanimous decision but in the universe where we did make it possible for this as an option for businesses I want to be fair to the business community in terms of making sure that we are making good on that um and providing that guidance in a timely way so that you know I know there's some controversy around one particular applicant but if you're a new business that's just opening in town you know and you're interested I just want to make sure that we are you know communicating those expectations um and it is my hope that that does continue to be the case because it is a feature that I think makes Hoboken unique great counil president yeah yeah I know like to add that I think one of the reasons why we had the March 31st cut off on the original moratorium was because the weather was going to get warmer and that businesses that would benefit from having this would be able to seek the ability to apply for them uh just like we're going to have the hearing for the one Cafe on First Street uh by having this moratorium you're essent the council is essentially preventing any business that's interested in having this opportunity even have a hearing on it even to have any you know any possible way forward uh to enhance their business in a neighborhood that very well might want it uh so from my perspective this is over Brad uh I think that uh we should be giving the business Community the option of having this it's it's permitted right now uh it's not to say that we can't do better uh and I think the Hoboken business Alliance is interested and does have recommendations but one of the things that that I heard in my committee was that somehow there was a suggestion that this would be um a way to eliminate the rat issue uh by making new uh by making some new rules with respect to these parklets and one of the things that the business Alliance in their report said uh was that um operators have mentioned that deconstructing parklets due to issues with rodents prior to updating regulations regarding waste storage and park Li painting the city of Hoboken has received few formal rodent complaints directly related to parklets or even within 250 ft of the parklets and the HBA found no evidence of rodent activity under parklets in a sample size selected for inspection of 2023 that's from the formal report of the HBA we're going to continue to have those discussions and we should but I think that we should be addressing the issue in a way that's constructive and business friendly as opposed to shutting down any possible future parklet which this does uh until what the date of the moratorium expires was it July 17th three months three three months through frankly some of the peak months of the season so councilwoman Jabor referenced the fact there might be a new business that's just starting up uh I I know in my in my neighborhood in Washington Street at least one business owner talked to me about how uh he was interested in having a parklet he hadn't had one before on on the thousand block of Washington Street and was hopeful that you know he had the economic wherewithal with his relatively new business to start one uh this this uh more T extension would shut that down so I I I don't think that's the goal here I don't think the goal is to prevent businesses from being successful uh and give neighborhoods something that is desirable in the middle of peak season but that is the effect from my perspective and I think that's that's a mistake it's a mistake for the business Community I think to mistake for this count thank you president shtino um before my time uh I believe this Council voted to ban parklets correct if I'm wrong or was I am I what was the one that the mayor vetoed the ban the ban so this Council this body voted to ban parklets I mean they would swoop you guys just I wasn't on this and the mayor vetoed it so here during that whole time I mean yes I'm guilty here I'm guilty here too for three months and not paying attention to this but we put a moratorium on it we didn't talk about it um and now something's come up that's triggered something we always tend to be reactive instead of proactive so I think that by putting this moratorium on it allows us to have uh to actually do our job to provide what the community wants I I don't I mean if you you've been on the email list there's been 20 people I think that have sent in in complaints about dear mod uh if you walk around to every one of the units and knocked on doors I have one person that said they're they're agnostic about it not there wasn't one person that said yes and they'll have a hearing where they'll be so correct and the idea of what the council had set up to do that now I think the reason why this was put into place was so that we can get together collectively and work as a body to come up with Solutions either either a we take the the approach that was voted on last year by this Council and vetoed by the mayor is they're gone they were a covid thing and we move on two there's a uh compromise of some sort or three just go you know we can do everything right now the parklets versus the the street Aries the strees are removable right um and I think one of the issues that we've seen is like I.E why everybody was upset last year was our rat problem was crazy um I'm hoping some of the things that actually this Council voted on before I was on with the containerization that it's actually helped I'm starting I'm not seeing as many rodents so far um I'm hoping that some of the things that you've done before my tenure that have actually helped um but we haven't got a brief I've asked um director at V I believe I asked her in one of the meetings to have parab bound our our exterminator come in and actually give us a presentation so we don't sit up here like that we're an expert in in rack control or things of that nature we need to have somebody teach us before we make a decision on rules that if we are saying no more parets because of rats okay well we have some backup the reason why Paramount says and again I'm paraphrasing the Exterminator says it is a cause of the of a problem you guys should address it but at the end of the day I think we haven't done anything up here to other than in November when we put the moratorium in or you guys put the m moratorium in there was no discussion over the winter months that's not true well I haven't been involved in any of the last three months I I attend a rat meeting that where volunteers are coming into play to help but I have not heard once anything in in this discussion in this body maybe in your subcommittee but then you should have brought it to our attention if it was something that urgent it should have been brought to our attention and you had two weeks to bring that to my attention I didn't get an email from anybody saying that hey we want this I didn't see anything from the HBA I mean I talked to roxan all the time I didn't hear anything either so I think this these 90 days give us a chance to actually revisit a lot of the issues that arise from this uh I it's pretty clear that uh at least from what I can say in my word for the one that's up the community is not happy about it so when people say that everybody's happy about it and does all this other fun stuff I have to listen to what the residents are saying as well but here this gives us 90 days to have the ability to work on something that's a compromise and helpful to everybody from the business to the residents to make sure that we've mitigate some of the problems that potentially come from these parklets Council um I listen I think uh I think we're all we want to be supportive of um our businesses I would agree that we've not you know there's there's a lot of questions right during just after covid there was a mad rush to put in place the permanency for parklets and it's a one-size fits-all ordinance that I think checks a lot of boxes and is great but we haven't you know we you know we learn along the way right we we're learning that maybe some streets aren't as um good of places to have parklets as other streets um we had issues with rats last year notwithstanding an HBA report you know I can look at a rat map and show you that there are rat sightings all around parklets um across the city so um and we're in the beginning of rat season right like we haven't had rats all winter uh I actually I've probably gotten 10 emails and text messages people are seeing rats again it's not it doesn't feel like it was you know at the peak but it's like the ground is thighing and we're starting to see them um again uh you know we're having a whole discussion um director sharp is doing the curb um man what is it curb curbside management analysis like how best to use our curbs and we you know just giving this open invitation for every single restaurant in the city to put a parklet on our streets we just had a conversation with um director Gonzalez about doing container Management in some of our parking spots and we all had a heart attack so like I think there's an opportunity for us to revisit this um right now and we should actively do it I don't disagree that maybe we're going to miss you know a peak season but it's one of many um and we I I it doesn't preclude a restaurant from having a streetery they can literally the same person I don't know what restaurant it is it may not be the most ideal thing but I'll tell you having those Street Aries that you can take out that are flesh to the ground still gives them outdoor space while we're thinking about it and they're they're more visible so I would hope that we just take this time and maybe we just similarly to previous conversation we just need to make that commitment that we're going to get in a room and address these issues and not be afraid to address the issues so I hope people support it but let's uh you know just be focused on um making those changes very Qui is the earthquake was that what it was no anyone Mr finina please call the vote excuse me Mr con no Mr doy yes Miss fiser yes m Mr Jabor yes Mr pres xano yes Mr Mr Ramos no sorry Ruben for me I'm no no for Q no for Q which one is this I don't know which one it is this is this is the uh parklets oh no yes yes I want I the moratorium yes I'll vote for him tell him what he is the the moratorium yes yes you come walk him for both though Jimmy he's in Las Vegas with Russo put it all on red Mr Russo hi president gtino yes Y haded no joose know okay got it Mike Russo voice of God tonight uh what he say what did he say I don't know the word of God tonight all right resolutions are we there already public any public uh yeah public comment on resolutions Patricia waiters Ron simini it wasn't accepted to the agenda yet procedurally Manny Rivera Solair he I'll give it to sure at your service sir council president uh thank you again I would just like to take a moment to say thank you um for recently I've noticed that the agendas have gotten um more uh manageable that there's not 15 and 20 ordinance on every department so that is appreciative I'm sure you appreciate it as well that I uh don't ask 500 questions but I'm just can ask a few tonight um again I also want to thank um Miss phallic for mentioning my clock it's not my clock it's a hbook and landmark I don't know if she was in favor or against but I thank her um back to the business um in consent agenda I would like to ask behalf members of the public on ca1 and C A2 uh the Grant on ca1 is that a grant that we have just received is it a grant that we're expecting uh I I guess we may be expecting it I don't know and is that for the complete amount of that project in the Southwest Park again I will be mentioning Southwest the Southwest next because it seems to be always be forgotten it's a forgotten Zone in Hoboken and it shouldn't be so if you can elaborate a little bit on that council president president I feel like I'm still disheveled but I'm going to try to compose myself uh I would like to also um on Community Development uh I see that Community Development has something at the back of the agenda but I'm going to ask on C D2 the increase again I know uh how it was uh discussed at the um workshop for the uh budget but uh again if you could help members of the public there again here I go in I'm going to skip Finance I'm going to go to um Parks and Recreation again here it is um The Church Square Park of course I'm in favor um of the um Farmers Market of course in favor of the Uptown Farmers Market but where is the Southwest Farmers Market I don't see it in the agenda is it uh just that it's coming up in the next agenda coming but uh I appreciate the quick answer thank you um Vice uh president doyo um now I would like to move into I forgot to mention PS3 and in ordinance of first reading this one is going to be um number two number three and I see that you removed number four in first reading and you put it this is where it comes into the community development in C D3 can council members Council pres we speak on first read we don't speak on ordinances for first reading no you can ask a question but I I guess I always do ask a question don't I you you you prerogative is to ask the question or not yeah no but deliberate your it's your you know purview I'm just saying I'm asking the question in regards to number three especially um the changing of the um ordinance here in this amendment that you are um allowing or are going to allow commercial use in sellers is that a a amending of the city code which is again something that keeps coming up um in different uh aspects in regards to rent control or or moving people out of uh their homes and and um demolishing or we are going to allow this now in the flood zone I always mention the flood zone so that's why I'm curious because I see the flood zone here so if you could elaborate on that whenever in in in two weeks as well as again um since you can elaborate on cd1 then can you elaborate there um cd1 is CD pardon me CD3 pardon me which is the one again that you're referring to CD3 you're referring to removed because they changed it oh no there is no C yes there is and the agenda oh thank planning Bo planning board yes can council president find it uh to elaborate and give the members of the public a a bit more of context as to that resolution and I see that clock going backwards so I think I'm good so if any help could be given there and again I appreciate the smaller agendas thank you very much have a good uh I think it was just that was right I don't even know where my list went anyone else anyone else want to speak we have no other MERS lined up to speak motion second all in favor council members uh agenda items to be pulled council president uh 1 A2 and F1 A1 is off was removed was removed yeah from the agenda say the other ones and foun councilman Russo yeah A2 and uh F1 said F1 to just a quick question um I'm gonna pull clames he's just looking one up something I care no any other council members it uh Mr lore call the vote on everything except claims A2 and F1 councilman Cohen I councilman Doyle I councilman fiser yes councilman Jabor yes councilman prano I councilman Cano I councilman R Ramos Reuben consent agenda hi Russo hi in council president Chino yes just screaming at this point resolution authorizing the city to enter into an agreement with hob and little league Council yeah just a quick question um little league is not paying for field space correct no nothing at all Mr please call on A2 on A2 councilman Cohen hi councilman Doyle I councilman fiser yes councilman Jabor yes councilman pres Zano hi councilman Cano hi councilman Ramos hi councilman Russo hi and council president gtino yes F1 resolution authorizing Emer emergency temporary Appropriations in accordance with njsa 4A 4-20 councilman thank you council president um it's my yearly um rant on the budget and temporary uh emergency Appropriations every time we pass a temporary emergency appropriation we lock in that number in that line item so if we're planning on making Cuts in certain line items please be pay attention that we're not overx overex expending in those line items right now where we can't make those cuts later because every time we vote on one of those that's then the threshold that's the Baseline so if if one of those line items is fully funded in this temporary emergency appropriation and I'm not saying that it is but if it was you then cannot change that later in the budget process so just want everybody to be aware thank you councilman thank you I have I have a question president J director Freeman yep can you educate me a little bit on the budget process in other words I have a question is there any chance that just as we have budget hearings now is there a way to have kind of some pre-budget hearings with with the council that start let's say in the beginning of the year so that when we get to the actual when we send it to the state that actually you know it could be acted upon quickly that we've already negotiated everything we've already discussed that is there any way to do that or I know you have a specific time frame when you have to have it to the state they get approval and then within 10% or whatever it is can you explain that to me please so I think that there are a number of like conversations that can be had there's also there's a not a large number but several figures that come from the state that are dictated to us that don't come until end of February March okay um so we could have conversations big picture on kind of what to expect or concerns or things that we see and I I think we can kind of have some of the conversations now in part of my budget presentation when we look ahead to 2025 as to some of the things that are kind of red flags for the administration that I think should probably be red flags in terms of pieces for us to have conversations about um but so the short answer is yes but I don't there sometimes they're going to be like we don't know that answer yet fair I I just have a question because in Trenton for example they start in October the year before and then by the time they get to January they're kind of in some deep discussions I understand some of those things are dictated by the state but in other words for us to be a little more transparent to the community we don't get till half of the Year spending the money I think what councilman Russo is basically hinting at with some of the uh emergency or temporary appropriation I'm just feeling that if we started the process earlier maybe we can button up something so that when we get those big numbers in uh it would be an easier process so I hopefully uh I'll be happy to work with you on maybe setting something up for next year so that we kind of start in the year before because I don't think any of us are up for reelection so you'll be seeing the same faces up here but we can maybe start that process early so I'd love to work with you on something like that very good thank you Council in the past I mean real passed a long time ago the Committees used to meet with the directors and the director would go through their budget before the budget presentation with the committee I think that was really beneficial and just getting more odds on it whatever it is I'm happy to do some work on it if it's if everybody's in agreement I'll I'll sit down with director Freeman and see if we can put something together go for it okay thank you Mr lore call the vote please F1 councilman Cohen hi councilman Doyle hi councilman fiser yes councilman Jabor yes councilman prano no councilman cantero I councilman Ramos Ruben temporary no councilman Russo no council president gtino yes passes first reading ordinances claims oh claims yeah it's a cdbg award C oh it's a cdbg okay great um actually then just call a vote call the vote on claims on claims okay councilman Cohen I councilman Doyle I councilwoman just done all in favor no CU I'm pulling councilwoman fiser uh yes except for 22- 0086 great thank you is that no orain that's a no it's a no sorry councilwoman Jabor yes councilman prano I councilman cantero hi hi councilman Ramos Ruben on claims councilman Russo hi council president gtino yes okay first reading ordinances know okay we got a first reading ordinance amending chapter 125 Leed paint councilman Cohen hi councilman Doyle I councilwoman fiser yes councilwoman shabor yes councilman preso hi councilman cantero hi councilman Ramos Ruben first reading lead paint hi councilman Russo I council president gatino yes ordinance number two for first reading amendment to Hoboken city code section 54 -32 Corporation councel to authorize the settlement of workers compensation or t claim matters equal two or less than 21,500 calling the vote for ordinance number two for first reading councilman Cohen one sec just for clarification just a clarifying question why 2150 why 21500 that's currently what it is now this is just ordaining what we've been following since I've been here you did a resolution a long time ago so let just read what we have thank you we do a resolution every year this would be ordaining it so we don't have to do that resolution got it okay thanks call the vote great councilman Cohen hi councilman Doyle hi councilwoman fiser yes councilwoman Jabor yes councilman prano I councilman cantero I councilman Ramos Ruben first reading authorizing settl I councilman Russo hi council president gtino yes ordinance number three ordinance amending Hoboken city code 19616 f as in Frank in the number four to allow for commercial uses in sellers in nonf flood zones it have done as in flood call it call the vote councilman Cohen hi councilman Doyle I'm first reading councilwoman fiser same yes I'm first reading councilwoman Jabor yes councilman presen Zano yes councilman cantero same way hi councilman Ramos who first reading on sellers hi councilman Russo yes council president gtino yes and resolution referring ordinance amending Hogan city code 9616 f as in flood number four to allow for commercial uses in Sellers and non-f flood zones to the planning board of the city of Hoboken for review and recommendation V councilman Cohen f is in non-flood yes councilman Doyle wait councilwoman fiser yes councilwoman Jabor yes councilman pres Zano yes why did the DOR stay that councilman cantero councilman Ramos Reuben to the planning board on the C that was an i Jerry councilman Russo hi council president gtino yes new business before anything just in case someone does something sneaky um I was speaking to a property manager this week and he told me a little secret about tomorrow is it someone's birthday it's Jimmy's birthday tomorrow Happy Birthday Jimmy happy birthday Jimmy happy birthday to you happy birthday to you happy birthday dear Jimmy happy birthday to you all right Jim and many more Jimmy my gift to you is I did didn't sing pres okay uh under new business uh uh I wanted to introduce uh for for discussion uh emergency resolution uh originally I circulated something to the group uh I'd like to to refer back to what was originally circulated to the group there are uh this the Genesis I'm going to just read the title of it resolution condemning proponents of the proposed rent control referendum for not truthfully conveying to voters the impacts of their proposal and for collecting petition signatures under false pretenses and strongly urging residents who support rank control protections to not sign the petition just before you did everyone read it so is that everyone comfortable voting on was originally emailed out earlier voting on first one if we're this is an emergency or not yes yes okay Mr lore call the vote on I would just like to explain the emergency if I may oh sure thank you so um I was approached on the streets at Tenth in Washington by a uh an agent of the committee that was collecting the signatures they asked me uh to sign the petition for affordable housing in Hoboken uh this is uh a critical thing because a lot of people who signed this who believe that they were supporting affordable housing uh are going to learn and should learn that this is essentially as Miss phallic put it a vacancy de control which will have hundreds of units go to market rate before affordable uh before the affordable house before the rent Control Ordinance takes effect uh which will have the result of taking hundreds of below market rate uh units off the market so for PE now there may be a handful maybe a handful of units that could be added as affordable by paying in $2500 per decol into an affordable housing fund maybe uh but the net effect of this will not to create create new affordable housing the net impact will be the opposite uh and I think it's important for people who have been deceived and maybe there will be no more people who will be deceived by the actions of these folks uh my understanding is as of last weekend there were still petitions being collected at Acme uh in front of Acme uh that people should know that this Council rejects uh people who are being duped into signing petitions on false pretenses it reminds me of on college campuses people were signing for an independent candidate and found out later when they turned the page over it was Kanye West who was going to be appearing on the ballot uh Mr Simon cen's like oh on page three it lays out the whole thing but for people walking down Washington Street people leaving the market who like affordable housing who support affordable housing they have been tricked they have they have been tricked into doing this and I think it's important that the council uh condemn it for what it is to speak clearly for what it is and to do this immed immediately uh it sounds like there may be a submission of signatures at some point I think the people who have submitted those signatures need to know that this Council rejects this kind of behavior and needs to call it out also the impact of this uh referendum will indeed uh undermine the benefits of our rent Control Ordinance and I think our Council needs to speak clearly on that as well so this is uh that is the nature of this and I'm open to any questions or comments from my colleagues thank you Mr Mr L yes no no that's fine you want go with the vote first Mr L voting on an emergency resol ran stating the urgency correct yes if if just if it's an emergency yeah oh okay but you have comments on I me I no okay councilman Cohen thank you I councilman Doyle I councilman fiser yes councilman Jabor yes councilman pres Zano yes councilman cantero yes councilman Ramos Ruben on emergency is he there he's there he's still on no no on the emergency no on the emergency no counc I think that was three votes make sure they're counted councilman Russo council president gtino no passes no now we give Ron an opportunity or anyone any members of the public that wish to speak on this matter first of all the purpose of referendum is to allow people to vote on something and the purpose of collecting signatures is allow people to express what they think the impact of the law would be councilman con there's no robes on you you can't sit here and hold judgment on anybody you were approached correctly I don't know this ordinance will in fact create affordable housing many more units than you've ever voted on you've never voted once to spend $1 of this City's money to create one unit of affordable housing and we are sitting here saying we'll collect it for you create it for you and it'll end up in the hands of people who need the affordable housing can I have my time extended please every time councilman Co addresses me every time you refers to me thank you so we're turning the idea of Citizen referendum on its head these people can all vote no in fact I think you people vote Yes on the introduction of order es and then you votee no on the ordinances all the time and this signature is no different than that so you can come and try to demonize this thing and suggest to people oh well these again more boogey men emerging in Hoboken the fact of the matter is people should have an opportunity to do what you guys have not done which is figure out a way to use the rent control cohort of housing to create affordable housing will you have to take additional action will you have to Avail yourself of Grants will you have to seek funding yes you will but the money's is going to come from people who are providing housing right now who shouldn't be providing affordable housing you every day are voting you vote every day that somebody who has property should provide the affordable housing that it's the city's obligation to provide so this is about time for somebody to actually be able to look at a ballot question and vote on it and say you know what condo owners should not be under rent control small property should not be under rent control the city should no longer sentence everybody to have to convert their rental housing into condominiums or single family homes to avoid what is an unscrupulous application of the law you want to see hypocrisy you want to see cynical law you go to a rent control meeting you tell me you can support that what's happening there you can't support it you're supporting your political status so you can come up and say we did something for tenants you're not do anything for tenants you're not depriving one existing tenant of the opportunity to live and you're not taking any tenant who actually needs an affordable home and telling them I'm sorry I did something that will deprive you of that home that's bunk that's bunk what you're doing here is you're finally saying enough is enough we need the affordable housing we never vote any money to provide it we might vote to say developer could you provide it for us as a portion of your new development you include some inclusion their housing you don't pay for that they pay for that when's Hoboken going to pay for affordable housing why is it that our members are paying for affordable housing for people who don't need it you haven't seen I saw the last 50 applications from a reputable realtor that were approved there wasn't a $100,000 average in income there were only two applications in 50 that had a number less than $100,000 in the application of the co-signer you tell me what you're doing for affordable housing you're not doing anything for it I'm doing something about it we sat as a group and constructed something that will work and you're not commenting on that you're commenting on this fantasy land where you're trying to Virtue sell everybody in Hoboken on a commitment that you've never stood behind never so we're standing behind it and now you want to say that it's an emergency measure that deprives people of the ability to express themselves and vote if those people who signed the petition say later you know what i' reconsider this if those people are saying right now I was somebody who was dumb enough to not read what I signed even if there was a misrepresentation which I will tell you that there was a training for every single carrier every canvas I was at the training at the end of the training you know what I did I gave him all my card and I said if you have one person who says to you I need to talk to somebody else about this you have him call me my card was never given out and I never got a call so I think that this is a resolution that will come back to haunt you if you pass it I can tell you for sure you are going to drive more members into msta if you do which would be helpful to me but I hope you don't do it because I think this is a sincere conversation and I think you should be willing to have it and you're not you're hiding behind the boogeyman there's no Boogeyman any other members of the public oh I was like o that would be so awesome Manny who Mike yeah no come on what what do he say go ahead Manny thank you council president the opportunity to get extra time yeah I I'm stickly for the rules council president knows me for that um pardon my uh my uh seat keeper uh yes I am a renter and I am a voter I just would like a little more clarity in regards to what just occurred uh right now um did you vote for no we voted on an emergency resolution a hearing to hear this us to vote on it okay and if you vote how are you going how does the vote go is if you vote in favor is you're denying the people who signed the petition we're no we're not doing any of I'm sorry that's okay I'm sorry what did you say l this resolution in essence is just expressing an opinion of the council it's not saying that you can or cannot it's just expressing an opinion if in fact there's five or more members of the council that vote this in the affirmative they're saying that this is our opinion on this whole situation what council member Cohen introduced correct okay that's now I follow the situation and council president my question was if you were voting tonight to deny persons who signed a petition the right for cannot vote to deny anyone to do anything that's what I wanted to know thank you council president are you back I almost called him councilman hey IED Hoboken with regards to this emergency resolution um it's more procedures and protocol that I want to speak on whenever you have someone that's going to take the time to go on the street and get ballot questions it's a process and it's their right to do so if you didn't like the way it was worded you could have wrote your own and the frustration is and I'm going to point to councilman Russo in a second when when they got petitions for a 2cent tax years ago they said it was two cents they didn't tell you it was 2% they said it was two cents and they got the signatures and they got it through and we moved on and then there was another ballot referendum on pay to play they didn't tell you that the heart of what they're doing was on constitutional you were allowing certain people to give money and then you randomly picked a set of people and demonized them called developers and labeled them the scum of the earth and took away their right for $25 contribution you guys have given a lot more than I have over the years I was raked over the Colts I was told I had to sell all my property in Hoboken because I paid $25 to go to a county event I spent 30,000 litigation to back the city off when someone does a referendum question you don't have to agree with it you don't have to take such issue that you got to flip out and do an emergency resolution and the most frustrating part is that I don't know what was it six months ago you had two people that you would never see in a room together which was Cheryl phallic and Ron simonini and did the incredible I was shocked and all you had to do is need one more vote to overturn a veto you're right there you're five one more vote and you're not here tonight wasting your time talking about this thing one more vote and now now this question is a roulette wheel for you guys you don't know how it's going to turn out you're all going to sit back place your bets right then the tears come out later when we don't know which way it's going to go if it's decontrol people on this side of room going to be fear furious with you if it's the other directions landlord's going to be furious more litigation you had a shot to get it down the middle and a lot of you councel people worked on it you know behind the scenes it wasn't easy to get there but it was so easy to veto you just sit upstairs and and you guys never really give a full explanation for that you didn't demand an explanation for that when two LGE two of your largest groups get together and they come to some formation that's called split in the baby split in the middle this isn't the emergency the emergency was 6 months ago this is just playing it out and and and I mean it sincerely you really should never get involved with referendums since the other side has a right to run their own referendum so I ask you that you don't touch us as an emergency the emergency is you guys getting together with those groups and getting in a room and figuring it out not not putting it on a ballot when you put it on a ballot there's no redo it's over we had to eat the two cent tax and the marijuana stuff that went on the ballot that got passed and then you guys passed some local ordinances and then how'd that turn out how much hell did that raise here take the time now and just move this along and try to get in a room and and make this a moot point before it gets into a lawyers hands or before we don't like the the turnout that happens don't play roulette with people thank you you thank you anyone else we have no other members of the public signed up to speak motion to close public portion motion second all in favor I I hear me um I me I guess read the title first we we discuss yeah but I want him to read the title okay okay we're voting on under new business resolution condemning proponents of the proposed rent control referendum for not truthfully conveying to voters the impacts of their proposal and for collecting petition signatures under false pretenses and strongly urging residents who support rent control protections to not sign the petition council members uh okay um I can't put my name to this because I've never heard anybody say that to me so I might taking somebody else's word for that two it's a fundamental right to sign a petition or not I mean when we go around and we get our petition signed for when we run for office I know that there's people that supported me that signed my opponent's petition and the reason when you ask them why did you do that well because everybody has the right to be on a ballot this is the same kind of thing it's taking away somebody's right they can sign the petition they're not voting for it or against it and I think in fact in my election it was said that Bring it on Bring it on so if you sign it you bring it on and you contest it I can't put my name to this I mean I think Haney said it perfectly took the words out of my mouth I was going to say it we wouldn't be here if the mayor did not veto this and I don't want to see this go to a referendum I want to hopefully we can sit down like grown adults and get the sixth vote and make sure everybody's happy here but it goes back to what Haney said and what we all know that Cheryl and Ron getting in a room together to working on something that they were Arch enemies I sat there in the public looking at this going this is a no-brainer you pass it and the mayor vetos it the mayor didn't veto this we would not be having this discussion right now the petition would not be on the street the finger pointing would not happen but the way this is written I can't put my name to it because I didn't hear that it's you might have heard it but I didn't hear it so I can't put my name next to it and two it's signing a petition it's not putting it into law or not it's not putting it to a vote it's signing a petition so it's not saying whether you agree with it or you don't I haven't signed a petition I haven't anybody approached me for the petition so I can't put my name to it for that simple reason that they should sign it because it's affordable housing in Hoboken because I didn't hear that well president I mean a lot of things happen in life that don't happen to you or me there laws for example to protect against discrimination and I'm not a a protected class but I can still Envision a world in which something happens so you you know I it's a little hard to say I won't believe anything if I don't personally wasn't one of the Apostles doubting Thomas I believe um didn't agree so the the point is there's an Alle there are allegations that there's are deceptive practices being used which if there weren't deceptive practices people might not sign the petition so the and you know I understand I'm a little surprised at one of the public speakers I thought that letting people vote is not necessarily a bad thing so saying we we should have done all these things so we wouldn't ever have a referendum and then saying we love referendums because it lets the actual people vote rather than you know us making a decision some Ivory Tower so you know we we can have an opinion on this referendum just like anyone else and and and we don't don't all have to vote in unison so I don't think there's any problem with it being here and you know and it by voting on this does not preclude this being worked out during the 20-day period This is not you know ending negotiations and shutting down any discussion it's just a statement so council president yes Council a couple questions Corporation Council uh it brings up a good point if in fact fact the council votes in one way or the other on this does it then conflict anyone out in conversations if in fact because let's remember no petitions have been signed yet no or submitted yet there is no referendum yet although we're under the assumption that that's probably forcoming um but if in fact the council votes on a resolution like this does that Pro prude any of the council members MERS to not participate in conversations in that 20-day period no not by my reading of the resolution my reading of the resolution is it's saying that um false information is being alleged that's what I'm asking from a procedural perspective just like if a council member goes I was going to give you I was going to give you the rationale for my opinion but the answer is no if you just want a yes or no the answer is no no no no I'm I just want to make sure I articulated it well cuz I was fumbling there for a couple words but in the case like when some when a council member goes before the zoning board and articulates opinion about something they're then conflicted out of things like an appeal process correct so does this kind of fall into that same purview where if we vote on some on an opinion one way or the other whether it's this yes no whatever it may be are we then conflicted out in the the larger conversation about how that referendum may or may not move forward no okay that's what I wanted to know first second this to me goes down a path that I don't think anyone wants to go down we all have our opinions as a matter of fact I would go on a limb and say that each Council member's email that they send out weekly or bi-weekly or monthly or whatever it is reaches more people then this resolution ever will and we all have those opinions what this does is this forces this Council to take a position on something that not that has not even come to fruition yet we don't know if there's enough signatures we don't know if they're valid signatures we don't know if they're going to be submitted we don't know when that timing is is it going to be this year is it going to be next year is it going to be a month from now a special election a November election all those questions are unanswered right now but with this this puts everyone in a position for hypothetical do we go down the road and then a week from now two weeks from now when we're talking about next week's agenda is there a resolution talking about the petitions for somebody who potentially might be running for office that we should condemn that person because they said they were going to do something that we believe because there are things in here that I don't believe I think they're misrepresentations does that then cause a resolution two weeks from now to condemn this resolution for misrepresentations I think we go down that slippery slope do we want a resolution because I have one opinion one way about the conflict in Gaza and I should put that on the council agenda so that everyone else has to vote for it and I am then forcing my colleagues into a position that they might not necessarily be in is that what we're doing here because honestly if anything that was said tonight is true this doesn't mean anything because they got the petitions already in my opinion this is just about the nine of us and people's political aspirations and where they want to put themselves in political conversation I think that's all this is I don't think this has anything to do with rent control affordable housing whether we do we don't I don't think it has anything to do with that and that's my opinion so should I put it into a resolution and make everybody vote on it that's where we're going that's what we're asking each other to do right now and I'm okay with it because I got no problem taking my position one way or the other but I'm asking all my colleagues are you okay with all those other resolutions that my follow about candidates about what they said in their campaign versus what the reality is should we condemn them and call them out for their misrepresentations should we put up resolutions that council members don't necessarily want to vote on that members of the public have been here for months now asking us to vote on should we put all those resolutions up so somebody could score iCal points so one of nine members of the council could force the other eight members into a position because that's all this is that's all this is tonight if you feel strongly you will send it out in your email you will be on the street you will take a position in the election you will campaign if you don't feel strongly you won't do that but this does nothing for anyone in the city of Hoboken this is a political statement it's a position to force other council members and potentially other people to make a decision right now for a hypothetical because there's no one on this Council that could tell me if the petition's valid or if they'll be submitted this week or next week or if it's a November election or anything this is all premature but it's premature for a reason and we all know it and it's a disgrace to pretend to the public that it's not thank you council president thank you counc councilman uh thank you council president um that was a lot it is a lot uh but I'll go down that road um so what this is asking us to do is take a stand on whether we should Stand By and allow deceptive practices to continue um and I think it's within our responsibility to to use this forum to to say no and it shouldn't continue um the implications of allowing those practices to continue are that something could get on the ballot through through false pre uh pretenses look it's okay to use some puffery in stating your case and getting folks to come on to your sidee speech thank you sir and and and you know one thing is we sit up here and we take a lot and that's fine but sometimes the level of condescension coming it it's it's a little difficult to bear so so I appreciate your patience as you sit there as as I appre as I had patience while you you sat up there thank you sir um so that is one of the harms that you know I think we're looking to avoid in in in making this uh uh supporting this resolution which I intend to do you know one of I I have no doubt that the the the language on the petition form was was crafted in you know in a technically compliant way uh but it's intended to achieve its outcome which is to get people to sign sign it and it's fine it's another thing for the folks who are getting the signatures to not adhere to the to best practices or ethical practices I have no doubt that they sat through some training I have no doubt that they probably didn't pay attention to the training and the fact that no one ever called Mr simoncini uh demonstrates 100% compliance which if you've ever been a compliance officer like I am you know that means that people either weren't paying attention or or the policy was flawed so there's real harm to be done if we don't raise our voices here and look there's been a lot of clamoring in in the community and a lot of folks wanting us to to take a position on on this early to advise on whether we support the idea of a referendum and I think it's it's well within our our uh rights to to state that position I intend I don't support the referendum uh I've been pretty transparent about that for some time and I want these deceptive practices to stop uh and I I encourage folks if they feel like they've been duped to to get in touch with any one of us and see what what can be done about it so uh while I appreciate uh the hyperbole coming from my right I do think we have a responsibility here and I intend to vote Yes council president I'm sorry I I need to say something you know it's really funny because I I try to conduct myself a certain way when it comes to my Council colleagues and I'm tired of the nonsense coming from you Joe I really am you are the most condescending person I've ever served with on this Council council president it's Absolut excuse me excuse me this has nothing to do with you okay I have sat through committee meetings when when I sat through a committee meeting about our garbage collection and you had the nerve you had the absolute Gall to sit there and make comments about the garbage world and how it's corrupt and how you alluded to a certain class of people being involved in that and I sat there with two directors who said nothing I sat there with other Council colleagues who said nothing and I as an Italian American in the city Hoboken in the state of New Jersey in this country the United States of America I was absolutely flabbergasted by your comments and I would to never said a word about it but you know what I'm tired of your nonsense you love to throw digs you love to say all these things but you never want to admit that because somebody disagrees with you that they might be right in a certain circumstance it's absolutely appalling to me how you conduct yourself you need to stop that nonsense you disagree you disagree but you want to throw digs I'm going to start calling them all out and I'm going to call them out across the board you owe myself and you owe every Italian American in this country an apology for the comments you made in that committee meeting that's what you all or maybe you want to just make another mother another silly comment I'm tired of it councilman quo I don't know uh what councilman Russo uh is implying by go down that road H HR applies to us too by by by councilman Russo is implying that I am in some capacity prejudice against italian-americans a guy who grew up in an Italian and Irish neighborhood uh in New Jersey and and it's absurd um I think he's using this as a opportunity to Jus solely my name for whatever reasons the fact is in many instances there is a lot of noise and hyperbole that comes out I took one opportunity today to call it out and this is the reaction that we get so that's all I have to say yeah so um I think we're I'll just uh disagree slightly with uh councilman quo just in terms of what he said that he thought this was which is calling out deceptive practices um you know I think that this resolution I I I haven't heard people and I'm not saying that you haven't because I've heard from you and from other people that you know um that some of the people collecting signatures were simply saying it's an affordable housing ordinance and maybe they abbreviated I didn't hear any of it or or uh referendum um but I I think this just goes a step further um and I know its intent is to educate to say kind of what the ordinance is um but I think there's some conclusions in this that are oversimplified and I think that um also it it's oversimplified and it also may have the opposite um effect which is there's plenty of people out there that are unhappy with rank control right and we're going to sign a consider signing a resolution and putting it all over the news tomorrow and everyone will be interviewed and I agree with councilman rusco this says politics written all over it we've all been behind these kind of resolutions before and we just may be pushing A lot of people um to race to sign to sign this I I I would agree with uh with Ron that um there's unintended consequences from this whether it's msta just being increasingly excited or just people that are very anti-rent control and there's plenty of them in Hoboken um you know I think the train is left I think the uh I you know for those of us who you know supported a compromise uh for those of us who pushed back initially when and the ordinance we have now when we said if you pass that ordinance we're going to have a referendum you know I'm I'm the second it gets approved I I'm going to take out Billboards and say I effing Told You So we knew this was going to happen and here we are you know for me the only thing that we should be focused on is doing everything we can to drisk this situation because Paul was right councilman pres Zano when he ran you know his opponent said bring it on the worst thing we can do for our community the worst thing is let this referendum happen the best thing we can do is get in a room and figure out what we can do to stabilize housing in Hoboken for at least the next few years and not put at risk that this resolution which is a terrible or this referendum which is a terrible referendum not and Ron and I have talked about it we disagree it's a terrible referendum and we have an opportunity to have a conversation and do what we can to make it the best we can be because there's a lot of public pressure to pass this and you may not you may hear it differently and it's in different words and different places and different people with different housing you know experiences and and situations but I will tell you I hear more people that want to get rid of rent control than I do want to save it and that's not my position my position is I want to do everything we can can what' you say there are words this time not a sigh but anyway so listen I where I would would agree with uh um councilman Russo um you know there's a lot in here that I think is important to tell people I think if we feel strongly that there are deceptive practices and irrespective of what Ron said and his defense of that um you know we should say that we don't believe a referendum should be put up under um false pretenses I don't know that that is you know holistically the case we could call out and say in those instances where it was it's frustrating we could just form a view but I think this goes a little bit further than that um and I'm just I'm not comfortable signing it in or uh approving it in the the current format so council president yes counc thank you very much um so we take positions on topics of all nature International in some cases um but taking a position on something that's impacting our community this locally is even more important than any of those other resolutions I've called them in the past sort of spirit resolutions um so we should absolutely have this conversation and when my colleague councilman Cohen told me what happened um I thought I'm sure they did say that this supports affordable housing because it was very specifically crafted that that's true but the idea that your average resident walking down Washington Street understands vacancy de control is highly unlikely and I know that there has been quite an education for me personally thinking I understood this universe and it has taken a lot of time and a lot of reiteration to like really wrap my head around it so to me it is a deceptive practice to say this referendum is about supporting affordable housing and I think that the majority of this Council very much cares about protecting rent control because we've all had those conversations I think that when the mayor vetoed the legislation that came up previously the ordinance that everyone celebrates his interest was the same he says it in the veto statement that his concern is that this will do the same thing that is spelled out in this resolution in terms of having a concern this effectively removes the entire universe of rent controlled units which is my concern as well and why I have concerns about this referendum um as a general matter but I think the impetus of this was the initial reaction to the practice of collecting signatures and perhaps it is moot because I know it was mentioned earlier in public comment that the petition signatures have all been collected I've a lot of concerns about the validity of those signatures given the way that this was presented to people but I think that we have to be willing to speak out on something that has such a direct impact on our community and even if this doesn't necessarily have the impact of taking a stance as a body we rely all agree so I'm not going to you know lie to myself and think that that a possibility necessarily I hope that we're all educating people about what this really means because I think that's really important as part of this conversation is that we take the opportunity to explain what V vacancy decontrol is and how this actually would work because it's not an outright lie but it's not exactly the full truth either uh and I want for us as a body to take this on one way or another regardless of what happens in terms of the outcome on this resolution and council president and I spoke about this earlier I would like for us um there was sort of an ad hoc group of council members that had met last year and I don't believe that there was followup following that initial meeting but I'm very much committed to having that meeting um with a small group of my colleagues so that we can talk about what would be a realistic solution in this space and create some true compromise because I do think that that's possible and I know that there's feedback on both sides of this issue and I think that's achievable I just don't think this particular referendum and the way this is expressed is is the right solution so I'm hoping that we can take that away from this tonight you know irrespective of what the vote is on this particular resolution I would like to see that meeting happen moving forward so thank you um I completely agree with you that there is truth behind someone saying this is supporting affordable housing or may create affordable housing and it's it is the truth it if you want to believe it's the full truth or not the full truth I mean that's up to the individual I don't really see it creating very much affordable housing personally um and no no one's talking about how do you get the affordable housing no petitioners ask you know sitting there explaining that to them I don't know if the the people asking for the signatures are intentionally being deceitful I don't really believe those individuals are but we all operate differently and when I want to make a compromise with someone I don't go and stab them in the eye and then try to get them in a room and talk I think adopting or voting on this tonight is exactly what we're doing and I think that's a really bad approach in life and will get us nowhere and that's why I will be voting now Mr lore call the vote okay councilman Cohen I councilman Doyle I councilwoman fiser can i j can I speak can I speak I'm sorry D can I speak not yet want to do Reuben first oh do reuben reuben yes go ahead say something oh thank you sorry sorry I just want add the only people I could hearly speak tonight is like Russo and Joe that's it yeah the rest rest of heard old muffled I apologize for that uh but I want add my two cents to this conversation because the reason that myself councilman atino worked on the compromise with r sine and Cheryl phallic is because we knew that this was going to be the outcome a referendum was going was going to come down the pike and now now we're here with the referendum potentially coming down the pike and we're shocked so I can't believe that we're shocked that people are out there getting signatures people are out there trying to actually win a referendum or potentially win a referendum and we're shocked by the actions that they may or may not be taken there I I read the resolution uh briefly when I came out of the plane today and there's some things there I don't agree with I don't agree with the current R Control Ordinance where currently is putting us in the situation that we're in tonight because because we had a compromise that was much better than than what's currently on our books so hopefully we could work with if they get the signatures we could work with them on this to try and find a compromise amongst everyone so that's my two cents for tonight I'm going to vote now so he's a no thank you to vo wait Ruben Reuben you sure Reuben what's your vote ask him he said no oh he did all right so I'm a no council Fishers no councilwoman Jabor yes councilman presid Zano no councilman Cano yes Russo councilman Russo no and council president getino no it fails motion to close second all in favor I meeting that's Emily she's the one who started this I love it it's