Good evening everyone. We are on the record. Today is Wednesday, the 24th day of September in the year 2025. This is a regular meeting of the Jersey City Municipal Council. We had a scheduled 6 p.m. start. The clock on my cell phone is showing 6:09 p.m. May we have a roll
call for the commencement of this meeting. Council person Ridley >> here. >> Council Person Huings >> here. >> Council Person Bajiano. Council Person >> here. Council Person Solomon.
>> I know he's here, but we'll mark him out for now. Council Person Gilmore. >> Council Person Deise >> here. >> Council Person Rivera >> here. >> And council president Waterman >> here. >> We have eight council members in
attendance at 6:09 p.m. May we kindly rise for a moment of silence, please? Ellen Sheay, mother of director Sheay, and Mary Lou Depola Gregory. Okay. Thank you very much on behalf of Council
President Waterman and the members of the municipal council in accordance with New Jersey Public Laws of 1975 chapter 231, the open public meetings act, also known as the Sunshine Law. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by the posting on the bulletin board of
the first floor of city hall. The annual notice which is the schedule of meetings and caucuses for the municipal council for the calendar year 2025 and filed in the office of the city clerk on Friday, November 15th, 2024. In addition, at its
time of its preparation, the agenda of this meeting was similarly disseminated on Friday, September 19th, 2025 at 5:40 p.m. to the mayor, municipal council, business administrator, corporation council, and the local newspapers and posted on the city's website so I can
certify as to our total compliance with the Sunshine Law. I definitely don't want to make this about me, but I want to do it in the beginning of the meeting because I did try to do it at the caucus. I just want to congratulate my son and my future daughter-in-law Sam on their on their
engagement. It's only been 10 years in the making. Anyway, I'm going to mark Council Person Solomon present at 6:12 p.m. So, we now have all nine council members present. Council members, before we move on to our agenda, there are two
late items that I'm going to need your vote on. And the two items are the two last resolutions listed. Item 10.19, city resolution 25-624, is a resolution authorizing an agreement
with H&L Systems, Inc. for the annual support of proprietary computer software without public bidding for the Department of Administration, Division of Information Technology. And the next item is 10.20 20. Resolution 25-625
is a resolution authorizing the renewal of a contract with Winston's Food Service LLC to provide 2025 summer food service program for the Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Food and Nutrition. Council members, I need a motion to add items 10.19 and
10.20 to the agenda. Motion. >> Motion. >> Motion made by council person. May I have a second? Second by council president Waterman on the motion to add items 10.19 and
10.20 to the agenda. Council person Ridley >> I. >> Council person Huings >> I. >> Council person Bajiano. >> Council person Cle. >> I. >> Council person Solomon. >> I. >> Council person Gilmore I. >> Council person Deise.
>> I. >> Council person Rivera. >> I. >> And council president Waterman. Motion carries 90 to add items 10.19 and 10.20 to the agenda. Okay. Now, on to our regular order of
business. Our first reading ordinances. If you would just allow me to read them into the record and then we'll take a vote. First, starting with item 3.1, city ordinance 25-101, is an ordinance of the Jersey City Municipal Council approving a tax
exemption and authorizing a financial agreement with Sussex Street Associates regarding a project at 177 Grand and 193-195 Grand Street pursuant to the long-term tax exemption law NJSA 4820-1
Exec. Item 3.2 2 I believe is being withdrawn by the uh administration. >> That is correct. Item 3.2 ordinance 25-102 is being withdrawn as we discuss a caucus. >> Thank you.
I will not read that into the record. Item 3.3, city ordinance 25-103, is an ordinance supplementing chapter 332, vehicles and traffic, article 3, parking, standing, stopping, amending section 332-31, parking restrictions for street cleaning
purposes on Lincoln Park. Item 3.4, 4. City Ordinance 25-104 is an ordinance supplementing chapter 332, vehicles and traffic, article 9, parking space of the Jersey City Code, designating a reserve parking space at various locations throughout the city.
Item 3.5, City Ordinance 25-105, is an ordinance amending and supplementing chapter 1, general provisionings. Chapter 218, multiple dwellings. Chapter 260, rent control. Chapter 254, Property
Maintenance, and Chapter One of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Jersey City to establish mandatory minimums for violations of housing related ordinances. Item 3.6, 6 city ordinance 25-106 is an ordinance of the municipal council
of the city of Jersey City referring and adopting amendments to the Bright Street redevelopment plan allowed accessory uses in zone 3 residential infill. Council members are going to be taking a introductory vote on items 3.1 through
3.6 with the exception of 3.2 which has been withdrawn. Council person Ridley. >> I for introduction. Council person Helings. >> Hi. >> Council person Bajiano. >> Council person Cle. >> I for introduction. >> Council person Solomon.
>> I for introduction. >> Council person Gilmore. >> I for introduction. >> Council person Deise. >> I for introduction. >> Council person Rivera. >> I. >> And council president Waterman. Items 3.1 through 3.6 with the exception
of 3.2 2 which has been withdrawn are all introduced unanimously 90. On to our second reading ordinances. Our first second reading ordinance is item 4.1 city ordinance 25-096
is an ordinance amending chapter A352 enabling ordinances of the Jersey City Municipal Code commemoratively designating Bentley Avenue from John F. Kennedy Boulevard to Westside Avenue in the city of Jersey
City to be known as Walter R. Lzinski Way. This is a public hearing on this ordinance. Any member of the public wishing to be heard, please come up to the podium and state your name for the record. >> Motion. >> Motion to close the public hearing was made by council person on city ordinance
25-096 and seconded by council president Waterman. On the motion to close the public hearing on city ordinance 25-096. Council person Ridley. >> I. >> Council person Healings. >> I.
>> Council person Bajiano. >> Council person. >> I. >> Council person Solomon. >> I. >> Council person Gilmore. >> I. >> Council person Deise. >> I. >> Council person Ribera. >> I. >> And council president Waterman. Motion to close the public hearing on city
ordinance 25-096 carries 90. for final adoption for final consideration and adoption of city ordinance 25-096. Council person Ridley >> I. >> Council person Huings >> I. >> Council person Bajiano.
>> Hi. >> Council person Sole. >> Hi. >> Council person Solomon. >> Hi. >> Council person Gilmore. >> Hi. >> Council person Deise. >> I. >> Council person Rivera. >> I. >> And council president Waterman. City Ordinance 25-096
is adopted unanimously. 90. On to our next second reading ordinance. Item 4.2, 2. City Ordinance 25-097 is an ordinance authorizing the execution of documents and amending
releasing certain restrictions imposed on block 15801, lot 5 within the Jersey City Medical Center site to allow for its redevelopment. This is a public hearing. On this ordinance, any member of the public wishing to be heard,
please come up to the podium and state your name for the record. And if you won't don't mind, spell your name for the record so we have your correct spelling. >> Hi, my name is uh Adrien Orosco. A D R I A N. Last name O R O
>> A D R >> I A N. >> Thank you. And last name >> O R O Z. >> Thank you so much. >> Uh good evening uh council members. Uh so I'm the political director uh for
32BJSCIU and uh we're the largest property service union in the nation. Uh we represent 15,000 uh members here in this state and uh 1,200 of those live right here in Jersey City. And uh tonight I'm
speaking on ordinance 097. Um, this ordinance, if passed, uh, represents a major step forward for a large development on, uh, formerly publicly owned land at the site of the Jersey City Medical Center. Um, first of
all, I want to note that the city's choice to sell this land to plug budget caps is troubling. Uh, it's a one-off solution, which simply delays dealing with the city's long-standing financial issues. Uh, next year the council will have to find another way to fill that same hole
by raising taxes or cutting services. Uh, we need to find long-term solutions to our budget problems that do not rely on how valuable our land is to real estate developers. Public land is limited resource and
should always be used to further the public good. We don't feel confident that the plan development in its current form will further the public good. As it stands, this land will be used to generate huge profits for a luxury developer, Kushner
Real Estate. KRE plans to build 1,700 market rate units with amenities. Another luxury building with no affordable units and no commitment to creating good jobs. Uh this has been the pattern in Jersey City for way too long and it needs to stop. A notable
exception to this is 701 Newark A where developers committed to creating muchneeded affordable housing and jobs without a living wage and affordable quality healthcare. In Hoboken, you have many examples of the city uh leveraging ownership of its land to extract not
just affordable housing but also good jobs from developers and not only that also public amenities um for the public. Uh, Jersey City is selling itself short. At 32BJ, we support responsible development like this that lifts up
working people like our members who live and work in Jersey City. It's an important way to raise standards and combat growing income inequality. Jersey City's taxpayers deserve full transparency on why their public land is being sold and what it is being used
for. Advancing this development today by passing this ordinance is too hasty. The council and the public need time to ensure that this development is one that serves all of Jersey City. Uh for that reason, I urge the council to vote no or at least table this motion until we have
certain asurances. We have no qualms with the hospital. We're sure they need this land sale and will be a benefit to the community. However, it's also a massive benefit to the developer. This council needs assurances that this redevelopment will at least provide affordable housing and good jobs. Thank
you. >> Thank you. This is still a public hearing on this ordinance. Any member of the public wishing to be heard, please come up to the podium and state your name for the record. >> Edward Perkins, you need spelling. >> No, thank you. >> Good. Um, I had to come up here on the
record and just state that we need a council that will not continue or we need a council that will vote this down. We don't need a council, okay, that's going to continue to not serve us.
You have to take a step back, all nine members of the council, and think about this. We continuously tell you that we're being displaced and that we are sick and tired of you serving the interests of developers over the rest of
us. It's a no. It's an absolute no. And at the meeting where 701 North was discussed, there was one council person who said, "But the developer did everything that we asked." And still that wasn't good enough
because so many of us will suffer. So no, absolutely not. No. Table it. Sorry about that. This is still a public hearing on this ordinance. Any member of the public wish to be heard? And if you can just state your name for the record. >> Neans McCann.
Uh I am the city's representative on the board of Jersey City Medical Center. You guys voted me on there and I appreciate that. I take that role extremely seriously. I've been on that board for about 15 years. This project has been in the works for
over a decade. It's called strategic planning. We're building out our campus for the constituents and the members of this community. I have a great relationship with 32BJ. Brent Garren and I work together all the time. And the
the hospital, this is the hospital, not the developer. The hospital is here for you in front of you this evening requesting to lift a restriction that would allow the city to get money. We bought this property eight years ago
from the city for $24 million with the whole plan of building out and developing our campus. And when we said is when when the time comes and we sell this piece, we will be splitting the proceeds with you 50/50, which is exactly what we're doing. We're taking
our 50% and building a garage. We do not have a garage at this hospital. This is the hospital of last resort. Every person in Hudson County or anywhere for that matter is welcome to come to our hospital and we will service them and take care of them at no charge if they
have no money. We the hospital have invested in every ward of this city. We expand every year. We care about this community as most of you well know. I understand 32BJ's concerns. I spoke to
them earlier. the developer will have to come to this board, to the planning board and everything when that time comes. But that's the developer. We are the hospital. You're punching the wrong bag. We are for the people. We are for the community. This has to happen so
that our community can be taken care of. It's crucially important. We we we hope you vote yes. We commit to working with SEI 32BJ as I know them. say you to set up any meetings they like and and I committed to that to that gentleman over
there that spoke first. We have a wonderful relationship at the hospital with labor. Uh we're we're in good standing with everybody and we're very proud of that. The developer is a different piece of this which is coming a different day. It's a different animal, a different piece. We are not
the developer. We are the hospital. We strongly encourage you to vote yes and unanimously this is our hospital. This is important for all of us, for our for our for our people that live here. Thank you very much. >> You This is still a public hearing on
city ordinance 25-097. Any member of the public still wishing to be heard, please come up to the podium and state your name for the record. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Motion to close the public hearing was made by Slay. >> Oh.
>> Oh. >> No, no, no. That's not the time. >> If you want, sorry, just to be clear, if you want to speak on this vote, you can speak on this vote. But if you're general speaking, Yeah. >> So, we have a motion to close the public hearing on city ordinance 25-097
made by council person. May I have a second? >> Second by council president Waterman. If you did say it before, I'm sorry. On the motion to close the public hearing on city ordinance 25-097, council person Ridley, >> I. Council person Helings.
>> Hi. >> Council person Bajanna. >> Hi. >> Council person Cle. >> Hi. >> Council person Solomon. >> Council person Gilmore. >> I. >> Council person Deise. >> Hi. >> Council person Rivera. >> I. >> And council president Waterman. >> I.
>> Motion carries 90 to close the public hearing on city ordinance 25-097. May >> I ask a question? I'm sorry. To the city. Um, can we put in language in this second read? I know it probably have to be
tabled right now. That would be a commitment to the union. I know that this is the sale and not the project and that we would be voting separately on the project and we could vote it down if the union wasn't involved. But just for the comfort of the people up here and for the union that's, you know, going to
be a part of this, would we be able to write in any commitments >> without a major change? >> And wouldn't it be when it comes up for a vote, we can demand that? >> I would just say right now this ordinance is just voting on removing the
restriction. I don't know how we would put anything in there that would have anything to do with what's the vote right now. Again, it's just removing the restriction and whether or not the council wants to authorize that. Again, the redevelopment is not even, you know, part of this ordinance.
>> And this is is there is this a definite guarantee that this property will be turned over to Kushner or is this not you saying it's not a rest? There's no restriction. Oh, >> I mean it's has to do with the >> explain to explain what the restriction
is. That's what you need to do. >> I can let the attorney come back up if he wants to speak a little bit about it. >> Explain. Come on, Evan. >> But I just add as far as this is us removing the restrictions for the medical center, who they sell to, what they deal with, that's on them and their part. >> Thank you. The restrict the restriction
is the city worked with the state of New Jersey and the hospital to acquire land so that we could build out a campus for this community. Over those years there was a restriction that it was for to be used for hospital use. We have in the
past sold >> you cannot wait a minute wait a minute I granted it so he can explain what restriction is because some of the council was not clear. So, uh, listen, I'm going to do what I need to do here,
okay? They asked for clarification on restriction. The council asked for that. >> So, the >> give them clarification. >> So, the state and the city worked together with us, the hospital, to acquire our campus. On that campus,
there's a restriction that land is to be used for hospital use until the restrictions are lifted. We had one piece that we sold off to build out our emergency room, which as you know is an magnificent emergency room that was originally built for I think 30,000
visitors a year and we get over a 100,000. So we sold off a very small piece and the EDA followed suit. These discussions have been going on for years. This is all uh a plan for our project and the restriction is lifting the medical use so that that land can be
sold and then you will have your own discussion when the developer comes. You couldn't put a restriction on us the hospital because we're not the right person to be restricting. We are the hospital are agreeing to set up any
meetings you would like to have the the future developer uh sit with S SIEU 32BJ. We're happy to set those meetings up. We can't commit for them. We're not the developer. We are the hospital. The restriction is to allow this to go
forward so the city can get the rest of its $50 million. Whatever you do with it, it's up to you. And that we can get our money to build our garage. and we are in great shape with labor as a hospital. When the developer comes, that
is the time to have these discussions. They're going to have to come to you. >> Thank you, >> Tanya. Um I'm thankful you're here, Tanya. Um going to lead need you uh your help here. So, I just want to make sure
I'm understanding this correctly. At some point this land was owned by the city and this developer. We have that part correct so far or the city sold the land to the developer.
>> I mean unfortunately Mr. Neans is probably going to know more about the history than Tanya wouldn't know if she's not on the case. >> Yeah. Just from a historical just for historical context. Um >> h how did this trans what h what happened? There was a lot of
acquisitions in and around the site. It's a total of 15 acres. All right. Some land was owned by railroads. Some land was owned by various people. The state of New Jersey came in and purchased that property. Right. >> Okay. >> They then said, "Okay, city, work with
the hospital on developing this out." And that is our relationship. So, we bought this piece of property from the city who got it from the state with the plan of always spitting splitting the proceeds to to allow for the buildout of our garage and the setup of the rest of
our campus. Now, when you guys acquired the land via the state through the city, um how did the restriction come about? because at some point they only wanted it just to be the hospital and that was
the only way they were broker the deal that's why everyone's getting paid right the restrictions being lifted because it is those the very small piece of the campus is not going to be used as hospital although we may have you know um a hospital piece in a building for
like urgent care stuff like that but the the restriction is is being lifted because the city's getting paid back and the state will probably get a piece of the money too >> and and the land is will be pretty much only really valuable if those
restrictions are lifted. It's not valuable. >> Well, it's valuable. It could it's it's yes it's it's more valuable with the restrictions the restrictions >> for the city for the state for the for the community. >> All right. Okay. >> To add to that restrictions are put in place originally to build the hospital
that has transpired now. The hospital needs certain improvements. I think there's parking lots, ancillary structures to improve the hospital care, but the original restrictions were there to build the hospital, which has already transpired. >> Okay? >> And the hospital has been built and we just keep expanding throughout our campus on it.
>> Okay? >> Now, >> now you know what, Sean, I'm I'm sorry we take Sean off cuz Sean complains that we go off on on these things when we we in the process of a vote. But so what else you need clarity in cuz we going to You wanted to say something?
>> Oh, hold on. I ain't finished. I'm just trying to make sure I got enough information to vote. So Tanya >> as it relates because the issue for me what I'm trying to come to conclude whether it's beneficial or not is while
the development is in essence a separate piece. It's kind of like tied in together because you can't embark on that journey with the development unless the restrictions are lifted. So it's kind of almost like one and the same. So Tanya, um, if you can help me explain,
so that area is zoned to have what type of housing and does that trigger the L? Does it add an affordable unit or anything in there? >> The zoning here is slightly tricky. It is for high-rise zoning, um, especially
with on the within the corners. It does not trigger the ICO. It is zoning that has been in place for a while. Okay, go ahead, James. >> Well, yeah, I just this is my understanding which I think is the the challenge that we have here is that I do
not believe that the developer is going to come before the council again. I think they'll go to the planning board but not the council. Uh and so that creates a challenge of uh you know if the city if we're trying to get this developer to do more uh it is hard for us as a body to require that before the
planning board. That make sense that like they're not going to come before they're not going to ask us to vote on anything again. They're going to ask the planning board to approve their plans. >> So I guess is there any real room for the council to >> guess um get in the middle of this now
and meet some of those demands of the unions some of their concerns. Is there any opportunity to do that at this point is what I think the real question is that we have like we understand that this is bringing revenue revenue to the city which I think we probably all want but there are outstanding concerns that
I just learned of today. Um so I guess we're trying to figure out how do we find that balance? >> Can we put a clause in there? Is it that difficult to put a clause in here? >> It's just a different topic than what we're voting on topic. I know that
>> we're removing the restriction to allow the sale and to allow future redevelopment to go forward. >> That's all we're voting on. So >> in I would vote it up or down. >> It makes no sense >> even to add that that development should
include affordable units despite the ICO not being triggered and union, >> right? What's being voted on though? No, >> I don't think it's the appropriate avenue to do that. So that there is no avenue is basically
what we're saying at this point. >> We're not this is for the hospital. >> No, I'm not saying to add it into this ordinance. I'm saying in general because it's not coming back before the council. There is no other opportunity for us to have input as well. >> It would be the planning board. >> We have to go to the planning board to
get some type of restriction >> because this is something totally different. That's what you're saying. >> This is just to lift. This is just to remove the restrictions. >> This is just to remove the restriction. >> Yeah. But once you remove it, you're opening up >> and they will be able to redevelop it.
Once you remove the restriction, but that's what we're voting on to remove the restriction for the hospital to be able to to move forward and redevelop. >> This is the Okay, I get it. is is just to remove the restriction. But I could see audit the council concern is that
they want to make sure that uh I guess affordable housing is included in the restrictions once it's lifted. That is their concern. Now based on my understanding, you say um this has nothing to do with affordable housing, but once we lift the restrictions, then
they can build whatever they choose. >> Right. >> Well, pursuant to what Tanya just said, yes, no ICO that's applicable to it. If a developer comes in and builds residential, there's no ICO, no um required affordable. >> Correct. So what we're trying to say is
then even though we understand is the restriction removal. We got that. We clear with that. But can we add though that this can this must come back to the council? No. Just say yes or no. That's all. >> Okay. That's all we need to know. >> That's because if we can add it, we want
to add it. Now, based on what you're telling us as our representative from the law department, you're saying we cannot. That's why I want us clear. You saying we cannot. >> Correct. Sure. >> Okay. >> Are we able to add anything to the Grand Jersey redevelopment plan?
>> We have to have to refer to the planning board to review and the planning board uh planning can bring back their recommendations. >> We can amend that. >> We usually do to amend the the redevelopment plans. I would like to do that. >> Yeah, we want to amend that plan. >> Yeah, if we amend that plan, it would
still apply to this project. >> So, that would have to come back to Tanya, but this is something totally different. So, Tanya, look for it to come. That's all I can tell you. Okay. Because that's what we're going to do. We want to amend that plan. All right. Got it. Okay.
>> Tanya works day and night. So, okay. Be on topic. >> So, Tanya, that's the plan we want next. Okay. Go ahead, Sean. Motion for the >> no motion. >> Okay, >> it's already closed. >> The final consideration and adoption of city ordinance 25-097.
Council person Ridley. >> Um, this is a tough one because we do want to make sure we have those proceeds. I think uh talking this out right now, I know Councilwoman Deise has committed to uh looking at the plan and making the
amendment. I commit to working with you on that and to looping in the uh union in that conversation to see if we can change some of this stuff um with this plan in order for this to work out. So with the understanding that we are going
to now submit amendment changes I will vote I. >> Council person Hulings >> I. >> Council person Bajiano. >> I go along with it. As long as there are amendment changes I say I. >> Council person sele. Vote I.
>> Council person Solomon. >> Yeah I'm going to vote no for I think two core reasons. And it's not the hospital's fault. As uh Mr. McCann said they're sort of, you know, kind of caught up in this, but there are just two fundamental flaws. And I think this is the council's chance to exercise
authority. The first is we're using this money to plug the budget hole. This is not money we're using to build Jersey City's first rec center or money that we're using to build affordable housing units. It's money we're just going to spend and by December 31st, it's going to be gone. Uh, and that's not the right
way to manage a budget. And then the second piece is we want to ensure affordable housing gets built. and this is a point of leverage for us to do it. I'm voting now. >> Council person Gilmore. >> Um yeah, this this is an interesting one
for me. Um because for me when I'm looking at the totality of the project, this land was designated to develop or and expand the medical center. While I
understand the financial challenges and the reason by them selling the land to bring to fruition improvements to the medical center, it's kind of like they're stuck between a rock and a hard place because when you lift the restrictions, then you allow for things
to be built. So whenever I'm seeing a ex public good going to a private entity to build something, the first thing that jumps out to me is affordability given in the rise of cost of living in Jersey City. Um and for me there's no real
mechanism to ensure that that is included in this plan. Um, so while I understand that the medical center needs his parking and they have parking lots all over in the vicinity down where the
medical center is. Um, my primary job is to make sure I'm looking out for the entire Jersey City. And I just don't think that this is something um that benefits the majority of people. Um, so
in light of all that, I vote no. Council person Deise >> with the commitment for the city to do redo or uh amend the Grand Jersey redevelopment plan to make sure that there is affordability despite there
being no ICO and to make sure that the union has representation there and that they have a signed partnership agreement. I will vote yes. Council person Rivera, >> you know, there there's two people that, you know, the people that came up here,
you know, two entities that you can advocate. One is a city entity, uh, which is the planning board. you know, I I suggest that you know, you know, you guys go to the planning board and and voice those concerns and hold medical center accountable, you know, but let me
tell you something, that ER, for whoever has visited the ER, the Jersey City Medical Center, there's probably like 30 bays in that ER and critical care is sometimes gets put on hold in that ER
and you have patients waiting there for hours and hours and hours because there's not enough bays. Like the medical center is going to commit to put the plan that they had in place 10 years ago. You're talking about a hospital
that came from five buildings on Baldwin Avenue and it's coming down to one building. You're talking about a er in on Baldwin Avenue who had 75 bays to
only 22 bays here in downtown. And we're going to say here that that's ser that's not servicing the people of Jersey City. That right there is not servicing the people of Jersey City. You
have an you you have an entity. The hospital is committing to build an ER. I will always be on the side of that to make sure that the sick patients in our
city get the proper care on time, not have to worry that they can possibly die in the ER because we have no beds. There's a code in the hospital called 99. You know what 99 means? 99 means
that there's people on the floors piled up on gurnies because there's no beds. I'm sick and tired of hearing 99 being called from the intercom. You should know what we're talking about before we vote against projects like
this. 100% vote eye for this. Council President Waterman, >> just want to explain to the public what this is is just lifting the restrictions so the hospital can continue to build what is necessary to serve the people. Uh what the other council people was
concerned about was the affordable housing because in the grand Jersey City redevelopment plan based on what was just said to us, there is no affordability in that plan. So what they want to do is reach out to planning to see if we can amend that plan to get
affordable housing in there because we realize that affordable housing is an issue. So this what we're voting on is to rel to remove the restrictions so the hospital can continue to build it and they will give the city a portion of the money and they will have a portion of the money. Now when you do a budget, you
have to always make a way where you don't have to always do the taxpayers to fulfill the budget. part of that money will go to the budget to fulfill the gap that's there. But hopefully next year we will not have to do that because we don't always want to go to the taxpayers to fill the budget because that's what
government does a lot of time go to the taxpayers to tax them more to fill the budget. So we was trying not to do that and so this helped um this budget year for us not to. So we removing the restrictions so the hospital can build out and we will look at the other plan
to make sure affordable housing is in that plan. With that, I vote I. >> City ordinance 25-097 is adopted 72 with council members Solomon and Gilmore voting no. On to our
next second reading ordinance. Item 4.3, city ordinance 25-098, is an ordinance amending chapter 218, multiple dwellings of the code of ordinances of the city of Jersey City, by adding subsection 3, mandatory
disclosure for rent increases to section 12 and correcting language in section one. This is a public hearing on this ordinance. Any member of the public wishing to be heard, please come up to the podium and state your name for the record.
Good evening. Hold on one second, Mark. Lot of camera work today. Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Kevin Weller and I live at the Rentrol Building at 155 Washington Street. I'm here to support ordinance 2598.
First, let me address the typo correction in the security requirement. Even with a citation error, every landlord knew exactly what was required. 100 unit buildings needed 247 security. Fixing a statute reference doesn't change the obligation. It just clarifies
it. Now, to the heart of this ordinance. When this council unanimously passed the ban on algorithmic rent fixing, I praised it, but I warned that enforcement would be nearly impossible without transparency. I traveled with other Jersey City residents from Portside and other
buildings to Hoboken, Payek and beyond, clarifying this same uh carrying this same message. Even though algorithmic price fixing can't legally touch a rent controlled building like mine, I knew transparency was the only path to real
enforcement at Portside. This disclosure requirement is actually irrelevant. We've always been rent controlled, every unit, always and forever. But when Equity Residential violated our rent control, they allegedly also violated
antirust laws that have existed since 1890. Sharing non-public competitor data isn't newly illegal. It's been illegal since the Sherman Act. This disclosure ensures there's no illegal collusion, shining
light on both legal and illegal rent setting practices. What I witnessed at caucus was remarkable. Director Richardson, corporation council, municipal prosecutor Jake Hudnut, everyone on the same page. It was really
something to see this level of coordination, even if it was about something that doesn't directly affect Portight Towers given we've always been subject to the city's default uninterrupted forever rent control that runs with the
land. Councilman Cle, you voted to ban illegal activity. This ordinance simply asks landlords to swear that they're following the law. The truth has no liability. Only lies do. If a landlord is setting rents illegally or legally, sorry, shining this disclosure cost them
nothing. If they refuse or lie, well then that tells us everything. As the person who filed the first and largest nationwide class action by a New Jersey renter against algorithmic price fixing, I'm proud to witness this council taking the lead. Councilman Solomon, thank you
for championing this from the initial ban to tonight's disclosure requirement. You're paving a path that every municipality should follow, and I'll make sure they hear about it in person and through press coverage. I'm genuinely proud of what this council is about to do tonight. I really am. Thank
you. >> This is still a public hearing. You can state your name for the record. >> Daniel Feldman, uh tenant at uh rent controlled Portside Towers, 155 Washington Street. And uh let's talk about the power of sworn statements.
Now, when a landlord signs this disclosure, they're not just filling out paperwork. A false statement here creates doable double liability. It's perjury under criminal law and a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, which means treble damages.
So, three times the overcharge. Now, that is real teeth in a law. And we've seen what happens when landlords make contradictory sworn statements. Look what look at Equity Residential at Courtside Towers. In 2020, they swore their buildings were rent controlled. In
2021, they swore it again. than when tenants filed positions petitions. Suddenly, they claimed a 30-year exemption. Those contradictory statements become key evidence in multiple lawsuits because they can't run from their own signatures, though they do try. Now, this ordinance creates that
same accountability citywide. Every single rent increase now requires a sworn statement that the landlord didn't use shared competitor data. Think about that. Every lease renewal, every new tenant, every rent hike, each one generates a legal document that could be
used as evidence if needed. Now, for years, tenants have been flying blind. We get a rent increase notice with no explanation. Is it based on market research, operating costs? Is it based on an algorithm that's telling every landlord in the area to raise rents by the same percentage? We had no way to
know up until this point. Now, with this ordinance, we will know. And most importantly, we'll have proof. This isn't just about catching bad actors, but it's about changing behavior. When landlords know they have to swear under penalty of perjury that they're not
colluding, many will think twice before subscribing to these price fixing schemes. The risk becomes personal. It's not just the company anymore. It's the person signing their name who faces criminal liability. I've watched tenants at buildings across Jersey City struggle
with massive rent increases they couldn't understand or fight. This ordinance gives us a weapon we've never had before. Transparency backed by real penalties. Every tenant organization in this city should be preparing to collect these disclosures. Every rent increase
without one is a violation. Every false statement is evidence. This is how we fight back. Council, pass this ordinance. Please give us the tools to protect ourselves. Thank you.
>> Next speaker. >> Hi, good evening. My name is Shannon Ray and I'm here to speak for renters who are not protected by rent control. While tenants at Portside Towers have rent control protection, even if their landlord tries to deny it, thousands of
renters don't have that shield. They are completely exposed to whatever the market will bear, or at least what landlords claim the market will be will bear. A few months ago, New Jersey Attorney General Ma Matt Flatkin filed a lawsuit against Real Page and major
landlords for algorithmic price fixing. The FBI raided a large landlord. The Department of Justice is pursuing criminal charges. This isn't some conspiracy theory. It's conspiracy fact confirmed at the highest levels of law enforcement.
The AG's lawsuit specifically talks about how these companies worked to circumvent rent control laws. But what about the renters without rent control? They were the easiest targets. When every landlord in an area uses the same algorithm fed with the same private
competitor data, rents don't compete anymore. They collude. I want to thank Councilman Solomon for leading where others followed. While federal agencies were still investigating, Jersey City passed the first ban on algorithmic rent fixing.
You didn't wait for Washington. You acted to protect us. And now with this disclosure requirement, you're creating the transparency that makes enforcement possible. This ordinance protects everyone. Those with can rent control and those without.
For rent control tenants, it's another tool to prove illegal increases. For market rate tenants, it's their only protection against coordinated price manipulation. Some landlords may argue that this is too burdensome.
But let's be clear about what we're asking. We're asking them to swear that they're not breaking antitrust laws that have existed since 1890. If that's too much to ask, what does that tell us about their business model?
The housing crisis in Jersey City isn't just about supply and demand. It's about artificial manipulation of the market. When landlords share private data about their pricing and occupancy, when they all follow the same algorithm's recommendation to keep units vacant to
drive up prices, that's not a free market at all. That's a cartel. This disclosure requirement shines light into that darkness. It forces honesty where secrecy allowed abuse. It creates evidence where there was only suspicion.
Vote yes, please, on this ordinance. show every municipality what leadership looks like. Thank you. >> Next speaker. >> Good evening. I'm Michelle Hirs and I live at the rent control building at 100
Warren Street. I'm here to support ordinance 95-098. Let me tell you about equity residential signature move. It's not what they file, it's what they don't file. No compete, no complete rent roles for 27 years. No
proper landlord identity disclosures. Deliberately omitting basic information like who the resident superintendent is or whether they actually live in the building as required by law. Their strategy is simple. make enforcement
impossible, then claim the city's inability to enforce proves compliance. They deliberately create darkness, then operate in it. This ordinance, this ordinance turns on the lights. But there's the but here's the critical
part. Enforcement can't just target false statements. It must target missing statements. When a landlord raises rent without this disclosure, that's a violation. Period. Not an oversight, not
a clerical error, a violation. Council, you have something powerful that we tenants don't. An investigative committee with subpoena powers. You can compel testimony. You can demand documents. You can get the truth that
landlords have denied us for decades. The question is, when will you start using these powers? I want to acknowledge what I'm seeing here. Director Richardson, municipal prosecutor Hudnut, act incorporation
council, and the city's attorneys all working together to close loopholes that bad actors have exploited for years. Richardson has been handcuffed by landlords who weaponized opacity. This ordinance cuts those cuffs. Some
landlords are watching tonight. They're watching. Their lawyers are probably billing $1,000 an hour for it. They think with they that they can wait this out that we'll get tired that you'll get distracted. They're wrong. Every missing
disclosure is evidence. Every false statement is a confession. We're building a record that will follow them into every courtroom. This ordinance reveals existing crimes. Using competitor data to fix prices has been
illegal for 134 years. All we're doing is requiring landlords to admit whether they're criminals or not. Council, you're about to give the city the tools to distinguish between honest landlords and price fixing cartels. Use those
tools. I echo what Kevin said. I am proud of what this council is about to do tonight. Please approve >> ordinance 2598. >> Next speaker, >> Edward
Perkins. I was at that meeting. It wasn't the budget meeting. It must have been the caucus meeting, but I was here when uh prosecutor Hudner and also uh Pastor Richardson was here.
And um thank you very much, Mr. Solomon, because what the heck took so long to get a rent control ordinance in the first place? This council is hellbent on selling us out. And now this is the 12th year of the mayor's tenure, and he's leaving. And this is only just now
coming. So many of us have been sacrificed. So many of us. So, thank you very much. But I'm up here because market rate housing with all the abatements that you're giving to these developers, you're only building very
little affordable housing. So residents, market rate housing, we need this to be protected. We need rent control across our city. It should not be that any one landlord or property owner can raise a rent on us without us knowing and it
also be illegal. Thank you very much. We can't forget you. >> This is still a public hearing. >> Hi guys. Yes, my name is Tina No. Yes, I do work for Education and Gilmore. I'm just going to say we already know this right now we have a family that's
outside in the rain with five kids because we don't have no lowincome apartment. We don't have no housing. We don't have nothing. You know what? You need to throw the whole community away. That's what y'all need to do. It's a shame that the way that we are begging
for y'all to protect us and y'all not even listening. But thank God we definitely going to have new people in November 4th since they don't want to listen because I've been with y'all since y'all been coming here talking about that. Y'all should not still be in here talking about that. But that's all
right guys. Sit on down. We got some new people that's going to be in line and know all this. We going to be home on Wednesday. We're not going to be coming to this meeting because y'all know, like they said, it ain't no in between. It's either right or wrong. Ain't no in between. Ain't no saying this and that because that's what y'all do a lot, too.
Y always go in the middle. Get out the middle. Get out the middle. Get out the middle. This is still a public hearing on ordinance 25-098. Any member of the public still wishing to be heard, please come up to the podium and state your name for the record. >> Motion.
>> Motion to close the public hearing on city ordinance 25-098 was made by council person. May I have a second? >> Second by council president Waterman. On the motion to close a public hearing on city ordinance 25-098.
Council person Ridley. >> I. >> Council person Huings. >> I. >> Council person Bajiano. >> Council person. I >> council person Solomon. >> Hi, >> Council Person Gilmore. >> Hi, >> Council Person Deise.
>> Council person Rivera. >> Hi, >> and council president Waterman. Motion carries 90 to close the public hearing on city ordinance 25-098 for final consideration and adoption of city ordinance 25-98. Council person Ridley
>> I. >> Council person Huings >> I. Council Person Bajana, Council Person So Cle, >> I want to ask the bill sponsor, how many units in Jersey City does this affect?
This affects basically any lease in a multif family that's signed where the developer puts it in the lease and says I you know commit to following the ordinance and not using um uh you know uh the algorithmic software that's been
banned. So I don't have the exact count of multif family versus single family and one to two families but it's in the order of it will be in tens of thousands of leases. So, how many units are impacted by algorithmic rent setting?
When the attorney general sued, he sued the Lfrack organization, which owns tens of thousands of units. He has sued Bazado, which is responsible for thousands of units in Jersey City. So, the answer is we know that illegal software has been used in Jersey City
affecting over 10,000 units over a frack organization ruins entirety of Newport. You're saying that tens of thousands of units are being >> over over we know from the attorney general's lawsuit that over 10,000 units were again alleged through the lawsuit
to be using this illegal software. >> Okay. From what I have seen, it impacts about 3% of rental units in Jersey City and you're forcing every landlord, whether they're one family, two family,
to essentially attest to the fact that they're not using Hold on. I'm I'm just at I'm saying so every landlord in the city of Jersey City, just so we get this right, they're going to have to put in their lease that they are not using algorithmic rent setting software. The
landlords of multiple dwelling units. >> Okay. So, two two family and up. >> The definition is in the code. It is four and over. >> Okay. So, four and over. Do we know how many units that is? It is tens of thousands of units of
housing in Jersey City. >> Okay. So, it's practically almost everything. I >> mean, we obviously have lots of one to three family units in Jersey City, but we have a lot of multif family units. So, it's tens of thousands of units in Jersey City. I just want to make sure we we get this
on the record, okay? Because it is going to impact everyone, okay? It is also unsettled law that is winding its way through the federal court system and through the state court system as well. And if it's going to have such a huge
impact on everything that we need to put this on the record, I'm going to vote I because even though from my research it shows that it only impacts the the algorithmic rent setting software only impacts about 3 to 5% that's generous,
you know, of units in Jersey City. We wouldn't want to wait for it to get to be more. But also everyone should know that it is unsettled law. Okay. I vote I.
>> Council person Solomon. >> Sure. Um I when uh the council originally passed uh the law banning uh the use of this al these algorithms that illegally allow landlords to illegally collude. Uh we made a commitment that we would work to strengthen it and and as
we were the first city in the state to pass it, it was important that we do it. an idea was brought to us that said look a way to really strengthen this enforcement mechanism is to add in this mandatory disclosure and what that does as was mentioned in the comments was it
brings in the consumer fraud statute. So it makes sense that you create a stronger enforcement mechanism to ensure that landlords are not illegally jacking up people's rent. This bill does that. It's good law. If you're following the
law, all you have to do is add one clause to your standard lease. That's it. One paragraph. The we have standard lease language that uh is is accessible. One paragraph. But if you're breaking the law, this creates a real problem for you because now you're on the hook for
triple damages. And that is why this is a good idea. That's why it was brought to us. And that's why I'm kind of living by my word to say, "Hey, if you bring me a good idea to strengthen our enforcement laws, I'm going to bring it before the council." So with that, I vote I. >> Council person Gilmore,
>> I. >> Council person Deise, >> hi. >> Council person Rivera. So, I'mma stand up and I want to congratulate the port side people for kicking this
in the ass. Listen, you guys you guys did this and and and and I want you guys to know that you guys are an amazing example for tenants throughout this city. You know,
one of the things that I I I did get a little upset is because it why did it take so long, right? And uh Kevin, I remember that conversation we had three years ago at the parking lot of Portide and uh this gave birth to that and your
advocacy with the tenants is amazing. Kudos to you. Great job. And uh I want to thank Councilman Solomon for, you know, bringing this. I mean, we've we've all been fighting for this and unfortunately it took so long. I
apologize for that for it taking so long. But listen, the uh is she okay? The uh the light is at the end of the tunnel, man. You guys knocked it out the park. Great job. I vote I.
>> Council President Waterman. >> Um I'm going to vote I. I just pray and hope that we can enforce this because Chyon was here and so um we could see that the issue is the enforcement. It's one thing for us to have a law but it's another thing for us to enforce it and a
director was here and he he expressed his concern about his manpower that you know he did not have the manpower to enforced it and then the prosecutor was here explaining his part but this is good law now we have to just figure out how to really enforce it. I just want
the people to know that. So I do vote I city ordinance 25-098 is adopted unanimously 90. On to our next second reading ordinance. Item 4.4 Four, city ordinance 25-099 is an ordinance amending and
supplementing chapter 260, rent control of the code of ordinance of the city of Jersey City to clarify the scope of state level exemptions. This is a public hearing on this ordinance. Any member of the public wishing to be heard, please come up to the podium and state your
name for the record. >> Motion. Hello. >> Good evening. Kevin Weller, 155 Washington Street, the ren controlled Portside East. I'm here to support ordinance 2599.
[Music] Let me be crystal clear from the start. This ordinance has zero impact on port side towers. Neither building has any exemption. None. Never did, never will. Both buildings have always been subject to rent control. Every unit, always, and
forever. So why am I here? Because this ordinance helps every other tenant in Jersey City whose landlord claims exemption. This ordinance finally memorializes what the legislature made explicit in 1999.
But what certain lawyers mysteriously can't seem to find. The amendment stated, "This act shall be applicable to all multiple dwellings provided that the owner has fully complied with the requirements of section 4. Not
substantially complied, not mostly complied, fully complied. And what does section 4 require? The owner shall, not should, not might, shall file with the construction official at least 30 days before getting a certificate of occupancy. No filing, no exemption. It's
that simple. But here's what landlords have been claiming for years. If they have an exemption from rent increase limits, they're exempt from everything. No registration, no rent roles, no truth in renting, no landlord identity
disclosure, total immunity. That's nonsense. And this ordinance makes it clear. Think of it this way. Even on a road with no speed limit, you still need a driver's license. You still need insurance.
You still need to register your car. The exemption from speed limits doesn't exempt you from every other traffic law. Same here. Transparency requirements are the license to operate whether you have rent control or not. At Port Side,
Equity Residential violated every law, every transparency law at least. And even if they had an exemption, which they absolutely don't, they still they still would owe millions in fines. they still lack the legal authority to raise rents because they never got their
license to operate. So to every tenant whose landlord claims an exemption, check if they're filing complete rent roles. Check if they're providing truth and renting statements. That's a state requirement. Check the landlord identity disclosures. That's a state requirement.
If they're not doing these things, you're likely overpaying. Exemption or not, Equity will probably act like this ordinance targets them. It doesn't. They have no exemption to clarify. This helps everyone else whose landlord has been hiding behind the fake blanket
exemption. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Good evening, council. I'm here about ordinance. Hold >> hold on. I need your name first before you speak. >> Anna. Anna Muk. >> Anna.
>> Yes. >> And last name? >> Muk. >> Spell it. >> M E D Y U KH. >> Thank you. >> When you're ready. Good evening, council. I'm here about
ordinance 2599, which clarifies what's always been true at the caucus. It was refreshing to hear Director Richardson acknowledge what this ordinance makes crystal clear, that state exemptions are limited, very limited. They only exempt buildings from rent increase caps.
That's it. Not from registration, not from disclosure, not from transparency. For years, some landlords have been playing a shell game. They wave the word exemption like it's a magic wand that makes all their obligations disappear. Wrong. The state law is specific. It
only exempts buildings from provisions which limit the periodic or regular increases in base rentals. Those exact words. Let me break this down. If you own a building with an exemption, you can raise rents to market rate. Great. But you still have to register those
rents. You still have to tell tenants what the previous tenant paid. You still have to provide truth and renting statements. You still have to comply with landlord identity laws. Why? Because these aren't rent limitations. They're transparency requirements. They're the basic rules of doing
business in Jersey City. Think about it like this. Having a commercial driver's license lets you drive an 18-wheeler, but you still have to register the truck. You still need insurance. You still follow traffic laws. The special license doesn't exempt you from
everything else. Richardson has been trying to enforce these requirements for years, but landlords keep claiming total immunity. They register nothing. They disclose nothing. Then when caught, they cry exemption. As if that word erases all their violations. And what does
Richardson have to enforce 260? Nothing. Now he has to take his team of two and what? Hunt down information that was always legally required. Landlords violate transparency laws so that all of the other laws can't be enforced. This
stops today. This ordinance shuts down that game. It says what the law has always said, but apparently needs to be spelled out. Exemptions are narrow. They apply only to rent caps. Period. The 1999 legislature made this even clearer
when they required full compliance with filing requirements. not partial, not substantial, full. Yet somehow certain landlords and their lawyers can't seem to find that language. For every tenant in a building whose landlord claims an
exemption, this is your wakeup call. Ask for your truth in renting statement. Check if they're filing rent roles. Demand your landlord identity disclosure. If they refuse, they can't legally raise your rent exemption or
not. Richardson now has the clearest possible authority to enforce what's always been required. No more games, no more excuses. Thank you. >> Next speaker. And if you can state your name before you speak.
>> Good evening, council. First name is Jessica, last name is Bran, B is in boy. R A N. like the cereal brand flakes. Yep. Sorry. So, good evening, council. I've been here many times. My name is Jessica Bran
from Portside Towers, and I want to start out by saying thank you. I want to thank Director Richardson for something he said at caucus that exemptions under state law are limited in scope. This ordinance does what he gets. He gets it. This
ordinance just puts in writing what he already understands, but some landlords pretend not to know. Let me tell you what's been happening. Landlords get their certificate of occupancy, claim an exemption, which by the by the way requires submission of
paperwork. So the paperwork burden is the same. And then they act like they're sovereign nations. No rules, no oversight, no accountability. they don't register, which is easy to do with an electronic submission system and a database with cutting edge tools that exist with large language models and AI.
By the way, to going back to the burden on the landlord, they operate in complete darkness in an attempt to avoid disclosure. When tenants complain, these landlords say, "We're exempt from your ordinance." When the city tries to enforce basic transparency, they say, "The state law
preempts you." When anyone asks for documentation, they say, "We don't have to provide that." But they're wrong. They're wrong on all of these counts, and this ordinance proves it. The New Jersey Supreme Court has been clear. When the legislature creates an exemption to a regulatory scheme, that
exemption must be read narrowly. It doesn't get expanded by wishful thinking. It doesn't get expanded by failing to answer the call for information. This exemption is from rent increased limits and nothing else. Look at the state statute itself. It requires
exempt landlords to give written notice to tenants. It requires them to file documents with the city. Why would the legislature require these things if exempt buildings had total immunity? They wouldn't because they don't. Richardson and his team at the Bureau of
Rent Leveling have had their hands tied by this deliberate misdirection for too long. Landlords exploit exploit ambiguity they create to avoid accountability. And this ordinance prevents that misdirection. And here's what really matters. When these
temporary exemptions expire, and they all expire eventually, we need to complete record. We need complete records to transition these buildings back to rent control. If landlords haven't been filing rent roles during that exemption period, how do we establish the base rent? How do we
protect tenants from mass illegal increases? That's why transparency isn't optional and it's not a burden. It's the foundation of a functioning housing market. Some landlords watching tonight might complain that this is overreach, but let me quote quote directly from the
legislative record. The purpose of the exemption was to encourage construction through freedom from rent limitations and not to eliminate transparency requirements that serve different purposes. Richardson has the authority and the law is clear. Thank you for making it more clear.
Michelle Hirsch, 100 Warren Street, rent controlled forever. I support ordinance 25-099. At caucus, director Richardson confirmed what the law has always said. Exemptions are narrow. They apply only to rent
increase caps. The fact that we need this ordinance in 2025 shows how some landlords have mastered the art of misdirection. Their strategy has been brilliant in its simplicity but illegal. Avoid all transparency. Making
enforcement impossible, then claim the city's inability to enforce proves compliance. They created a black hole where information should be, then operated in that darkness. If you never file anything, never register anything, never disclose anything, how can the
city prove you're violating the law, Richardson can't enforce what he can't see? That was the plan all along. This ordinance strips away their cover. It gives Richardson and his team what they desperately need, clear authority to
demand transparency from every building, exempt or not. But he'll need resources. He'll need help sweeping this city for every landlord who's been hiding in the shadows they created. The entire house of cards is about to crumble. Every
landlord who built their business model on avoiding transparency just lost their foundation. You can't claim an exemption covers your documents you refused to produce. You can't hide violations behind paperwork you never filed. Some
landlords have teams of attorneys, compliance officers, property managers. They track every tenants's payment to the penny. Yet mysteriously can't claim I'm sorry. Yet mysteriously, they can't seem to locate a filing cabinet for rent
rolls. They can't find a stamp to mail complete landlord identity information. No. They made a calculation that non-compliance was profitable, that the city would eventually give up, that tenants would get exhausted. They calculated wrong. This ordinance doesn't
change the law. It announces that the game is over. It's a clarification. No more hiding behind fake total exemptions. No more making Richardson's job impossible through deliberate misdirection, opacity, and obfuscation.
Council approve ordinance 25-099. Give Richardson back the backing he needs and then give him the resources to hunt down every violation that's been hiding in the darkness. I fully support
this new era of sunshine and transparency. Thank you, Solomon. Thank you all for your votes. Thank you. This is still a public hearing on city ordinance 25-099. Any member of the public still wishing to be heard? State your name before you
speak. >> Brendan Cogland. B R E N D A N C O U G H L I N. This law is important to pass. are, as we pointed out repeated, as people point out repeatedly, the Office
of Landlord Tenant Organizations been crippled due to landlords claiming by claiming to use a state law to say they're exempt from all local regulations regarding transparency when the law is focused on rent. This has been a ongoing issue throughout the
city and every day we build up another tower, every day another landlord starts ob continues obiscating the information. If I start a bakery and claim a tax exemption, I still have to file and be in compliance with local regulations.
It's the same thing as being a landlord, except the profits are a tad better. Thank you. This is still a public hearing on city ordinance 25-099. Any member of the public still wishing to be heard, please come up to the podium and state your name for the record.
>> Motion second. Motion to close the public hearing on city ordinance 25-099 was made by council person Rivera, seconded by council person. On the motion to close the public hearing on city ordinance 25-099.
Council person Ridley. >> Hi. >> Council person Huings. >> I. >> Council person Bajiano. >> Council person. >> Hi. >> Council person Solomon. >> Hi. >> Council person Gilmore. >> Hi. >> Council person Deise. >> Council person Ria. I and council
president Waterman. Motion carries 90, the close of public hearing on city ordinance 25-099 for final consideration and adoption of city ordinance 25-099. Council person Ridley >> I. >> Council person Huings.
>> I. >> Council person Bajiano. >> Council person. >> Hi. >> Council person Solomon. >> Just a second. Thank you to uh the number of uh members of the public who spoke uh and outlined why this change is
important and they're right. It is clarifying what the existing law says but the city's uh code and the city's ordinances were not clear. So I think in this case we wanted to make it explicitly clear that what it says is the scope of exemptions is narrow and in particular and I think most importantly
if you violate certain important clauses your rent can be frozen. So let me repeat that in a little more clear language. If a landlord violates the law in certain aspects, the enforcement mechanism is to freeze the rent. And
that is an extraordinarily important tool that the city has to ensure that landlords are following the law. And so by clarifying it, we make it clear that that's exactly what can happen. And I'm proud to uh vote I. >> Council person Gilmore. >> Council person Deise
>> I. >> Council person rea. >> So uh I'm going to talk again. All right. So, uh, listen, um, honestly, >> Bravo, you guys, you know, hit it out the park again. But you know what? I
also we we have to balance out things, you know, as well. Uh, so the same way I apologize to you guys, you know, for, you know, having to come out here every single Wednesday, you know, there was lots that was said about Director Richardson and u I want
to apologize to him because he basically had his hands tied, you know, and um, we put him through the grinder. And um you know, I'm not here to to uh defend whatever he did, his actions, but I'm I
apologize for, you know, because his name was kind of dragged around a lot. So, uh you know, it it is it is it is a great victory for you guys, man. Once again, another another good victory, and I proudly vote
I. Council President Waterman. Uh >> first of all, I want to uh thank um the port side um people for constantly coming out. You're just part of the family now. We expect you to come at every meeting to be perfectly honest. If you don't show up, we probably think
something's wrong. But you know, uh I also want to thank uh the directors of the city of Jersey City. I want to thank uh Director Jake Hunt and I want to thank um Director Richardson. The reason why is because um they came to our
caucus meeting cuz I asked them to come and to explain the process cuz sometime when you are just looking at us up here and not knowing all the process you think we don't care and we're not doing anything and so I asked them to come especially for these two new ordinance that was coming to give the people some
clarity exactly what the process is and how their hands was tied. So they came out and they explained exactly the frustrations that they have also in the system itself and seeing that I guess on I guess on film you you'll see it go to
the video it's the 2 sec um September 2020 22nd video look at it and the reason why I encourage you to look at it cuz then you can see that you do have good directors in place but they're telling you how sometime the law and the system does not work for their benefit
but just like Councilman Solomon did made the statement earlier. He said, "If you have good ideas, a good Lord, you can bring them." One thing I can say about this council, if you bring us a good idea, we will definitely try to implement it. We don't hold back. We're
not here to grandstand. None of us do that. We really trying to make a law work best for the residents. So, I thank uh the directors that came. I want to say thank you because I know their name is, you know, uh slang through the mud. I know uh Richardson watches this. And I know the prosecutor watches this and
hear things that's going on. And I know our law department sits up here and take a beating too without BA. But our whole objective really is to make the law work for you. And so with that, I proudly vote I. City ordinance 25-099
is adopted unanimously 90. Okay. For the next second reading ordinance, as discussed at the caucus, I'm going to need a motion not to conduct a public hearing on city ordinance 25-0100
due to the introduction of city ordinance 25-105. >> Motion. >> Motion made by council person Solomon. May I have a second? >> Who made that second? Council person deise.
Thank you. On the motion not to conduct a public hearing on city ordinance 25-100 due to the introduction of city ordinance 25-105. Council person Ridley >> I. >> Council person Huings
>> I. >> Council person Bajiano. >> Council person. >> I. >> Council person Solomon. >> Hi. >> Council person Gilmore. >> Hi. >> Council person Deise. >> Hi. >> Council person Ria. >> Hi. and council president Waterman.
Motion carries 90 not to conduct a public hearing on city ordinance 25-100 due to the introduction of city ordinance 25-105. So with that being said, council members going to need you to vote down city
ordinance 25-100. Council person Ridley. No. Council person Huings have the other. >> No. >> Council person Bahiano. >> Oh. >> Council person Sole
>> going to vote. No. >> Council person Solomon. >> No. >> Council person Gilmore. >> No. >> Did you say I council person Deise? >> No. >> Council person Reber. So let no
>> scared me there. And council president Waterman city ordinance 25-100 is defeated unanimously 09 with all council members voting no. >> All right. Would our on before we move
on to our public hearing on the special improvement district. I believe we discussed this at caucus motion to remove city ordinance 25-086 from the tabled agenda and that would be
item excuse me 11.1125-086 an ordinance of the municipal council of the city of Jersey City adopting amendments to the journal square60 redevelopment plan and the St. John's redevelopment plan. The public hearing,
this ordinance was tabled after the close of the public hearing on September 10th. So, we now need just a motion to remove the ordinance in order to consider the ordinance. So, with that being said, may I have a motion to remove city ordinance 25-086
from the table agenda? >> Second. Motion was made by council person Bajiano, seconded by council person Sole. On the motion to remove city ordinance 25-086 from the table agenda, council person Ridley, >> I.
>> Council person Huings, >> I. >> Council person Bajiano, >> I. >> Council person Sole. >> Hi. >> Council person Solomon. >> Hi. >> Council person Gilmore. >> Hi. >> Council person Deise. >> Hi. >> Council person Ria. >> Hi. and Council President Waterman.
Motion carries 90 to remove city ordinance 25-086 from the tabled agenda for final consideration and adoption of city ordinance 25-086. Council person Ridley >> I. >> Council person Huings
>> I. >> Council person Bajiano >> I. >> Council person Clay. >> Hi. >> Council person Solomon. So just briefly um you know we appreciated the city planning director explaining to us some of the situation. We also explained here
in the community. My view is that we should immediately go and look at this zone 4 because that was what was brought up and so I can make a commitment today to working with Councilman Bojano to starting that process in the coming months. Um but I
also have heard and don't want to hold this up because I know a lot of work was put into it. So, I'm going to vote I with a public commitment to work forward to push things forward uh in exactly in accordance with what was discussed. >> Council person Gilmore >> I. >> Council person Deise >> I.
>> Council person Reber >> I. >> And Council President Waterman, I have the um the planning director here and I I just want to um get a little clarity here. Uh Tanya, you don't mind? Um because I know you and Matt sent me
earlier the original plan that you guys had where all the zones were included and it was affordability in those zones. Uh but then it was a question that this develop um project that we voted on now um the community wanted this one here.
They wanted those other partials removed like 4 A and four. Correct. Because they didn't want the development but so high. That's correct. >> Okay. So now we remove them. Now in this >> redevelopment plan right now there is no
affordability in it at all. Am I correct? >> Um no there's mandatory affordable housing in all of zone 3. >> Wait say to get >> zone one >> zone one has affordable housing >> one and zone three >> has affordable housing and that's in this amendment right now.
>> That's mandatory. Yep. >> Okay. So now the question was because there was four left out and it was a question about height. how how tall could or be built on on lot four, right?
And so when we go back to that plan because Councilman Solomon commit to going back to it. Okay. How high can they build? I want clarity now on the record. >> So we have or had unfortunately she left
us um an urban designer architect on staff. Um, and I in one of our planning board meetings, um, and I can show you and we can provide to you I can show you all the sketches that we did and all the math that we did based on the cost of um, the affordable housing, the square
footage that you get in return and how high. And basically where it balances out is an additional 10 stories in the zone 4. And on some lots, we didn't even see them getting up to the 10th stories to basically balance out the market
versus the affordable. So, okay, >> what I'm trying to say is that the way we did the calculation is um three market for one affordable, which is pretty much standard across >> across the board. Okay. >> For right now, for what we're seeing, what we've seen for at least the last four years, and that's how we did
ourations. So, we estimated an additional 10 stories in zone 4. Now, zone four, depending on your lot size, if you have a >> breaking up, can go up to six. >> Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. You switch mics. >> Yeah, switch mics. We breaking up here.
>> Hello. >> Yeah, that's better. >> So, zone four, depending on the size of your lot. And if you're in a corner, can go up to six stories or even 12. So, if you have a corner lot and you're allowed to go up to 12, an additional 10 gets you to 22. If not, you can go up to 16.
Now, that was the calculation that we did for zone 4. >> Okay? So, they can't go no higher than that 22. >> You just get the extra 10. >> Okay? >> However that works out. >> However that works out. Okay. And so, how soon can we revisit that plan cuz
that's that was the that was the, you know, discrepancy. They wanted to, you know, they wanted to, you know, make sure that that a certain parcel was not left out. So, do you remember forever ago when you first adopted the zone three that included all of the zones?
Correct. So, we >> very technically didn't change much except um based on the feedback that we got from the council, we did a minimum lot size for zone 4. So, until you had 9,000 square ft, you weren't going to trigger the affordable housing. That's
the only real change that we made in the one that we went uh that we were proposing this time. So, it's the same thing. We would just be bringing back the exact same thing that we already um are ready to show. Um so, there's no reason we can't bring it back where
you're ready. >> Okay. So, now councilman, they want to bring this back into your neighborhood because this is where this all started from. All right. So, now you said you want this one first and then you be willing to deal with the other. >> Not only my neighbor cannot hear you,
Councilman. >> Not only my neighbor. Okay. >> It's a neighborhood where there are one and two family homes and people are tired of it. As I said, we had a meeting, I think 142 people signed in at the meeting. We had maybe another 30, 40, 50 that came. They are tired of the
buildings being put up in their neighborhoods, their houses being torn down, and people being chased out of this city. And it's about time it stops. >> Okay. So, now it's uh it's about affordability, right? Please give us a chance. This is a serious vote here, you
know, because we are advocating for affordable housing. So, we want to make sure that we do get affordable housing. Understand that because um there's certain things that have to be very clear. That's why I'm asking these questions because right now you do tell me there is affordability in this plan that we voting on tonight.
>> Right. >> Right. >> Yes. >> No, I just want to make sure because you know what? We hear this when we go out in the public about no affordability. So I want to make sure this plan has affordable housing and then we bring when we bring back the other plan to adjust it that that plan has affordable housing because that is what the people
are asking for now is affordable housing. That's that's all I just wanted clarity. That's all. >> I I that's it. And he said it's there. So then I I don't I don't have a problem and we're going to bring that plan back right away. Uh Councilman Solomon commit to doing it uh a few weeks or months or
whatever. He said he will do it and and you could definitely, you know, uh make sure that I get the plan so I can look at it to make sure we got all that's necessary to make sure people have affordable place to live. That's it. And that I vote I. That's all. I just want clarity on it. That's it. I have a right
to get clarity, too. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That's it. I vote I. That's it. That's it. Let's move on. >> Did you vote? >> Yes. I >> Thank you. Two lady ordinance 25-086 is adopted
unanimously 90. >> Make sure that's >> okay. Our next subject is the special improvement district assessment. This is a public hearing on the 2025-2026
Exchange Place Alliance Special Improvement District Assessment RO and budget. Any member of the public wishing to be heard, please come up to the podium and state your name for the record. Hold on one second. >> Okay. And your name?
>> Christina. K R Y S. >> Just make sure you're speaking into the mic. Kristen >> K R Y S T Y N A. Last name PZ and Peter. I O R K O W SK K A >> Thank you.
>> During the course of the past month, as the Exchange Place Alliance has held its meetings, it has discussed its upcoming budget and plans to conserve work on
various monuments and statues throughout the city. Statues, monuments were all listed. The Ken memorial was not one of them. When I queried during that portion of the public of the
zoom meeting when the public is allowed to speak as to why the cutting memorial was not included, was it planned to be included in the future? I was told by Mr. Demarco that the Katy memorial
belongs to the city which I believe all the other statues and monuments do and it's the city's responsibility to take care of it. I would like this item to or issue to be discussed and clarified
tonight because if the cutting memorial is specifically being excluded by the exchange place that means that that is a process of
discrimination against that one and only statue. There was no statement made that the other statues did not belong to the city, but an affirmative statement was made to the effect that the Katain memorial did
belong to the city and the exchange place alliance would not work on any conservation project on it. Additionally, I will be following up with a ser with a memo to this matter as
well as a series of photographs of the Exchange Place surface area which you may want to go visit. The blocks are cracking. I don't know how the work was done. I know that I've worked on
sidewalks that were replaced 40 years ago and the work was done properly and the slabs did not crack. If appropriate, rebar and everything else was used. So, I'll be sending that in. I'd like my
statement and that to be included in the record. I welcome any questions on your part. And I remind you that during a Zoom meeting, the public is cut off and not allowed to ask any further questions. >> Councilman,
>> I just want to let you know the there's a process going on now to make the statue an historic statue. >> I'm involved in that process and I'm aware of it. It's part that has nothing to do >> with the decision of the Exchange Place
Alliance to disincclude this stud. >> Thank you very much. Your time is up. >> I know my time is up. I've asked for questions. >> Yep. >> Motion. >> Nope. Still a public hearing on the 2025-2026
Exchange Place Alliance Special Improvement District and Assessment Role and Budget. Any member of the public still wishing to be heard, please come up to the podium and state your name for the record. >> Motion second. >> Motion to close the public hearing on
the 2025-2026 exchange place alliance special improvement district assessment role and budget was made by council person Ria, seconded by council person. On the motion to close the public hearing, council person Ridley >> I.
>> Council person Huings >> I. Council person Bajiano >> I. >> Council person So >> I >> council person Solomon >> just as we close uh to the comment made I am going to reach out uh I know council president's on the board just to understand what statues the alliance is
looking at and what their criteria on and obviously make sure that the city is including all because we you know cat memorial is obviously in the allianc's district. So with that I vote I >> council person Gilmore did he step out? He stepped out. Council person Deise
>> I. >> Council person Rivera >> I. >> And council president Warman. >> I. >> Motion to close the public hearing carries 80 with council person Gilmore absent.
All right. On to our public request for a hearing. Just a little housekeeping. Make sure you have your agenda handy because I'm going to be calling the number and the name, the first name of the individual. With that being said, 5.1 Leverne. I
don't see her here tonight. Next speaker. 5.2 James. Is James here? No. Next speaker. 5.3. Tina >> twice.
All right, JC. >> Hey guys, my name is Tina No. Yes, I work for Education of Gilmore, but I'm speaking for myself. Justice for Drew. What? Justice for Drew. >> Yes, we cannot forget that name, y'all.
Um, I just wanted to say first of all, um, I didn't like last week, uh, Miss Waterman about the sweeper. The sweeper definitely come in our community. It definitely come in war F and war A to the point I do get tickets and I get behind because of how I'm working right
now. Um I didn't think that was a good idea because we already poor in our community. So to hear that they should give us tickets. I don't think they that was a good example. I think example would have been something else not in our community as us suffering so much of
what we've been going through. Again, I don't think that y'all should have been here for three years speaking, but it just show you how no one just pay attention because y'all should have just been here for that one time and they should have just took care of Mr. Richardson. Right is right, wrong is
wrong. We need to stop making excuse for people. Y'all put these people in line, so they need to take responsibility of doing stuff. I'm going say this again. I've been coming here and I was begging for a place to have for community treasure. Begging. And we are the number
one resource in our community. So it just show you. It just show you that it doesn't matter. You can build bridges without anybody. You can build bridges without anybody.
It showed me that because by me coming up here and asking for y'all for help, it don't do no good. Some of y'all listen, some of y'all don't listen. And another thing, again, I keep asking about the small business trailer that was for our community. Anytime we get
anything from our community, it always get taken away. I'm so tired of that. That is the reason why we should freeze for a minute before we build. Not saying that we shouldn't stop continue to build, but we should walk down each
streets to see exactly what we need because y'all keep building and stuff is still falling down. We need to stop it. I know y'all tired, but it's okay. When we get new people, I hope they sit up there and smile at me and say, "T, you're doing a good job because y'all don't even listen to me. Have a good
night." >> Our next speaker, 5.4, Gina Good evening, Gina Davidson. I do work part-time for Councilman Gilmore very proudly, but I am speaking on my own behalf tonight as a resident. I was not able to attend the budget hearing last week. I was dealing with
massive water damage. My living space is currently uninhabitable. In my 10 years as a Jersey City resident, this is not even close to the first time that I have been displaced due to flooding. And it definitely won't be the last. It's a real shame what is happening to the quality of life in this city, quality of
some of these older buildings, the infrastructure, and all while we talk about extending more pilots and abatements to developers who make pretty pretty promises. And so tonight, I want to echo others. Yearly land sales to SC stop gap budget
shortages is not the way to manage a budget, nor to manage the real estate of our city. Jersey City is acting desperate. Regarding that budget vote, I want to thank council persons Solomon and Gilmore for your votes and comments. And regarding issues like item 4.2, too.
These development plans require such financial gymnastics as to call into question whether or not the way we are doing things here is sustainable. I think it's wild that we are expanding Jersey City Medical Center now on Grand Street in some of the more extreme flood
zones. It was only a little over a little two decades ago uh that Jersey City Medical Center was still on Montgomery outside of the flood zone. Uh this is not thoughtful development. We had a parking structure at Jersey City Medical Center a long time ago. Now condo owners pay $250 a month to a
developer to park there. And speaking of real estate, I was fighting my way through all about town very late on Saturday. My friends and community leaders go to a lot of these events and 95% of the people we meet are not from here.
From what I understand, we are advertising these local community events to people in Brooklyn and Manhattan. They are not actually events for us, but for our city. They are advertisements for living here to attract affluent New Yorkers to our overly saturated and
underserved city. Jersey City is being turned into an engine, a money printing machine to help drive the Kushner family's power. Between 2016 and 2024, the Kushner real
estate empire surpassed Trump's. It grew from 1.8 billion to 7.1 billion. Our mayor, who many of you continue to support, is helping to make this happen. And meanwhile, my friends have to scramble to find housing for community
members, to have to provide services for people who have catastrophic events in this city where we literally get called by the emergency personnel, by the Red Cross. And last of all, we are still seeking justice for Andrew Washington, justice for Drew.
>> Thank you. >> Our next speaker, 5.5 Edward, Justice Patru, you know, at the caucus meeting, one developer came up. He said, "We can't afford to build the project without an abatement." And Jersey City Times, thank
you so much for your work. Um, that was released, the article to the public through social media and all the comments said, "Well, what the heck? If you can't afford to build it, then don't build it."
Okay, so that was every comment. Also too, uh, affordable is not affordable. One thing that the developer did say was 62 units, okay, and 20 were going to be and then he said 10 were going to be low low
income. I would like to see in a roundabout and about face. How about every project going forward really only concentrates on the low income, moderate income or
low low income? I do feel like the majority of us would be served if you concentrate on these income levels. The make Jersey City your own campaign was a campaign from hell. The mayor, it was a campaign
from hell. And many of you do support him. You know, I always say, what authority does the council have? What authority do you have? You have so much authority, but then you agree with the executive. And then in turn, it displaces us. It It lowers our quality
of life. It lowers our quality of life. I had a moment to review the NAACP forum with all the mayoral candidates. You're darn right. We need a new face for public safety. And Musa Ali was
right how you start was with the CCB. We don't trust public safety. Okay. In terms of police and we want to be empowered, the community. So there were only one or two or three members here who ultimately agreed with that giving
the people subpoena power, the authority and the right to question our policing powers. our authorities. There you have it. Also to the Croen study, when are you going to get moving on really bringing to fruition black and
brown people and contractors across the city getting opportunities? It's like what is going on past this 12 years? There is very little action happening, very little benefit for us.
Very little benefit. So, November 4th, we we just we just can't wait. We just can't wait. Justice for Drew. Justice for Drew. Our next speaker, as much as we love
her, we can't have her come up again. It was a dupe of 5.3. Tina next speaker 5.7 a deal not here and as much as we loved him too Edward we can't let you come up and
speak again it was a dupe of 5.5 so now we're at 5.9 Joe Joe Hawkins not here 5.10 Pamela Pamela, bring the mic down toward towards your There you go. >> Thank you. My name is Pamela. I guess
you see the spelling here, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um I'm here on behalf of the um Birchwood Fairmont Senior Building in Jersey City. uh me and my neighbors here are representing. We are asking the council to please
approve the tax exemption for Birwood Fairmont for a couple of reasons. First of all, that the building would remain affordable. Um we are all seniors. It's a senior building and we are all living on fixed incomes. we've worked 20, 30, 40, 50 years and now we, you know, look
up and get into senior housing and there's the threat that this housing might become unaffordable for us. The other um um reason that we would like the council to approve this amendment is because or this exemption is because this building while it's beautifully
designed is in need of many repairs. The windows are old wood, difficult to raise, which could cause possible injuries to us and our back. Air seeps in, as you can see from the curtains moving, even with the windows down. Insects enter with the windows up due to
ill-fitting screens. Most of us complain of being very cold in the winter and a high electricity bill due to this problem with the windows. That's despite the super applying tape and plastic to help us in this matter. The windows need to be replaced. There are plumbing
issues throughout. The carpets in the common areas are old and dirty, in need of replacement, and due to high traffic, probably should be replaced with flooring rather than carpet. The elevators continue to fail, especially on the east side. And there have been times when the repairs were delayed due
to the need to order parts. There is an infestation of mice. Everyone in the building has complained of having had or currently having mice because the walls have shifted, the floors have shifted and so mice are all over the building. So there are many problems in this
building, too many to mention here. And after 30 years of not being any major repairs, we're asking you to allow Birchwood Ingram to make these repairs so that we can live comfortably and with dignity. We deserve that. We've worked a lot of years and we deserve to be able
to live comfortably. We know that there are a couple of tenants who um were against this or maybe even still some against this. I can't understand why cuz if you live in the building, you would know that the need is there, but um we're asking that you would please
consider approving this um tax exemption for Birchwood so that we can live comfortably. They're going to temporar temporarily re um displace us. We are making sure it's temporary. When we sign leases for the new displaced area, we
will make sure it says we are coming back. We will get that in writing. They told us in writing already and and gave us letters that they plan to bring us back. Let us fight that fight, but you guys please allow them to make this the um renovations and repairs for us. Thank
you. >> Thank you. Our next speaker 5.11 Josephine Josephine Paige. No. Next speaker 5.12 Kevin.
Is Kevin here? Yeah, there he is. >> I don't know how often you guys read Jersey City Reddit. I don't really blame you if you don't because they don't really like you guys that much. They did like Councilman Solomon for a while, but then they stopped liking him because he
likes uh Educational Gilmore. So, but don't worry, they don't like me either. I wrote my good oped about how we need more bike lanes and more enforcement against ebikes breaking traffic rules, and they called me a
self-hating biker, which I thought was a clever insult. even though I think I'm the man. So, I just thought I'd read this Reddit post for you guys. It's titled, it's from 26 days ago titled, "Warning to anyone that ordered a green matcha drink for
delivery. Just seen a delivery guy on a bike pulled over in the street on the corner of Washington of Warren and Sussex. He had spilled a green matcha looking drink and refilled nearly half of it with his half-drunken water from
his water bottle. I would have followed him to let the customer know myself, but I was also on a delivery. I checked in with a couple nearby coffee shops just in case to see if anyone remembered handing over a green drink, but none said they serve green drinks. This
happened roughly 25 minutes ago. Now, wouldn't it be great if we had a way to know who was delivering this drink? Because I don't know if you would have drunken it, but I wouldn't have. All right, that doesn't sound so good. But you guys had an opportunity. You had
an opportunity to put numbers on the uh commercial delivery biker vest and you guys took it off the legislation. Um, and what if this delivery biker had a number and people could say, "I saw number 26 fill up the green matcha with his half-drunken water. Then maybe we
could have found him." This pro this problem has gotten so bad with ebikes going the wrong way down the street riding on sidewalks that I've made I had to make a rap music video about it. Now, it's not nearly as good as Camp Low, who
um City Councilwoman Ri um Ridley is a fan of, but I thought it was pretty good. It was a parody of the juvenile song Back That Ass Up. It's called Back That That Bike Up, and it's really good. Uh I was going to play it for you guys, but I only have 30 seconds left. Uh but
this this has just gone out of control. And you know, we had a discussion 5 years ago about defunding the police. Uh, I opened the petition which called for a 50% funding cut for the Jersey City Police Department as well as no new
hires over the last five years. And I wanted to see which city council candidate signed it. And there was one by the name of Joel Brooks, unless it was another Joel Brooks who signed the petition. And this guy could be on the city council. And I don't know if I'd trust him to give the police more
resources to enforce this. Too bad my time's running out because I have more thoughts. Next speaker 5.13 Danielle. I don't see Danielle here tonight. Next speaker 5.14 J A Y B A R KS D A L E.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you council members for this opportunity. I speak to protest the use of Uber Eats delivery robots. According to a YouTube post of a Fox News clip of 7 months ago, there were
only 30. But what if it increases to 60, 100, or 200 lurching about our sidewalks? And this is the kicker. And those o Uber Eats people actually bragged about not having to leave a tip, which takes money
from the pocket of poor some poor delivery schlub just trying to make a living. Also, it's just another machine of which in the making extracts yet more raw and rare materials from our poor dying
earth. If dig we must. Better for necessary stupid stuff such as cell phones than needless stupid stuff like these gizmos. Under what city license do they operate and how many pieces of silver did the
city get to allow this anti-humanistic and anti- ecological stuff? Thank you. And long live the teachings of Jesus and Karl Marx. Next speaker 5.15 Monica. Good evening. My name is Monica Walker.
I live at the Birwood. Several calls were made to the council woman and people also emailed her regarding the renovation which I strongly state that it needs to be done. I've lived at the Birwood for approximately 4
years. I have witnessed the deterioration of the building in which the pro the renovation process is warranted ASAP. My primary reasoning is which the elevator system has been failing every day. I live on the fourth floor. It's I'm not able to walk up the
to the fourth floor every day because I have an illness and there's a lot of things in the building that need to be done. The electric the electric electrical system is failing. People in the summertime without air conditioning.
Rodents running rampant throughout the building. The deterioration of the windows. I'm freezing in my apartment on the fourth floor. Every winter I'm freezing. Things need to be done. And I would hope that the council would grant this renovation process be done ASAP.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker 516 Rob is Rob here. No. 5.17 Esther. >> Evening council. Is that good?
>> Just make sure the mic is by your mouth. That's That's all. There you go. >> To this side. Um, good evening, Council Esther Whitner. Uh, I'm here this evening to talk about the transfer of land from
Jersey City to the Liberty Science Center. Uh, that was done in March 2017. Hard to believe, but it's about 8 and a half years ago that that happened. Um, for the record, council people at
that time that voted in favor of it were Councilman Council People Waterman, Rolando Lavaro, Daniel Rivera, Gajuski, and Candace Osborne. So, as far as I am aware, there's been
no followup on the progress of what is going on in the in the Liberties Science Center into the park. The agreement with the JC and Liberty Science Center has a timetable for completion.
I don't know if they're in compliance with that. There's also a section in that agreement, section 2.09, that says that there should be progress reports periodically. There have been no progress reports. I know this because I did an OPRA with the JC. So, there have
been no progress reports. I've also gone to the JC meeting asking for uh information. I was told that I would get an email from their attorney. I have still not heard back from them. I plan to go again. I went there in July.
There was also a school that was promised to the public. There was a bill of goods that was sold to the public in terms of what this project would be. Um there is no school that I'm aware of that's going up. I've gone to the county and asked about the school that they were supposed to
build and was informed that the pres that what was presented to them was too costly and unaffordable. And so, as far as I'm aware, there is no school in progress going there. Also, if you dig deeper into the some of
the paperwork, and we've only got three minutes, the property was subcontracted to a for-profit developer. So my question is to the council and to the city. Um we gave this property to a nonforprofit
on the pretense that this was going to be for science and for learning and for all of those good things. And now we have a for-profit developer building a building that's open to the public. Are we getting any property tax paid to the city or was this just uh a way of
bypassing uh being able to to pay property tax from this developer? So, I I think that there needs to be followup on this project and I think the public deserves answers because this was the biggest transfer of wealth that I
have seen in Jersey City from the public and is possibly costing us money. There was no reason for us to give it away. We could have leased it to them. >> Thank you, Esther. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Esa. >> Our next speaker, 5.18. Kevin,
just remember to remove it. Good evening. Kevin Weller, 155 Washington Street, the most rent controlled building ever. At caucus, director Richardson said
mandatory minimums won't break his department. He's right. Municipal prosecutor Pudnut explained why. With continuing violations, what required 150 separate summones becomes just three.
That's a 98% reduction in administrative burden while holding holding violators fully accountable for each day they break the law. Richardson gets more enforcement power with less paperwork.
The prosecutor can focus on what matters. This is brilliant policymaking. But here's what really matters. This ordinance that is up for first reading today and second reading at the next
council meeting levels the playing field for all landlords. For years, mega corporations like Equity Residential could afford to break the law. They could bury Richardson in paperwork, tie up
violations in court forever. They had an unfair advantage over the smaller landlords, over the mom and pop landlords who couldn't afford teams of lawyers. Meanwhile, honest landlords were at a competitive disadvantage.
They paid for security guards while equity didn't. They have resident superintendent while equity does not. This ordinance ends that game. Every violation costs real money every day. The small landlord who follows the law
pays nothing. The billiond dollar corporation that breaks it pays thousands per day tenant or per unit. Speaking of billions, council, you've received our daily violation emails.
We've documented over $1 billion in maximum fines at just portside towers. Yet after 155 days, Equity has been convicted of three events and a mattress. Less than $2,000 out of a billion.
Mr. Hudnut confirmed not all violations reach his desk, but with his ordinance reducing administrative burden by over 98%. That changes. Every violation becomes a continuing offense. Council, you have
subpoena powers. Use them. Subpoena port size management ask who has been the resident superintendent for each building since January 2016. Show us their leases certifications
proof of residency. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker 5.19 Jess left. Thank you. Next. 5.20. Daniel. This is my 31st time giving a speech in
front of you all during public speaking. My first speech was in February of 2024. And in 13 of my last 16 speeches, so my speech on December 11th, 2024, January 15th of this year, February 13th, March 12th, March 26th, April 9th, April 23rd, May 7th, May 21st, June 11th, June 26th,
July 16th, and August 20th. On each of those occasions, I discussed the fact that we don't have 24/7 uniform security in Port Side Towers. Despite the fact that chapter 218, Article 1 of the Jersey City Code of Ordinances states very clearly that every owner or agent
of an owner of a multiple dwelling of 100 or more dwelling units shall furnish a minimum of one uniform security guard for each residential building. Now in December 11th, 2024, January 15th of this year, February 13th, March 12th, March 26th, April 9th, April 23rd, May 7th, May 21st, June 11th, June 26th,
July 16th, and August 20th, on each of those days, I pleaded with all of you to do something about the fact that my landlord is blatantly violating Jersey City law at the expense of the safety of myself and my neighbors. Now, today at 5:33 p.m., a young woman residing at Portside Towers left the following
message in our community group chat. Hello. I wanted to let our community know about something that happened to me yesterday so everyone can be careful. I was standing in front of our building at 155 Washington Street around 5:00 p.m. looking down at my phone, had my headphones on, trying to start my
running app when I realized there was a man standing behind me with his pants unzipped, touching himself. He sped away on a scooter, but then came back and was hiding behind a parked car staring at me. I immediately called the police and they came to talk to me, but were not
able to find him before he sp. This happened yesterday. If we had 24/7 uniform security in place, this guy would be behind bars. But he's still out there right now, and this young woman is traumatized. Now, this weekend, I was reading NJAC 1355A, which specifies the
training that these uniform security guards require. They mentioned training in homeland security and counterterrorism, communications and emergency response, theft protection, detention of suspects, first aid and CPR, and more with continued training every 2 years. Now, adding a few extra
cameras or locking a few extra doors can't do any of that and would not have helped this young woman yesterday. Adding extra cameras can't protect us when an attacker chases someone into our building, leaving a trail of blood, which happened last year. Extra cameras won't do anything when one of our tenants has their car window smashed in
in front of 100 Warren Street, which happened a few weeks ago. The law requires that we have 24/7 uniform security guards to protect us and our safety. I really don't understand why it's so difficult to get our landlord to adhere to the law when it's clear we
need that le level of protection. Please, please, please do something about this. Please, people are are suffering. there's someone out right now um you know endangering our safety. He could be out there right now. I don't know. So please do something about this.
Thank you. >> Our next speaker 5.21 Tom. >> Good evening council. I'm a board member of the Portside Towers West Tenant Association and I want to discuss following Dan's comments how the absence of required building
personnel directly impacts tenant safety and service quality as defined by your own ordinances. Chapter 260-7 defines harassment to include inadequate security and reduction in the quality of basic
services. Chapter 260-14 requires landlords to maintain the service standards required by law. Recently, I experienced firsthand what happens when these requirements aren't met. During a plumbing emergency in my
unit, maintenance staff had to force entry to my apartment, damaging my door and door frame. Why? Because they couldn't locate my spare key in time and basically broke into my apartment. But the real issue isn't the door. It's
what this incident represents. A properly managed building with a resident superintendent would have master keys immediately accessible. A superintendent living on site as required by ordinance would have responded instantly to the emergency.
Instead, staff spent valuable time locating tools to force entry while water damage potentially spread. This is exactly the reduction in basic services that 260-7 and 260-14 prohibit.
Yet, these violations aren't reaching the prosecutor's desk. Mr. Hudnut recently explained that ordinance violations are quasi criminal matters, but Director Richardson's department only fords two types of chapter 260 violations for prosecution. Service
reductions under 260-14 aren't among them. Inadequate security under 260-7 isn't either. We've documented 155 consecutive days without resident superintendence or required security. These aren't minor infractions. They're
fundamental failures of building management that affect every resident's safety and quality of life. The mandatory minimums ordinance addresses this gap. It ensures that violations of 260-7 and 260-14
carry real consequences. $100 per unit per day minimum. The that transforms these provisions from suggestions into enforceable requirements. Director Richardson be forwarding 260-7 and 260-14 violations
to the prosecutor. These provisions exist to protect tenants from exactly the situations we're experiencing. Council, when you vote on mandatory minimums, remember that proper enforcement prevents problems before they become emergencies. A resident superintendent with proper key access would have prevented property damage to
my unit. Required security would ensure someone is always available to respond. Thank you for considering how better enforcement protects both tenants and property. >> Thank you. Our next speaker, 5.22, 22. Shannon, >> several months ago, I'd finally had it
with the cigarette smoke that kept wafting into my apartment from a couple floors below. Portide has a smoking ban in all areas, including balconies. Our building WhatsApp chat is where I first appealed to my neighbors to please remember the rule, but no luck. The smoking continued, so I wrote to
building management to ask them for their help. The response was that I was going to have to offer proof that somebody was smoking. Now, why they think I would be making something like that up is beyond me, but fine. Next time it happened, I snapped a picture of the smokers. I sent it to management.
The response was that my picture was not clear enough. A few more emails back and forth and the request finally was that I call down to concierge the next time I saw the smoking and that the concierge would come up and confront the smoker. So, I
have a lot of issues with this uh because number one, it feels like I'm being asked to do management's job. Secondly, I resent that the concierge would have to leave the post down at the front desk. We're a big building and the concierge has many duties that require him or her to stay where they are.
Third, uh confrontation like that requires special training. Who knows if the neighbor would be upset, retaliatory, aggressive? It seems to me like this would be the job for a trained security guard, but we don't have those at port side, even though the city
ordinances requires that we do. This is just one example of the many reasons I think that Equity Residential needs to stop trying to wiggle out of simple rules that keep everyone safer just to save some money. I find it a shame that it takes the coordinated efforts of all of us who would much rather be doing
things besides coming here begging for enforcement of rules that already exist uh in order to get this in in force. But I will keep coming and I will not stop. I want to share another story that a few weeks back I had to miss a meeting because of a really heartbreaking case
at my hospital. Without violating any privacy issues, I will just say we got a good outcome saving not just one but two lives only because of the hard work of all the people in that uh excuse me hospital operating room. But it wasn't just hard work. It was people absolutely
working as hard as they possibly could. And I keep thinking about that phrase working as hard as they possibly could. Now, my work as a healthcare worker may be different than a CEO of a multi-billion dollar real estate company or the work of city council members, but
all the same, if you're not working as hard as you possibly can, what are you even doing? If you're not moved to commit at that level, I just want us all to work as hard as we possibly could for all of our jobs and for all the people of Jersey City. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Our next speaker 5.23 Anna >> and you're ready. >> State my name again. Have to state my name again. >> No, not now. >> Okay. Ready. Um, my landlord is enacting
the same playbook that is being enacted by landlords across the city. Buy a rent controlled building, betting on getting rid of the rent controlled tenants, renovating the units as cheaply as possible, and then jacking up the price to market rate. All of that is illegal.
Yet across the city, they are getting away with it. Anna Basset's building is now completely empty. Her landlord succeeded in running everyone out of that building. I am deeply disturbed by that. Please go visit her building yourself and witness the ghost town it
has turned into. Witness what this city is allowing to happen. And the city is allowing it. And I'll tell you how. First of all, why is it the tenants's responsibility to monitor the landlords and report them? What the heck is that about? Do I look like a full-time
investigator to you? Jersey City needs to start having its own cyclical inspections where they go to every building and ensure the landlords are in compliance with chapter 260, 254, etc. Why are you waiting for tenants to complain? That's a losing game because
if a landlord is already acting illegally, how can you reassure any tenant that if they report the landlord, the landlord won't further behave illegally and retaliate? You can't. And I am living proof of that because my landlord started a smear campaign
against me this week for reporting their dangerous and illegal construction. Now I don't feel comfortable in my own home and none of you can give me any assurances that I will be okay because my landlord has proved over and over again that their first instinct is to
just break the law. Secondly, the only way to get landlords to behave is to speak the only language they know, money. You must make it prohibitively expensive for a landlord to break the law so that they finally understand it
is not worth it and it costs less to actually follow the law. This entire route that violations take from inspector to summons to court to fines from a judge create too many opportunities for the fines to disappear. Fines need to be direct,
immediate, and expensive, especially for repeat offenders and slum lords. There should be no such thing as consolidating violations or dismissed by prosecutorial discretion. If a landlord has 100
violations, they should be getting 100 fines. It is egregious to think you can or should consolidate, lessen, or dismiss any of these violations into one small slap on the wrist because you are then telling the landlord that
violations are just the cost of doing business when you need to be telling these slum lords that violations are unacceptable and they will be fined to the fullest extent. Otherwise, they continue harassing, violating, and exploiting tenants with
zero regrets. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker, 5.24, Mark. Good evening, city council. President Waterman, you asked us to bring you ideas. So the exemption loophole in
218-1 security service must be removed as currently drafted. 218-1 paragraph D permits landlords of buildings to apply for an exemption from the 247 security requirement if their quote existing
security arrangements are adequate. The word adequate undermines both the clarity and effectiveness of the ordinance. Earlier this year, Portide sought such an exemption. Although their request is denied, they continue to look for ways to avoid compliance by using
the adequate defense. The very existence of this exemption creates uncertainty for residents and weakens the city's ability to enforce consistent security standards. Litigation of this serious fin is a sorry litigation of this is also a serious financial burden on the
city. Clause D of 2181 should be eliminated entirely. The rationale for uniform security must be recognized and reaffirmed. 2181 defines a uniform security guard as a licensed New Jersey security guard under NJAC
1355A. It's not a superficial designation. It carries rigorous requirements. Guards must undergo background checks and complete training in homeland security, theft prevention, emergency response, first aid, professional ethics, and they
have to renew their licenses with a refresher course every 2 years. Additionally, they're required to conduct patrol inspections of the entire premises, including stairwells and other vulnerable areas. By contrast, the measures often proposed by landlords,
such as cameras, locked doors, or concurge staff, are not equivalent. Cameras record incidents but don't prevent them. Locked doors can be breached. Concieres, while valuable, lack both the training and authority to respond to emergencies or deter crime.
The ordinance wisely requires uniform security because only licensed, trained personnel provide active, consistent, and professional protection for residents. In some present watermen, you should act decisively to eliminate the exemption process for buildings with 100 or more
units and uphold the essential role of you uniform security guards as the only adequate safeguard for large residential communities. By closing this loophole, you'll ensure that Jersey City remains a leader in prioritizing resident safety
and public security. Thank you. Our next speaker 5.25 Barbara. >> Good evening, council. Let me paint a picture for you of
justice in Jersey City. Imagine somebody gets pulled over for speeding every single day for 155 days. But here's the twist. They're also driving without a valid license that identifies who they
are and where they live. Two violations every day, clear as daylight. After 155 traffic stops, they finally get their day in court. Prosecutor says, "Just plead guilty to
three broken tail lights, tail lights, and one missing floor mat, and we'll call it even." Then after this joke of a plea deal, the driver walks out and continues speeding with no valid license every single day.
Sound absurd? Welcome to Portide Towers. Our landlord has been violating Jersey City's landlord identity laws for years, and we have been reporting it for 155 consecutive days. The registration
certificates that are filed are fiction. They list a maintenance service provider instead of the required superintendent. No apartment number, no local telephone number.
When you call emergency contact, you reach a call center in the Philippines. This isn't just about paperwork. Jersey City Ordinance 263J states clearly, "Without proper landlord
identity compliance, you cannot raise rents." State law NJSA 46827 also mandates this information be provided. These aren't suggestions, they're laws with teeth.
Yet after three years and 155 days of documented violations affecting 527 families, the city somehow comes up with a different sum total of violations. The city's sum total of violations is
somehow three vents and a mattress. Meanwhile, the violations continue today, tomorrow, every day. Council members, here is my mail-in ballot that all of us got in the mail today.
Any of you are running for mayor or another term on this council? Is this the Jersey City you want to lead? Thank you. >> Our next speaker, 5.26, Joel Good evening, President Waterman and
members of the city council. During Monday's CAC caucus meeting, Director Richardson revealed that his division housing preservation had been suffering has been severely affected by staffing cuts. when he assumed leadership in in
January of 19 of 2023, a staff of five people were managing approximately 1,700 I mean 700 landlord registrations per year. Now two staffers are handling more than 1,700 per year.
He also pointed out that ordinance 2509 thankfully passed today clarifies that landlords are required to file registration statements every year. An exemption from rent control of periodic or regular increases in based rent does not excuse landlords from filing these
statements. In addition to long-term rentals, the division also oversees short-term rentals and and he noted that this volume has doubled in his tenure. The staffing shortage has resulted in illegal rent petitions piling up without determination for more than a year. In
at least one recent matter, it took more than 21 months for a determination. The Division of Housing Preservation and its Office of Landlord Tenant provides vital services to the city, its homeowners, landlords, and tenants. By
efficiently and accurately receiving, reviewing, and recording landlord registration statements, and by timely notifying landlords of non-compliance statements, the division generates actionable data that can underpin summones and other enforcement actions
against egregious conduct by corporate mega landlords who currently act as if they're not subject to any New Jersey city controls. It's been explained to us that our recitation of the millions of dollars that the city should be collecting in daily fines cannot be used
to fund headcount in the division. We understand. However, these obviously available revenues can and should be used to justify the allocation of precious resources to this gold mine of revenue generation. The municipal budget
was just passed. Please review the budget and allocate or reallocate resources to tap the previously under accessed revenue sources of fines for egregious conduct by those who continually flout Jersey City's ordinances. Ensure that the division of
housing preservation can generate actionable data and the house of and the office of municipal prosecutor can take advantage of the streamlined enforcement provisions that you have approved by allocating staff to these critical municipal functions. Sean,
we congratulate you on your son's engagement and as members of the family, we look forward to joining the whole family at this very joyous occasion. Thank you. >> I I I I think we need to give the clerk
a raise to make that happen. Take that. >> Do I have a motion? No. Uh, next speaker 5.27 David. Good evening, members of the council.
Um, first I want to thank you for unanimously passing the ordinances 2598 and 2599. Um, it's it I I feel proud of the city council of my city and and I feel
represented. Thank you. I do I I understand the issue that's been raised about the budgeting, but I do want to address this the idea that the speakers from port side have kind of dragged, you know, the name of of Director Richardson, uh, Pastor
Richardson through the mud. Um, I haven't been to every one of these meetings as you have, but I've been to my share and what I've heard has has not been, you know, attacks on the character uh, you know, of the pastor of the
director. I use both terms because I want to put respect on both of those titles. Um, I haven't heard attacks on him personally, attacks on his character. What I've heard is um I've heard questioning of his credentials, which I
think is a valid question. I've heard concerns that he hasn't done anything. And even given the budget considerations, it's still, I think, a fair statement. I know I personally
spoke once about a situation where he was present at port side and he saw that the required listing uh of the superintendent for building was not there and he later signed that
the requirement had been met. And at that time I said that he was ignoring the evidence of his eyes and ears. And I stand by that statement. Um and but why do I bring this up? I'm not
personally offended. And uh I but I do have a concern um that this you know if this investigative committee is going to be more concerned with you know treating
the city employees the public servants with kid gloves then we may not get to the bottom of what we're trying to get to the bottom of. So I just want to ask that please, you know, as this committee does its job,
please just follow the facts where they lead, investigate whoever needs to be investigated um and so that we can see justice served for everyone in the city. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker 5.28 Nadine
Good evening, city council. About a month ago, we all heard about the big court day that would um finally bring violations to justice. Many of us logged in. Councilman Gilmore, you were there as a witness. To one account of a
non-working vent, how does your client plead? Guilty to a second count of non-working vent. Guilty to a third. Guilty to one count of an uncovered
mattress. Guilty. We've got guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Four admissions. What do we get? Less than $2,000 in fine. And every single violation we've reported for 155 days continues
uninterrupted. Let me read from a document dated November 8, 1991, Board of Adjustment Resolution docket number 9025. The board found, and I quote, "The
addition of two superintendent apartments would enhance the objectives of section 13-448 of the city code, which calls for on-site superintendence for buildings such as this. This variance permitted the construction
of two superintendent apartments, one for each of the port uh port side buildings as a condition of allowing the development, not optional, required, a binding legal condition that runs with
the land. That was over 12,000 days ago. Zero days of compliance, zero superintendent, zero apartments used for this legally mandated purpose.
This isn't about interpretation. The variance is crystal clear. Two superintendent apartments were approved and required. The city code requires on-site superintendent on-site. The variance is reinforced.
Yet after 155 days of reporting this specific violation, Mr. Hudnut found Equity Residential very very guilty of three vents and a mattress. Council Councilman Solomon's new
ordinance will make violations of chap 254 carry mandatory minimum fines. But you don't need to wait. You can enforce the variance today. There's no litigation about the 1991 variance. There's no stay,
no legal barrier. Just a system that somehow turns 34 years of broken promises into bathroom ventilation. Councilman Gilmore, you're a representative and you sit on the investigative committee. You've watched
these proceedings. You heard Gil four times. >> Thank you. Our next speaker 5.29 Sylvia. >> Good evening. Thank you for have your support after so many years
discussing but this is not the point now. Uh my name is Sylvu and I am here to advocate for a crucial change and to our city code. The removal of the exemption level on chapter 218. The
chapter 28 requires 24/7 uniform security in buildings with 100 or more units. A vital measurement of resident safety. I think most of us has been many
times here to asking for and we are increasing in seeing what is starting to be unsafe for our residents and not only is our neighborhood now because before
it was something that is not happen in Pablo's hook unfortunately I don't remember how many times I've been talking like But we was many times to asking for the same and more and more and more we are
in the same situation. No issue, no security in in our buildings, no um no superintendent uh is really and now the only that we have is lock the doors. That is something that you can break
easily and is pushing a button for a security for a dorman that not always pay attention who is we have amenities. The amenities are use also is not closed are always you have access to any
amenities without being a resident and we have many proof of that but unfortunately nobody are doing what is supposed to do. Uh thank you and again for the approval of the the two
codes the two codes and please remember that chapter 218 requires security. Thank you. >> Our next speaker 530 Jessica. >> Good evening again council. Kevin's passing out something for you to
consider. Um, tonight I'm reading from the New Jersey Administrative Code section 5 section subsections 10 through 11-2 called duties of manager and superintendent. quote, "Without relieving the owner of
any responsibility, any person undertaking for and on behalf of the owner any responsibilities for the operation and maintenance shall thereby assume concurrently with the owner responsibilities for the
premises and be subject to penalty for failure to comply." Simple question, do we have resident super superintendent or not? If we do, those people have personal liability for every violation. That's what that
administrative code means. If we don't, then landlord identity law was never satisfied and no rent increase was legal. This code continues, quote, such person shall be liable concurrently and jointly with the owner and any managing agent.
End quote. So, who are these superintendent? Are there any? Ignorance of the law won't save them from concurrent liability. Mr. Hudnut, in your September 11th letter, you stated, "This office
represents the state of New Jersey. You're not bound by civil court orders. The state says superintendent have concurrent liability. These aren't LLC's. These are real people and if they exist, they're personally liable for every violation at
port side. Every missing carbon monoxide detector, every safety violation, every non-working vent, and there's about 527 of them, every day without security guards.
Council committee, use your subpoena powers. Get these supposed superintendents under an oath and ask a very simple question. Where do you live? Show us your lease. Show us your certification. Show us
proof you actually lived in these buildings. And here's the trap equity created. either they have superintendent who are personally liable for hundreds of violations or they don't have superintendent and every rent increase
violated landlord identity law in portions of the Jersey City ordinance which are not exemptable with mandatory minimums. Each superintendent, if they exist, faces thousands in personal fines daily.
So that's why you need to subpoena them now before they disappear. and the state of New Jersey demands accountability. So, please use your powers, ask the question, ask them if they live in the buildings. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Our next speaker, 5.31, Zach. Good evening. My partner and I moved from a Manhattan five-story walk up to Jersey City in 2020 at the height of the pandemic. The apartment was perfect for us and in an elevator building which was built as a luxury amenity, but it
ultimately proved to be a necessity for us in the months that followed after my partner was severely injured and wheelchair bound for a year. We love Jersey City, our neighborhood and our home. We wanted to start a family here thinking the lower rents would allow us to afford it. Then in 2021, as my
partner was relearning how to walk, our landlord, Equity Residential, hiked our rent 11%. Then in 2022, the rent went up another 18%. Then in 10, then another 10% in 2023, and the rent went up again in
2024. We just got our renewal this month. Our rent will now be well over $1,000 more each month than when we first moved in 5 years ago, thanks to the predatory algorithmic rent hikes and greedy corporate landlords. And what do we get
for it? During this time, we had months of elevator failings. My partner spoke from this podium and she told you what it was like being stuck in the house during what we thought was a real fire alarm while she couldn't walk. For months, we had no reliable elevator service and no way for her to get in and
out of the building. Our building also has little to no security. We come home and see leaflets shoved under our doors. I respect the hustle, but it speaks to a lack of security or proper access controls in our building when past speakers here have described instances of violence and harm to residents. Our
maintenance requests have also dropped off a cliff, violation after violation. We've had inspectors into our B into our apartment noting multiple violations of city code that still haven't been fixed. And Equity still hasn't acknowledged over a year later the huge breach of
trust after a former employee was caught allegedly stealing packages and mail for months. Again, that's over $1,000 more in rent every month we're paying directly into the coffers of a billion dollar company for no other reason than corporate greed.
If the city enforces laws, our rent will be about half of what it is today. That is money far better spent in local businesses in Jersey City and supporting the economy here. But instead, we're faced with a city that has consistently failed to enforce its own laws.
As tenants, we are the ones who have had to take action by speaking at city council meetings since 2022 and finding thousands, pardon me, hundreds, if not that more, of city code violations to get anywhere. It's because we are taking action, city
council. I stand before you today to ask that you stand up your constituents and enforce the rules of this city. Thank you. Our next speaker 5.32 Dina.
Good evening, members of city council. Um it's been a while since I've been here. First, I want to thank you for the action that I've seen. Um the ordinances that were passed today, um it's really positive. Um and yet there's still more
to be done. So tonight I'm here to talk about um ordinance 24055 when uh this council passed uh which this council passed more than a year
ago. Um and it gave us hope uh because it was a measure requiring uniformed uh security services for multi-dwelling residences. Um unfortunately 12 months later that as you've heard uh that promise remains
unfulfilled. Um because there hasn't been uniform security um despite the law's clear mandate. Um it's it's led to serious incidents. You've heard some of them um listed out by some of the speakers.
Last December for and and I'm here to offer a couple of more. Last December, two non-residents created a chaotic disturbance in our lobby which required multi police multi-officer police response. The required security present was nowhere to be found. On November
5th, a resident received a death threat from someone parked on Washington Street, an incident that left many of us shaken. And near the Korean War Memorial, suspicious and illegal activities are regularly observed. Um,
these threats are compounded by another failure, uh, ordinance 07, uh,-153, which requires Washington Street to be secured with a chain after 8:00 p.m. each night. Unfortunately, this duty falls on port side security team, but
because the team doesn't exist, this safeguard is ignored uh, most every single night. Uh, residents have not been passive. We've documented violations as you've heard uh through cclick fix. We've received responses
that summones have been issued but there hasn't been any visible change or corrective action of to comply uh to no compliance from equity residential which leaves us asking what purpose do these summones serve if they don't
compel enforcement of the law. And so my question is, what tools does this city have to ensure that Equity Residential meets this legal obligation and finally provides safety to our residents? Our community deserves more than laws on
paper. We deserve action, compliance, and real protection. Thank you for your time and your continued commitment. >> Our next speaker, 5.33, Fernando R. Thank you. Good evening, council. For 155 days straight, we have reported
violations directed by cities and legal council on video and in this very room in April. Tonight, let me double down just one of those 14 daily violations. The absent resident superintendent
ordinary 254 mandates building with six or more units must have a resid a resident supper. Porsai west tower has 232 units way more than six units. Porsai east has 295 units way more than
six units. But there is more. On November 8, 1991, Jersey City's board of adjustment approved a variance specifically creating two dedicated residential units, one in each portai building for
the express purpose of housing that legally requires superintendence. As you can see, this is not optional. It is a biding condition that has been violated for decades. Unfortunately, this gets worse. Both New York City
state law and Jersey City ordinance require landlords to provide tenants with written disclosure of the superintendent name, apartment number and phone number. Like in Jersey City when there are more than six units. When there is no super, there is no
disclosure. When there is no disclosure, there is no legal rent increase. Period. Councilman Sullivan, your press release promised if your landlord breaks the law, we will freeze your rent. Well,
here we are. The law is broken. Where is the freeze? We have testified about this for three years. We have petition. We have emailed. We have filed 155 consecutive daily reports on Clixick Fix. Yet when
Jay had not finally was in position to act, he told us all on the record that he needs another month to investigate whether we have superintendence. He set his own deadline. Okay. We will wait that additional that additional time.
Council committee, please we ask you to please be sure to use your subpoena powers to ensure Jad had not has what he needs to prosecute. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next speaker 5.34 Cynthia.
>> Good evening council. My name is Cynthia Sabrow and this is my second time in front of you. I came here to talk to you today about numbers but more importantly the things that number can't measure. While we've been documenting violations for 3 years and methodically for the
past 155 days, over 200 families have already been forced from their homes at Portside Towers. 200 families, that's mothers who had to pull their kids from school mid year, seniors who lost the community they've built for
decades, young professionals who came to Jersey cities with dreams only to be priced out by illegal rent hikes. These aren't statistics. They're empty apartments that once held birthday parties and holiday dinners. They're moving trucks that shouldn't have been
necessary. They're forwarding addresses to towns that these families never wanted to call home. And what has Jersey City done during this exodus? Issued less than 2,000 in fines total. Think
about the math. 200 families displaced, $2,000 in fines. That's $10 per shattered lives. $10 per family forced to start over. Is that what a home is worth in Jersey City? These three new
ordinances came too late for those 200 families. Councilman Solomon's solutions can't bring them back, but 527 families still remain, still fighting, still hoping that the city will enforce its own laws.
Every day that goes by, another family gets closer to that breaking point. Another parent looks at their bank account and wonders how many more months they can hold on. Another senior on fixed income receives a rent increase that they can't possibly afford.
Um, those 200 families have already lost their homes. We haven't forgotten you. Your displacement wasn't just wrong, it was illegal. And tonight, we're fighting to make sure it never happens again. to this council. You can't bring back the
200 families we've lost, but you can protect the th protect the thousands still here. Pass the mandatory minimum fine ordinance at the next council meeting. Not because we're asking, not because the press is watching, but because those 200 empty apartments
demand justice. Thank you. >> Our next speaker, 5.35, Erica Remember Jacqueline Reyes? On December 8th, 2009, just after 8 in the morning, 27year-old
Jacqueline was murdered in her apartment and her 9-month-old baby was stabbed nearly a dozen times. When police arrived, they could not locate a guard because security was 400 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. A non-resident had slipped into the building.
Chapter 218-1 of the NJAC says any building with more than 100 units is required to have a minimum of one security guard 247. This isn't fiction or fable. This was Paula Cookook Towers on 100 Montgomery Street, a mere
7-minute walk from Portide. Paula Hook has more than 300 units and Portide has 527. This ordinance is not new and its purpose could not be clear. Yet, Equity has refused to provide 24/7 uniform security, merely telling us to use FOBs while not supplying one per resident on
leases. And the concures are not always available to let non- FOB residents in or to safeguard entry. Residents have raised concerns in writing, in meetings, in every form available, including this very council, and we have been ignored for three years. What happened at
Palisuk is not hypothetical, but the actual cost of neglect both by the apartments's management as well as the city. And in the case of Jacqueline, who was in the four walls of her own home, council persons, the absence of citymandated security cost her her life
and almost the life of her infant son. Residents there say they've been living in fear, sending letters that went unanswered until tragedies forced action. Today when I visit my friend, I wait in a locked vestibial until security confirms visitors by the resident. They learned this the hard
way. Is one preventable tragedy not enough? Do we need one or two or five more deaths to prove this necessity? Enforce the ordinance, not just out of kindness, but because it is the law. And if none of this resonates, maybe n
numbers will. every day without a guard is a violation of up to $2,000 per unit per day. That's 1,54,000 a day and 1 billion154 million130,000 over the course of 3 years. As a single
mother, I have previously spoken on my personal concerns for security, and this is an actual incident involving another mother and child that happened blocks from here as a result of neglect, oversight, and willful defiance. We need the protection the law already
guarantees. We need 247 security yesterday since over a thousand yesterdays have already come and gone with no enforcement. Start now. Start today. Council persons again protect us.
Remember Jacqueline Reyes. Our next speaker 5.36 Susan. Thank you. 5.37 Brandon K. >> Good evening council. Uh this is my first time speaking here. I've lived in Port Side Towers since uh September
2021. Uh and as of today, my rent is up over 31% uh illegally. Uh in that time period, um absolutely nothing has been done in the way of progress, let alone even upkeeping uh the building. Half the time the
elevators don't work. Uh they collect a $750 a year amenity fee from us, which is approximately $395,000 a year. Uh on any given day, two treadmills do not work. The gym equipment has tape all over it. The grills are a living grease fire. Um why
not put that money towards a security guard or keeping up with the, you know, rules that are already on on the books? Uh the ordinance that were passed today, as far as I can see, were excellent in the way of transparency, and I really do hope that that's just the beginning in
curbing the corporate greed that has absolutely taken over uh Jersey City. Um you know, I really love it here. It's it's absolutely beautiful and um you know, it's a shame that a mega corporation can just abuse its tenants
like that. Uh I yield the rest of my time. our next speaker. 5.38 Tara here. I see it. Good evening, council. I am holding proof that Equity Residential has violated the conditions of their own
variance for decades. This is the November 8th, 1991 Board of Adjustment Resolution docket number 9025. Both 100 Warren and 155 Washington sit on block 60, lot 34, the property
covered by this variance. The board required as a condition of approval two superintendent departments to enhance the objectives of section 13-48 now chapter 254 of the city code which
calls for on-site superintendence not one superintendent shared between buildings two one in each tower. They granted a density variance specifically to add these apartments. Now here's what actually happened. There
was a superintendent named Tony. His name appears on a very old DCA certificate, but Tony moved out. Who knows when. Then came a parade of supposed superintendent. We ran skip traces on them. Guess what? They don't live in the buildings and
they never did. Remember the fire and flood of 100 Warren? No resident superintendent to handle the emergency. No security to manage the evacuation. Residents were on their own during a crisis. That's what happens when you
violate variance conditions for years. Council prosecutor Hudna wrote about landlords hiding behind LLC's in a press piece. But we have the names. Real people. They're on the DCA certificates. They have personal liability under
Jersey City and New Jersey law. You can subpoena anyone in the state of New Jersey. Here's your road map. Subpoena these people. Make them testify under oath. Ask who was the superintendent for each building every year since 2016.
Show us the leases, proving they live there. Show us their certifications. Show us Tony's moveout date. Then subpoena the people they claim were superintendent. Make them prove where they actually lived. Our skip traces say
it wasn't port side. The variance created two apartments specifically for superintendent. Those apartments exist, but if they are not being used for their required purpose, that's a breach of the variance condition that allowed the extra density in the first place.
We're dist we distributed copies of this resolution. It's black and white. Two superintendants required. There is no DCA certificate that identifies the unit of any resident super for either building. So, per New Jersey landlord
identity law, zero are currently living there. You have subpoena powers. You can compel testimony this week. Stop talking about investigations and start issuing subpoenas. Get to the truth. Thank you.
>> Our next speaker, 5.39, Brendan Good evening, council. Let me tell you about the most expensive mattress in Jersey City history. While Jake Hudnut was prosecuting that uncovered mattress, every tenant at Portside Towers continued paying illegal rent increases
every single day. I will spare you the spiel about our building being rent controlled as I believe we might have heard that a few times tonight since well and despite the ruling every tenant is overpaying by thousands of dollars a person resulting in millions in illegal
or overcharges. But here's what should outrage you. Jersey City Ordinance 260-3 subsection J states you cannot raise the rent without being in full compliance with the landlord identity laws. We've proven multiple times that the building's not in compliance. Many
landlords in Jersey City are not in compliance. There is no valid superintendent listed, no emergency contact, fictional documents. So even if they had an exemption, which they don't, as they've repeatedly been explaining, they still couldn't raise rents because
they violate section 260-3-J every single day. Attorney Maroto sent a seasoned desist letter in January 2024. Director Richardson sent an official letter in March of 2024. and the violations continue.
Councilman Solomon's ordinance 25-099 clarifies what should be obvious. Exemption from rent control doesn't mean exemption from every other law. You need to register. You need to disclose. And if you don't, your rents are frozen. So, a while back, I spoke about the prosecution in the case regarding how a
city handles things. And days later, a thought struck me. Our good friend and regular speaker Eve repeatedly brought up ticket fixing within the municipal courts, which has been bugging me. Now cases in the city courts are brought up by the city prosecution offers led by Hudna who has a team of lawyers
researchers to do cases. Every case has a set budget of time personnel cost to pursuing since well they are li they have a limited amount of lawyers and the lawyers are human. They can't be spending every minute of every day researching writing arguments filing and practicing law. They need food, water,
sleep and apparently joy. I bring this up due to the rampant and systematic defunding and crippling of the Jersey City landlord tenant board which has been taking place over these last 12 years. So what exactly is the municipal court
prosecutor's budget pursuing these large landlords when they're clearly violating local ordinances? The new mo the new laws we've been that are being brought for second reading next two weeks will help alleviate this concern, but it is still a major concern. What is the budget? What is how are these things
happening? Is the is there is our prosecutional office receiving the funding to from the fines that brought into the city as a method of funding itself due to the expensive nature of these lawsuits? These are questions you might want to consider asking the prosecution prosecutor's office. As for
the budget, there's a last minute meeting. Finally, we could be using the fines the city is generating to fund the city and not sell land. >> Thank you. Our next speaker 5.40 Liv.
Good evening council. Tonight I'm speaking in solidarity with Portide Towers. As Erica spoke on earlier in 2009 at 100 Montgomery Street, Jacine Reyes and her nine-month-old baby were stabbed in their home. The building had
no security guard violating the same ordinance. Equity residential violates today. Cameras watched passively as the killer entered. They recorded everything. They stopped nothing as cameras are inanimate objects. Jersey
City issued one summons for $1,200. A mother and baby died because a landlord saved money on security. One summons. $1,200. Fast forward to Portide Towers. A bloody
attacker roam freely in their lobby. What did the cameras do? They watched. They recorded the concier staff leaving the desk to hide the victim. They recorded children in strollers passing blood on the floor while their parents asked what happened. The cameras saw
everything, but cameras do nothing. In California right now, Equity Residential faces a major class action because of inadequate security at their property leading to an active shooting that could have been prevented. They know the
consequences. They don't care. This is what Equity is fighting for in court. The right to operate exactly like 100 Montgomery did in 2009. They're advocating for the conditions that led to those deaths. council. You have
portides daily reports. Day 155, no security, no superintendent. Portsiders are at risk every single day. The mandatory minimums ordinance you'll vote on next meeting could change
everything. Instead of one $1,200 fine after a tragedy, it's $100 per unit per day. That's $52,0007 $52,700 daily at port side. That's real deterrence before someone dies. And we
can't wait for the next meeting. Equity's lawsuit seeks to block enforcement permanently. You need to take emergency order. No. Yeah, you need to take an emergency action in court now. File for an emergency order requiring
immediate compliance. Join prosecutor Hudnut's position that he represents the state, not the civil court's jurisdiction. Director Richardson, issue emergency orders under your statutory authority under 260-7.
Please do not wait for another tragedy. This council has the power to prevent another 100 Montgomery Street. question is whether you'll use it before or after another funeral needs planning. Pass the mandatory minimums. Take emergency core action. Do it now. Lives
literally literally depend on it. Thank you. >> Our next speaker 5.41 Michelle. I'm Michelle Hirs, president of the Portside Towers West Tenant Association. I never thought that a position of community service would result in me
being a terrified equity residential resident, but my work for the tenants in this city has left me personally vulnerable. So, I'm here to ask you to eliminate chapter 218-1D entirely, an unnecessary uniform
security exemption provision that endangers residents while wasting precious city resources. Every single time I walk through our parking garage, I do so in terror. Every time I enter a stairwell, which I'm forced to do when
our elevators break down, I wonder if today will be when someone attacks me. This isn't paranoia. Our garage was left wide open for 17 days. We have building entry doors that don't lock and empty concierge desks. Fire, flooding, a
bullet, and a bloody woman trying to escape her attacker. There are no 247 uniform security guards to provide active emergency management for the more than 1,000 tenants who reside at port side. Technology and untrained concieres
are passive measures. They cannot chase intruders, calm residents during emergencies, or patrol stairwells. My neighbors feel this same terror. But you can help. Chapter 218-1A
already establishes an absolute duty. It says every owner shall furnish uniform security guards. Not may, not should consider, shall. That's mandatory language. Section 218-1D,
an exemption provision, has created costly administrative nightmare that's draining taxpayer resources while leaving us vulnerable. Our buildings house 232 and 295 families respectively, more than
double the 100 unit threshold. Yet, instead of complying with the law, Equity Residential has launched an expensive legal campaign, deliberately misreading the ordinance to treat what should be an absolute requirement as
negotiable. While we live in fear, your city staff is forced to conduct inspections, process appeals, draft denial letters, and defend administrative decisions. The Department of Public Safety has spent countless hours on Portid's case alone. Many
landlords are treating an exemption as a right when the law creates an absolute duty. The exemption provision costs taxpayers twice. First in administrative burden and second in public safety failures. I'm asking you to remove
218-1D completely. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker 5.42 42 Francis. >> Good evening, members of council. My name is Francis and I live at 21 Stegman Place. I'm here to speak about the
demolition and proposed redevelopment at 6 Stegman Place in Jersey City. The demolition began on July 16th, 2025. Pyramids were filed improperly and the city's response was confusing and difficult for the residents to navigate. Neighbors were not given the 30 days
notice that should be expected. There was no reassurance about pest control, utility shut offs, or lateral support. And most importantly, the community had no opportunity to voice concerns until after the demolition had occured.
That is not fair to the residents. We deserve transparency, safety, and a chance to be heard before actions be taken. Now, we are deeply concerned about what comes next. The proposal for a multi-unit investment property at six stagment place would n would negatively
affect our community by the following. Overloading parking and even blocking emergency or service access. Threatening the safety and cohesion of our block. Disrupting the character, appearance, and history of a street built around single family homes.
We are not opposed to development, but we strongly believe that any new construction at six segment place should match the architectural style and scale of the surrounding single family homes. That is the only way to preserve the long-term well-being of our
neighborhood. In short, we are asking the council to recognize that the demolition process was flawed and denied the community proper input. and number two, ensure that any new construction is consistent with the existing single family character of our block.
We want to work with the city, not against it, but we need your support to protect the safety, character, and integrity of our community. Thank you. >> Our next speaker, 5.43, Adrian, believe he left.
Next, 5.44, 44 raz Oh 5.45 units 5.46 ampon Irma no next 5.47 47
Satan 5.48 Adrian 5.49 Mammoth Con okay 550 Mark uh Mark, just bring the mic up toward
towards you. There you go. >> Sorry. >> I was just saying to bring the mic up towards you. >> Okay. On it. Uh, just as an observation, I mean, if the city would like really jump on the enforcement, you guys would have been home an hour ago.
I mean, you know, these people, I got to say, you know, dedicated citizen engagement. Anyway, I came to speak on uh the ordinance uh 25101 which was involves the tax abatement
for the 177 grand project. Uh just to re uh recap how we got here. Originally that property was zoned for five stories. Developer came in and said, "Well, we can't really make it work economically. We need 12." They got
12. A little while later they came back and they asked for another seven stories. They got that. Then they got involved with u
the affordable housing and got another 10 stories. So right now the development is almost six times what the property was zoned for and the rest of the block is four stories. Uh they're putting a giant
property there. Um, and I I speak out against the abatement because at this point I think they developer has gotten enough and they're basing the abatement based on a snapshot in time of the interest rates at this
point. What happens in a few months when you know Trump stacks the Fed and then all of a sudden interest rates are 3%. Are you going to take the abatement back? you know, because all of a sudden they've got a better deal on interest.
Um, and I think it also sets a bad precedent for other developers that are coming into downtown because they see the formula. The next building that would it would come up is uh when St. Peters
completes the the slow demolition of the historic buildings on their property and then they want to build a high-rise there, which is in the cards. you know, they're going to come back to you and maybe do the same thing. Downtown Jersey City already is probably the densest
part of Hudson County, which is the fifth densest county in country. The other four are across the river. And uh while I am not anti-development, I think
that you know piling on more development and more density downtown beyond what we have and then enabling the developers that are asking for that density with the favor of a tax abatement is really is too much
to ask and they should just be you know be developers at this point. It's like well plan we had plan A. >> Thank you very much. Time is up. >> Didn't work out. >> Our next speaker, 5.51, Fernando Garcia. >> Fernando,
not on your not on your printed list, but signed up to speak before we started the meeting. 5.52. Larry Council members, I think that I am probably the last speaker or very close to it, so I'm
going to try to be brief. Uh, my comments are going to dovetail with those of Mark who just spoke. Uh, I'm a member of the board of the Paul Hook Neighborhood Association. The association is opposing the resolution. uh
25101 for a variety of reasons and I'm going to give you those in just a second. These buildings on Grand and on Vanvor will be 27 stories and 17 stories
joined in a in a perpendicular manner with a threestory platform. These are directly behind the historic buildings on Grand Street and Vanvore Street and they are
not an appropriate use. They are dwarfing the historic district there. Grand Street, as many of you realize, is now on the way to Jersey Avenue, which is on the way to Route 78.
It is packed with cars throughout the day. So, this project will have 443 more units, bringing in a lot more traffic. It will also bring delivery
vehicles. There's a school there. There will be some accommodation for a school drop off, but we know what school traffic looks like. So, how will this affect the other intersections in the neighborhood? What does the
traffic study say about this? It could not possibly be saying that this is fine. It is not fine. Also, the tax abatement for this property is totally unneeded. The
resolution says that the tax abatement is needed for the project. We have projects going up all around us. Some are tax abated and some are not. It is definitely not needed for this
building, these two buildings to be profitable. Instead, it will be putting millions of dollars in the hands of the developer and doing nothing for the tax base, including the school tax base.
Thank you. Our next speaker, 5.53, Glenn Crawford. I'm small property owner in Georgia City, 14 Bel Avenue. I'm going to be emailing each of you tomorrow morning. Um, a horrific experience that I went through. It's probably take me two hours to explain it, but my house
was raided on the 18th by a whole lot of police officers. Nobody wanted to tell me who they were. They had no warrant. They had no paperwork. They entered my home, started taking pictures of my private home, owner
occupied home. I've never experienced anything like this in my life. My p my family has owned the property on Belmont Avenue for 87 years. This particular property is 40 has been in my family for 43 years. I don't
understand what this is about. I don't know what the motive is for this abuse of authority, but um I just want to get to the bottom of it and I'm here tonight because my family has always been a friend to friend to this city. My grandmother was on the planning board. My aunt was a superior court judge here
and we're not trying as always suing somebody. It's not like that. I just don't want to feel targeted as a older black man in the city and feel like I gotta be scared of the police. anytime I've ever had the police wanted
to come and I mean I police an inspector anybody I get a notice in the mail and I know they're coming this didn't happen. So we had a small fire in the basement on the 11th but fire inspector came they gave us a clean bill of health. They said they found no hazards and that was
that. So what this is about I have the slightest idea. Again, I I have all I'm pretty sure I have everybody's email, so I'll email you, but I don't want you to think we're angry or anything like that. We just need your help. That's all. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay, >> next speaker 5.54, Christina. I think she left. And last speaker, 5.55, Melissa. And I believe she left as well. That will conclude our public speaking
portion of the meeting. Okay, council members, any questions or comments on petitions and communications items 6.1 through 6.35? Hearing none. Any comments or questions
about officer communications 7.1 through 7.6? Hearing none. Any questions or comments on reported directors 8.1 through 8.5? On to our claims and addendum number one. So council members going to be
taking a vote on claims and addendum number one. Council person Ridley >> I. >> Council person Huings >> I. >> Council person Biano >> I. >> Council person >> I. >> Council person Solomon. >> Hi. >> Council person Gilmore.
>> Council person Deise. >> Council person Ria. >> Hi. and Council President Waterman. Claims and addendum number one are approved unanimously. 90. On to our resolutions. Council members are going to be taking a vote on items
10.1 through 10.14. Council person Ridley >> I. >> Council person Huings. >> I. >> Council person Bajiano. >> I. >> Council person. Um, I'm going to vote I.
>> Thank you. Council person Solomon. >> Solomon. Abstain on 10.8 and then I and all the rest. >> Okay. Council person Gilmore. >> Hi. >> Council person Deise. >> Hi. >> Council person Revera. >> Hi.
>> And council president Waterman. Okay. Okay, if I can just recap, items 10.1 through 10.7 are approved unanimously 90. Item 10.8 is approved 801 with Council Person Solomon abstaining. And items 10.9 through 10.14
are approved unanimously 90. And for the balance of our resolutions, items 10.15 through 10.20. Council person Redley >> I. >> Council person Huings >> I. >> Council person Bajiano.
>> No. And uh >> no on all of them or no on which one? >> 15 and I on the rest. >> No on 10.15. >> Yes. >> And how are you voting on the rest? >> I I on rest.
>> Thank you. Council Person, >> I'm going to vote I for all. >> Thank you, Council Person Solomon. >> Just briefly on on 10:15, um we did reach out to DCA and we got uh the direct uh email and and some of the
rules on uh enforcement if uh the developer uh in this case doesn't abide by the relocation agreement that's been sent to us. So, we'll obviously share with everybody on the council. uh but you know from my perspective you know it needs to move forward because the repairs are needed and the more
importantly the affordability protection is needed and so if we don't move forward then uh we lose the affordability protection which is the most important thing but the you know people who who had concerns brought up a legitimate point that that seems that if this property owner hasn't abided by the
rules over prior iterations. So, we've got to, you know, you know, kind of, you know, have have a extremely tight eye on what he's doing, uh, and really watch, uh, that he follows through on his commitments. And so, you know, the penalties can be pretty severe. And we just need to make sure that all the
tenants know what those penalties are, all the elected officials know what those penalties are, uh, and that he abides by everything he committed to to ensure that this, uh, relocation and renovation happens, uh, as expeditiously as possible. So with that I vote I for all.
>> Thank you. Council person Gilmore >> I. >> Council person Deise. >> Hi I. >> Council person reverber. >> We're going up to where? >> Uh this is the balance 10.15 to 10.20. >> Very good. Uh very good appointment for
1018. I vote eye on everything. >> And council president waterman. Um, I know on 10:15 I know there was some discussion about it, but I know I have the uh representative here for that property. I just for him to put on a record that they will abide by the
relocation law um because some of the tenants was here and that was their concern. I just want it on the record. >> Hi, good evening council. Uh James McCann from the law firm of Connell Foley on behalf of uh Fairmont Hotel.
Yes, I can confirm for you um council president that the uh owner of the property who is engaging in the renovation and will do the temporary relocation um will abide by all of the relocation rules of the relocation statute. And
there's no intention to remove any of these tenants from uh their apartments. They will be temporarily relocated and after their apartments are renovated, they will be allowed to move back in at the same rent that they had before the renovation. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah, but there's no law, if you look at the federal law, there's no law that says he can't turn this back on these people after he moves them out. >> No, that's making this statement. That's why I'm That's why I'm getting the statement, Rich. >> Well, so first of all, that's not true.
That's completely inaccurate because I did have a handout. Sean, were you able to give everybody? >> I certainly did. >> Yeah. So, Councilman Solomon did point out that his office contacted the um well, my client contacted the New Jersey
Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency as a result of Councilman Col Solomon's concern about the relocation. And the agency immediately responded directly that there were a new a whole host of
laws that were regulating um the relocation process here and that the de and that the owner my client was required to abide by them through all the financing that he is getting to renovate this building. So, there's
plenty of law that regulates my client's activities and does require my client to let these folks back in after the rent. >> Yeah, I think you better check the law a little more carefully. >> Rich, you're talking to a lawyer. >> And if he don't do it, that's why I have
it on record. >> Just so you have a legal wait, wait, wait, wait. Guys, guys, you got to talk one at a time because if you're talking all at once, my court reporter is not going to get it. The other thing is that woman, two women stood up there and they talked about all these leaks and this
and that and the windows and everything. Where's the money? What has he done with the money over the last years and everything? And residents are calling me saying they honestly believe they're going to get screwed. All right. Yeah. Just so you're aware, as a result
of the financing that they will be taking from the HMFA in the HMFA statute for people to get loans from the HMFA, if they completely sherk all of their responsibilities, HMFA actually has the ability to take over their board. So,
it's highly unlikely that you're going to have the worst case scenario here, but should keep your eyes open. >> An honest lawyer, you just said it. Keep your eyes open, >> Rich. We going to watch them, Rich. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> So, item 10.15 is approved 81 with council person Bajiano voting no. Items 10.16 through 20 are approved unanimously 90. May I have a motion? Motion to adjourn at
>> 9:30 >> p.m. and that was made by council person Gilmore. May I have a second? Second by council person Ridley. All in favor for the motion to adjourn at 9:38 p.m. All council members present by
acclamation, please say I. >> I. We are out of here at 9:30, 8:00