Hold off. Hold soft. All right, everyone. We're about to get started. If we can silence our cell phones, find our seats, close the back door and side doors, I greatly appreciate it. Okay, thank you very much. Good evening
everyone. We are on the record. Today is Tuesday, the 25th day of November 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 6:21 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 Sole >> here. >> Council person Solomon is not here.
Council person Gilmore. >> Council person Deise here. >> Council person Rivera here. >> And council president Waterman here. We have eight council members in attendance at 6:21 p.m. Can we kindly
rise for a moment of silence, please? Lynn Ruiz. is 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 in caucuses of 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 for its preparation, the agenda of this meeting was similarly disseminated on Friday, November 21st, 2025 at 50:05 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. Council members, before we move on to our regular business, we have two items that we are adding to the agenda. First item is an
item that was spoken about at the caucus yesterday. Item 3.5, city ordinance 25-131, is an ordinance establishing the Jersey City Accessibility Advisory Committee. And the other item, which I believe you
have a copy in front of you, which is item 10.42, 42. City resolution 25-769 is a resolution amending the calendar year 2025 cash management plan for the city of Jersey City.
>> Motion. >> Motion made by council person Sole. >> Second. >> Seconded by council president Warman to add items 3.5 and 10.42 to the agenda. Council person Ridley.
I >> council person Hulings. >> Yes. >> Council person Bajiano. >> Council person Cle. >> I council person Gilmore. >> I. >> Council person Deise. >> I. >> Council person rebera.
>> I. >> And council president Woodman. Motion carries 80 with council person Solomon absent to add items 3.5 and 10.42 42 to the agenda. And council members, if you would allow
me, we're going to start with our first reading ordinances. Read them to the record. First reading ordinance, item 3.1, city ordinance 25-127 is an ordinance amending chapter A350,
council rules of order. Item 3.2, 2. City Ordinance 25-128 is an ordinance supplementing chapter 332 vehicles and traffic article 3 parking standing and stopping amending section 332-22 parking prohibited at all times along
Stuben Street between Warren Street and Washington Street. Excuse me. Item 3.3, city ordinance 25-129, is an ordinance of the Jersey City Municipal Council amending the Jersey City,
excuse me, the Jersey City official zoning map and incorporating incorporation of compliance provisions. Item 3.4, Four, city ordinance 25-130 is an ordinance of the city of Jersey
City authorizing the city of Jersey City to enter into a lease agreement with Exchange Place Alliance District Management Corporation for Space located at 335 Washington Street. And item 3.5, City Ordinance 25-131,
is an ordinance establishing the Jersey City Accessibility Advisory Committee. Council members going to be taking a vote on items 3.1 through 3.5. Council person Ridley. >> Uh I'm going to vote I for all, but on
uh 3.1 I know we're making changes to the council's rules of orders. I think that maybe that should be something we leave up to the next council, but I'd like to have further discussion. So I for all. >> Council person healings.
>> I for all. Council person Bajiano. >> I want to say I for all and I want to thank again the planning the Sergeant Banthony group and the Persian Field group for getting this through 3.3 and I for all.
>> Council person >> I for all. >> Council person Gilmore. >> I for introduction. >> Council person Deise. >> I for introduction. >> Council person Ribera. Hi. >> And council president Warerman. Hi.
Items 3.1 through 3.5 are introduced. 8 Z with council person Solomon absent. On to our second reading ordinances as discussed at the caucus. Council members because we just introduced city
ordinance 25-129. The first second reading ordinance is a pretty much the same ordinance. This the new one is new and improved. So, as discussed at the caucus, I'll read it into the record and then we're going to
make a motion. Item 4.1, city ordinance 25-112, is an ordinance of the Jersey City Municipal Council amending the official zoning map and incorporation of compliance provisions. I need a motion
to defeat city ordinance 25-112 without conducting a public hearing because we introduced city ordinance Uh 25129 >> motion. >> Motion made by council person Rivera. May I have a second? >> Second.
>> Second by council person Sole. On the motion to defeat city ordinance 25-112 without conducting a public hearing. Council person Ridley. >> Hi. >> Council person Huings. >> Yes. >> Council person Bajiano. >> Hi. >> Council person.
>> Hi. >> Council person Gilmore. >> Hi. I just want to say um cuz I know some people be watching, they don't know exactly what's going on. Um so essentially what we did was we voted in 3.3
for introduction. Uh 4.1 is was essentially a duplicate. Um but it was different demographics as it relates to what can be built and stuff like that. Um, so I just wanted to say that because I know a lot of time people be saying we we don't even know what y'all talking about and y'all act take for granted
that everybody understands. So I just wanted to record to reflect that's what we were doing. >> I mean I I thought I did explain that but it's it's okay. Council person Deise I
>> Council Person Rivera I >> and Council President Warn. Motion to defeat city ordinance 125 without conducting a public hearing is approved. 800 with council person Solomon absent.
So with that being said, we're going to be taking a vote to defeat city ordinance 25-112. So when you're voting, you should be voting nay. Council person Ridley, >> no. >> Council person Huings, >> hi.
>> No. I thought you say everybody understood. Sean, >> if everybody listened, >> council person Huings, >> we're voting to defeat city ordinance 2512. So when you're looking to defeat
an ordinance, your vote should be nay or no. >> Would you like personalings? >> No. >> Council person Biano, >> I say no. Did you Did you vote? >> No. No.
>> Council person Cle? >> I'm joking. No. >> Council person Gilmore. >> No. >> Council person Deise. >> No. >> Council person rever. >> No. >> And council president Waterman.
>> No. >> City ordinance 25-112 is defeated. 08. with council person Solomon absent. Guys are killing me. Smalls are killing me. All right, next ordinance. Item 4.2,
2. City Ordinance 25-119 is a bond ordinance providing for various capital improvements by and in the city of Jersey City in the county of Hudson, state of New Jersey, reappropriating 58,393,447.96 in excess bond or note proceeds from
various bond ordinances not needed for their original purpose to finance the cost thereof. I believe we're going to make a motion to carry city ordinance 25-119 to the December 10th, 2025
meeting. But before we do that, I'm going to allow our acting business administrator to address the council. Thank you, Sean. Got as mentioned that caucus, a number of council members had questions about it. So, I want the finance director to meet with any of those council members directly. If they
have any specific concerns about some of the properties listed, I want them to have a chance to address them individually and make any amendments as needed. So, we're just asking to table it for this meeting. I'm sorry, not table, carry it for this meeting to the next meeting so we can have that discussion.
>> So, council members, with that said, may I have a motion to carry city ordinance 25-119 to the December 10th, 2025 council? >> Motion second. Motion made by council person Huings,
seconded by council person Sole. >> Oh, me. >> Give it to Rich. >> I'll give it to Rich, but you have to turn your mic on if you're first. >> I don't want >> cuz I can't hear you. All right.
Motion to carry city ordinance 25-119 to the December 10th, 2025 meeting. Motion was made by council person Huing, seconded by council person Aiano. On the motion to carry city ordinance 25-119 to the December 10th meeting,
council person Ridley >> I. >> Council person Huings >> I. >> Council person Bajiano. >> I. >> Council person Cle. >> I. >> Council person Gilmore. >> I. >> Council person Deise. I >> council person reverber >> I >> and council president Waterman.
>> Motion carries 80 with council person Solomon absent. On to our next second reading ordinance. Item 4.3, city ordinance 25-120, is a franchise ordinance granting permission to 2011 Newark Avenue
property LLC, its successors, and assigns to construct private improvements within the sidewalk area of the Jersey Avenue public right ofway adjacent to lot 5, block 12702 on the official tax assessment map of
the city of Jersey City. I believe this is also going to be tabled prior to conducting a public hearing and I believe our corporate acting corporation council would like to address the city council. >> Uh sure Sean we did receive
communication from um the attorney for the applicant and he would like it tabled or however we can do it. >> So we're going to and I did speak to the attorney as well. We're going to table
city ordinance 25-120 prior to conducting a public hearing. May I have a motion? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Motion made by council person Rivera, seconded by council person. On a motion to table city ordinance
25-120 prior to conducting a public hearing. Council person Ridley. >> I. >> Council person Huings. >> I. >> Council person Bajiano. >> Hi. >> Council person Cle. >> Hi. Council person Gilmore. >> Hi. >> Council person Deise. >> Hi.
>> Council person Reber. >> I. >> And council president Waterman. Motion carries. 80 with council person Solomon absent. On to our next second reading ordinance. Item 4.4 city ordinance 25-121
is an ordinance amending chapter 3 article 10 of the Jersey City Municipal Code. 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 seconded.
>> Motion to close the public hearing on city ordinance 25-121 was made by council persona, seconded by council person. On the motion to close the public hearing on city ordinance 25-121, council person Ridley I. >> Council person Huings.
>> Hi. >> Council person Bajana. Hi, >> Council Person CE. >> Hi, >> Council Person Gilmore. >> I council person de Jace, Council Person Rivera, >> I >> and Council President Waterman. >> Motion carries 8 Z with council person
Solomon absent for final consideration and adoption of city ordinance 25-121. Council person Ridley, >> I. >> Council person Hulings, >> I. >> Council person Bajiano, >> I. >> Council person. >> Hi. >> Council person Gilmore. Hi,
>> Council Person Deise. >> Hi, >> Council Person Reber. >> Hi, >> Council P and Council President Waterman. >> City Ordinance 25-121 is adopted. 80 with Council Person Solomon absent. On to our next second
reading ordinance. Item 4.5, city ordinance 25-122, is an ordinance supplementing chapter 254, property maintenance, article 9, maintenance and responsibilities of owners and managers, amending section 245-45,
general safety and sanitation to align the facade inspection standards with best practices. It's 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. Before you do that, just give me
one second. Kev. Okay. Kevin Weller. K V I N W E L L E R. I won't need the whole uh 3 minutes. Not even close. Um I read it last night for the first time. Uh I noticed that it's uh essentially taking the 5-year
um inspection and moving it out to a 10-year inspection. Um, as people in the room may remember, the reason this ordinance came to be in the first place is when there was a collapse in Florida due to uh leaks in a building that wasn't managed properly. And so, lots of
municipalities, including Jersey City, uh, put in place a uh, mandatory facade inspection to avoid that kind of a problem. At Portside, we have just such a problem. We've had leaks because of this ordinance. uh the facade had been
inspected and repairs have been made and we are safer because of it. I I my fear if you pass this ordinance is you can be 9 years since such an inspection and still be in compliance and 9 years is a long time if you have uh ongoing leaks
um and it could create a structural problem that could result in what happened in Florida. So, I think that making it a 10-year inspection instead of a 5year is probably not safe, not a smart idea. So, I'm against it. Thanks. This is still a public hearing on city
ordinance 25-122. 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 25-122
was made by council person, seconded by council person rever. >> On the motion to close a public hearing on city ordinance 25-122, council person Ridley >> I. >> Council person Huings >> I. >> Council person Bajiano. >> Hi.
>> Council person. >> Hi. >> Council person Gilmore. >> Hi. >> Council person Deise. >> Hi. >> Council person Ria. >> Hi. and council president. Motion carries 800 with council person Solomon absent for final consideration
and adoption of city ordinance 25-12 council person Ridley. >> Um just a quick question because uh a good point was brought up. What is I guess the basis for us switching to the five? >> So this came from the construction and
building department themselves. This brings us in line with the state regulations. the state actually has the the eight years compared to what we currently have. So, we're just trying to bring our code and regulation with the building standards at the state level. >> You said that the state how long is the state, Peter?
>> We're essentially just copying what the state promagates for the whole state. >> Okay. I >> Council Person, Council >> Person Biano, I council person. I
>> council person Gilmore >> I >> council person Deise >> I >> council person rea >> no >> and council president waterman >> city ordinance 25-122
is adopted 71 with council person Rivera voting no and council person Solomon absent. On to our next second reading ordinance item 4.6. 6. City Ordinance 25-123 is an ordinance of the Jersey City
Municipal Council amending the Jersey City Land Development Ordinance, Chapter 345, Article 1, Section 6, Definitions. Chapter 345, Article 5, Section 62, Residential Design Standards, and Chapter 345, Article 5, Section 63,
Non-residential Design Standards. 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. If we're going to have many people, just line up in an orderly fashion. And I would just need
for you to come up to the podium and spell your name for our court reporter. >> My name is >> Just give me one second because I got to get the camera on you. What's that? I'll try to look at that when they're speaking. Your name?
>> My name is Angelene. A N G E L I N E. Last name Jacques. J A C q U S. >> I'm I'm sorry. I I couldn't hear your last name. J A >> J A C Q U S >> E S
>> E S. >> Thank you. I am a licensed architect and a member of the American Institute of Architects. I'm also an avid bird watcher who has birded up and down the great state of New Jersey. As an architect, I have experience working on residential developments across New York City. I've
worked on many tall, glassy towers that were subject to NYC's local law 15 requiring bird safe glass. While birds safe glass used to be a niche product with an expensive premium, the last decade has seen innovations and cost reductions in the glass market, largely due to birds safe legislation and
increased demand. Any major glass distributor in the tri-state area now offers multiple birds safe products. The introduction of UV glass offers a solution for developers who are worried about any window patterns impending on their building views. For smaller buildings and single family homes,
lowcost options like homeowner applied window films and window screens are effective deterrence as well. When discussing any potential cost increases associated with bird safe glass, we are looking at a relatively small amount of construction material for a building. For example, say 20% of your building's
windows are required to be bird safe. And say you're using industry standard windows that each have two or three layers of insulated glass, which is standard. If there is a cost increase for bird safe glass, it only applies to one pane of glass within 20% of your window units. It does not apply to the
cost of frames, labor, transportation, or installation. It is a fraction of your window budget and a smaller fraction of your overall construction budget. In return, Bird Safe Glass can help developers seek sustainability credits for their projects. Birds Safe Glass is a qualifying credit in the lead
benchmark system for sustainability. A 2020 study shows that lead certified buildings are 11% more profitable and have reduced vacancy compared to non-certified buildings. Bird safe glass can also aid in energy savings. So when the Javit Center retrofitted their building with birds safe glass, their
energy costs were reduced by 26%. The introduction of new building requirements has always been met with protests that the bu the requirements will make building prohibitively expensive. Former examples include the introduction of fire escapes, energy efficient requirements, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act. In all those cases, as well as in this case, I would argue that the health and safety benefits outweigh the potential cost implications. NYC implemented local law 15 in 2021. In 2024, it had its largest annual growth
of new housing units since 1965. Birds safe requirements are not preventing new housing or new building in New York City. This is common sense reasonable legislation. Cities across the country are adopting similar legislation as best practice for buildings and Jersey City should do the
same. Thank you for your time. >> You can just state your name and spell your name for the record. >> Hi, my name is San Mahmud. Spell that S A M A N. My last name M A H M O O D
>> M O O >> D >> D. Thank you. >> Good evening and thank you to the New Jersey City Council for hearing my testimony. My name is Simon Mammud. I'm here. I'm the director of advocacy engagement for New York City Bird Alliance. We're a chapter of National
Audabon which is one of the oldest conservation organizations in the country. My organization protects birds and biodiversity through science, research, and community engagement. While our work usually focuses on the other side of the Hudson River, birds are not limited to city or
state lines. What affects New York City's birds affects New Jersey's birds and its people. Birds are a critical part of a healthy and functioning ecosystem. They control pest, pollinate plants, and disperse seeds. That's even
true in urban environments like Jersey City. More than 350 birds pass through the metropolitan area as we are along the migratory fly away. But birds are in steep decline here and
across the country. Our urban landscapes pose a serious threat and risk to birds. Collisions with glass and building structure kill over a billion birds. Yes, that's billion with a be per year. Collisions
affect humans as well as many people can find their first connection with nature through birds and it's a stressing experience to enter your home, business or school to step over dead birds in the way. Property owners also face additional costs and needing
cleanup crews to remove dead birds. Building rentals and sales are affected with dead birds outside of them. Collisions happen because birds don't perceive glass barriers the way humans do. They see a clear path or reflection of vegetation or the sky
to try to fly through them, colliding with the glass. Resulting collisions usually lead to bird deaths. Bird collisions are a big problem, but fortunately there's an easy way to fix them. Local law 15 that passed in 2019 allowed thousands of new residents that
have been built in New York City to incorporate bird friendly design and create not only a sustainable city for birds but for humans as well. Humans can see the pattern in bird friendly glass but birds do and they avoid the glass. Our collision
monitoring efforts in New York City and other collision monitoring efforts across the globe have shown that bird friendly glass eliminates 90% of collisions and it does so without compro compromising aesthetics of a building or the view. If you've ever visited the
Javit Center, the Statue of Liberty Museum or taking the ferry into Brookfield Place in lower Manhattan, you've seen bird friendly glass without perhaps even realizing it. These individual buildings make a difference, but not one or two buildings is enough.
We encourage the New New Jersey City Council to protect birds at a broader level and its people. New York City passed one of the most comprehensive bird friendly ordinances in the country in 2019. >> Thank you very much. Your time is up. >> Thank you.
>> Hey, Danielle. Danielle D- A N I E L L E Damo D's and David A D and David A M O >> Thank you. >> Good evening, council president and members of the municipal council. This ordinance is simple, effective, and long
overdue. It introduces clear science-based definitions like bird friendly materials, bird hazard installations and threat factor and applies these standards to new construction, major rehabilitation and additions up to 100 ft. These guidelines
follow proven national models and reflect decades of research on how reflective glass, transparent corners, and certain lighting patterns contribute to preventable bird deaths every year. What I appreciate most is that this amendment is not a burden. The fact
sheet demonstrates that birds safe material materials typically add well under 1% to construction costs. Developers get clarity, planners get consistency, and residents get buildings that reduce collisions, support
healthier habitats, and align with our city's environmental and sustainability goals. As someone who works on community forestry, green infrastructure, and long-term environmental planning in Jersey City, I see this ordinance as a key piece of a larger picture. We cannot
talk about climate resilience, biodiversity, or healthy neighborhoods without also embracing responsible design. Cities across the country have already adopted these standards. Tonight, Jersey City has a chance to join them in a way that is practical,
affordable, and meaningful. I also want to briefly address a misleading email circulated to council by better blocks New Jersey. It contains incorrect information and most concerning it twists the work of Jim Cubby, one of the researchers on the Mullenberg state bird
safe study. Jim reached out to express his concern in writing. I am appalled that the work I have done is being used to attack bird safe building ordinances. I would have recommended this type of ordinance without hesitation. It is the most cost-effective operation option
available. This ordinance reflects that balance. It is practical, affordable, evidence-based, and aligned with our values. It is aligned with national best practices, not misinformation. And it demonstrates that Jersey City can grow
responsibly without sacrificing the ecosystems that sustain us. I urge you to adopt this ordinance and continue leading our region in thoughtful environmental environmentally responsible planning. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Name >> Lauren Morris M O R S E like Morse code. >> Lauren. >> Lauren. >> And say that again. >> Morse. M O R S E. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Good evening, council members. I'm here to speak in favor of the bird friendly design standards. Like New York City and New York have, we should take the step of ensuring new construction is bird friendly. As others have noted, an estimated 1 billion birds die annually in the US from window strikes. Thousands
of them here in Jersey City. Birds collide with windows because reflections in the solid glass look like open sky or trees. Many die immediately on impact. As a volunteer with For the Birds, I picked up many dead, including three
species I'd never seen in Jersey City before. I should have seen them foraging in the wild or flitting among the trees, not dead on a sidewalk. Sometimes the bodies we collect are warm. Sometimes we collect so many that the bags feel
heavy, and birds don't weigh very much. Many weigh between 10 and 20 gram, which is just 10 or 20 paper clips. As horrible as it is to find so many of our feathered friends dead, it's also devastating and heartren heart-wrenching
to find them injured. When a bird strikes a window, they can get concussions, hemorrhage, or injure their spines. Seeing a bird with a broken neck, even once, is too many times. After the first strike against the window, there's also a second impact
when the bird falls to the ground that can further injure or kill them. I found one bird, a gray cheek thrush, a shy bird with a buzzy flute-like song on his back after window strike when I was monitoring in September. His chest was
heaving as his body rushed oxygen through his system, responding to the traumatic strike and fall. Within seconds, he was fighting to stand, his eyelids half up and body shaking. I grabbed him and put him in a paper bag to take him to Wild Bird Fund, a rehab
facility in New York City. He fluttered the whole way there, probably terrified, nauseous, and in pain. Adrenaline rushing through his body. Imagine being in a terrible car accident and a giant creature picking you up and stuffing you in a bag, setting you down in a car. You
feel every bump in the road, not knowing why you are suffering or what will happen next. I was relieved because he arrived alive at the rehab facility. Many do not. I hoped he would live, but he had a broken bone in what is similar to our hipbone and there was no hope of
repair. So after he filled a forest with his sweet spring song, after he foraged for berries and insects, and after he flew thousands of miles under the cover of night from Canada, drawn to South America by an ancient call, he was euthanized because he hit a window in
Jersey City. It is senseless. We can do better. This ordinance is a clear common sense solution. It will build a better city for us, our children, and generations to come. do this for the birds, but also do this for us. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Go on. Go on. Hold on. Hold on. >> Your name. >> Hi. Um, it's UT Yu. >> Say that again. I'm sorry. U T. >> Yeah. U T Y U. Space T.
>> You're too far away from the mic. Remember, I'm I'm hearing what is being broadcasted forward, not back this way. >> Okay. It's y u t i. >> Thank you. >> Um, and my last name is h s i e h.
>> H s i >> e h. >> Thank you. When you're ready. >> Okay. Um, hi everyone. I'm here to support the um bird friendly design standards. Um, for most of my lives,
birds were just pigeons and sparrows. And that really changed when I volunteered at a wildlife sanctuary in the Peru rainforest. I worked with a scientist banding birds to study their population and it really opened my eyes to how many incredible species of birds
are out there. This was also my first time to discover and hold a hummingbird and it felt like discovering a secret world that I never knew existed. Um, when I came back to Jersey City, I found that spring a dead hummingbird and
a couple of fly catchers right in the neighborhood. And that's when I learned more about window collisions. And this fall, I volunteered with Jersey City bird and collected so many injured and dead birds. And I even saw some birds
hitting the same windows over and over and over again because they don't understand the concept of glass. And this is why I support the ordinance. I don't want people here to grow up like me thinking that we only have pigeons
and sparrows and seagulls. I don't want the first time that someone notices a white throat sparrow or a junko or a hummingbird to be when it's lying on the sidewalk. It's a very traumatic experience. And I really want our
community, especially future generations, to have the chance to see those birds alive, to enjoy bird watching, and maybe even volunteer and learned more like I did. And I truly believe that this ordinance is a simple step that will save birds and help keep
our city full of life. And I hope you'll vote yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. Before we move on to the rest of the public speakers on this ordinance, unfortunately, one of our council members has to leave. So, we're going to take a brief pause on this public
hearing and just take the council person's vote on the rest of the items that are in balance and then we'll continue the public hearing. That council member is council person Biano. Council person Bajiano
on city ordinance 25-123 which we're holding the public hearing. Your vote >> I >> we're going to carry city ordinance 25124 to the no to the December 10th meeting. So I won't ask your vote on
that. The vote, next vote will be ordinance 25-125. >> I'm going to abstain on it now. Hopefully, there's going to be a change and it's going to come back. >> Okay. And on ordinance 25-126,
>> I No, no, no. >> Which one is it? >> No. No. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Hold on. Your vote on claims and addendums number one, two, three, and four. >> I.
>> Your vote on city resolutions items 10.1 through 10.13. >> Uh, no on 101. >> No on 101. I on all the rest. >> Yes. >> Your vote on items 10.14 through 10.23.
23 10.17 there was a minor change um for unhoused by obtaining instead of one mobile outreach units it's two mobile outreach units. So your vote on items 10.14 through 10.23
>> I your vote on items 10.24 24 through 10.32 >> I >> and for the balance of the resolutions 10.33 through 10.42 42. >> No. On 10.37, yes on the rest.
>> 10.37. No. Yes. On the rest. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Council person Biano. You may be excused. >> Thank you. >> All right. Now, we'll be moving back to our public
hearing on city ordinance 25-123. If you can state your name and spell your name for the record. Moren Crowley, M A R E N C R O W L E Y. >> Thank you. >> Um, a previous speaker mentioned that
there are a billion birds killed annually in the United States and Canada by crashing into glass windows and doors. This and habitat loss are the two main reasons why we lose so many birds.
And it's estimated that since 1970, there's been a 30% decrease in bird species affecting a wider ecology. Birds do very important work in controlling insects, dispersing seeds, and pollinating plants and they make our
natural world a much more interesting place to be in. It used to be that our species actively killed birds for food, for sport, or because we viewed them as pests. We lost the passenger pigeon that way. It was once the most numerous bird in North America. Billions filled the
skies during vast migrations, and they're now extinct. We don't go out of our way to kill birds now, at least in Jersey City, but we do so passively through ignorance or lack of care in designing our built environment. This ordinance nudges us for very
inexpensively to plan for birds when we build or rebuild. Window treatments can make a huge difference. Cornell University's website, All About Birds, reports that an inspiring example is McCormack Place in Chicago, the
country's largest convention center, which notoriously killed neither nearly a thousand birds in a single night a few years ago. After workers applied DOT film to an area the building's windows equivalent to two football fields, bird
mortality at the Lakeside building was reduced by 95%. At the last council meeting, you voted to advance the embankment project, which if successfully implemented will preserve habitat for local and migrating birds and butterflies and other species.
That ordinance addresses one of the major reasons we are losing birds, loss of habitat. Now, if you pass this ordinance, you can address the other major reason we are losing birds and make windows more bird friendly. Thank
you. Come on up. If you can just raise the mic and if you can just state your name and spell your name for the record nice and slow. >> Stevie Vego. S E V I E V A G- O. >> V A G O.
>> Yep. V is in. Okay. Okay. My name is Stevie and I'm speaking on behalf of For the Birds, which is a collision monitoring project in Jersey City. New York City Bird Alliance estimates that between 90,000 and 230,000 birds
are killed each year in New York City from window collisions. Like New York, Jersey City is on the Atlantic Flyway, a major migratory route. Volunteers in Project Safelight have been monitoring window strikes in New York City since 1997, collecting data on dead and injured birds. We do not yet have data on how many
birds die in Jersey City each year. It will take a long-term effort like Project Safe Light to get real estimates, but the numbers keep growing year after year as more and more buildings go up and our city expands. We can tell you what we have seen during our monitoring this past fall. We have a
small group of volunteers that goes out during migration to patrol two routes. On days where we predict we'll have larger numbers of birds, we arrange for extra volunteers. Fall was our second monitoring season and we learned a lot in the spring. But even so, we were completely unprepared for we encountered
during the worst fall days. October 16th was a horrific morning. You can see some of the aftermath for yourself in our Instagram video from that day. That footage was taken at just one building over the space of about 45 minutes, and dozens of dead birds littered the ground when we arrived. More kept crashing as
we recovered the injured ones. That morning, in addition to collecting at least 60 dead birds, we transported more than 20 injured birds to Wild Bird Fund. All along the waterfront route, our volunteers collected dead and injured birds. The birds we recover are only a fraction of the story. Many fly away in
a burst of adrenaline only to die later from injuries, concussions, head trauma, or broken bones. American Bird Conservancy estimates that only about 20% of birds killed on impact are actually found by people searching for them. Others get swept away or scavenged before anyone finds them or they blend
blend into their surroundings. Many collision victims fall into spaces where they can't be retrieved, ledges, awnings, greenery, fenced areas that are inaccessible. Building workers are out early sweeping whatever they find into the trash. That includes dead birds and sometimes injured ones. These workers
are just doing their jobs and some talk to us about what they see and the numbers of dead birds they find. Many of them too want to know how to prevent this. This problem is not restricted to a few collision hotspots or the most built-up areas of the city. Birds can collide with windows anywhere, but there are
solutions for all aspects of this problem. That fact is hopeful and empowering. Jersey City can do so much better. And yes, it will take a little effort, but that effort is worth it. Not just for the birds that are immediately saved from colliding with windows, but from the generations of birds that will come from those saved. I'd like to thank
you for your attention, and I hope you'll vote yes and help us protect Jersey City's birds. Thank you. Next speaker, if you can just spell your name, state your name and spell your name slowly. >> Good evening. My name is Eric Connor. E R I C O N E R.
>> Thank you, Eric. >> I am the co-founder of BetterBlocks New Jersey, a longtime resident of Jersey City and an Eagle Scout. Conservation, environmental protection, green space are important to me. We've
heard from advocates in favor of this ordinance that the loss of land is a leading contributor to bird deaths. I do not dispute that bird strikes happen against glass windows. What I am
concerned about is that the city council has not taken the time to do proper due diligence on the costs associated with this ordinance. Jersey City is proposing to put in place the most restrictive
bird safety glass law in the country. More restrictive than our neighboring city in New York, more restrictive than our neighboring city in New York. More restrictive than Toronto, Canada. the only site where a comprehensive study has been done on this type of ordinance.
Now, we all of course want to protect the environment, but we also have to consider the human and financial costs. Glass of this type is two to three times more expensive than ordinary glass. This
ordinance not only applies to new construction, new commercial construction, new residential construction. It technically applies to all buildings, which means it will be increasing costs for existing homeowners as well as future homeowners and
renters. This is something you have to consider very, very carefully before voting yes. Are you willing to increase the cost to live in Jersey City? our birds, no matter how important, how vital to our
environment, more important than raising costs here. Now, if we raise costs here, what happens? More people move out into the suburbs, more green space is desoiled, more trees cut down, more homes, more McMansions built elsewhere
in New Jersey. I love our cities. I want our cities to thrive and be successful. I want more people to live here because it is environmentally one of the best things you can do. Now, is there a compromise where Bird
Glass might make sense? Yes. But let's look at the successful implementations. Let's look at what Toronto did. Let's look at what Newark did. Let's not surpass what other cities have done with an untested ordinance when, as the advocates admit, they do not have
reliable numbers on what is happening here in Jersey City. I ask you, if Jersey City, if Jersey City were to foot the bill for this, would you vote for it? If you were given a number of the cost to replace or put new windows in, would you vote for it then? If the city
voted the bill, why are you passing it on to the taxpayers? That's all I ask you to consider. Vote no. Thank you. Next speaker. >> I'm Sam Pess speaking on behalf of the friends of Liberty State Park.
>> Thank you, Sam. >> Sure. I'll leave it to others to counter the economic uh points that the previous speaker uh made. Internationally, bird numbers are declining fast and window collisions are a major factor. Please
vote for this overdue safe bird design law so Jersey City can be responsible stewards of birds an important part of our world. Other cities with skyscrapers which have such standards include New York, New York, San Francisco, and
Washington DC. These standards have not stopped development in other cities because they don't significantly affect construction costs. Liberty Park and other green spaces provide crucial stopovers for food and rest as birds migrate north in spring and south in
fall. After flying thousands of miles, thousands are crashing into windows and dying in Jersey City. Collisions also affect birds who live here all year. Bird friendly designs reduce collisions
by over 90%. Over 300 species of birds have been observed in Liberty Park and birds living in or traveling through the park on the Atlantic flyway must be protected. I bet if you asked all the school children in Jersey City and all
teachers and all clergy members if they would want to protect birds from being killed by collisions, they would all want you to support this compassionate law. St. Francis saw all creatures as brothers and sisters because they are all created by
God and he preached that humans have a duty to praise and love them. Dr. Martin Luther King viewed nature as sacred and wrote, "Although God is beyond nature, is also inherent in it." On Thanksgiving, we marked the harvest gratitude party with Native Americans
and pilgrims. Native Americans philosophy emphasiz with deep respect, stewardship, and a sense of kinship with the natural world. We know the American history of Native Americans being killed, given diseases, having their land taken, and being forced onto reservations. near where the science
center is. In 1643, the Dutch massacred 120 Native Americans. Maybe their spirits are in this room tonight. So to honor the lives and the philosophy of Native Americans, I urge you to pass this law.
So please, please keep her safe. Please do this right thing. It's a no-brainer. This is a righteous law. And as Christmas is coming and all year round, we should be doing what's in the best interest of of nature and of beautiful
birds. So, thank you very much. >> Next speaker, if you can just state your name and spell your name slowly. >> Hi, my name is Angelica Rind. A n ge l i c a rind like orange rind. R I N D.
Thank you. >> Good evening. My message is to kindly and truly request your support for this ordinance. As a born and raised resident of Jersey City, one of my favorite qualities about the place we live and work is its diversity. Diversity in community, people, opportunities,
language, in things to do, and even in its wildlife. My grandmother settled in Jersey City, immigrating from Greece. She built a family here decades ago, and we still call it home. One thing we always used to do together in Country Village in the 1990s was just watch the birds. A free and enriching activity
that connects you to nature wherever you are. She has passed, but my family continues to rely on the birds for a reminder that life keeps moving all around you. Jersey City is resilient and continues to grow. Birds are resilient and continue to migrate. Birds migrate to find food, shelter, and a safe place
to raise their children. They migrate to take care of themselves and support their best chances at survival, just like my grandmother did. There are nights when more than 500,000 migrating birds fly through our wonderful county and city. You can look this up online very easily. They stop here at sunrise
to refresh and rest during their impressive journey across the country and across continents. While birds can adapt to many things, they cannot fight the challenge of reflective windows that are not uh visible to them. They are directly in their flight path. They simply are not able to see them or worse
they think they are flying to a tree that is reflecting off of that nonbird safe window. I volunteer to support bird collision monitoring and I consider this an active part of my daily life because it is a part part of my daily walk on the waterfront. I have held darkeyed
jungos, white-throatated sparrows, warblers, thrushes, woodpeckers, a hummingbird and even more types of birds. They have been concussed, injured, or killed by their collision with a window. I've seen them die in my hands or on the ground. I've watched the
final breath all because of a window. This is avoidable if we adjust small things about our buildings. And the cost is not large. On my daily walks, it's not only me who cares about the birds. I see workers confused by stunned little animals strangely hopping in front of
their offices. I see children asking their parents, "What happened?" Pointing to the sidewalk. We can teach our community better lessons. Not just that birds collide with windows. We can teach them the city cares about these birds and we're working on a safer window for
them. Supporting this design will not only help our diverse wildlife, it will reduce the chances of injured birds or deceased birds lining sidewalks and building entrances. Something that happens at an alarming rate each morning at sunrise during peak migration and
throughout the year. In addition, supporting this measure towards bird safe windows will demonstrate that Jersey City does care about the details, big and small, when it comes to those who call it home or a safe stop along the way. Thank you for your consideration. Please vote yes.
>> Our next speaker, >> is anybody next? If you can just state your name and spell your name slowly for the record. >> Uh, Otis Train. O T Ys T R A I N. >> T R A I N.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Ready? As soon as you say your word. >> I'm an environmental uh science major at High-Tech High School and um I love birds and want to protect them. And um
there was a morning when I woke up and there was a bird called a swaintenance warbler that was found in Brooklyn Bridge Park and it's this beautiful little brown bird um who feeds on the ground and kicks up the leaf litter,
pick up bugs and worms. And this bird isn't supposed to be here. It it doesn't breed much more north than Virginia. So it was a very special occasion that was here. and I woke up early and went with
my dad to go see it and it was singing and it has this beautiful song um and it we got super close to it and I love to uh photograph birds and I got some amazing pictures of this this bird
and I had like a special moment that I've never really felt with other birds and um a few days later I came home and I looked at my phone and there was a report of this bird found dead at the
floor of a building in Jersey City at Exchange Place. And it broke my heart to see that. And I'm here tonight to try to ask you guys if if you would consider putting up the bird friendly decals so that special
birds like the Swintson's Warbler don't die in Jersey City. And I want Jersey City to think about being a role model to other cities. >> Thank you. >> You can state your name and spell your name for the record slowly.
>> Okay. It's a Marshall Carrero. M A R S H A L L C O R R E R O >> E R O. >> Yes. Thank you, Marshall. >> Thanks. Thank you, council. Uh, I strongly urge you to vote yes on this ordinance. Um, I want to share a story
about Victory the Hawk. You could show everyone Victory the Hawk. Turn around and show everyone. This is Victory. Victory was found on Halloween, grounded and unable to fly on Pavonia Avenue between Summit and Baldwin. He was discovered by my 8-year-old twin
neighbors Juno and Veta. They immediately recognized that something was wrong. Viking was disoriented, unable to stand steadily, and showing clear signs of trauma. All classic indicators of a high impact collision. They called Jersey City Animal Shelter,
who responded quickly. But our shelter is not equipped to treat wild raptors. My wife Kim Carrero and Carol McNichol drove Viking to the Wild Bird Fund in New York City because it was clear he needed urgent medical care. There
veterinarians had diagnosed him with a concussion, dehydration, and a fractured beak. They suspected he had struck a glass window, a leading cause of injury and death for birds in urban environments. A broken beak is life-threatening for a hawk. It prevents feeding, invites infection, is painful,
and requires immediate intervention. Viking received IV fluids and supportive care. And after two weeks in New York City, he was transferred to the Raptor Trust in Millington, New Jersey, where he continues treatment. Viking is one of hundreds of injured birds transported to medical care by
Jersey City birds this fall alone. Jersey City sits directly on the Atlantic flyway, which is one of the most important migratory roots of the east coast. Millions of birds pass through our city every year. Collisions with glass kill up to 1 billion birds
annually in the United States. This is a crisis, but unlike many environmental challenges, this one has a proven and highly affordable solution. Birds safe building design works. Cities across the country, including New York, New York,
Chicago, San Francisco, Washington DC, have adopted similar standards with great success, often at less than 1% additional cost when incorporated during design. So the millions that developers
are making this little amount can go so far. Viking received his name from Juno and VA for his strength and resilience. With one vote, we have the opportunity to prevent countless injuries and deaths, protect migratory wildlife, and
demonstrate that Jersey City is ready to lead New Jersey in sustainable urb urban design. I respectfully ask you to vote yes on this ordinance. Thank you. >> Our next speaker, if you can state your
name and spell your name slowly. >> Sure. My first My name is Dario Gutierrez. Uh my last name Gut T. >> You got to spell your first name for me, too. >> D A R I O and last name is G U T I E R E
Z. R R EZ. >> Yeah. >> So, um, so I I also belong to Better Blocks, New Jersey. Um, I have a few people up here. We're going to spare you have all of us having to talk, but I wanted to add a couple of things to what Eric said before. >> Just bring the mic up towards you.
>> I I just wanted to add a couple of things to what Eric said before. Um, okay. So, first of all, um, somebody I I just want to address some comments. Um, Jim Kubby, okay, I I never used we never used his study. We never said that we're using his study to to say that the costs
are high. Um I what I I can I talked with Jim Kubie and he basically told us that um it was not appropriate to use this 0.4% cost estimate for um residential construction and for construction today because the cost today he was assuming a
25% up charge or premium for the glass. Right now um as Eric mentioned that premium is about 100% to 300%. I actually called a distributor of this glass on Long Island and I asked them how much this would cost extra. They said about $15 a square foot to $20 a
square foot. That doesn't sound, you know, like anything to any of us, right? So, just like to think about it concretely, you know, I thought about my own house. I don't live in a glass condo. I live in a vinyl siding house with 11 windows. Um the cost for those 11 windows, you know, at $15 a square
foot, it comes out to about 2,000 20 $2,400 to $3,000. All right. And you know, I live in a house. Again, it's it's not that much glass. I've never seen a bird crash into any of my windows. Okay. But you're saying that for for that that amount of glass, you
know, a $3,000 cost to save a number of birds that we don't even know, right? Um, you know, again, talking about Jim Kubie, um, who came up with this cost estimate, um, in an email that was sent to you today, council, um, he estimated that five buildings would save 360,000
birds a year. Okay. Somebody else, I think his name was Stevie, mentioned that in all of New York City, 290 90,000 to 230,000 birds die a year. Okay. So this is their their expert for cost estimates is a guy who's saying that five buildings would save 360,000 birds
a year when 290 only 230,000 at most birds a year are dying in all of New York City. So you know I I think you should really look at those numbers with skepticism. The other thing I wanted to say again is New York City's ordinance is a lot doesn't cover a lot of the things that we're covering here, which
is like renovations, new uh you know, new construction um above like so New York City's ordinance only goes to 75 ft. This goes to 100 ft. Somebody mentioned Toronto. Toronto doesn't cover buildings that are three stories or lower. Um Toronto only covers the first 39 feet or 12 meters. This would cover
100 feet. Okay. This ordinance is more expensive than the one in New York. It's more expensive than the one in Toronto. It's more expensive than the one in San Francisco, okay? And the one in Chicago. And all the ordinances that you can see on the American Bird Conservancy website, none of them is stricter than this one. Okay? And the last thing I
wanted to say is um I just ask you to carry this and ordinance. >> Your time is up. Thank you. >> Okay. And next speaker, if you can state your name and spell your name slowly for the record. Uh, yeah. Harriet Bailey. H
A R R I E T B A I L. >> Sorry. H A R R >> I E T >> I E T >> B A I L E Y >> B I'm I'm sorry. I'm losing it. B A >> B A I L E Y.
>> Thank you. Sorry about that, Har. >> No, I'm sorry. I mumble. Uh I'm Harriet Bailey and I'm one of the leaders of the Jersey City chapter of the feminist bird club as well as a part of the for the birds project. Uh birds are indicator species. They are
expressions of landscapes. When they fall dead at our feet, we know something is wrong. We are here to ask you to vote yes on ordinance 25123. You have heard a lot from us over the past few weeks. That's because we want to make sure we are addressing questions
and concerns about costs, affordability, and the impact of bird friendly design using the wealth of research and expertise that confirms the benefit of these measures. Unfortunately, not everyone has the same motivation. Last week, we became aware of an email being circulated to some council members in
which era statements are being made about the cost of birds safe design. This issue is too important to let errors stand uncorrected. Mr. Mr. Jim Kubie, author of the birds safe cost study published by Muenberg College, reached out to us at Jersey City Birds on Friday after someone from
Better Blocks New Jersey contacted him. Jim then contacted us because he was worried that Better Blocks were misrepresenting his study on bird safe buildings. We spoke with him on the phone and asked if we would mind uh correcting the record. He gave us permission to share his words with the
council via email. He told us that he is appalled that the work he has done is being used to attack birds safe building ordinances. Birds safe building ordinances are one of the most positive methods of protecting both the environment and the profitability of the building industry. This proposed ordinance is following the standards
that have been used in a number of other cities. For instance, Toronto 2,500 buildings have been built to bird safety standards without any heartburn to the builders. This ordinance wisely is not a prescriptive ordinance but gives flexibility to builders, architects and
planners to develop the best solutions to achieving the goal of the ordinance. Builders can save both construction and operating costs while meeting the birds safe ordinance standards. If better blocks wishes to rely on my study, Jim Kub's study, he should have informed the
council and other involved that the study recommended birds safe building ordinances because they will have a minimum impact on the construction industry. uh better blocks email also mischaracterized the ordinances in neighboring cities. Neither New York City nor Newark ordinance phased in the
requirements over years. Both New York City and Newark have implemented birdfriendly design standards and have seen increases in construction, not decreases. Palavi Shindai, Newark's director of planning and zoning, testified before the planning board that it's a win-win before they unanimously
voted in favor of these design standards. For larger construction, there are many affordable options that can also lead to long-term energy savings and help buildings reach sustainability goals like reducing glass in a design or using ceramic fritting. To restate, Mr. Kubi,
this ordinance gives flexibility to builders, architects, and planners to develop the best solution to achieving the goal of the ordinance rather than recommending any one particular type of glass or material. >> Thank you.
Our next speaker, if you can state your name and spell your name slowly for the record. Uh, >> Rachel EMTT. R A C H E L E M T. >> You're not going slow. What is your last name again?
>> EMTT. Emme T. Like the first name. >> Thank you. >> All right. Every generation of school children in Jersey City has grown up with fewer birds in the sky than their parents. We often think saving species requires big national laws or the UN,
but small changes can make big effects in our little own city. I'm a volunteer with for the ver birds. We started our monitoring project a few years ago to be able to bring evidence to different groups such as the plating board and to you the city council. We've had a help from a mix animal lovers, burers, nature
lovers, gardeners, some homeowners, some renters, parents of Jersey City youth. We've had office workers who kept seeing dead birds on their way to work find us because they needed a way to help. And we've had help from building staff like the Journal Squared cleaners who saw me
collecting a dying bird and ran back inside to hand me a large box filled with a handsome injured woodpecker that they just collected a few moments before. Together, we started saving the birds we could and gathering data to understand how many and where strikes
were happening. often basing these off of citizen scientist websites sites and if the same and to figure out if the same issues killing birds all over the country were happening here in our own city of Jersey City. The answer was worse than we imagined. It's one thing
to know certain kinds of untreated glass structures kill birds. It's another thing to see it. Going out at dawn, you can appreciate the many small or large, muted or colorful. All the beautiful variety of species found dead day after day after day in our city. They're
simply swept up early each morning and thrown into the garbage with candy wrappers and bottles like trash. These are living creatures that are navigating across oceans and hemispheres to nest and raise their young here in our home state. Many of the sites we monitor for
collisions are brand new. We find many victims at Journal Squared whose constructions I watched from my kitchen window at Five Corners. and others are even newer like the journal where we were able only only to able where we were only able to start monitoring in the past few months after construction
finished. If we had these overdue measures 10, five, even just one year ago, we wouldn't have to watch these needless deaths occur. Our big sisters to the west in Newark and New York City to the east have paved the way for us, showing that these these design considerations
don't limit development and are easily adapted by planning boards, developers, and architects alike. The rapid rate of new development in Jersey City and its location on the waterway flight paths used by billions of birds a year would make this a huge win for our feathered friends. Let's not keep passing on the
burden to future generations to find expensive ways to retrofit buildings or just accept that our city kills birds. Please don't wait and vote yes on bird design. Um, and one last note, ask yourself why Better Blocks released their statement the day before our vote
instead of coming to the planning board where they claimed nobody had done any research um and being refuted by the architect of the stock the cost study they themselves are using. Thank you. Our next speaker, if you can state your name
for the record and spell it slowly for me, appreciate it. Yes, my name is Scott Vizoli. S O T T V I Z as in zebra. I O L I. >> Scott, I was asked to speak on behalf of another resident who couldn't attend
tonight if that's okay. >> Uh, and I can state and spell their name as well. Uh, Andrew EMTT A N D R E W E M T I'm writing as a WC resident of 15 years
and as someone who leads the business of the architecture firm S Soom. I urge you to vote yes on ordinance 25-1123. There's been some mis misinformation circulating about cost. The author of the Menberg cost study, Jim Cubie, has
clarified that his work supports bird safe ordinances, noting that they have minimal cost impact and provide flexibility for architects and developers. Cities like New York and Newark have adopted similar standards with no negative effects on the construction activity. This or ordinance
is practical, aligns with industry best practices, and strengthens Jersey City's environmental leadership without burdening builders. Thank you for consider your consideration and joy. Thank you. >> Our next speaker, if you can just state
your name for the record and spell it. I Jeffrey Train. J E F R E Y T R A N. Like Choo Choo. >> Thank you, Jeffrey. >> You're welcome. >> You ready?
>> Good evening. Thank you so much for having me. Uh my name is Jeffrey Train. I'm from Hoboken. I represent our turn, which is an organization working to protect a turn colony in Hoboken. I'm also a teacher, a parent, and a former
teacher and residence at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Somebody asked me earlier today, why do we need to talk about uh development, affordability with this issue that comes to birds? They just want to save birds and myself that
that's the easy answer, right? Let's save the lives of birds. But I'm also a pragmatist and I know that a law like this is going to raise a lot of questions. It's going to impact a lot of people. And the good news is that doing
the right thing is the smart thing. Doing the good thing is good for business as well. One example I can give you, Stevens University recently put up bird friendly glass on the Babio cube on its campus.
Why? Primarily to cut down on the cost of heating and cooling that glass structure to bring down the cost of energy. A lot of buildings are also putting up bird friendly glass and they're saving on the the cost of pest control. Why?
because the buildings that cut down a lot of birds also create meals for a lot of pests in the area. And if we look right across the Hudson River, there is a ton of data out there that
shows that bird friendly legislation is leading to positive economic development. One year after passing its bird friendly ordinance, the NYC Department of City Planning reported New York's highest number of approved per
permits in more than a decade. In 2024, 3 years after the legislation, the New York the New York City Department of City Planning reported the highest number of completed uh units in
15 years. two current projects which comply with New York's local uh law 15 rent for 30% above market which is setting a new standard for asset quality. What does
that show us? It shows us that this is not a have to. These buildings, these glass structures are now a desirable thing that people want to live in. Please pass this legislation tonight. It
is good for birds. It is good for business. It is good for Jersey City. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You can just state your name and spell your name for the record slowly.
>> Megan Wilkey. N E G A N W I L K I E >> W I L K >> I E >> Thank you. >> Um thank you council. I just wanted to speak briefly to expand on uh Better Blocks New Jersey's position. Um we are
a pro-ousing group. We think Jersey City has a housing shortage and because of that it's caused skyrocketing costs in Jersey City. Um we are not anti birds. We're not even anti this ordinance. Um the our our ask for you tonight is just
to table this ordinance um based on the fact that some of the underlying facts that were presented as the reason for the ordinance um have come out to not be reliable based on um discussions with the author of the spreadsheet saying that this spreadsheet was supposed to be
used on a 10-year estimate of the cost of this kind of glass. um looking about the fact that comparing this ordinance to other cities, it has bigger coverage. Um and I think we just need to make sure that we're not driving up the cost of
housing without really knowing what we're getting out of it. Um so we ask you just to table, go back to the drawing board, make sure that maybe a shorter coverage. Um Toronto is 32 feet, New York City right next door 75 ft. um
are they getting the same outcomes that we could get by making it a a little um more relaxed and not add to the cost of housing which is passed on to renters and and home buyers. So that's our ask um if you could please table this
consider whether this is the best form that we could have and bring it back again um once you've considered those facts. Thank you very much. you. >> Our next speaker, if you can spell your name and state your name for the record.
>> Robert Fu, spelled F as in Frank. U Thank you. >> So, um, first thing I'd like to say is that Toronto's ordinance was referenced. However, Toronto's ordinance was passed in 2010, 15 years ago. There's been a
lot of advancement in knowledge since then. So, uh, bear that in mind. Um, in addition, um, you know, for the homeowner who was concerned about, um, the cost of providing the, you know,
um, potential cost of providing bird friendly glass for his house. I should point out that, you know, most residential windows have external window screens which birds can see. Those are acceptable. Um those are accept screens are acceptably bird friendly.
Um so I yeah I would like to I want to strongly urge you to pass this ordinance. Um we heard a lot of very some very wild statements about the uh cost the incremental cost of um bird
glass. uh you can uh you can go to any glass manufacturer. They can provide you with you know quite a few details of quite a few case studies. I've collected quite a few. I have not found any they're typically well under well under
1% of total construction cost. Um I think passing this ordinance is a a very a basic minimal thing that we can do to protect birds and protect the environment. Thanks. Our next speaker, you can just state your
name and spell your name slowly for the record. >> Hi, my name is Edina Gratani. And >> I'm sorry, >> Edina. I R I N A >> I R I N A. >> And last name Gratzani. G R A
Z I A N I >> Z I Z I >> A N I >> N I Okay, thank you. >> Thank you council member for bringing this
ordinance. Um as a designer professional licensed uh architect in New York and New Jersey and lead accredited professional I can tell you that one of the point that we are living in ecosystem and we have to appreciate
sustainable approach that we bring bringing in the city. The people who live in highrises and birds that live in own ecosystem we have to bring them together. This ordinance will help all
of us to understand that nature is a part of of our life and all we want to make in this city is improved quality of our life. As a design professional I can tell you we dealing with this um bird
safety in measurement on every project and there is no any evidence that there is increase of on construction. There are only few small details that we have to add. This is surface of the glass has
to read by birds that this is surface and it's very minimum very achievable because we have to give a benefit of in industry in construction that they can do this easily as implementing this
ordinance. It just allowed us to bring this quality of life and balance in design in nature in one city. And I want to want to tell you that this ordinance will allow design professional to
implement more design better solution than what we can see right now. you will see that it's going to be improving in every aspect that you can see in the future for for the jur city. So I urge you to approve this
ordinance. Thank you. >> Our next speaker, if you can spell your name slowly for the record. >> Always, you know, I like to use the M as in monkey kind of thing. So here we go. Natalie Leone. L I M as in monkey. O N
is in Nancy. >> Thank you. >> You're very welcome. >> Okay, I'm ready. So, I'm just going to address opposing points tonight. An opposer talked about setting a bad precedent for passing costs onto taxpayers and having a stronger
ordinance than neighboring cities. But first of all, were all of that even true, the president we are setting is not the one the man suggested, but a precedent for the future. And I mean the inevitable future. like 20 to 30 years from now when the environmental crisis that's begun begins affecting every
single one of us every single day and we are all feeling sad because of the numerous actually popular animals that will be going extinct before our eyes. So that's this pre that's the future that the president's for. What's terrible about setting a high standard? We are just considered a large city by
national standards. The mayor, who is on his way out, has dreamed that our city will gain prestige of other large cities and will be a destination all of its own and not just a place to stay at a cheaper hotel when visiting New York. Why not add this feather to our cap? Why not put um as as a large city who's
paving the way on something? Give us a reason to brag. Uh the opposers also said this would cause people moving away because of living um cost of living going higher for renters and home buyers. Well, first, people are already moving away from Jersey City because there are many, many things making Jersey City more expensive that will
continue without this policy passing. And it's disingenuous and misleading to suggest that this policy will affect all payers, all taxpayers. This policy will only affect those dwellings with giant windows at a certain height. The vast majority of these are built by developers and consist of high-rise buildings. It would also apply to the
residential bayon box style single or double dwelling, but those homes are nearly all built by developers who are essentially building the same house over and over again throughout the city. Normal, albeit wealthier people end up in these units, but they aren't the ones paying the price for those windows. And
if they do, it would be minimal and they can afford it because they've chosen to live in a luxury dwelling in the first place. So, I don't know who Jim Kay is that was referenced, but I wonder if he's an expert in this issue that has dealt with it over time or did a quick phone call to one glass supplier like
someone else did or merely went into a Google hole for 30 minutes. Unlike uh what has been suggested about people not having reliable facts and figures, I was at the planning board when this was passed and there was a woman who worked on this legislation in New York and did a full-on presentation with cited facts
she had from reliable sources in her field that discuss on the percentage cost increase and provided three to four different window styles that all have different price points and pros and cons and are regularly lo used by developers in major cities. She had the real numbers for how much it cost and what
percentage of the cost it was against the total cost of a building. It was really thorough, informative, and impressive. And it's really too bad that you all couldn't be there to hear that because the planning board has a much different setup format um and than these meetings and you were not able to take a
professional look at this. Finally, going back to one of my earlier points about the future uh and this being part of the historical record, you will all remember your votes on this when the world goes to in 30 years that you did not help to start uh set a good precedent. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. >> Our next speaker. >> Hi. Um my name is Colin Egan. C O L I N E G an I live at 35 Sherman Place. Um, I own that house and so I know all about
the costs that come up when something breaks or you need to replace something and that seems to be happening all the time when you own a house. But one of the reasons I love owning that house is the diversity of birds that you see in Jersey City that I see in my
neighborhood thanks in part to Persian Field and the reservoir. It's just makes living here nicer. And that's not even taking into consideration all of the serious environmental issues about birds and why they are necessary for our
world. So we know that highrises especially are a problem for birds. Glass buildings are a problem for birds. We know that from decades of information from other cities. Now we know what is
being built in Jersey City. Every time you turn around, there's new building and a lot of it is very tall. It doesn't take a lot of thinking to put the two facts together. Birds are going to be increasingly are increasingly at risk in Jersey City. And so it comes down to
this. Yeah, I hate to have to pay hundreds more, even a few thousand more if I have to replace my windows, but the birds are worth it. There's always reason not to want to impose regulation because of worries about the
costs, but sometimes they're worth it. And in this case, the birds are. Um, thank you. Thank you for listening. >> Good evening. My name is Karen. K A R I N. >> Van open. V is in Victor. A N as in
Nancy O. P is on Patrick. B is on Patrick. E N is in Nancy. >> Thank you. >> I wasn't planning on uh speaking on this, but after hearing all of it and knowing that I use that Merlin app all
the time, I um started looking at how much it would cost to replace uh the glass in the unit that we own. uh if we ever have to uh with this bird friendly
um glass and I believe in the scheme of things uh that we will be okay um if we ever have to leave this place it's probably because of the high taxes and not because of having to replace a
couple of more expensive windows. Please keep that into account. Thank you. Can you state your name for the record and spell it for me, please? >> Lorraine Freeny. L O R or R or R or R or A I N A F R E N E Y.
>> Way too fast. I'm sorry. >> Lorraine Freeny. >> And your last name? >> F R E N E Y. >> Thank you, Lorraine. >> Good evening, council. I hadn't intended
to speak this evening. I have a speech impediment that makes public speaking hard. But after hearing everyone, I feel I have to speak. I wish that all of you had been at the
planning board in September. Um, as others have said, this makers. There were compelling and the arguments and
numbers were irrefutable. I understand that there are concerns about costs, but at the end of that meeting, the planning board
voted unanimously to approve it and to stand it here this evening because they trusted that you would do the right thing here. I want to thank everyone who has spoken.
I want to thank everyone who helped pick up the injured and dead birds in the spring and in October. It was not an easy task. And even though it's not easy, we will be out again in the spring and we'll be
out again next October, too. And we will keep at it every year. We will keep accumulating all the info we need. We will keep accumulating that info because it's the right thing
to to do. But we already know that this is a problem. And we already know that we can address it. And here is how you've Oh, yes. this evening. I know that if this
doesn't pass this evening that it will in time. It has to because it's happening everywhere else and it will happen here in time as well. But I ask you to please
say yes now this evening so that we can protect generations of birds from needlessly crashing into buildings every day. I thank you. >> You
>> Thank you. Good job. Good job. >> Did a terrific job. You really did. >> Takes a lot to speak in front of public group. Go ahead. >> Great job, Lorine.
Mark Boils, Mike, Alpha, Romeo, Kilo, Bravo, Oscar, Yankee, Lemur, Echo, Sierra. Okay. Um, I don't truly understand why this is such a big deal. It should just be passed by the council
because it seems an obvious thing that's been done in other jurisdictions with great impact. Let's not make a bigger meal of it. Please just vote yes on this one. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Motion second. >> Second.
>> Let me ask first. This is still a public hearing on city ordinance 25-123. Any member of the public still wishing to be heard? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Motion to close the public hearing on ordinance 25-123
was made by council president. Seconded by council person. On the motion to close a public hearing on city ordinance 25-123. Council person Ridley. >> I. Council person Healings. >> I.
>> Council person Cle. >> I. >> Council person Gilmore. >> I. >> Council person Deise. >> Hi. >> Council person Reber. >> This to close, right? >> Yes, sir. >> Hi. >> And council president Waterman.
>> Oh, this is close. I'll let you know when to clap. Uh motion carries 70 with council members Bajiano and Solomon absent for final consideration and adoption of city ordinance 25-123.
Council person Ridley. >> Um I think there were uh you know good points on both sides. Uh, I'm going to vote yes to protect the birds. But what I would like to see happen is uh for
both sides of that argument to kind of sit down and uh make sure that one we aren't uh overly burdening people with price and see if there's some middle ground where we can still protect those birds and also uh get some of their points in there as well. And I'm willing
to sit down with both sides to help facilitate that. But, you know, let's just make sure that we're hearing everybody. But, I vote. Yes. >> Thank you, Council Person Huings. >> I'm going to abstain. I don't believe we have enough information yet from both
sides for the council to make a decision like this. Council Person So Cle, >> I um I think that we
Lorraine, you did a great job. I'm going to vote I >> council person Gilmore. >> Um I want to thank everyone for coming out voicing their opinions. Uh I think for me what it boils down to
um is human behavior. Um humans have constantly in my opinion invaded wildlife in the interests of profits. Um so here it is we have the opportunity to pro protect
the very people who we've taken their original habitat from. Um, I do sympathize and I understand the concerns that were risen as it relates to the actual cost um of replacing windows. But
if I have to choose between saving money and saving wildlife, I'mma pick saving wildlife all the time. Um, so for me it boils down to how can humans be good neighbors to wildlife who can't necessarily represent themselves. Um, so
in light of all of that I council person dee >> we have learned more about birds and bird safety in these past two weeks than I could have ever imagined. Um, I'm going to vote I. I also want the
advocates to know that I thank you. This became a lesson at County Prep's uh US2 class this week. >> Uh they're learning the progressive era and the teachers asked me to come in and teach them what a referendum was and the first example I thought of was this one. >> Um and they went through that showed
them a few of the nonsensitive emails. We went through the ordinance. They got to vote on it and they're getting extra credit if they watch it right now and take a screenshot. Uh so thank you very much for contributing to that as well. Council person Rever.
So, uh, I'm going to echo that what my council colleague said. We've learned a lot about birds. But listen, I was that kid growing up that had a coupe on the roof, you know, and I had a bazillion pigeons and people used to talk about me like, why is Danny Rivera just playing
baseball and raising pigeons, right? But um you know I kind of like at an early age would think that I was just doing good for the birds, right? Rather than just feeding them, I watched them, you know, hatch and all that fun stuff. And
I never in my father's dream would a thought that there would be so many advocates for birds, you know, uh never would I have thought that. And uh you know we have uh we have two sides here
that are completely uh concerned about you know birds and what goes on with other than birds you know you know the the the uh the conundrum that's going on there. But uh listen uh I will always
advocate you know for the birds and for wildlife. You know I'm I'm on you 100%. I do agree with Councilman uh Councilwoman Ridley. I think that we should definitely sit down and uh try to bridge that gap so we can get better understanding for whoever is up here in
the council uh that you guys vote in uh so that they can get that factual understanding. But I'm behind you 100%. I vote I. Council President Waterman. >> I vote I. >> City ordinance 25-123
is adopted. 701 with council person Huings abstaining and council person Solomon absent. Our next second reading ordinance, item 4.7, city ordinance 25-124.
It's an ordinance amending chapter 345 zoning section 52 regarding permitted uses in the medical zone as discussed at the caucus meeting. I believe it's the council's intention to carry this ordinance to the December 10th meeting.
So, may I have a motion to carry city ordinance 25-124 >> motion >> to the December 10th meeting? And I have a motion made by council person Gilmore. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by council person Sole on the
motion to carry city ordinance 25-124 to the December 10th, 2025 meeting. Council person Ridley >> I. >> Council person Huings. >> I. >> Council person Cle. I >> council person Gilmore.
>> I council person Deise >> I. >> Council person Ria >> I. >> And council president Waterman. >> I. >> Motion carry 70 with council members Bajiano and Solomon absent. On to our
next second reading ordinance. Item 4.8. City Ordinance 25-125 is an ordinance amending and supplementing chapter 260 rent control to address institutional ownership of its units not currently subject to rent control. This is a public hearing on
this ordinance and any member of the public wishing to be heard. Please come up to the podium and state your name for the record. Kevin Weller keyn. Good evening, Council President Waterman and members of the council. I'm Kevin
Weller from Portide Towers East. I'm here to speak on ordinance 25125. First, I want to be clear. I support the intent of this ordinance. Stopping institutional investors from masquerading as small landlords by
fracturing their portfolios into LLC's is critical. This ordinance is a necessary shield for Jersey City tenants and I thank Council President Waterman for championing it. However, I must express some regret regarding the final text before you today. And I did note
Bono said he was hoping it would perhaps be changed and he abstained. After the first reading, Mark Boils and I along with a team of tenant advocates spent over 20 hours analyzing the legislation. We didn't just offer complaints, we offered solutions. We drafted specific opposition proof language designed to
close the gaps that sophisticated corporate landlords will exploit. We provided language to capture properties hidden under children or siblings, not just spouses. We provided language to catch business partnerships, not just individuals. We provided clauses to ensure that once a property loses its
exemption, it stays rent controlled permanently, preventing the shell game of buying and selling to reset the clock. To our knowledge, none of that feedback was incorporated. By ignoring these protections, the city is leaving itself open to liability and
litigation. You are passing a law that is good in spirit but legally porous. We're inviting the very bad actors we are trying to stop to simply restructure their paperwork and continue business as usual. So, we are in an unnecessary bind. Do we kill a good idea because it
isn't perfect? No. My recommendation is this. pass ordinance 25125 tonight. Then we'll get some basic protection on the books, but this should be version 1.0 and it's no, it's buggy to
Councilman Elect Gilmore and the future council. We're handing you the blueprint to fix this. We have amendments ready. We have legal rationale ready. If this council passes this tonight, the work is not done. We'll be back in January to patch the
holes that were left open today. So I would say let's pass it to stop the bleeding. Good intention, but let's commit now to performing the surgery needed to actually fix the patient next year. Thank you. >> Mark Bo want it spelled? >> No.
>> Okay. Good evening members of the council. Um, I'm speaking on ordinance 25125 regarding the rent control exemption loophole. Like Kevin, I support the concept of this ordinance. It targets a specific abuse that's
eroding our affordable housing stock. But as we often see in this chamber, there's a difference between good intentions and good law. The ordinance has great intentions, but as written, it's not yet good law. We submitted extensive markups to the law department
and the council. We identified that restricting the definition of common ownership to just a spouse is insufficient. Corporate landlords don't stop at marriage certificates. They use children, parents, siblings, probably pets, and complex webs of holding
companies to evade caps. We specifically recommended language to capture beneficial interest and voting control, not just names on a deed. We recommended a permanent eligibility clause so that a landlord cannot simply divest a few
units to jump back out of rent control. These were not abstract ideas. They were technical fixes derived from two years of active litigation and observing exactly how these developers operate in the real world. It's frustrating to see that work left out on the cutting room
floor, knowing that in 6 months or a year, we'll likely be standing here again because a landlord found the exact loom hole we warned you about. However, a flawed shield is better than no shield at all. I urge you to vote yes, but with a heavy asterisk. Treat this as a living
document. I ask the council president and the incoming council members to review the memo we sent on November the 11th. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good, but do not let the good enough become the standard. Pass this tonight,
please, but invite us back to the table to tighten the screws so this ordinance actually does what you intend it to do. Thank you. >> You don't have to spell your name. >> Okay. Good evening. I am a lifelong Jersey City resident and
a homeowner with gratitude to my parents. I want to begin by saying I understand and support the goal of this ordinance. We all see what's happening. Large investors and Shell LLC's are buying up multiple small buildings, skirting rent control and driving up
rents. That harms our neighborhoods and it harms the families I work with every day as a public school teacher. But I'm here to ask you to make sure that in closing that loophole, you don't unintentionally harm the very people who aren't the problem, small owners who
live here, maintain our properties, and contribute to the fabric of this city. This ordinance uses an extremely broad definition of a common ownership. It means that if I own a free of three family and my spouse or family trust owns a two family, suddenly we're
treated like an institutional landlord with a portfolio subject to rent control and all the administrative burdens that come with it. That could happen without with that could happen through inheritance, a partial interest in LLC, and even 1% of a shared property. And
for small homeowners, that has real consequences. It lowers property value. It makes refinancing harder. It creates complex paperwork, petitions, and complex requirements we were never intended to navigate. And it discourages investment in our own buildings. I
support protecting tenants. I support stopping corporate owners from gaming system. What I'm asking is that you draw a clear line between a Wall Streetbacked LLC buying 10 three families and a lifelong resident with one home and
maybe a second inherited property. We are the people who stabilize neighborhoods. We're not driving rent spikes. We're not hiding behind shell companies. We're living here, working here, raising families here, and maintaining the housing stock the city
relies on. Please tighten the ordinance so it targets true institutional ownership without sweeping small homeowners into a regulatory net that was never meant for us. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Laura Skolar.
>> Um I've been a Jersey City realtor for over 40 years. Um, I'm here to respectfully ask that you vote no on the proposed ordinance amending and supplementing chapter 260 uh rent control to address institutional
ownership of units not currently under rent control. I fully understand that institutional investment in housing has been a growing issue not only locally but across the country. But the way this ordinance is written, it misapplies the
concept of institutional investor. The ordinance treats any owner of five individual units and above as an institutional investor. But in Jersey City, that category consists of small property owners, not corporate
conglomerates. Many are long-term local residents who invested in these buildings, often decades ago, as a way to build a modest nest egg, secure retirement, or create something to pass on to their children. These owners are
not part of the institutional purchase trends that are that you are trying to address. They don't pull investor money or manage complex portfolios. They are everyday landlords who maintain their properties, provide stable housing, and
in many cases keep rents affordable or even below market simply because they value long-term tenant relationships. By sweeping these small landlords into the definition of institutional, this
ordinance penalizes the very people who contribute to a stable housing market. Instead of protecting affordability, it reducts it re it risks producing the opposite effect. When you significantly restrict small owners, you put them in a
position where selling becomes their only viable option. And who buys when small landlords are pushed out? actual institutional investors, the very entities that this ordinance is supposedly targeting, or developers
whose ultimate goal is to demolish and build condos. Again, an unended outcome. If the goal is to address affordable housing, this ordinance simply does not achieve it. It misidentifies the problem
and unintentionally harms the people who have been part of Jersey City's housing solution, not the problem. For these reasons, I ask that you vote no on this amendment and instead consider a plan
that does not sweep in responsible long-standing small property owners. Thank you and have a happy Thanksgiving. Ron Simoni from the uh Jersey City Property Owners Association. So, we come to this a little bit differently. Most
of the people who uh are members of our organization are larger owners. Um and really this wasn't going to apply to them. But we have to speak here because the ordinance as it was introduced and the ordinance that came about that it came about from have nothing to do with
each other. And it speaks to, I think, the difficulty of figuring out how to preserve affordable housing in Jersey City. The last time that we were here, there was ordinance 107. And this ordinance had a first reading when 107
was withdrawn as though they had something to do with each other. They had nothing to do with each other. This isn't remotely like 107. Doesn't address the same problems and it doesn't fix anything. what this ordinance is going to do and the last couple speakers have covered it well. This city was built of
housing stock in the city was built by these types of owners. My family came, they built their own house, they built a house next door for my aunts and uncles, etc., etc., and they ended up with being small landlords and then they were
business people and then some of them became larger landlords. You've just extinguished the opportunity for anybody to do that. That just doesn't make any sense. The second part of it that doesn't make any sense is the tax consequence. Why do you think these people who used who occupied for a long
time as owner occupants left because the appreciation in these units went so high and the ability of corporations to come in and depreciate the value of their purchase was so attractive that our people left.
Taxes went up over 30% in three years. People could not sustain their own ownership in their own house. And so when they came to leave, who succeeded them? Someone who had the capital to improve that home and attract a tenant
who could pay that rent. You don't want them here. I mean, that's a value judgment. You would rather have those homes be owner occupied. But you have to look much deeper into the reason that those homes were sold and the benefit to the people who
actually sold the homes. Do we want to restrict the opportunity for somebody who lived here for years to cash out of their house because we don't like the person who's going to buy it? And what research was undertaken in order to determine how many of these units there were and what the true
market impact of eliminating this purchase option would have been? None. We've been advocating for a long time since 2018, the substantial housing research project be undertaken to
understand how many rent control units are there and how many are actually being regulated by your rent control department. Do you think you can put 40,000 more units under your regul under your regulations? You can't. So, this has to stop and it has to be based on
intelligent discussion. Thank you for hearing. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Next, if you can just state your name and spell your name. >> Hi, good evening. My name is Roberta Taran. R O B E R T A T A R K A N.
I'm an attorney who practices in Jersey City for over 30 years. I concentrate in landlord tenant law. And um I just found out about this supplement, this amendment to the ordinance yesterday and I was shocked when I read it because it
doesn't seem to me that this ordinance is going to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish. As I see it is going to create absolute chaos. I don't see how this ordinance is something that it can effect and accomplish the goal of
keeping rents low. You know what? You know why rents are high? Taxes. water bills, insurance. Everyone seems to forget that landlords have to cover these expenses. You know why there are illegal apartments? I represent landlords and tenants and people always
think, "Oh, the landlords are so greedy that they rent out those illegal apartments." You know why? Cuz they can't afford to keep these buildings with unless they get that third tenant. And I'm not I'm not in any way trying to justify it, but I'm trying to explain
that by having an ordinance that makes it even harder for landlords who, as Miss Scholar, and I agree with everything she said when she said, you know, you have people who they raised in Jersey City and they bought a two family, they bought another two family,
they bought another a three family. And I know I have clients like this and this is part of their financial planning for themselves for the children and now you're going to take that away. It certainly doesn't seem fair and it doesn't doesn't seem to be reasonable at
all. But as I see this bill, it's not workable. How would anyone know if they're under rent control? How am I going to know if my landlord who's an LLC has a wife who owns a building in another part of Jersey City and should
be under rent control? It doesn't make sense the way this ordinance is. I I could pick it apart, but you need something. I know you want to address a problem and I understand that problem because Jersey City is expensive and maybe that's part of life that towns
that offer so much near Manhattan where Manhattan and Brooklyn are crazy. So Jersey City in comparison is not so not as bad. But we know you have highrises, they're expensive, but it's a fact of life that prices go up. You're trying to address a problem and I give you a lot
of credit for that. But I know landlords when they complain it's taxes, water, insurance. Those are the things that need to be addressed so that landlords can keep their rents low. Instit institutional investors, they want they want to make money just like the the
little guy who's trying to help his uh to have has his three buildings. I don't I don't think anyone's trying to, you know, rape the tenant with as much money as I can. It's that's not the that's not what's going on. People just want to make a fair return and they're entitled
to a fair return under our rent. That's why you have these hardships. >> Your time is up. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker, if you can just state your name and spell your name for the record. >> Yes. Good evening. My name is Bill Gray.
B I L L G R A Y. >> Thank you. Um, I do not support this ordinance. I think this ordinance creates a lot of problems uh for small owners uh as some
of the other people outlined. Um you know, people work really hard uh to own their properties and uh I you know, I I do understand there is a problem with uh you know, the rent structure in Jersey City and I can understand what this
ordinance is trying to do, but it doesn't solve the problem. It creates a whole bunch of other problems. Uh so I just want to kind of go through this quick. Um so uh this ordinance treats uh small investors
like institutional investors and you know that just doesn't work. Uh it's too complex to enforce. It forces the city to go through to figure out what LLC's who owns what. The complexity would be I mean how do you do that and who who who's going to do that? It throws all
these properties into rent control. the rent control already is o is overworked. It's going to it's going to make government get bigger and it's going to create a whole bunch more problems. I think there's a better approach. Um I agree that the rent structure like
I said before is a problem. The better approach is a complaintbased uh cap rent. the city goes and approaches uh you know comes up with a rate whether it's 5% 7% whatever it is
and it's simple the city puts that rate on there if a landlord overcharges there's a complaint it goes to the city the city finds that finds that landlord and the city makes has a revenue source but they're not dealing with the complexity of rent control and figuring
out who owns what which makes it uh very very very very hard and very very complex. I'm not sure h how the city would manage that. Um so I would hope that the city would take a little bit
more time and try to get input from the property owners. This was just put forward. I don't think anybody that I know that owns buildings even knew about it. There was a lot of emails that were going around today about people talking about it. I don't think that it's fair that you put this up so quick without uh
the building owners and and business owners having some sort of input in this. I mean, it's just it's just not right. So, I'd ask that you table this or vote no. And um I think there's some good ideas out there that could work for everyone. It could, you know, it could
work for the small uh, you know, landlords and it could work for the tenants and it could work for the city as a new revenue source, but not creating all this complexity and complex things that the city would have to deal to enforce this. So, um, I hope you uh
can listen to what's going on here and uh, >> thank you. >> The better idea. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next speaker. >> Hi. Good evening. Um, Melissa McCarthy, MCC A T H Y. Um, okay. So, I oppose this
ordinance. It puts a lot of pressure on small landlords. I am a small landlord. I own two buildings. I own a 7 unit rent control building that I've had for almost 30 years. Um, I'm a writer. My husband's an artist. Do the math. It was
the only way we could stay here. Um, we also owned a 4-unit building, not under rent control. So that building would now be under rent control. How is how is that even fair? We barely get by. Um
says, "Oh, you're a landlord. You make a lot of money." Well, I have two other jobs and we just barely get by. It's expensive being a landlord. It's not easy. And we're good landlords. I'm hurrying home to feed one of my tenants cats tonight. Um,
what's expensive is the really high taxes, insurance, which is going up thousands of dollars every year. I could go on, but anyway, getting back to the ordinance. Um, well, it would push a lot of small landlords
out. And then as I hadn't even thought of it, one of the other speakers said that provides an opportunity for the institutional people that you're trying to prevent to come in because they're the only ones now who can afford these properties.
Another thing about this ordinance um it interestingly puts owners under rent control and not properties. So how would that work? Because um rent control units are five or more. They are commercial properties. They are
assessed on income and expense. But if you own a few small two family homes, they're assessed at market rate. So if they're suddenly under rent control, would they get to be reassessed under a different model? There's a law for that.
I don't know if that would work. You would have to change the law. And then actually um I was thinking there's no guarantee for long-term stability because if that owner decides to sell the two family home, it's no longer under rent control because somebody else
bought it. How does that create any stability for tenants? It doesn't. Oh, other questions. Market research. What kind of market research went into this? How many units are there that this would even affect? Do we even know? Oh,
I would really like to see that information. I couldn't find it anywhere. Um and um and would every unit with with every building with more than five units, including all of these developers that now surround us,
would they also be under this rule? Because they are institutional investors. And I know that I don't have a single rent even in my not rent control building. That's as much as a studio
apartment in any of these buildings. So does that affect them as well? I would like to know that. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Bye. >> Next speaker. >> Hi, Laorna Mcmanis. L O R N A M C M US.
>> Thank you. My husband and I live in Jersey City, and for almost two decades, we've bought abandoned properties and properties that other might consider tearowns and created comfortable and affordable homes for our neighbors to live in. We own these properties and LLC's for
accounting purposes, but we're just a husband and wife, not some big institution. And our tenants enjoy the benefit of having a personal relationship with us. They have my personal cell phone number. I've watched their pets. I've shown up at 1:00 in the morning to unlock a unit for somebody
who lost their keys. I've even reduced rent so a senior who's lived his entire life in this city didn't have to move away and could stay here during a period of financial distress. We're just regular people helping regular people. We are not trying to take advantage of a
loophole in a system. I'm sure the same can be said of most of the small landlords in Jersey City. Because we're proud of and want to continue to do our best for our community and because we believe other small landlords want to do the same, we strongly oppose this ordinance. This ordinance doesn't take
into account the maintenance and expenses that occur for owners of separate smaller properties. In a five plus unit building, there's one landscape, one sidewalk, one exterior, one public interior. All the tenants are together. All the repairs in the systems are the same. In smaller buildings
spread out, each property is built in a different era which requires different type of upkeep. Each property needs their lawn mow, their sidewalk shovel, their leaves ragly getting from one property to the next can take 30 to 40 minutes in this city. The ordinance also
doesn't take into account tenants rents. Most small landlords will go years without raising rents, us included. We like our tenants. We know them personally and we want them to do well. We want them to stay with us as long as possible. My husband and I have had tenants stay with us until they've had
enough money to buy their own house. We've had others stay with us for over a decade. With rent control, rents will have to be raised every single year because landlords can't take the chance of falling behind and then not having the necessary funds for maintenance. This strains and can break the personal
relationship that is so meaningful to small landlords like us. It also doesn't take into account environmental and historic factors. Rent control only affects properties built prior to the 1970s. This ordinance encourages developers to buy up one to four family
homes, rip them down since newly built properties are exempt from rent control. Many of our tenants love living in an older home. They love the little details that you can't find anywhere else. With this ordinance, all that will be gone. All torn down because it's easier to
build a new bayowned box and charge higher rent than deal with rent control. Small homes are not a loophole. They're an affordable investment for regular people and an investment that pays Jersey City back by maintaining and improving our shared community. This ordinance discourages people like us from investing in Jersey City. It
encourages tearing down homes and discourages the types of preventative maintenance that small landlords prioritize. Please vote no. Our next speaker, if you could just state your name and spell your name for the record. Jerome Fazeri. J E R O M E F A Z
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z A R I. >> Thank you. My name is Jerome Fazeri and I oppose Ordinance 25-125 amending rent control. While this new ordinance is well-meaning, I think the unintended
consequences are unknowable. Dozens or maybe even hundreds of small residential properties will be sold if rent control is expanded. As a longtime Jersey City resident and someone with nearly 200 years of family history here, I'm worried about what could happen to so
many of our neighbors if the homes they've been renting would suddenly be sold because the landlords don't want to deal with the new expanded rent control. Cities like Austin, Phoenix, and Denver have all seen decrease in rents in recent years, and none of these cities
has rent control ordinances. I agree something needs to be done to help Jersey City more make Jersey City more affordable, but I don't think that this is the answer to the problem. Please vote no on ordinance 25125. Thank you. >> Next speaker, Daniel Feldman. To spell
it. Uh so first off, I just wanted to make a quick uh correction. The target of this ordinance is not small landlords. Those with five units are already subject to chapter 260. It's real estate investment trusts with multiple two or three unit buildings that are the target. Um the real estate
investment trusts set up uh separate LLC's to claim that they are small landlords and that's what this is uh intended to protect. Now I'm here to support the intent of ordinance 25125 and I do ask that you please pass it. Um, now that being said, regarding this ordinance, I know that a couple of my
fellow tenant advocates, specifically Mark Boils and Kevin Weller, who you heard from earlier, did exactly that. Um, they didn't just send a complaining email. They spent over 20 hours um, drafting detailed amendments uh to close loopholes that corporate landlords could use to evade rent control. Um, and they
did this actually for an ordinance that doesn't even apply to their own building, um, but because they care about the integrity of the law here in Jersey City. And um unfortunately that feedback does appear to have been ignored. Um and it is pretty discouraging when residents such as uh Kevin and Mark put in that level of work
offering solutions to problems they've spent years fighting for in court only to see the final draft remain unchanged and vulnerable and unfortunately does send a message that you want our votes but perhaps not our voices. So I do ask that you please pass this ordinance. The renters of Jersey City need this
protection immediately. We've seen what happens when they don't get this protection. Um, but unfortunately, um, Councilman Gilmore isn't here, but I will ask of him, hopefully he can watch this recording later, um, to take that work that Mark and Kevin and others have
submitted, not to let this ordinance die in bureau, the bureaucratic drawer, but to commit to revisiting this ordinance, pass it, and to revisit this ordinance in the new session because he will, we know for a fact he will still be here. Um and to add the anti-loophole language
that was uh unfortunately ignored this time around, um we'll need uh Mr. Gilmore to finish the job that this council started but didn't quite complete. That being said, again, please do pass this ordinance. Um the renters of Jersey City um need it uh very
desperately. Thank you. >> Next speaker, if you could just spell your name for the record. >> Uh my name is Abe Hidea. >> I can't hear you. Abe Hidea. Last name H E D A Y A. >> What What is your first name? >> Abe. >> Abe. >> Yes. >> And that last name again?
>> Uh Hidea. H E D A Y A. >> H E D A Y A. >> Yes. >> Thank you. A >> hi. So uh good evening council members and members of the public. My name is Abe Hidea. I'm a small full-time real estate investor in Jersey City. For the
past 7 years, I have done my part to transform Greenville by creating affordable and safe homes for people to live. I have bet my life and my financial future on the success of Jersey City and a neighborhood that until recently nobody seemed to care about. On the 30 units that I've worked
on, half, 15, were created from nothing. vacant land, fire damaged houses, drug dens, 15 homes and apartments, safe places for new and existing families to live. Ask yourselves, do 15 additional units
make Jersey City more or less expensive? I don't have a fancy office. I work from my bedroom. How am I an institutional investor? When did I become a bad guy? I don't make money by buying a 100 houses and apartments and raising the rents, chasing just a few basis points of
yield. I make money by investing in the community and creating affordable, safe housing where there previously was none. Most of my units are rented for around 30% below market. I have a great relationship with my tenants. I don't think about avoiding repairs or raising
rents because I know that I'll be better off in the long run avoiding turnover. It's not a payday for me when someone moves out. I know that I can raise rents if I need to, so I'm not watching every penny. My tenants are partners in my future, not some resource to be
exploited. Rent control undermines the relationship between me and my tenants. They become obstacles to my growth and financial security. I need to start worrying about big future increases in my costs, like real estate taxes and insurance. I need to start positioning
in advance, raising rents as much as I can so I don't risk being left in the red in the future. I'm forced to start thinking about how I can encourage people to leave by doing the absolute minimum or if I become desperate, even
less. That's not what I signed up for when I started my business. It's why I avoid rent control buildings entirely. Everything I own is free market because I don't have the interest, energy, or heartlessness to treat my tenants as a
liability or an obstacle. Pass this resolution in its current form and you'll push away the good landlords you never hear about. The small mom and pops not chasing every last dollar. Instead, you'll just attract more of the worst. The large institutions that start
evicting on day six. The slum lords who are good at the exact management style that I have been happy so far to avoid. The people who base their business on torturing the little old lady paying 1,500 a month so that when she moves out they can double the rent. Please vote no
on this. >> Annette speaker, you can spell your name for the record. >> Steven Guchardo. S t e p h e n gu u c i a r d o. >> Thank you.
>> Um, thank you for hearing me. Um, I just wanted to thank Laura Skolar for her comments. I wasn't intending to speak on this ordinance, but she described my situation exactly. Um, I own a for
family property and a two family property in the downtown. I purchased them in 1998 and 1994. Um, the tenant on the top floor of the four family has been living there for over 50 years. Uh, my tenant on the top
of the two two family home has been living there for over 40 years. Um, my tenants are long-term. Um, I provide affordable housing in downtown Jersey City, uh, with the rents that I charge.
I clean my own buildings. I shovel snow. I change light bulbs. I, um, I'm an owner. My wife and I do the same thing. And we bought these properties as a nest egg for our retirement. Um, and I think
we're doing a good job. uh and and and doing exactly what council is trying to do, which is create affordable h um prop uh affordable housing um all over the city. Um I'm not sure the the ordinance
in its current form is going to achieve what you want. So, I would suggest you fix it before you pass it. Uh we know how hard it is to change things uh once they've been once they've been passed. Um,
>> thank you. I suggest you vote no for now. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker. >> Hi, my name is David Wilson. You don't have to spell it. All right. Um, that's Anglo privilege, you guys. So, um, I
want to urge you to vote yes, uh, on this ordinance. Um I and I want to respond to some arguments that have been made tonight that I think are disingenuous. So who but a landlord could look at Jersey City and decide
that the problem is there's too much rent control. It's honestly it's an absurd position that only makes sense to a landlord. Um, and the idea that landlords set their rent by adding up their expenses and
tacking on a modest profit is not how capitalism works. It's not how any business works. And the way that you run a business is you charge as much as the market will bear and that you can
run your business. When ten when landlords don't raise their rent to keep a tenant, it's because they want to keep a tenant who pays their rent on time and doesn't cause problems. That is an economic decision. It's a business
decision. It's not a benevolent act. I want to point out here that landlords are some some people have spoken as if you know they made an investment and so they should be they want to have a nest egg and they want to retire. I mean we all do, right? But landlords are not
guaranteed a profit. There's no investment that guarantees a profit. If somebody tells you it's that they're selling an investment that guarantees a profit, do not invest in it. That's some free advice. Um,
and that somebody mentioned that they have two other jobs. Well, owning something is not a job. Having an investment, investing in something is not a job. It's something that you do with when you have capital and you want
to make money. That's it. Um, last thing I want to say is several people have gotten up and said that they're small landlords and they treat their tenants really great and uh, you know, their tenants love them. But I haven't seen a lot of their tenants come
up and speak in favor of their landlords. And so I would just ask you to consider why that is. And I want to urge you to vote yes on this. Thank you. >> David, don't go anywhere. I just want to state for the record, I don't give anybody privilege. I just
know you. That's why I didn't ask for you to spell your name. You come here quite often. >> So again, again, I only ask people to spell their names when I don't know who they are. >> Okay, >> I apologize. >> Next speaker.
>> Uh, my name is Sabrin Robbleto. S A B R Y N R O B L E D O >> I'm sorry, you went a little too fast for me. S A B >> R Y N R O B L E D O. >> Thank you.
>> Um I find it truly appalling that every single landlord that has stood at this podium tonight has tried to um speak as if they are regular people because they're not. um twothirds of
this city are uh are tenants and this ordinance is not for regular people. It's people who are most vulnerable to the kinds of exploitation that happens through the loopholes that this ordinance is seeking to address. Um,
something I would want to point out is that I think a lot of the council members tonight um, talk a I'm sure when you campaigned for your positions, you spoke a lot about things like affordability of the city. And I would like to believe that when you campaigned on those promises, you were speaking to
these people. Exactly. The people who are most vulnerable to this kind of exploitation, the people who need these kinds of ordinances the most. So, I would urge that when you are choosing your vote tonight on this ordinance, you actually represent the people who put you in this position to make this city
more affordable and not the people who have the luxury of coming here instead of going home tired because they're slaving away at a 9 to5 and don't have the freedom to come to these kinds of city hall meetings. Thank you. >> Our next speaker, you can just spell
your name for the record slowly. Uh, Andrew A N D R E W Lipnik L I P N I C K. Thank you. Um, so I'm here to speak in favor of the
ordinance. I I wasn't planning to speak and I'm a little bit nervous, so hopefully uh what I end up saying ends up making sense. Um, I do want to reiterate um what was said at the beginning and some people brought up, but the fact that uh to me this looks like there was some loopholes and we're closing the loopholes. And I agree with
what um I think it was like Kevin started saying that uh this is the beginning of a process. There's other loopholes that need to be closed. And I think it's important to also respond to some of the arguments uh that already have been responded to, but the idea that um you know there's these
small mom and pop landlords that are going to be affected by this. And I really want to emphasize the point about how you're not guaranteed a profit, right? We live in a society where we've agreed that, you know, you can enter the market and make money, but there is a understanding that there's limitations
on what you can do. If you decide to open up a restaurant, you have responsibilities to your customers about the safety about uh you know ADA compliance and this is saying that if you want to enter the landlord business and you know if you want to do that on
small scale that's fine but the second you start to make this an institution and you have many properties you have responsibilities. Um sorry quite nervous. Um what else was I going to say? Um
yeah, and one of the things I was said is like, oh, this is going to be very complex and and hard to enforce and um you know, maybe there's some truth to that, but I don't think complexity is a reason to give up, right? If it was complex to uh you know, make sure that all restaurants followed uh you know, food safety laws. We wouldn't say, well,
that's going to be hard to follow, so let's not do it. I don't think we should let that be a reason not to do But I think that should be a reason to sit down with the people that spent hours uh working on ways to make this law better that doesn't even affect them because they don't live in buildings that are affected by this. Right? There are people there that care about this and
understand that this is a process and we want to work with you to um make this a better city that's affordable for the people that are most vulnerable. Right? For the twothirds of the city that are renters, right? And the one-third that aren't renters, most of those aren't landlords, right? They just own their
own house, right? this population of people that bought houses or uh inherited houses or married people out of houses is a very small population and um we need to make sure that we're looking out for the people that can't make it here because that's the vast vast majority of people and there's a
systemic reason as to why they're not here and why um you know so many landlords are. Uh thank you. Our next speaker, you can spell your name for the record. >> Anna, A N A Miduk.
M E D Y U K H. >> Thank you. >> I'm here to support ordinance 25-125. This closes one of the biggest loopholes corporate landlords have been exploiting. Buying multiple small buildings through different LLC's and
avoiding rent control completely. This isn't speculative. A New Jersey statewide study found that in some cities, institutional buyers purchased 47% of all 1 to four unit homes between 2017
and 2020. They do this intentionally to assemble portfolios while dodging tenant protections. I've heard some landlords say rent control harms their relationship with tenants or will make them divest. But rent control doesn't
damage good relationships. Bad behavior does. Good landlords who maintain their properties and raise rents responsibly already have stable, respectful relationships. What this ordinance affects are
investors who rely on loopholes, not community. If a business model only survives by skirting protections, then divestment isn't a loss, it's a correction. Homes should be for people, not shell
companies. If you own five or more units in this city, regardless of how many LLC's you hide them under, you should follow the same rules as everyone else. This protects tenants, stabilizes neighborhoods, and prevents corporate
consolidation of our housing stock, which is causing a crisis throughout the country. I urge the council to adopt 225-125. Thank you. Our
next speaker, >> Susan Roa, R Oca. Good evening, council. My name is Susan Roa and I live at Portside Towers. I hadn't actually planned on speaking to this ordinance, but as several of my fellow neighbors like Dan Feldman, Kevin
Weller, Mark Bole have mentioned, we beg you to vote yes on ordinance 25-125. As many of us know, this is not about the smallcale landlords. If a landlord is following the law, they have nothing to fear from 25-125.
It is imperative that you vote to approve this ordinance. Be on the record as the council person who is serving to protect the tenants of the city and not the soulless LLC's. Thank you. >> Next speaker. >> Good evening, councelor. As you know, my
name is Sonia Keshna. I'm the daughter of the typical mom and pop landlords. Their whole investment strategy for their retirement is based on that. And I rent at Portide Towers. As you know, I've learned from my parents early on
and from several small landlords that if a learned lad is following the law, they have really nothing to fear in general and also not from ordinance 25-125. It is imperative that you vote to
approve this ordinance. I trust that you will be on the record as a council person who is serving to pro protect the tenants. As you just heard, 72% of all residents in Jersey City, that is 72% of
your constituents. And if I'm not mistaken, many of you are still in the runoffs. 22-125 needs to be approved. Next speaker. >> Hi, I'm Eve Taylor. Good evening. I want to speak briefly to the concern that
ordinance 25125 does not account for landlords rising costs. That concern is understandable, but it's also already addressed in the existing chapter 260 ordinance. Jersey City's rent control ordinance is not a flat one direction system. Chapter 260 section 10 already contains a full hardship increase
process for landlords who can document that their actual costs, mortgage payments, operating expenses, or verified lack of fair return justify a higher rent than the standard increase allows. This isn't new. It's been part of the ordinance for decades. What that means in practice is if a landlord truly
cannot meet necessary expenses or is not receiving a fair return, they have the legal right to petition the rent leveling board for an increase above the cap. The board reviews their books, verifies the numbers, holds a hearing, and can grant the increase when it is warranted. That
mechanism already exists. It's not being taken away. So, when people say this ordinance doesn't account for the landlord cost, the full picture is that chapter 260 already does through a structured transparent hardship process that protects both sides. Tenants, it protects tenants from unjustified hikes
and landlords from operating at a loss. The hardship provision is already there. It's active and it's the correct place for costbased adjustments to be evaluated. Um, please vote yes to ordinance 25125. Thank you. >> Next speaker.
>> Good evening. Jessica Bran J SICA B is in boy RA. >> Oh, yeah. >> Thank you, Sean. Um, as you know, I'm the tenant in Portide Towers, and I wanted to talk about 25-125 because, um, this ordinance attempts to close the
4unit exemption loophole where big developers do pretend to be small landlords. And that is a noble goal, and I support it. But if the last few years have taught us anything, it's that bad faith landlords are incredibly creative, and if you leave a crack in the door,
they will kick it open. You've received testimony tonight that this ordinance, while well-intentioned, still has cracks. It misses nuances regarding business partnerships and quote beneficial interests that sophisticated legal teams will exploit. And we are
essentially putting up a fence with a few of the planks missing. So, I'm worried about passing this as is as the city considers the box checked and moves on while tenants continue to suffer through the loopholes you failed to close. However, I will say vote yes
tonight. Stop the bleeding for the tenants that are suffering at the hands of landlords that are exploitative. And I don't know if any of them are here tonight, but there are definitely through the REITs, the real estate investment trusts that aggregate units and avoid rent control
enforcement by acting as if they have different buildings when they really have aggregated the units on purpose. Councilman Gilmore, as the member of this body who will definitely be carrying this work forward into the next term, we are looking to you and say that
this version is this ordinance is version one and it's incomplete. And I'm asking you to publicly commit to taking the amendments provided by the port side tenant association, amendments that were drafted based on hard one litigation experience, and introduce them as
version two in the very first session of the new year. Do not let this ordinance sit on the shelf gathering dust while landlords finds find ways around it. Pass it tonight and promise us that you'll fix it in January. And to some of the comments I heard about earlier, you
know, our suggestions take care of loopholes that Roberto talked about earlier. And taxes, water, and insurance are not why the REITs wa raised rents by 40%. And if a landlord is following the law, they have nothing to fear from this
ordinance. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker. >> Hi Sean. Hi everybody. Um I had a couple of >> You just got to identify yourself. >> Jody Drenin. >> There you go. Um, I'm not going to read
any of the notes that I wrote down because I think uh my fellow small business landlords have spoken more than eloquently what's uh the experience they have as landlords. And we, my husband
and I have the same experience. We're born and raised in Jersey City. We have a couple of buildings that um we definitely use as income because landlords uh have to make a profit on their
buildings despite what some people might think. Otherwise, there's no point in doing it because it's a really hard job being a landlord. And I identified with everything they said, bringing the keys in the middle of the night, knowing your tenants really well, not
raising rents. We have a tenant who uh has been with us probably close to 20 years. Um and even after the reval where our taxes went from somewhere near $17,000
probably to $30,000. His rent was not raised. In fact, nobody in in that building for families was raised. So, we do put a really high value on the tenants on keeping them there, on knowing them. We also, like
Steve Giardo, shovel the snow and take out the trash and do all the kinds of things that you would do for the people next door, only we own the building. So, I think one point that I'll make, and I'm not even sure that any of you considered it, was it seems
inconceivable to me that all of the small landlord uh group would be swept in with this corporate business that I completely understand has been a disaster for many tenants. Not so with
the people like me and my husband and the other smalltime landlords here. So I think you should feel very comfortable all of you voting against this tonight because it is just seems like an illconceived and
not very wellthoughtout um ordinance. So I encourage you to remember that we pay taxes here, a lot of taxes in the city and um we want to be considered in the same way and we hope that you value us in the same way
that we value our tenants. Thanks. >> Our next speaker, >> Anil Keshner. Good evening. Um, I I have a hard time and imagining the arguments I'm hearing tonight of the
so-called small landlords. And my definition of small, five units and more in Jersey City especially, is not small anymore. But that's my personal opinion. What what I'm hearing is how great they
are to their renters. I wish I had a landlord that is like this to be honest. But if this is the case, where is the problem? Where is the problem in having accountability? Where is the problem in following the law? Where is the problem in indeed doing what was described
multiple times? Instead, again, the idea is to put the burden on the renters, to put the burden on the 72% in the city who should file claims for illegal rents, who should file petitions if something is wrong, who should do ABC to
get their rights, which we know is a very cumbersome process, especially for an individual that doesn't have the means to do so. So, I urge you to vote yes. It is a very good first step. I also agree that it still has loopholes
and it still needs work to make it really watertight. But I think it is a very important first step to uh close that loophole for institutional renters. And just to make an analogy,
if I'm in the trucking business and I have uh let's say lorries, I have big small trucks. I know if I'm over a certain weight and size, I have to pay more toss on the highway. Why should there should
be different for buildings? Why can't they just break it up into a smaller unit? If I have a trucking business, I cannot break my truck up into a couple of passenger cars. So, it's the same thing. And in my mind, it is very
important to to close that today and then go the next step and close the loopholes that are still in there. Thank you. >> Next speaker. >> Hi. >> You don't have to spell your name. might not know. >> Great. Can you just give me a moment to take a deep breath cuz that's how important this is to me.
>> You can. >> Oh, just state your name though when you're ready. >> Oh, okay. Still do. Okay. Okay. Okay. Natalie Lemon without the without the spelling. Okay, I'm ready. So, this ordinance
could fundamentally change my life for the better. And I tonight represent all of the many people of Jersey City who don't have good small-time landlords. Landlords who were born here in Jersey City like many of the people we heard from tonight. My landlord is just like
them except that they are not a generous and kind landlord. Um I will admit that I haven't fully read all other parts of this ordinance which I think has to do with single dwelling home sales and perhaps a lot of things perhaps things that are not feasible and shouldn't be lumped in. Like I said, I don't know
about that. I'm just going to share my position. But if I can't get through it all, please listen to me when I ask you to at least table this for further discussion and not defeat it tonight. How would this change my life? Well, like I said, unlike all the nice landlords who spoke tonight, that's not my case. He overcharges his tenants who
live in houses that are over 100 years old. For me, this ordinance proposes that I could be eligible for rent control. I who happily live in a two family Jersey City dwelling in the Marian section that is well over 100 years old and have a landlord who owns four houses on my block which is the block he grew up on. It's a total of six
units and all of the homes are over 100 years old. He doesn't live in any of them and none of them is in a condition where it's fair for my landlord to raise rents to be in line with the new luxury apartments being built everywhere. And he's very excited to do that. On mine, the roof needs replacing and my landlord
never plans to replace it because he's 86 and we'll let it rock until he dies. So once my closet ceiling broke open and rain water came straight into my home and all over my clothes, my lenolium is cracking all by itself and I don't understand it. But guess what? I don't mind because I love my garden and my block and I love my home. I'm a simple
person. But what I do mind is that my landlord is ecstatic that we are getting luxury highrises in Marian because to him that means he can raise each of his units to 1,800 for a one-bedroom and 21 for his twobedrooms. I love my home, but there is no world in which it makes
sense for a home like mine to have rent inflated so much so quickly due only to the gentrification of our neighborhood. So, all of that is to say that this ordinance would really affect my life and the lives of other tenants like me who have small-time landlords who are both greedy and cheap and not the sort of people we have heard from tonight. These are small landlords who are
overcharging and driving people out the same way that corporate landlords do. We can't pretend everyone has the good heart that these people have. We still have slumlords in this city. I and I don't understand if people have not been raising rent on their tenants for so many years. Wouldn't it actually be better for them to get a nominal 4%
increase? Um that would put them in a better position than not raising rent on someone for 20 years. Um I don't see mom and pop businesses any different than a landlord in my mind. There are very old buildings with multiple units and there should be some accountability on these 100-year-old houses. These there are no
rules for small-time landlords like this. Um, in terms of like we have I have no recourse for my life, but I don't want to I'm not leaving my home. I love my garden and I'm staying there, but he has me over a barrel. If I say one wrong word, he can raise my rent
vindictively. >> Thank you. This is still a public hearing on city ordinance 25-125. Any member of the public still wish to be heard, please come up to the podium and state your name for the record. >> Second.
>> Thank you. We have a motion to close the public hearing on city ordinance 25125 by council persona, seconded by council president. On the motion to close a public hearing on city ordinance 25-125.
Council person Ridley. >> I. >> Council person Huings. >> Yes. >> Council person. >> Hi. >> Council person Gilmore. >> I. >> Council person Deise. >> Yes. >> Council person Rivera. And council president Waterman.
Motion carries 70. with council members Bajiano and Solomon absent. A final consideration and adoption of city ordinance 25-125. Council person Ridley. >> Uh I think everybody that came up
basically said that this ordinance um isn't something that they are in favor of. Even those who ask us to vote it says it needs work. said that there were things that they submitted that was not added into this. Um, and I agree. I
don't think it is uh I don't think it's ready. I do have uh an issue and I think it is going to uh adversely impact small homeowners who
I can understand the um the hesitation of people who might live in certain areas of the city or who live in highrises, but a lot of the homes on the southern end of the city are one, two, three, sometimes four family houses. So just owning two of those homes as
someone who is not rich then puts you in a position um to now have to be under new laws and regulations. So, I know that that is not the intent to hurt those small homeowners, but I think doing this right now definitely impacts
them. And also, I get that uh there are landlords who are raising the rent and who are excited about raising the rent. But on the southern end of the city, a lot of the homeowners and small landlords cannot get market rate rent because there aren't there isn't an
influx of people coming in there who are willing to pay those prices. So, a lot of them are getting lower rents than the rest of the city. Um, so it's not necessarily a cash cow for them the way it is in other areas of the city and I think that needs to be taken into consideration. Um, I believe that we do
have to find a way to protect our renters and I think that we have to find a way to target who we're really trying to target who are the big developers and big landlords. I don't think that this does that. Um, but I understand both sides of wanting some protection also.
So, I am going to uh abstain on this one. I don't think it's ready. I don't know if the council wants to do more work on it, but uh I can't vote for this in its current form. >> Council person Huings, >> I agree on a lot of points that
Councilwoman Ridley just made. Um since I've been on the council, I've had more residents from Ward B reach out to me on this ordinance than anything else that I've been involved in. It's mainly, as she said, they own two,
three, four family houses. We're in the south end on the southwest end. And I agree that this is not ready to be passed. So, I'm going to vote no. >> Council person Bajiano stand earlier.
Council person Sole, >> I have listened to everyone and you know I acknowledge that there are some holes that need to be fixed with this. I do believe that this is a start and I'm going to have to vote
I. >> Council Person Gilmore, >> this is interesting. And I I do want to thank everybody for coming to speak out tonight. Um the problem for me is that I
think it presented consequence and I'm going to be very candid with everybody here. We do not have the capacity to police this to follow this through. Why do you say
that, Councilman Gilmore? because we don't have control over the rent control apartments that are actually rent control right now, right? Um, so I say all that to say that
I don't want you guys to be hopeful, to think that this is this is the final step. Um, but I do believe that we have to make a good
faith attempt to address these greedy landlords. I am so sick and tired of residents being forced out because there's pretty much no regulation. And it really hurts
the south side of the city because those are that's the place where the majority one and two family homes are and these landlords because there's no restriction. They can essentially just
do as they please. Um so I'm not pleased with the totality of the ordinance. I think it needs some more work. Um, but I'm going to vote I in a sense that it gives us,
I guess, a band-aid, if you will, to to stop some of the bleeding. Um, but like I said, I want to be completely honest. It it it need a lot more work to done and we really need to carve out and or
amend this to really hit the targeted demographic in which we are trying to target. >> Thank you council person deise. >> I think the intentions of this ordinance and what has come out of it are two separate things. The intention was to
protect renters. The intention was to directly address bad landlords or people looking to invest in properties for the sake of just profiting off of them. But I too have been getting the calls and I live in a section of Jersey City that's mainly one and two families. Uh people
who are being offered a great amount of money to sell their two families so they can build two condos. So there's no longer a landlord and a renter above them or below them. They're two very expensive condos. Um, and this would be the nail in the coffin for them. And
many of them have not increased their rents through the RIAL. The same in the Heights where the RIAL was, you know, as much as what downtown saw as well. Um, and I don't think that it's in its perfect form right now. The intention was great, but there needs to be more
work done. So, I vote no. >> Council person Rever, I vote no. and council president Warman. >> I want to thank everybody for coming out on the south side of the city. Um they are buying up one and two family homes.
And based on this uh ordinance here, if you own five or more units, it would put you on some some type of control. The ordinance is not perfect, but it's a start. And what you don't realize is when you do create law, at times you do need a start. We critique law all the
time. We amend it all the time. You do need some type of form of guidance. I hear the landlords that was here. Y'all great landlords. And that's just was a handful. It was just a handful. Maybe about a good 20 good landlords showed up
and said their concerns. But the truth is on the other side of town, they are tearing up neighborhoods buying like this. And there's no guidance, no anything to tell them, well, you can't do this, you can't do that, you can't stop. So, this was just a start. That's
what this was really, a start. So, I want the people on the south side of the city to see this. We tried to put something in place. We tried and you have to try things. We tried to put something in place because all it was saying is basically when you go for your
rent each month or your lease is up, they couldn't go up no higher than 4% or the CPI. Whereas now some places they going up 15 20% pushing people out. But if you a landlord and you made a decision not to go up on your rent every year, that was
your choice. But you could. That's a choice of a landlord. So, we were not trying to to hurt small landlords, but we was trying to really secure the residents that are here that are being pushed out. And this was a try. So, I want the residents to know, yo, we
tried, but others did not agree. And that's just the truth. So, I vote I with that because I know we have to try because they are being pushed out. And being a landlord is a choice. It really is.
City Ordinance 25-125 is defeated. 332. Council members Huings, Dece and Rivera voting no and council members Ridley and Bajiano abstaining.
On to our last second reading ordinance. Item 4.9, city ordinance 25-126, is an ordinance approving a 30-year tax exemption for a mixeduse project at 30 Newport Parkway and 40 Newport Parkway and authorizing the financial agreement
with NC Housing Associates number 200 Urban Renewal Company pursuant to the long-term tax exemption law NJSA 4820 48 col 20-1 Exec. 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. Phil, before you do that, just give me one second so I can put you on camera. >> Go ahead, Phil. You're good. Good evening. My name is Phil Carrington. I want to give you my opinion from a black
perspective. First off, back in the day, we used to say urban renewal means negroes removal. This is the third meeting consecutively that you have been given tax abatement. None of these tax abate third meeting that I've been here.
All right. So, but none of these abatements had been given to anybody black. Maybe it's an exclusive club. I don't know. I don't know of any black contractors that had a tax abatement. Well, let me uh give myself a a a little part of this. Anyway, I'm a black contractor myself, a GC. I have a Jersey
City contractor's license. I have a New Jersey state home improvement contractor's license, minority and business women uh certification. I have bond insurance. I cannot get a contract or a job or business doing anything with the city of Jersey. It is not because
I'm black, but what is it? I have everything. But let's continue on. So for 30 years these guys are going to get a tax break means no tax. These are rich people. On the other hand, a Jersey City is a nonprofit organization. It has to make
makes money particularly by taxes. Yes, they have a a division of commerce, a trade with a properties that of course to make taxes eventually, but the main thing is taxes. So, if these guys are getting a tax break, then you got to go into the black community and squeeze the hell out of black people to make them
pay the taxes. For an example, a black woman, uh, Gloria May Law, she lost her property last week, 84 years old for taxes. She lived at 25 Boss Avenue. They came in the middle of the night, took her out, took her to the hospital, took
her home, but because profits can't wait. See, so she have to pay taxes. her income can't afford her taxes. She lost her property for taxes. So, in 30 months, she's on the verge of losing her
property. 30 years, these guys getting a tax break. You can see what they want. No taxes here, taxes there. And so, she needs a tax break. Or black folks who income is not compatible to their taxes, there needs to be some kind of
assistance. In my case, the same thing happened. It was a little different case anywhere. But my point is, you continue to serve these people and black folks are catching hell trying to keep up with
these taxes. Same property she had all of these years just like me. As I said before, my taxes used to be 99 $99,000 a year. Uh $99,000. I paid $2,600 a whole year in the '90s. the same
building but owned by the same black man. Same bill. I'm paying $3500 a quarter for the same building. That assessment is not part of me. I ain't make no agreement to that. That is a scam. But these guys are getting
attacked. >> Thank you, sir. >> It is a scam. >> Next speaker. Good evening, Lorenzo Richardson. Okay. Um, I first want to say that uh I'm going to ask you to vote no one
ordinance 125-126. Um, it is not justified in my opinion, nothing personal. Um, but typically owners of buildings uh budget a percentage of their revenue
for maintenance and upgrades. My understanding this is for maintenance and upgrades. Um, but I have some questions for the council to address or abatements in general. So,
when was the last time you conducted a demographic study not just for educational purposes, you know, for the schools, I'm speaking on behalf, but development planning purposes as well.
Um, have you done an analysis in conjunction with the board of education ever? Um, using residency, student residency to determine the financial impact on the
school's funding? Would you be um setting a precedent by approving this ordinance? Have you considered assigning abatement revenue
to the schools in its entirety or its normal portion of the abatement revenue amount? um based on that abatement that is agreed upon whatever
the dollar amount is and I'm going to offer one suggestion. If you consider a future abatement, can you please make sure that the school levy
is exempt from the abatement? So you don't have to worry about these financial issues with the schools being able to survive because you know you still have charters taking money from the schools. You still
also have other factors that are going on with funding being cut, Department of Ed being dismantled. You don't know where that's going to go. So you have to have a way to address, you know, for lack of a better term, the
elephant in the room because funding is dwindling and you can't tax your way out of that. So that's too much on of a burden on the taxpayers. But at the same time, you do have to maintain a school
system that's robust that adequately educates the students and that they have all the resources they need. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker, if you can state your name and spell your name slowly for the record, appreciate it.
>> My name is uh Raphael Moise Grayson. >> You got to speak up a little bit more. >> My name is Raphael Grayson. R A F E A L. >> Last name >> Grayson. G R A Y S O N. >> Thank you, Raphael.
>> Um, good good evening, council president and members of the council. U, my name is Raphael Moise Grayson. I'm a lifelong resident of Georgia City resident born in Ward F. I live uh I lived in Ward A and now proudly in Ward B. I'm here
because the ordinance 25126 that proposed the 30-year tax abatement for LFRA is not just uh another uh development approval. It is a decision decision that affects affordability and
public trust and the financial future of every neighborhood in the city. For decades, uh, residents have been told that abatements helped Jersey City grow and but the data tells every a very
different story. Um, from 2020 uh 13 to 23, Jersey City awarded over 2.2 billion in tax abatements and pilot deals. During the same period, the city share
of the school tax levy increased over 2 than 60% and in large part pilot deals bypass school funding entirely. Under New Jersey law, schools received zero and 20 to 30 tax abatements.
Meanwhile, Newport LFRA, a multi-million dollar developer, has benefited uh 35 plus years in statebacked tax financial relief. My other concern is that um
you have count members of the current council uh voting yes on these abatements and running on a platform in this race, you know, um under affordability
and you know, Ward A has one of the highest eviction rates in the city and there has been uh they're being priced out and yes, the representatives have voted to give decades of long tax breaks
to developers that don't need them. Um I may live in Ward B, but the decision affects all of us. When pilot money skips the schools, every ward feels the cuts. And when developers get 30year tax
relief, homeowners and renters absorb the tax burden. Uh lastly, um I'm a member of the Hotel Trades Council uh in New York. I work make over
$100,000 a year. Uh I've worked two jobs just to make ends meet. So I'm far from rich. and a 30-year tax abatement to the LFrack, Georgia City will not be good. I ask that you vote no. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Still a public hearing. Our next speaker evening, see the D police. Okay. Good evening. I am here to speak against ordinance 25-126 specifically regarding the financial
math of this deal. When a developer asks the taxpayers for a 30-year tax break, the burden of proof is on them to show they are providing a public benefit that the private market cannot support. I have reviewed the numbers in this application and frankly the math is
insulting to the intelligence of this council. The applicant claims they are performing a substantial rehabilitation of 30 and 40 New York Newport Parkway. They have valued this work at approximately $30 million.
That sounds like a big number until you do the division. 30 million divided by 890 units is roughly 33,700 per unit. I asked the council, "Have you tried to renovate an apartment in Jersey
City lately? 33,000 is not a substantial rehabil rehabilitation. It is a cosmetic refresh. It is new windows, some facade work, and a lobby update. In the commercial real estate world, this is called capex or capital expenditure. It is the standard cost of
owning a building. Every landlord in this city has to replace boilers and windows. That is part of the job. Why is the city of Jersey City setting a precedent that we will subsidize the standard maintenance of a private equity asset?
If a homeowner in the Heights replaces their windows and boiler, do you give them a 30-year tax abatement? No. you reassess them and raise their taxes. But here we have a waterfront complex asking to lock in a pilot payment of 10% to 12%
of revenue. In a conventional tax scenario, a property of this value would likely pay significantly more. By granting this pilot, you are effectively paying for their renovations out of the public purse while simultaneously capping their tax contribution for a
generation. The financial agreement before you claims this project isn't feasible without the abatement. That is hard to believe. These are stabilized, revenue generating towers on the waterfront. They are not bladed. They are not vacant. To vote yes on this is
to admit that Jersey City does not know the difference between urban renewal and deferred maintenance. You are being asked to sign a bad check on behalf of the taxpayers. Please do the math and reject ordinance 25-126. Thank you.
Daniel Feldman, I'm standing here tonight to ask you all to vote no on ordinance 25126 just as a matter of negotiation and leverage. So, as council members, you are the fiduciaries of this city. Every time you grant tax abatement, you're spending the
city's polit political capital and future revenue. you're supposed to get something in return of equal value. Uh so let's look at the trade on the table. The applicant is offering to spend $30 million on their own property. So replacing boilers, windows, and ficades.
Um they're presenting this as a public benefit, but it isn't. It is asset management. If they do not replace those windows and boilers, their building deteriorates, their tenants leave, and their assets lose value. They have to do this work to maintain competitive in the
luxury market. So why is the city of Jersey City paying them via a 30-year tax brief do the bare minimum required to run a profitable business? Furthermore, let's look at the consideration of the affordable housing.
They claim that without this abatement, the 160 affordable units will be lost in 2028. But as others have pointed out, that's a false binary. In November 2028, their NJH MFA ex uh exemption expires
and at that moment they fall under Jersey City's rent control laws. So, the real choice isn't abatement versus eviction. The real choice is a you sign the deal. The city subsidizes their renovation. They get to raise rents on affordable units by up to 8% if they opt
out later and 713 market rate units lose all rent control protections for 30 years. Or option B, you vote no. The landlord still has to renovate the building because they need to attract tenants. The affordable units and the market units fall under the safety net
of chapter 260 rent control in 2028 and the building starts paying taxes. Option B is clearly the better deal for the taxpayers and the tenants. Why would you surrender the city's leverage 3 years early? Why would you sign a contract in 2025 that solves a 2028 problem by
giving away the store? The landlord is bluffing. They need to renovate these towers. Regardless of what you do tonight, do not pay them to do it. Hold the line and vote no on ordinance 25126. Thank you. >> Our next speaker.
>> Hi, Shannon Ray. I'm asking you to vote no on ordinance 25126 because the affordable housing component of this deal is a bad trade for the people of Jersey City. The applicant is framing this entire
ordinance as a rescue mission. They claim that if you don't sign this 30-year tax break, the 160 existing affordable units will vanish in 2028. They are offering to preserve those units and add 18 new ones. Let's look at
the price tag for those 18 new units. To gain those 18 units, you are being asked to strip rent control protections from 713 market rate families for the next 30 years. You are being asked to sacrifice the stability of over 700 households to
get a net game of fewer than 20 affordable apartments. That's not a housing policy. That's a hostage negotiation. The developer is effectively saying, "Give us a tax code or we will let those affordable units expire." But that threat rings hollow.
As we have heard, when the current abatement expires in November 2028, this building becomes subject to city laws. Under chapter 260, they cannot simply evict everyone or double rents overnight without scrutiny. The rent leveling board exists exactly for this
moment to protect tenants when agreements expire. By voting yes, you are removing the rent leveling board from the equation entirely. You are deciding that a 30-year tax contract is better protection than our own city ordinances.
Furthermore, this deal converts market rate units into affordable units only as they become vacant. This is a slow motion promise. Meanwhile, the tax break you are giving them is immediate and the loss of rights for the market rate
tenants is permanent. We're constantly being told we need to protect the missing middle. These 713 market rate units are the missing middle. They are the teachers, the nurses, the small business owners who don't qualify for lowincome housing but
can afford luxury rents. This ordinance throws them under the bus. We do not need to bribe this developer with a 30-year tax break just to follow the law. The city has leverage. The city has rent control. Use those tools. Do not sign this bad trait. Please vote no on
ordinance 25-126. >> Next speaker, if you can just spell your name for the record. >> Yes, it's Matt Schneider. M A T S C H N E I D E R. S H S D H N E I D E R. Nei
R. >> Thank you. Sorry about that. Good evening, city council. Thank you for your service and happy Thanksgiving. Uh, I urge you to vote no on 25- uh 126, the
ordinance before us tonight. Uh, my name is Matt Schneider. Again, I'm a JCBOE trustee. I'm speaking as a private citizen uh not on behalf of the board, but I do feel like uh most of us would share this sentiment. I'm also a parent, a resident, a property owner, a business
owner here in Jersey City. uh very strongly opposed to this 30-year pilot extension. It doesn't make sense. It's short-sighted. It lacks uh it's it doesn't align with Jersey City's current needs. You know, under a pilot, Jersey
City schools won't receive anything. You know, the revenue goes to the city. already based on the 2023 audit, which is the latest one available, uh there's 188 108 billable taxes out there that have been abated that don't go to the schools because of previous past
abatements. Our schools need the extra funds. You know, there's been past commitments to share 10% of pilots with schools. Not sure if anything happened, but even that's just a fraction of what the schools deserve. Uh we have 28,000 students in our public schools. It's a
huge huge system that depends on stable revenue. We have facilities that are severely lacking. We have special ed programs that that are suffering, staffing shortages. All of these require stable funding. And the big thing is that a lot of people have missed it is
how the state funding works. We as we give these uh as we abatements to luxury rentals, guess who moves in? People of higher income. They move in from New York City. Guess what? that increases our uh median income and so the state looks at it and says, "Oh, Jersey City's
rich. We can take more. They can pay more for themselves." Same thing for the property. The state doesn't look at uh the property that's been abated. They just look at the total property and assume that's their taxable base. So, yes, Jersey City, go raise your taxes. Go pay for your schools. But that's not
what h what's happening with abatements. We need to be smart. We've lost over 250 million since 2018 in funding. And we know this is now only going to continue. A 30-year exemption is is is incredulous. How can we do that? How can
we do that for our kids? We need to pay for our kid pay for our schools and help our kids. In addition, the equity and fairness. Why? Why them? Why not the small property owners? Why not myself? Hey, if I need a new roof, can you pay for that? Doesn't make sense. Why should
we be paying it for them? abatements, you know, are not evil, but they need to be very strategic and purposeful. That's not what this is. So, I ask you to vote no. Thank you. >> Our next speaker,
>> Megan Wilkkey. M E G W I L K I E. >> Thank you. >> Uh good evening again, council. Um I come to you tonight uh as a former tenant attorney. I worked representing low-income people in Jersey City who are facing eviction. Um I don't do that job
anymore, but when I was doing it, um you saw how uh hard it is for low-income families to hang on. Um there's very few affordable units out there. Many families are extremely rent burdened, paying more than half of their income to
the rent. Um, I appreciate what people have said tonight about how the the protections of of rent control could kick in for these tenants. However, we're talking about um 170 families that would lose the current subsidy. The
developer is also adding 18 units onto that and looking at shifting some of those units from what are currently at 80% AMI subsidy down to 50% AMI and 30% AMI. That means rents that are
affordable to our lowincome and extremely lowincome people in Jersey City. Um, I heard at the caucus meeting the attorney quoting rents under $1,000 and that's rents you can't find anywhere in the market. And I think the conversation around abatements, um,
obviously people have very valid uh, concerns about shifting prices onto other taxpayers or the way that schools have lost out in the past. But I don't think we can just um, clean our hands of our social responsibility to house the
lowest income people in our community. and um and address this housing shortage that we have uh at all at all price points. So um I'm here to urge you to vote yes. Uh I think you can't get a better deal for these kind of low rents
in in buildings. You absolutely can't build a building that's going to be this cheap. Um because these are units that already exist. they're going to add units to it and they're talking about putting them at extremely uh low income um and very lowincome families. So I I
would urge you to vote yes for that reason. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker, you can just spell your name for the record. >> Yes. Ivan O. I B A N O B A L E.
So, good evening, council. I think we need to subsidize affordable housing. I think this is something pretty much every candidate for mayor has run on and they made it part of their central uh campaign slogans. Everybody these days loves to run on affordability and for
good reason. It's one of the things that affects everyone, especially those on the lower and middle income levels. So, it resonates with most people. This is why I urge you to vote yes on these subsidies, especially because this is
not a brand new building that's going to be built from scratch. This is an already existing building. We just need to to subsidize the finance for renovation on those 16 units. So please, if we're really serious about affordability beyond campaign in
Florence and fighters to get votes, I humbly ask you for you to vote in favor of these availments that can help us keep our city more affordable so we can help our friends and family and everyone so they can stay here. Thank you.
>> Our next speaker, you just spell your name for me. >> It's a Warma. It's spelled uh A for apple, K for kite, S for shallow, H for hello, A for apple, Y for yellow, last name WMA, V for Victor, E for elephant,
red, R for red, M for Massachusetts, A for apple. There's no N in there. I wish there was. Then I could use spell that last name again without giving me the elephants and the apples. >> Um, we E R M A.
>> Thank you. So this just is just something I could do a lot. >> No, it's fine. It's fine. I just appreciate that. You can go. >> All right. So, uh I I guess I I come in favor to speak for this motion. This
abatement not only helps maintain our current uh affordable housing stock, but converts some of them to from 80% area median income to 50 and some to 30%. This means that a lot of a lot of poorer families could qual This means rents
under $1,000 as uh Megan mentioned earlier. Uh further on, this building would expand the number of market rate the would convert existing market rate units 18 existing market rate units from a market rate to 18% area median income.
While some people might disagree on the nature of the tax abatement, not granting the abatement means that these 160 units would eventually become market rate. And I understand a lot of these objections that have come present and would have personally preferred my own tax money going to things like public
housing, but as of this moment, we really aren't building any. And so, so to me, this is a reasonableish compromise. And further on, this would also be these these would also be uh units that are near transit, meaning
that all of a sudden there's 16 families that could that would eventually have access to one of the best job centers in the world that is New York and New Jersey. And so in short, I urge the council to vote yes in order to expand
opportunity for Jersey City residents. Thank you. our next speaker. >> You didn't know I was there, did you, Sean? >> What's that? >> Nothing. >> Um, okay. Try to make this quick. >> I'm asking you to vote no on this
ordinance. Ordinance 251. >> Jessica Bronn. >> Yeah. Bran. >> Bran. >> Bran. >> Bran. >> Not Brun with a U. >> Bran. >> Ready? >> Yes. Now that we're doing the comedy show. Well, not, but you're supposed to state your name for the record
regardless if I know you're not. >> Jessica Bran. >> Got it. >> Thank you. >> I'm asking you to vote no on this ordinance because you are being asked to fix a problem that does not exist. The applicant is acting as if the expiration of their current tax abatement in 2028 is a crisis that
requires a 30-year rescue package. It's not a crisis. It's a scheduled return to normaly. And here's the accurate legal situation. Right now, this property is exempt from local rent control because it is under the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency
pursuant to state statute 5514K-37. That is the shield they had lived behind since 1991. On November 30th, 2028, that mortgage matures and the NJHMFA shield drops. At that exact moment, these counter towers ceased to be a
state protected building project and simply become apartment buildings in Jersey City that were built 37 years ago. And that is and what is the law for a 37-year-old apartment building in Jersey City? It's chapter 260. It's rent control.
If you vote no tonight, you are not killing affordable housing. You are simply allowing the safety net of our existing city ordinances to catch these residents. 713 market rate families will land safely in the arms of rent control, which generally limits increases to CPI
or 4%. Whichever is less. But if you vote yes, you are intervening to stop that safety net from working. You're replacing the city's protective laws with a private financial agreement. And look at the terms of that agreement. Section 7 of the ordinance discusses what happens if the developer cancels
the deal. It allows them to raise rents on affordable units by 8% per year, double the cap of the current. Why would this council vote for a contract that explicitly contemplates 8% rent hikes when our own rent control law
would limit them to roughly half that amount? The city's laws are designed to handle exactly the situation. When a tax exemption expires, the owner pays full taxes and the tenants get rent control. That is the social contract. Do not let this developer bypass default laws of
Jersey City. Let NJHMFA Shield expire and let rent control do the job it was written to do. Vote no on ordinance 25-126. Thank you. >> Our next speaker, if you can state your
name for the record. Um, >> it's Esther Witner. W I >> You don't have to spell it. Esther. Okay. When you're ready, >> I am here again to ask you to vote no on this ordinance and make it DOA.
The purpose of an of a tax abatement is to spur development. It is not meant to be a developer subsidy underwritten by the taxpayers that goes on in perpetuity. The developer has already enjoyed the benefit of a state tax exemption for
nearly 40 years. Now they're asking for another 30 years of special tax treatment. That's not economic development. That's entitlement. This property should be added back to the ratable base and contribute its fair share toward the schools, the library,
the county, open space taxes, easing the burden on residents who are already paying high taxes. At the caucus, the attorney for the developer mentioned how this will bring in more revenue to the city, but failed to mention these other taxes that will
be shortchanged and subsidized by the taxpayer. I say we need an audit of the building to make certain that we are re receiving the correct pilot payments. And we need a third-party audit of the existing affordable housing units to make sure that there are no units that
are being rented out at market rates. It is also important to acknowledge a concern regarding conflict of interest. The developer's legal representation, Connell Foley, employs a sitting member of this council, Councilwoman Huings.
Even an indirect financial relationship warrants recusal if we're going to main transparency and public trust. The justification for this new abatement includes a long list of capital improvements. replacing windows with floor to ceiling glass, replacing the
facade, renovating the lobby, new boilers, stoves, new roof, and more. It's absurd that they feel the taxpayer should subsidize them for taking care of their own waterfront property. The developer is waving the affordable
housing like a bargaining chip. Yet, as Mr. Macan explained at the caucus meeting, "Those units stay affordable regardless of this abatement until the current tenants vacate. Those residents are protected. Let the developer eventually get their units and let them
pay for their own waterfront property upgrades. The incoming mayor, whomever that may be, has pledged to build more affordable housing across the city and likely at a lower cost and in neighborhoods that actually need a pilot to attract investment. This abatement does not meet that standard. It is
abatements such as this that contribute to the vicious cycle of driving housing costs up. Taxpayers in this council should not be held hostage by a developer who already benefits from one of the most valuable pieces of land in Jersey City. Make this ordinance DOA.
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker, if you can just state your name for the record. >> Sure. Good evening, uh, Mia Scanga. Um, I'm urging you also to vote no on ordinance 25-126
as this is their second tax abatement. As everyone has mentioned, the current one expires in 3 years in 2028. Now, when I was going through my computer, I have tons of files. I came across ordinance 19-138
which appears to be the spitting image of 25-126. We listened to the recording Esther and I and it was we found that it was pulled from the agenda in 2019 and it was supposed to be reintroduced but it
apparently it never was. The same renovations are listed in 2019. six years ago. So, I say to myself, I guess they didn't get the 30-year tax abatement, so they didn't do the renovations.
Or maybe they did do the renovations and they saw what Fairmont Housing got with another second 30-year tax abatement for renovations, which I thought should never have happened. So, they're trying to cash in. Or maybe the renovations
weren't necessary in 2019 or 2025. I mean, they just came here recently, sixyear hiatus. I think this is going to prove a fiasco because it's going to set a precedent and an additional burden to the
taxpayers of Jersey City who will then have to subsidize 30-40 Newport Parkway and pay for their school taxes which have skyrocketed in the last 5 to seven years as well as for the uh library open
space taxes etc. People here and across the country are crying for affordability and giving out a 30-year tax abatement will not accomplish that. As it was stated, those who are in affordable
housing units in that building will be protected. Jersey City has always ranked in the top five for for highest rents and LER has certainly uh it's been advantageous for
them. Let's not lose tens of millions of dollars of tax revenue. And in 2019, the difference was like 50%. So it's probably even higher now. we were going to lose for a few affordable units which
are protected and they will continue to pay the rent. Let's not make the same mistake as with the Fairmont housing senior housing. That's what brought this on. I'm sure of it. They saw that. They came back.
Please vote no. High taxes make uh for everybody else makes the city unaffordable. Stop giving away the store. Thank you. >> Our next speaker, if you can state your name for the record.
>> Mark Boils. I'm here tonight to talk about 126, but not about the specific buildings, but about the dangerous president precedent this ordinance sets for the entire city. When a city council grants a tax obeyment, it's supposed to be a
temporary inducement, a jump start for development that carries high risk. It's a contract. We give you a tax break for 30 years. You build here. When the time's up, you join the tax roles and follow the same rules as everyone else. That was the deal made in 1991 for these
two buildings. That deal expires in 3 years time. The deal's been fulfilled. But tonight, you're being asked to break the social contract. You're being asked to extend the temporary privilege for another 30 years. If you vote yes on this, you're opening a Pandora's box.
Look at the Jersey City skyline. Hundreds of buildings on the waterfront and downtown were built in the 80s and '9s under similar statutory exemptions. They're all approaching the same expiration date. They're all watching this vote. If you grant this rehabilitation abatement to 30 Newport
Parkway for essentially doing standard maintenance work, on what grounds will you deny the next 10 buildings that come to this chamber? If you pass this, every major landlord with an expiring abatement will line up to demand their own rehabilitation deal. They'll demand
to replace their windows and boilers in exchange for 30 years of tax breaks and another 30 years of exemption from rent control. You're effectively creating a permanent class of privileged owners in Jersey City. Landlords who never have to pay real taxes and never have to submit
to rent control simply because they renew their abatements every few decades. Meanwhile, the homer who's lived here for 30 years sees their taxes go up. The small landlord with a four family house pays full freight. Why should a stabilized, profitable
waterfront tower get a forever abatement? This ordinance tells the market the Jersey City laws, our tax code and rent control ordinance are optional if you are big enough. Don't set this president. Don't open the floodgates. When the clock runs out in
2028, let this building graduate to become a normal tax controlled taxpaying, rent controlled citizen of Jersey City. Vote no on 126, please. Our
next speaker, if you can state your name for the record. Sonia >> Keshna. >> Thank you. >> Good evening again, council. Um, I've said it here before and sometimes it's worthwhile stating the obvious again. I think tech tax abatements for selected
businesses are highly discriminatory. I, as a small business owner, have never been offered a tax abatement, and I have a hard time believing that anyone would even listen to me if I asked for one. I find them even more obscene if they put
money in the pockets of billionaires who could afford those prime properties without any abatement whatsoever. Obscene is the right word. You are stealing from the children of this city from the future generation generations
and also from the most vulnerable people right now who depend on the laws that protect them and the services the city provides for them. Think about how easily the taxes of 30 years would keep the pools free for the
kids and all other things moving in this city. Think about all the money that could go to our disastrous infrastructure and think about what you could do for the birds. If you just cared for the people of this city as
much as you always care for billionaire companies and as you cared for the birds tonight, we would be in a much much better place. So, please vote no on ordinance 26126. You can state your name for the record.
Any location? Good evening again. 2.2 billion in tax breaks. Who really thinks that losing that money makes the city more affordable? 2.2 million lost that are desperately needed. Where is it coming from instead?
I actually understand the small landlords talking earlier complaining about high property taxes and families about school taxes because that's what you essentially do. You subsidize billionaire landlords by putting the
burden on renters, small landlords and homeowners. And I come back to my truck example. You are exempting the biggest, heaviest trucks. The buildings that put the largest stress on the schools, sewer systems, public transport, and all the
infrastructure are exempt from contributing to the very infrastructure they use to make their profits. And speaking about profits, do we really think 2.5% of affordable units in that
building we will prevent making profits? What is even affordable about them if families living there get to potentially hit by a 8% increase every year? And even if the landlord doesn't make a
profit, let me remind you how tax laws work. If a business doesn't make profits, indeed they don't have to pay taxes. Vote no on this ordinance, please. Thank you. You can state your name for the record.
>> Evening, Kevin Weller. Good evening, council president and council members. I'm Kevin Weller, president of the Portide Towers East Tenant Association. I'm also here to speak in opposition to Ordinance 25126, which is a textbook example of a wolf in
sheep's clothing. On paper, this looks like a tax deal to renovate aging buildings, but in reality is a strategic legal maneuver designed to strip 713 families of rent control rights that are
set to vest in exactly 3 years. Here's the legal reality. These buildings were constructed in 1991. They currently enjoy an exemption from rent control only because of their NJHMFA financing. that financing and the
exemption expires on November 30th, 2028 under state law. Specifically, if I can read that one this fast, I better put this back up. NJSA2A42-84.1, a state statute that I'm very familiar with, and I think everyone in this room
is after the last 3 years of us talking about it. A building cannot claim a new construction rent control exemption twice. Furthermore, the state statute explicitly excludes rehabilitation from triggering a new exemption.
This means that on December 1st, 2028, under state law, these buildings should become subject to Jersey City rent control. The developer knows this. They know they have no path to a statutory exemption. So, they're asking you to give them a contractual exemption. By
voting for this pilot today, you are signing a financial agreement that locks in market rate revenue assumptions for 30 years. You're effectively overruling chapter 260 by contract, granting this developer a privilege that state law explicitly
denies them. And what are the taxpayers getting in exchange for this 30-year surrender of rights? The application sites a $30 million investment across 890 units. That's just 33,000 per unit. They're replacing windows. They're updating boilers. They're renovating the
lobby. In the real estate industry, we call that deferred maintenance. It is the cost of doing business, not substantial rehabilitation intended to cure blight. As you heard earlier tonight, they're asking Jersey City taxpayers to subsidize their window replacements and asking you to strip
their tenants future rent control rights as payment. Finally, why are we voting on this in 2025? The current abatement doesn't expire until 2028. There's no ex emergency here. This vote is premature. It handcuffs the future city council,
which would never vote for this and administration that will actually be in power when these rights vest. I urge you to see this for what it is. A rent control avoidance mechanism disguised as a tax abatement. Protect the future rights of these 700 families. Vote no on
ordinance 251. >> Thank you. Our next speaker, if you can identify yourself for the record. >> Hi, my name is Jim McCann from the law firm of Connell Foley. I'm speaking on behalf of the applicant.
>> I just I just want to correct one thing that I believe um all the folks who came to the microphone are incorrect about. There's nothing in this financial agreement that says the market rate
units will be exempt from rent control at the end of 2028. Nothing in the financial agreement says that. However, they also may be exempt from rent control whether you grant this tax abatement or not because under chapter
260, any building with 25 or more units that was built in a redevelopment area is already exempt from rent control. The state statute doesn't need to apply. So, it may or may not make a difference to
how you vote, but um the financial agreement does not protect market rate units from rent control. And it's possible the building will be exempt from rent control and all these folks here are saying that it's going to be subject to it. It's in a
redevelopment area. New construction in a redevelopment area is exempt from rent control. I reiterate what I said at the council, which is, you know, this project is going to create a lot of lowincome units and a lot of very
lowincome units. Um, it's increasing the affordability on the Jersey City waterfront where I think it's important that there be affordable units as well as luxury units and that's the opportunity you have here. Thank you. >> Oh.
>> Oh, hold on. One quick question. Um do the um the current when is the current mortgage up that your clients are playing? >> November of 2028. >> You will be done with your mortgage in 2028? >> Yes.
>> Oh, not the baby. The more Okay. >> What happens? um let's say this abatement isn't granted and then the you know NJMFA um you know basically those rules expire in 2028 those tenants that are currently
in the affordable units they get to stay there and then let's say they leave what happens to those units >> well they become market rate units >> they become market rate >> yes >> okay um And they would or would not be
like the whole building you're saying essentially is not rent controlled due to the fact that it's in a redevelopment area and it's exempt possibly. >> New construction more than 25 units in a redevelopment area just like all the other buildings on the waterfront are
exempt from rent control. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. motion a public hearing on city ordinance. Okay, if you could just state your name for the record. >> Natalie Leone and you've informed me you
know the spelling. Oh, hold on please. Hold on, please. Can you restart my time? I just just need Okay, I'm ready. Okay. Okay. So, uh I'm generally opposed to tax abatements and I've learned a little bit about this ordinance tonight. Apparently, there's a concern about affordable housing going
away about a certain amount of after a certain amount of years and needing an abatement um to counteract this. Um but we are all, as someone else mentioned, anticipating a mayor that wants to ensure that we will have affordable housing in the future on buildings like this as a guarantee. Um and also
affordable housing is a flimsy and temporary affordable housing the way that they do it in the highrises as a quid proquo as a public benefit. It's a flimsy temporary solution to our housing problem for low-income people because unlike rent control which gives fixed rate increases. It's based on the AMI
and we all area media income and we all know that with luxury towers and bon boxes mushrooming popping up like mushrooms everywhere that the average income of this city and surrounding area is going to skyrocket rather quickly as soon as everyone moves in. This means that even the lowest 50% um you know uh
market rate house the way they do it in the levels um those low-income families won't be able to stay in these units very long once the leases are renewed and their rent is increased based on the AMI. So then according to this plan when they leave because they can't afford the
rent increase even in affordable housing that affordable housing unit goes back to market rate. So are we really are they really giving us affordable housing? Um, and then next, we need to stop using affordable housing as a scapegoat for robbing our city of tax dollars. Affordable housing is nothing
compared to rent control, and we should require it as we're starting to, but we shouldn't allow it as a miraculous public benefit that is solving our housing crisis for low-income people because I already explained it's um not a long-term term solution for struggling families because of the way the rent
gets risen um due to the AMI. If we stop louding affordable housing as a public benefit and view it more as an expectation than these developers claims that they are owed tax abatements or whatever else will be moot points. What we need is better rent control in this city and no tax breaks for a tower
that's giving a portable of affordable housing. That is all of the things I've explained. Um and you all failed us on rent control tonight. Um I hope you'll do better. Um so no, you should not do this. And if you're worried about housing, think about how you can expand affordable housing that operates more
like rent control with low rents and fixed rate increases. And also think about doing it yourself because I've only heard about affordable housing in the last few years when it's done as a quid proquo for a high-rise. What are your other ideas for people who need low-income housing and are struggling
right now? you've only provided one and it always has to do with um a quid proquo with the developer and the public benefits that they give us are debatable um in exchange, you know. So, it blows my mind that the only affordable housing you have is in these towers and that you
are really not thinking uh or innovating other ideas to address the needs of struggling families. Affordable housing isn't it. It's a short-term flimsy little band-aid. Thank you. This is still a public hearing. You can state your name for the record.
>> Oh, >> good evening, Council Charlene Burke. >> Good evening. >> Um, I agree with a lot of the speakers who said we should you should vote this down. And I truly believe that a 30-year
abatement on a property that is in one of the most expensive areas of Jersey City that could be added back to our rent roles gives affordability to the rest of the city that pays property taxes.
Now, as a homeowner of a one family home, I don't have the luxury of having another rent to offset my taxes. So, I have to pay them every year. and they've been going up quite significantly, certainly since when I bought my house in 2000.
Um, and it looks like the way the city is going, it's just going to continue to go up. I know that the people running for mayor talk about affordability. They certainly talk about affordability in terms of rentals, but we really need to
also think about the affordability in terms of the homeowners who are here. Um because as we all discover, they're the ones who come to these council meetings and share all of their thoughts and and hopes and
uh improvements with the council. Honestly, if I I mean, I run I'm the president of the West Westside Community Alliance, and those people who come to our meetings, they're the homeowners. They're the people who are invested. We
don't get a lot of apartment dwellers because it's very easy for them to move on to the next community. If they don't like Jersey City, they move to Bayon or Sea Caucus or Lynhurst or Clifton.
And honestly, I really would wish that this council would consider those people who have gone through the thick and thin in this city and come here and talk about how they want to make it better
and they volunteer their time to do that. So consider the affordability for them. And I ask you to vote this down because for those few apartments, and believe me, when Newport first opened, I was the
person qualifying all the affordable housing applicants. And most of them couldn't stay because the heating, which is all electric down there, was unaffordable to them. Heating and air conditioning was through the
roof. And if you don't have a third party that has confirmed all these affordable units, then I really question that are they actually occupied by people who are paying affordable rents. Please, none of
you asked that question. Vote no. Thank you. Our next speaker, if anyone else is looking to speak on this ordinance, I would appreciate if you line up. Say your name for the record, please.
>> Uh, Tara Smith. >> Can you spell your last name? >> S M Y T H E. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Good evening, council. I'm Tara Smith
and I'm here to address a specific legal error that the developer is relying on. Throughout this process, you will hear the applicant emphasize that this property is located in the Newport redevelopment plan area. They mention this to imply that the
property is special, that it sits in a protected zone that entitles it to exemptions that other buildings don't get. I am here to tell you that the legal mechanism they are pointing to is a ghost. Under Jersey City's rent control
ordinance section 260-1A3, there used to be an exemption for buildings in redevelopment areas. But if you read the actual text of that ordinance, it grants an exemption only if the area is defined under specific state statutes NJSA
40 55 C-5 and 40 55 C-17. Here is the problem. The New Jersey legislature repealed both of these statutes in 1992. They were wiped off
the books nearly 30 years ago. The city of Jersey City acknowledges this in the very footnotes of our own code which state NJSA 40 55C were repealed
by 19 199 law 1992. Why does this matter for a vote in 2025? Because the developer is trying to convince you that this building has a redevelopment pedigree that justifies a 30-year tax and rent control holiday. They want you to believe that because
they are in Newport, they are legally entitled to special treatment. But the specific rent control exemption for redevelopment areas relies on a definition that has not existed since the first Bush administration. When their current NJH MFA mortgage
expires in November 2028, they cannot fall back on this redevelopment exemption. That safety net is gone. The statute is repealed. They are asking this council to honor a zombie statute to pretend that a law repealed in 1992
still gives them privileges today. Do not be misled by the label redevelopment area. It is a zoning term, not a rent control shield. Once that mortgage is paid off, this building is just a building. It must follow the same laws as everyone else. Vote no on ordinance
25-126. Motion >> second. >> Still a public hearing on city ordinance 25-126. Any member of the public still wish to be heard? Please come up to the podium and state your name for the record. >> Motion. >> Motion to close the public hearing on
ordinance 25-126 was made by council person Gilmore. >> Second. >> Seconded by council person. Sorry about that. On the motion to close the public hearing on city ordinance 25-126. Council person Ridley
>> I. >> Council person Hulings. >> I. >> Council person Salai. >> I. >> Council person Gilmore. >> I. >> Council person Deise. >> I. >> Council person Ribera. >> Hi. >> And council president Waterman. >> Motion carry 70 with council members
Bajaniano and Solomon absent for final consideration and adoption of city ordinance 25-126. Council person Ridley. >> No. >> I'm sorry. >> No. >> Okay. Council person Huings
>> abstain. >> Council person Bajiano voted no earlier. Council person, >> I'm going to vote I. Um 116 of the 160 units are going to be lower. They're going to increase the affordability for
these units for the lowest income individuals um to 30 to 50% AMI from 80% AMI. So, it's increasing the affordability. I don't feel comfortable with the fact
that if they were to leave that unit and we don't extend we don't do this then these units will eventually become market rate and even if they are rent controlled they're going to be market rate rent controlled versus the lowest
rung of society being able to be in downtown and since I've been on this council for for the past 5 and a half years we haven't built a single affordable unit downtown. We had an abatement for Silverman properties that came, I think, 6 weeks ago, and that was
the first project that we had. And I agree with a lot of the comments that were said that we need to think outside the box when it comes to affordable housing. We can't just abate our way out of a housing crisis. We need to think about, you know, 3D printing homes on
vacant land that we have. The construction industry is very bloated and you know all these parts cost a lot to create housing and I think and the opportunity cost of approving this versus trying to abate a property in the
future a new construction. This is lower. It cost us less to continue affordability for these units versus trying to make a new building affordable. And that's why I voted I. Council Person Gilmore.
>> Um, thank everyone for coming out speaking. Whether you was for or against it, I like the way uh democracy have played out tonight as it relates to people coming talking about the interest, pros,
cons, and differences. Um, but for me, um, I want to say the quiet part out loud. For years, we've watched five wards subsidize luxury building in one ward. Um, and when you think about
abatements, right, you want to incentivize development in areas that wouldn't otherwise be built, but it's already built. They've already entered into an agreement, and that agreement is
set to expire. the active mortgage on the property is set to expire, which tells me that these people have the financial stability to maintain that dwelling. Now, if your argument is,
well, we need to maintenance or do upkeep on a property. You had 30 years. If you do it in little increments, you don't have to worry about doing it all in one at after 30 years. Um, so for me when I'm looking at this, I'm looking at
something that's not set to expire for three years and then you're going to ask a council to vote on something which can be entertained by a whole another council that's going to be sitting here. Um, so for me it's just too many red
flags and my mentor tell me if it look like a duck, walk like a duck and then quack then is a duck. Um, so I'll vote no in the interest of all that. >> Council person Deise, >> no. >> Council person Rivera,
>> no. >> Council President Waterman, >> no. City ordinance 25-126 is defeated 161 with council member Cleet voting yes and
council person Huings abstaining. The ordinance is defeated. All right, on to our public request for a hearing. I'm going to be calling the number and then the first name of the individual. With that being said, please
follow along with your agendas. First speaker, 5.1, Leverne. I don't see her. >> She's not here. >> Next speaker, 5.2, Marty. As I promised, Marty, you would be number two, right? bring that mic all
the way down for you and just make sure you're right by it. Okay. >> You didn't know what number two meant. Um >> just make sure you got to be by it though. Make sure your mouth is by the mic. >> You could push it down. Well, hold it if you have to.
>> There. >> There you go. Much better. >> Right. Um I'm new to Jersey City. I moved here four years ago from the suburbs and I love being here and the walkability and the convenience of just
not having to drive everywhere you go. That being said, I think many of us would share the same concerns as pedestrians with ebikes and ecooters. Uh unfortunately, there's almost no laws
regulating them. Um the main the laws in New Jersey are riders must follow uh the laws applicable to traditional bicycles including obeying traffic signals and signs. Helmets are mandatory for all
riders under the age of 17 and ebikes may be ridden on roads, streets, uh highways except where prohibited by regulation and in bike lanes. And those are basically the rules
here in the state of New Jersey. Uh basically the same in uh Jersey City as well as uh you can't ride on sidewalks. You can park on a sidewalk. Um, follow normal traffic laws. Helmets for kids
under 17. Um, this is really personal to me because last April I was hit by an escooter ridden by a 14-year-old and I don't understand why 14y olds are
allowed to ride these vehicles. They are vehicles. I spent six days in the hospital from this. Um it's they also I looked up some statistics from 2016 to
2020 uh youth uh involved uh crashes, bicycles andor pedestrians. There was 5711 youth accidents and of those 354 were
fatal. Uh 14 year olds, I don't see why they should be able to operate an electric vehicle. And also there's no insurance. There's no reciprocity when these kids or people
uh hit you or do damage. and uh as a result you are stuck just footing the bill yourself. Um, on top of that, to add insult to injury, the police report at the time,
because they don't even take these as serious incidents, like it if a car were involved, um, basically the police officers, um, it's it's not even a one-page report and it just states that,
you know, this >> Marty, your time is up. Sorry. Thank you. Our next speaker 5.3 Gina. >> Hi, good evening. Gina Davidson. I do work for Councilman Gilmore, but I'm
speaking on my own behalf tonight as a resident of the city. Justice for Drew. I just want to acknowledge that it seems like we're having a lot of unintended consequences
from some of this these resolutions that we're trying to push through here at the end of some of our terms. And so I just want to express some frustration about that. And I know I spoke to some of you last uh meeting about it and I want to bring it up again because some of you
were not present. And I just want to suggest that for this council going forward when we have the new council that folks consider if they do have a second reading ordinance that they should be here and be present for the public speaking section. And so
I'm just going to ask you all that because I know we had a lot of concerns about yet another ordinance that was being pushed through, the one about pet stores and some unintended consequences to that ordinance, which would have put
me and my animal rescue organization, which is tiny by the way, it would have made me unable to take donations. And so between that and other concerns that had been brought via email, via our
directors here, um we had asked to slow down and make amendments and come back. And there are other things today that were brought up as well. Um ordinance 25-125 that there you go, that's why it got
defeated, right? Because these things are getting pushed too early. And so I'm yet again going to ask you to please work with the people who live here. Listen to the people who live here. And don't ignore us. Because I know
Danny, you were out campaigning two weeks ago. And we were standing here begging for what we need in order to continue doing our hard work that we do for free in this city. And look, I get it. We didn't expect to be in a runoff, right? This is a crazy
time. But we can't cottify into law things that have not been appropriately considered. Thank you. Our next speaker 5.4 Tina. I don't see Tina.
Next speaker 5.5 Edward. I don't think he's here either. 5.6 6 Amy left >> 5.7 Ben okay 5.8 Debbie
5.9 Rebecca 5.10 10 Esther. >> She did what? >> Let's go on. Go on. We move on, Sean. >> Next speaker. 5.11, Phillip. Next speaker. 5.12. Eve.
Oh, she's here. She's >> here. Good evening. My name is Eve Taylor. I'm a Jersey City resident and I'm here to address a systematic violation of the local budget law that is inflating our property taxes. Over the past 3 years,
property taxes in Jersey City have risen 51.4%. In that same period, the city accumulated $94 million in operating deficits and $12 million in deferred charges. In July, both Moody's and S&P downgraded our credit outlook, citing
the city's failure to restore its balance sheet despite aggressive tax increases. Why are we raising taxes while violators go unpunished? Under New Jerseys local budget law, the amount raised by taxation is calculated by subtracting anticipated revenues from
total appropriations. When the city fails to collect statutory fines, anticipated revenues go down and the tax levy goes up. That is not a policy opinion. It is arithmetic required by NJSA48430. The city has tools it refuses to use.
NJSA 40485A expressly authorizes you to hire private collection agencies to recover delinquent fines at no cost to the taxpayer because allow allows the violator to be charged the collection fee. You have a cost-free revenue recovery tool. Why aren't you using it?
NJSA 4048212E authorizes you to make housing fines collectible as leans against the property. Yet public records show developers accumulating dozens, even nearly hundred summons while paying virtually nothing. Why are you granting defac tax subsidies to violators while asking residents to pay more? Consider
the portside towers case. Tenant advocates have documented over 200 consecutive days of code violations at their property, including failure to prevent a resident superintendent, sorry, failure to provide a resident superintendent and required security guards. Under ordinance 25105, which
this council passed, mandatory min minimum penalties for those violations could exceed $50,000 per day if the city is not issued a single summon utilizing the continuing offense provision of section 1-25B. Section
3-60.9 of the Jersey City Code mandates the Division of Internal Audit to maximize revenue collections. You are violating your own ordinance. I am not asking for a policy debate. I'm asking you to follow the law. I'm asking the council to please direct the Division of Internal Audit to immediately audit all
housing and rent control violations that have expired under the statute of limitations, calculate the total value of lost revenue, and report that number to the public. If you cannot explain why that revenue was abandoned, then you cannot justify asking taxpayers to make
up the difference. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next speaker. 5.13 Timonss. 5.14 Richard 5.15 is a duplicate of 5.8 516 John. Good evening council people, council president. My name is John Kilroy. I
represent Jersey City Public Employees Local 246. I understand there was going to be an issue with the management union getting a contract agreement. I believe it was pulled, but I still want my say on record that I oppose it.
Um, I represent 580 members in the city. I'm here to address recent establishment contracts for this newly formed management union. It's unacceptable that this union was formed and secured a contract, including the 3.75 raise for 2026 in less than 6 months. And all the
other unions out here took several years of painstaking negotiations to get the same from the people that represent the city. When asked why members should not compare the managements represent uh regarding their 3.75 raise is important
to note that many of my same people that are part of this newly formed union were directly involved in some of the most horrendous acts against my members during their time their tenure and the outgoing administration. These actions included creating a hostile work
environment, exhibiting unprofessional conduct, distre distrim um excuse me, discriminating the lack of knowledge about the operations of our department and showing a lack of skill set required to perform these duties. As a result, my
memberships combined with white collar and blue collar workers paid severely for this incompetence and this lack of accountability across the management department. To be fair, there are some good and honest professional individuals within this department, but they are few and far between apart.
At this time, many of my members rely on food banks and secondary employee to make ends meet. It's insulting that the managers who already earn substantial more than my members of local 246. Our union went before these very same
officials to advocate for reasonable increases and propose cost-saving measures that would both help the city the taxpayers and support our members. We were told too two things. First that the city did not have the funds and secondly although we had core saving
measures would work we won't do that yet. We have salary increases and protections for those who have demonstrated incompetency and lack of accountability. Furthermore, the time of contraction is deeply suspicious. One could reasonably
conclude the approval of this contract now will be in the hands of the in incoming mayors and council limiting their ability to assess the city's finances. Whoever hurts inherits the city will be stuck with management team widely regarded as problematic. thus
making us real structure change more difficult to employ. Regardless, I cannot stand in solidarity management's union particularly given the swift action appears focused on securing the positions before the new new administration takes office. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you for your time. >> Our next speaker 5.17 Liam. Next speaker 5.18 James I believe he left. >> No we go by order James. >> No you have to be listed as a speaker.
Sorry. 5.19 Caleb. Okay, thank you. See, I want to get to calibration here. Okay. Uh, my name is Caleb CB Hansen. Hen,
and I am here tonight because I am a former employee at Christ Hospital and I am a current New Jersey Heights resident. and that what I believe was a planned closure of Christ Hospital is not just a
loss of services. It is a public health catastrophe currently in the making in 2021. It's just one year of statistics. Uh this hospital serves 60,000 charity care patients, 200,000 Medicaid patients, and 12,000 mental health
patients. It housed the only adolescent inpatient psychiatry unit in the entire region. And we are now witnessing the systematic dismantling of this now once critical institution. And the evidence suggests that this was not a failure but
potentially a premeditated act. In April of 2025, Hudson Regional Health System stood in federal bankruptcy court and told Judge Kate Stickles they had the resources to operate Christ Hospital. And lo and behold, just six months
later, they closed it on behalf of them saying they don't have enough funds. So, if a corporation lied to a federal court to acquire valuable real estate, such as where Christ Hospital resides on the
hillside overlooking wonderful cityscape views, that is bankruptcy fraud. And the proof is in the timeline. On September 25th, 2025, while still supposedly trying to run a hospital, HR submitted plans for luxury housing. This was never
about saving a hospital. This was a coordinated playbook to acquire a distressed asset like Christ Hospital, which has been going in and out of purchasing cycles for the last odd 30 years. I'm new to the heights. So this it's basically a running joke that
whoever is swooping in to buy Christ hospital is just going to try to get in there and try to ask for funds from the state so that they can then keep it open. So this is a crisis that the current master plan simply did not anticipate. The 2022 updates to the land use
easement did not foresee the destruction of a safety net hospital under these circumstances. The rules have been weaponized against our community's health. And that is why I am calling on the city council to use its authority to initiate an expedited master plan
re-examination of what was passed when they closed Christ Hospital. The legal framework exists for this. The city council has the power to override the master plan with a supermajority resolution resolution. the public health emergency we face. Placing the
well-being of over half a million people here in Jersey City in jeopardy is the very definition of a circumstance that justifies emergency action that I am describing. So with that, I thank you for being here and listening to us tonight. >> Thank you.
>> Our next speaker 5.20 Raphael, you're done. Okay, thank you. Next speaker, 5.21, Kevin >> Davis. >> Davis. >> No. Next speaker, 5.22, Kevin Weller.
Willing to talk again. >> Good evening, council president, city council. Kevin Weller from the forever rencont controlled Portside Towers East in Ward F. Eve Taylor just laid out something important. The state has already given Jersey City the tools to
fund code enforcement. NJSA48-5A authorizes private collection agencies at zero cost to taxpayers. Violator pays the fee. Our landlord is fined a million dollars. you can charge 22% of that to collect
that million dollars. The legislature solved that problem. The question is, why is our administration not taking advantage of what the state allows? I want to build on what Eve said. We've had I've had direct conversations with Director Chyron Richardson and Eric
Bulwith. Both have told me the same thing. They need more resources. They're being asked to do impossible jobs with inadequate staffing. I believe them. These are professionals trying to do the right thing while being set up to fail. The good news is the state has already
provided a path. The tools Eve described and you have a handout about could fund the enforcement arm this city desperately needs, but that requires an administration willing to use them. This administration has deliberately underfunded enforcement for years. The next mayor and the next council must
make this a priority. Now, about the municipal prosecutor's office. Ever since that last municipal hearing, over 60 of us and some of you were on that hearing. I've attempted repeatedly to communicate with that office. No response. This is discouraging from for
anyone trying to work within the system. What I find concerning is this. Our prosecutor, according to the press, attended a rally for Jack Cedarelli in October. Chedarelli ran his entire campaign on eliminating the Mount Laurel doctrine,
the constitutional doctrine established by the New Jersey Supreme Court that ensures every municipality does their fair share on affordable housing. I cannot know if that thinking explains why only one of our two buildings is being prosecuted for identical
violations, but the pattern is hard to ignore and it certainly feels like prosecutorial discretion is not favoring the victims of housing violations. This is another area we need real change. Here's why we matter to that change. Our group has appeared before
you over 1,000 times. We are the institutional memory of what this administration has allowed to continue. When new leadership takes office, they may not know everything that was permitted to slide. We will ensure nothing is missed. Every documented
failure, every uninforced violation, every promise. Today marks day 218 of the continuous documented violations at portside towers after we were instructed to do so here in April of this year. Over 2,000 individual cclick fix
violations, not one of them corrected. Thank you. Our next speaker 5.23 Daniel in 16 separate speeches I've given at city council since December of last year. I'll spare you the dates this
time. On each of those instances, I discussed the fact that we don't have 247 uniform security and port side towers. Despite the fact that chapter 218, article 1 of the Jersey City Code of Ordinances, states 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. Council member Rivera, you're running for re-election as council at large in the runoff elections on December 2nd. And I assume you'd like us to vote for you. Now, 314 days ago on January 15th, you told us, quote, "That
security stuff is very, very important, and we want to make sure that you know that we're hearing you." End quote. And I think that while maybe you heard us, you didn't listen to us because we're still without uniform security at Portide Towers, despite numerous incidents occurring since then, such as
a man with unzipped pants touching himself in front of our building at 155 Washington Street while standing behind a young woman who's also a resident at Port Site Towers. And despite a resident's car window being punched in and shattered in front of 100 Warren Street, you could have done something, but you didn't. And you voted against
the interests of over 70% of tenants tonight by voting against rent control. Anise Ridley, I'll speak to your empty chair. You're running on Councilman Solomon's slate. If you don't support rent control, if you can't vote for it, it makes me doubt that Solomon would as
well if you were a mayor. Now, Council Member Solomon, hopefully you'll watch this recording, so I'll speak to you through the camera. You are obviously running for mayor on December 2nd. And personally, I'd be shocked if you don't win. In my opinion, uh, Council Member Solomon, I think you're a good person with good morals. And if the race came
down to who I'd rather hang out with, I would vote for you. And I do think that you will make a better mayor. You would make a better mayor than Philip, which isn't saying much. But I feel you haven't taken taken enough substantive action in the three years usiders have been here giving speeches. There's more
you could have done, Council Member Solomon. You could have used your powers to investigate the municipal prosecutor's office to see why nearly all of Equity Residential's violations go uninforced. You could have urged your fellow council members to ensure our safety and well-being at Portide Towers.
You could have jumped at the opportunity to join the investigative committee that ended up doing absolutely nothing rather than sitting back like a wet noodle. This city needs not just a good heart, but a leader. If you are elected mayor, and I think you will be, I hope you will
show the level of courage and leadership we've been asking for for three years. And I hope you will rise to that responsibility in ways that truly truly protect and serve the people who live here. And I hope that if you are mayor,
you will have more than just words like ability, but action and courage. Thank you. Our next speaker, 5.24, 24. Carol. >> Okay. Um, good evening, council. My name is Carol Cho, and I've lived at Portide Towers long enough to say uh this
honestly, something is deeply off in how power operates in this city. For three years, three whole years, we've been coming back to this chamber with the same documented violations, the same safety concerns, the same plans for enforcement, and each time we walk away
asking the same question. What is the purpose of local government if not to protect the people who actually live here? Because at its core, isn't that the point? We don't show up here because we enjoy public speaking. We don't come because it's convenient. We come because we believe or we want to believe that
local government is where change is supposed to happen, where action is supposed to be swift, where the impact is supposed to be felt directly by the people you represent. But three years of inaction challenges that belief. Meanwhile, Equity Residential, a multi-billion dollar corporate landlord,
continues operating without meaningful consequences. Renters, on the other hand, are the ones doing the tracking, the documenting, the following up, the emotional labor, and the imbalance of power becomes painfully clear. A corporation has money, lawyers, leverage, and time. A renter has hope
and the will to keep showing up. And here's what I keep returning to. You guys are all human beings first. Not titles, not roles, not votes on a docket. human beings with families, friends, and neighbors. People who know what it feels like when something unfair
affects someone you love. People who understand fear, dignity, and what it means to feel unheard. So, if you understand all that, why is it acceptable that three years of open violations remain untouched? Why has accountability been optional for equity
residential but mandatory for us renters? If this is not the moment for leadership, when is? If three years is not enough time to enforce existing violations, what is? And if renter safety isn't reason enough for action, then who exactly is this system built to
serve? Because honestly, it feels like leaders sitting in the seat of power cannot or will not use that power to protect ordinary residents. Then what are we all doing here? What is the po point of public comment? What is the point of community engagement? What is the point of this chamber? And tonight,
I'm not asking softly. I'm asking clearly and urgently. Enforce every outstanding violation. Collect every overdue fine and apply the law equally, not selectively. And demonstrate that Jersey City's government remembers why local government exists to protect
people, not corporations. Three years is long enough. It's stop. It's time to stop listening and start acting. Thank you. Thank you. >> Our next speaker, 5.25, Drew Okay,
next speaker 5.26 Anna. >> Hi. Um, I feel a little crazy coming here and speaking in front of you guys over and over again. I'm starting to wonder, am I a massochist? Why do I keep coming up here um telling
my story over and over again to very bored faces and nothing changes? Um, I'm not sure if you guys really understand what it's like to be harassed
by your landlord for a year and a half. I don't think you really know because me living in my home, being harassed by the owner of my home, it means I don't know peace. Do you understand that in my own
home? Do you understand how unfair that is? It took me two months to get the construction department to finally issue violations to my landlord who has been doing illegal renovations in four vacant
units in my building. One of those units the tenant was pushed out of because they refused to fix anything. They had the super put a block of wood over mold in her apartment and it was causing her
health issues which cleared up as soon as she moved. And as soon as she moved, they finally started renovating her unit because all they care about is their bottom line. And I have done everything in my power over the past year and a
half to get them to stop all the illegal things that they're doing. I have sent emails to every government official I could think of. The mayor knows, you know, everybody
knows. And yet they continue. Nothing has stopped them. Even the police came and told them, "You can't be doing this." And they pretended they didn't know. Oh, we didn't know. And then they continue. This week they
have continued illegal construction. And I'm still not getting answers from the construction department. Are you issuing violations continuously every week? What about the fact that they ripped the sign off the front of the building? That's an additional violation. Have you done
anything about that? And not to mention that the police were called anonymously to my building about this illegal construction. And what did they end up doing? They ended up threatening to arrest a tenant.
The landlord has been behaving illegally for a year and a half and nothing's done, but a tenant tries to protect themselves and they get threats of arrest by the police. This city is a fraud. Thank you.
Our next speaker, 5.27, Fernando Good evening council. My name is Fernando and tonight marks three years in the portite tenan association first kind before you. This is also my third time speaking here and after all this
time every violation we have raised continues without interruption. For the last 218 days, we submitting daily reports exactly as DC city's legal council instructed us to do. Tonight, I
want to focus on just one of those 14 daily violations. The absence of a required resident superintendent. The law is very clear. Ordinance 254 requires a resident superintendent in any building with more than six units.
Porsai West has 232 units. Porsai East has 295 units. And in 991, the board of adjustment approved a variety that create two dedicated apartments, one in each building specifically for the superintendence.
These were not suggestions. They are biding condition that have been ignored for decades. State and city law require landlords to provide tenants with a superintendent's name, phone number, and apartment number. When there is no superintendent,
there is no disclosure. And without disclosure, the rent increases are not legal. Council Salomon, who is not here tonight, said that the following. If your landlord breaks the law, we will freeze your rent. So, our landlord is
breaking the law. So we are asking you to uphold that promise. Over the last three years, we have testified, emailed, petitioned and filed over 2,000 tickets on CLI facts fix. And when municipal prosecutor had not
finally had the authority to act, he stated publicly that he needs another month to assess whether superintendence exists in either of the two side buildings. He set that timeline and we waited. After all that waiting, he only
dealt with one of the two buildings and significantly reduced the penalties to a small fraction of the units and days affected. So now we ask the council committee to use your subpoena powers so to ensure Mr. Hagnet has all the summons
and information needed to prosecute per the law fully and fairly. Again, today's day 28 28. Still no superintendent, still no compliance. So, we are simply asking for
the laws of this city to be enforced. Thank you. >> Our next speaker, 5.28, Michelle. >> Um, it's Michelle Stenmark. I don't know if you want me to spell my last name, but anyway. Well, some of you know that
I am a flight attendant. I actually just flew from Sydney, Australia today. And anyways, together with my crew, we are responsible for ensuring passenger safety and comfort. Something that matters on every flight, especially one
that lasts over 15 hours. Many people don't realize that every single trip, the crew is different. We arrive as strangers. New crew, new team, new leaders, lead leadership, new personalities. every single time. But yet within minutes, we connect,
communicate, function as one seamless unit. Our passengers depend on it. And to make that work, we rely on trust. Trust in one another's training, attentions, and professionalism.
But even more importantly, we rely on non-negotiables, our policies, and safety procedures. They are constant. They are enforced. And they are taken seriously always. You could wake us up at any time, 2:00 a.m.
on duty or at home, and we know exactly what to do in that situation. No one would ever question or ignore these standards. They protect people's lives. Now, imagine the city council as flight crew and the city the city's laws and
ordinances, your safety procedures. In many ways, you're lucky. You work with the same team for four years. You know one another. You could build long-term trust and stability. That
should make serving at your residence much easier, not harder. But when we look at the procedures, the laws and ordinances meant to protect people, the picture changes. And over in
basically just over 200 days, residents have submitted an extraordinary number of code violation reports, enough to represent more than a billion dollars in potential fines under the all your ordinances. And yet nothing has changed. Our
buildings are still without a 247 uniform security that security code that it requires. When I return late at night from a flight, I'm always scared to walk in the garage or the lobby,
we sleep hoping that nothing goes wrong because there's no trained person on site if it does. If an airline treated safety rules that way, ignoring policies, procedures, overlooking hazards, and asking passengers to simply hope for the best,
that flight would never be clear for takeoff. No one would consider it acceptable, but the tenants in Jersey City are effectively being asked to live under those same conditions every single day when the rules. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much.
>> Our next speaker 5.29 Mark. First, I'd like to thank Council President Waterman for sponsorship and the other council members who vote in favor of ordinance 125. This would have helped curb the infus enthusiasm of real
estate investors in Jersey City. Now, let's talk about something that sounds boring but hits tenants right in the wallet. The ratio utility billing system or as it's generally known, rubs. Rubs is supposed to fairly divide up
utilities like water, sewage, and trash among tenants. But in reality, it's like a magician's trick. Money is taken in, and no one knows the total that's collected, nor what is paid out. At Portside Towers, Equity Residential uses
an algorithm to decide who pays what. For water and sewage, they divide the building's uh total bill by the square footage of our apartments. For trash, they say they just divide the bill by the number of units. Really simple math
until the bills start jumping around like gas prices before a holiday weekend. We ask to see the actual utility bills. Seems fair, right? But Equity Residential refused. They call it a pass through charge, but it's more like a black box. We pay the bill, but we're
not supposed to see the originals. We did manage to obtain the original water bills for a full year thanks to council Gimmo and his staff. We ran our own calculations. Equity Residential build us 60% more than we calculated. I wrote up the logic like a fifth grade
math assignment showing every step in the calculation process and asked where have I gone wrong? That was on August the 30th. I chased it every week. All I've been met with is deflection and now silence. And here's the kicker. If
they're collecting more from tenants than they're actually paying the utility companies, then what are they? A landlord with a sideline as an unlicensed water company? Maybe even an amateur trash hauler as well. If this whole system is legitimate, then
transparency shouldn't be a problem. Show us the bills. Let tenants confirm that what we're paying actually matches the amount that Portite pays the JCMUA. All we're asking for is sunlight on the numbers because rubs is supposed to be fair. It shouldn't feel like a shell
game. Next year, I'm going to be asking the new council for a sponsor who can help craft a new ordinance that will make rubs transparent to the tenants who foot the bill. We're not asking for the system to be overturned. We just want the process visible to us. Thank you.
Our next speaker 530 Suzanne she left. Thank you. Next speaker 5.31 David
you left too. Thanks. 5.32 Sonia spinning third time I think today. You all know how organized we are. It was only a matter of time until someone shared the clip in which Katherine Healey called,
and I quote, "The renter community dangerous because people don't invest in the community. They don't have roots here. We want people to stay." Interesting, right? And frankly, really dangerous from many points of view. In
my eyes, it's dangerous when politicians leads with halftruths and alternative facts. I wonder where the assumption came from that renters are not here to stay. I've been renting from equity over the past 12 years from a landlord that
charges egregious rents and harasses its tenants, and I'm still here. Many behind me have been doing the same for double the time and more. I've looked into the eyes of families who have moved here from other states and countries. These
people were ready to stay and pay their taxes here forever if their multi-billion dollar landlord hadn't given them a rent increase of like 50% from one day to the other. Allowing that to happen is dangerous and you did that.
What is also dangerous is to divide people instead of uniting them. The homeowner versus renters thing is from my point of view how discrimination and separation starts and it's also backwards and narrow-minded. People go through different phases in their lives.
Some might rent today and own tomorrow. Most importantly, owning a home is not the top standard anymore. It's maybe the old American dream, but not the pursuit of everyone. People have choices. My husband and I, for example, rent by
choice. and our choice is to keep it that way and stay in Jersey City. And lastly, Miss Healey, I think your statement is mostly dangerous for you yourself. Was it smart to turn 72% of Jersey City residents against you in
your WD runoff? This is how many people rent here in Jersey City, just in case you didn't know. I leave it to said that maybe one more thing. I think even though Miss Healey is not a member of this council, her statement is quite
representative for the politics of our cities. Divide over unification, blah blah over action, hiding over showing up, opinions over facts and transparency. This is what we have experienced over the past three year by all of you except for Frank, by our
mayor specifically. You all saw where that led Philip to an embarrassing landslide loss. On December two, the people will decide again. They are watching. They are here. They see your inaction. They see also the Frank Gilmore, Elena Little, Tina Nolles, and
Jake Afro. Two of which have already won and all of which have supported the people of Jersey City. >> Thank you. >> Next speaker. 5.33. Danilo. Um this is the 43rd time I'm standing
here to talk for three and the reason is simple. Nothing has changed. Ordinance 260 is still not enforced. Illegal rents continue. Maintenance violations continue. Incomplete rent roles continue.
Doctor inspection reports continue and the number of fines issued remains exactly the same. Two vents and a mattress. We are now years into this problem. At what point do we
stop pretending this is an oversight? Because it looks much more like a choice. A choice to let violations slide. A choice to accept paperwork that is knowingly incomplete. a choice to watch thousands of renders struggle with
the only with the city turns away from its own laws. And this brings me to something that cannot be ignored. Three of the members of this council are currently in run of elections on December 2nd. Let's be honest, if nothing meaningful has been done for
renders in the last four years, why should voters expect anything different in the next year, next four years even? Why should renters vote for you? What have you done for renters in the last four years? Where is the enforcement you
promised? Where are the fines you approved but never implemented? Where is the accountability you all swore to deliver? All we are hearing is promises. But promises don't fix elevators. Promises don't reuse illegal rent hikes. Promises
don't collect millions of dollars of unpaid fines. Promises don't protect families from retaliation. Enforcement does. And enforcement has not happened. Residents are paying illegal rents, living in unresolved
repairs, navigating abusive billing and harassment. And at the same time, we are suffering under crumbling infrastructure that should have been fixed by the fines the city never collected. So again, why should renders vote for
you in December 2nd? What case can you make based on action rather than speeches that you have defended the people who make the majority of the city? This isn't negativity. It's accountability.
You can put out campaign flyers, but renderers see the evidence every single day in their buildings. We see the broken elevators, the ignored inspections, the incomplete paperwork, the illegal rent increases, and the complete absence of consequences.
The laws exist, the violations are documented, the fines are established. The only thing missing painfully, visibly, repeatedly is the political will to enforce them. The people of the city are watching and voting. Thank you.
Our next speaker 5.34 Brendan 5.35 Vienna >> not here. Oh, okay. I only asking. >> Sorry.
>> I was only asking. >> Okay. It wasn't me that yelled. It was everyone else. But we'll yell together. Um mine is a disgruntled Thanksgiving Day um themed speech. Um good evening, council. Since we're in the season of Thanksgiving, I figured I'd start with
some gratitude. I'd love to say I'm here to give thanks for progress, for urgency, for decisive action after 3 years of tenants begging for help. But thankful for the idea of action, the promise of enforcement, the hope that maybe possibly someday soon, someone
somewhere will finally tell a billion-dollar landlord, "Hey, the law applies to you, too." Because right now, the things I'm most thankful for are coffee, adrenaline, and the sheer stubbornness that keeps tenants like us showing up meeting after meeting. We had
the chance, you had the chance to make Jersey City a national model for tenant protection. We could have been the city that said, "Not here, not in our backyard, not on our watch." Instead, in the last few months of the termination of this council, we finally get an
ordinance and an investigatory committee. And yes, I'm thankful for that in the way you're thankful when someone finally fixes a light bulb after 3 years. It's good. But also, why did it take so long? Why did it require the end of some council terms to suddenly discover urgency? It's been 3 months
since the investigatory committee was formed. Is there anything you can share? Any findings, any enforcement? Or are we being served the smell of progress now and told the actual pie won't be ready for another 3 years? Because while we wait for that pie, hopefully it's
pumpkin, port side does not. They continue evading laws. They continue ignoring their 247 security requirement. They continue operating with no on-site super. They continue collecting rent, amenity fees, parking fees, lady fees, insurance fines, and we pay every single
one no excuses. In one of my speeches, I talked about my mom, a three-unit landlord who fixes violations within a week because daily penalties would crush her. Meanwhile, a billion-doll landlord with months and months of violations has
paid under $2,000 in fines. Why is the law a hammer for small landlords, but a feather for the wealthy? Level the playing field. As some of you move into new offices, I hope you remember why you got into politics in the first place. to protect the people who don't have the
power, lawyers, money, and lobbyists that entities like Courtside have. To protect the people who come here exhausted, scared, angry, and out of options, the ones who elected you. We'll keep fighting. We'll be here. And I hope that one day when we gather in this chamber, we can finally give thanks for
something real. Not promises, not committees, but enforcement, actual, tangible, unapologetic enforcement of the laws meant to protect us. Prove that this council can finish what it started. Prove that the people who elected you still matter more than the corporations
who hope we don't. Thank you and happy Thanksgiving. >> Our next speaker, 5.36, Susan. >> Good evening, council members. I think it's still evening. Um, my name is Susan Roa and I'm a resident of Portide Towers. I've come here several times
over the last year to speak about the same issues that remain unresolved. Issues that directly affect the safety and well-being of every person who lives in our building. One of the most troubling problems continues to be the lack of 24-hour uniform security, which
is required by New Jersey law for buildings of our size. I want to share what that means on a daily basis. Many nights, our lobby is completely unattended. Our concier sta staff do the best that they can, but it is
unreasonable and unfair to expect them to stay glued to their seats for an entire shift without ever stepping away. They are humans. They need breaks. They need to assist residents and manage the dozens of packages delivered throughout the day. They need to walk away from the
desks for a moment like anyone else. But when they do, the lobby is left wide open. No security, no trained personnel, no one moni mon monitoring who is entering or leaving the building. And with winter approaching, when the sun sets early and many of us are coming
home in the dark, this becomes even more concerning. Walking through a quiet residential streets and stepping into an empty lobby is not what safety looks like. It's not what we paid for in our luxury building. And it's most definitely not what the law intended.
and it's not the way it's not anything that we should accept. We also still live without a live-in superintendent, another legal requirement that Equity Residential continues to ignore. For emergencies, we're handed an after hours number that may or may not produce a
response. It's not a system, it's a gamble. I want to be clear about something. While these experiences have been frustrating, the people in my building have been inspiring. My neighbors have banded together, supported one another, and shown up here
week after week after week. Not because it's pleasant or convenient, but because we believe in doing the right thing. We believe in following the process. We want to believe the city council does too. But you make that virtually
impossible. The truth is, we see very little changing. This will be my fifth or sixth time speaking before you and I and I do not look forward to the idea of racking up 30 or 40 appearances the way some of my fellow neighbors already have. Their commitment is admirable, but
it shouldn't be necessary. All we're asking for is the laws that are already on the books to be enforced. The residents of Portside have held up our end of the civic bargain by showing up, speaking out, and engaging respectfully. I wish the same could be said about the
level of responsiveness we have uh received in return. We're not asking for special treatment. We're asking for lawful treatment. We're asking to feel safe in our own homes. Thank you.
>> Our next speaker 5.37 Shannon. Next speaker 5.38 Jessica. Good evening again, council. I just wanted to start out by thanking you for turning down the abatement. It matters a lot. I appreciate it. Um, and
I've been thinking about um something that someone just said about um uh Vana said about fairness and the feather versus the the heavy weight on the smaller landlord. And I'm wondering, you know, these fines that can be issued if actually we want to consider a percent
of the rent that's being u violated. You know, a 10% fine per day per tenant would rack up a lot for an equity or similar rate. Anyway, I've been thinking about another problem as well that our landlord creates for themselves. It's
actually quite elegant in its simplicity and there are only two possible realities and both lead to the same place. So, let's talk about reality one. there is a resident superintendent. I don't live in that reality, but if so, I genuinely like to know where they
live. The 1991 zoning variance did require that dedicated superintendent apartments exist in each building. That wasn't advisory language. It was a binding condition of construction approval, and the board noted that the code quote calls for an on-site superintendence for buildings such as
this end quote. So if a superintendent exists and they've been present while while in our while our buildings accumulated hundreds of documented violations such as missing security, safety hazards, code failures reported for months without correction, etc. That
person is quote liable concurrently and jointly with the owner end quote for routine maintenance for matters entrusted to them and for alerting management to hazards. That's not interpretation. That's the regulation. The superintendent shares personal
liability for every documented failure. So what about reality 2? There is no resident superintendent. Then our landlord has been violating Jersey City Municipal Code 254-45B/28 for years, filing registrations with
names but no unit numbers, a pattern that developed gradually, almost carefully over time. And here's what makes that particularly disappointing. The unit listed on the 2011 DCA certificate as the superintendent's apartment is now occupied by a regular
tenant paying market rent. I've met him. The variance mandated unit was converted. That's not a clerical oversight. That's a zoning violation generating rental income. Jersey City ordinance says a landlord must be in and I'll quote full compliance with the
landlord identity disclosure provision in order to qualify for any rental increase. The phrase is in order to qualify, not should try to nor is one factor among many. It's a gate. You don't pass through without full compliance. Not substantial compliance.
Full. No compliant disclosure means no qualifying rent increases. End of story. Next speaker. 5.39. Gracie. Next speaker. 5.40. Jeffrey. No. 5.41. Otis. I believe he left too.
5.42. Aaron. 5.43. Tara. Me again. Evening again, council. Uh, everyone here has heard arguments about rent control, exemptions,
30-year periods, federal lawsuits. It's complicated and uh, Equity Residential likes it that way. But tonight, I want to talk about something simple, something that has nothing to do with the exemption debate, something Equity Residential hopes you never
notice. the base rent roles. Jersey City Ordinance 260-2F1G requires every landlord to include in their registration a list of the base monthly rents for each housing space as of January 1, 1983 or first occupancy.
These are the starting numbers. Every legal rent under chapter 260 must be calculated from this foundation. Equity Residential has never provided this data. Not for portside towers, not
for my former building, 70 Green, not to the Bureau of Rent leveling, not to tenants, not posted in either building, never in 27 years across 527 units and 428 units,
respectively. Here's what makes this infuriating. These records exist. Standard commercial real estate practice requires certified rent rules for every property transfer. When Equity Residential acquired Portside Towers in 1998, banking due
diligence mandated documented rent schedules. That closing binder exists. Those records exist. The landlord isn't claiming the data that's lost. They're simply refusing to provide it. Without the base rent, you cannot verify the legal rent. The
ordinance establishes a mathematical progression. Base rent plus permissible increases equals current legal rent. Remove the base and the equation cannot be solved. When tenants can't verify the math, the landlord has complete control
over what they charge. Section 260-3J is clear. Full compliance with disclosure requirements is a prerequisite for any rental increase. full, not partial, not mostly, full. The landlord identity law isn't
satisfied when you hide the superintendent's location. It isn't satisfied when your emergency contact has no authority to act. And the registration isn't complete when you withhold the base rent data the law provides. This isn't about whether a port side is rent controlled. This isn't
about exemptions or federal court. This is about basic transparency laws Equity Residential has violated in plain sight for decades. The data exists. The closing binder exists. The landlord refuses to provide it. Zero qualifying
increases for 27 years. Enforce the law you already have. It's all you need. Our next speaker, 5.44, Matt 5.45. Moren Moren Nally, she's gone. >> 5.46. Laura
5.47 47 Lucas. Good evening, city council members. My name is Luke. As a university student, I'm here tonight because my mother is a tenant at Portside Towers. I was overjoyed when she told me that she was meeting neighbors, making friends, and engrossed in a vibrant community just as
she had hoped. You can imagine my shock and dismay after learning how Portside was treating my mother and other tenants by routinely neglecting their legally compulsory obligations to keep residents safe and their apartments properly maintained. I couldn't believe it when
my mother told me that even though New Jersey law requires 24-hour uniform security in buildings with more than 100 units, Equity Residential has simply refused to provide guards. And despite a recent incident in front of the building where a man exposed himself to a female
resident, there were still no meaningful efforts made to protect the people that live there. As if Equity Residential could not possibly be delinquent further, my mother then tells me that there's no lead live-in superintendent, even though one is legally compulsory.
When she had an emergency plumbing issue on a weekend, she was instructed to call an off after hours number. No one came. Nobody even called her back. She, like hundreds of other residents, is left to fend for herself in emergency situations where the law is crystal clear. There
must be someone on site to help. Yet, this council has neglected to assist its constituents. Portside tenants have been coming to this council for 3 years asking for you to do something to help, and you've done nothing. It's not only
disheartening to see residents show up, speak out, and be ignored, but it also calls into question the efficacy and the integrity of this council. It leaves one to earnestly wonder if Equity Residential has donated to any local election campaigns.
I was previously going to come here to ask you to hold Equity Residential accountable, but I can see that after 3 years of asking you to act that that may serve too herculean a task for this year council. So instead of asking you to act, I'll ask you to simply think. Think
about the young woman accosted by a sick pervert that a security guard most definitely would have been able to keep at bay. Think about elderly residents in peril after an elevator failure which have regrettably become quite frequent. There was one in fact today. If thinking
about these people with real problems perturbs your conscience, I say good because it should. Because this is precisely the fruit of your years of inaction, your conscious failure to honor the dignity and the rights of your constituents, vulnerable as they have
become due to your negligence. I would thank you for your time and attention, but after 3 years, I think you've been thanked far too much. >> Next speaker, 5.48. Gabby not here 5.49 and 550 Charlene
Kevin you know. Yeah. Thank you. Oh, Charlene Burke again. Good evening, council. Uh firstly, I'd like to uh speak on the open space uh trust fund
resolution and thank thank the city and all those people who um were on the committee cuz the Westside Community Alliance was one of the awardees for our historic signage for our historic
district. So, we will be the first historic district in the city to be actually identified and I really appreciate that. Um, but I did want to share that photo with you because, you know, part of that
ordinance that was uh tabled till December has as money's um repair of that gazebo and all of that's in Hamilton Park and we have been
told many many meetings with the city with Barka Patel um and staff that there's no money available. And then when we saw that ordinance, you know, there's money sitting there, bonded money for the
repair of that gazebo. And that gazebo, that's photographs, recent photographs. It could have been repaired already. Why do we put up with, you know, um
disrepair in our parks? Hasn't co taught us anything about the value of parks and how important they are to the community they're within. Particularly Hamilton Park is so wellused with the various recreation that takes
place there. instead they have to compete for limited dollars in the open space trust fund and they submitted an application just like Vanvor Park and for bathrooms this um very modern type
of bathroom it's very expensive self-cleaning I forget the name of it but it actually Vanvos Park was awarded a bathroom but Hamilton park was out of the running because there's not enough
trust fund monies to go around. But yet $17 million of that ordinance of the bonded monies is really for park projects. So when they're re realigning the money,
they were realigning only $5 million for park projects. Now, that included five just five million was for the reservoir in those surplus funds. And that reservoir needs every one of those
dollars. Every one of them. >> Thank you. >> 3 minutes goes so quickly. >> Thank you. >> Next speaker. 5.51. Roberta. Believe she left.
5.52. Brian H. 5.53 Mona 5.54 Lisa 5.55 Damian got to say the names 5.56 Lumina 5.57 Ronald left and 5.58 Natalie Hey,
Natalie Leone who deleted her speech and had to start over. Sucks. Okay, here we go. Um, so my uh I'm here about the Faget Broadway redevelopment plan, the Ergolanos issue and everything. You guys heard about it again on Monday at the
caucus. Um, my neighbors and I and Marian are asking you to deny the request of Lantry Development to untab this ordinance that deals with this development plan. Um, the site in question being the Puchini's Erkolano site. Um, they want this amendment so that they can build a giant luxury tower
there. It's my understanding that Gan Yeah, I already said Jean got to speak to you all at the caucus um to present to you a final case, which is interesting because if it had made it to the agenda tonight, our community would not have been permitted to speak at all because public comment is technically closed um at the meeting when you guys
all were unanimously uncomfortable with this and decided to table it. But things change um in between meetings and so he got to present his latest case and we should too. That's not fair. I only found out about this yesterday. So, I'll address each of Gan's points, but I'm not sure I can do it with the time I
have left. Um, what I will be doing is recording the rest of my speech and sending it to you all via email and a voice note. Um, Gene has been known to say that most of the community's opposition has nothing to do with the redevelopment plan itself and should therefore be ignored. I worked in law for seven years and I know how to read
and reinterpret things like a development plan and how it supports the master plan. And I'll admit that on technical grounds, uh, it is eligible for an amendment and that's why it made it past planning to you. Um, they were limited, um, to to their vote to look at
that type of criteria alone, but you are not limited. You are able to make decisions on criteria outside of that. Um, so we're asking you to deny this, not based on technical criteria, um, but based on the fact that Lantry Developments does not deserve to get an
amendment and carry out this plan after the way they have behaved in our community, particularly for baiting and switching us ruthlessly. I've heard Jean say that it's unusual that the issue of a restaurant is even a consideration for an amendment to the redevelopment plan. Perhaps that's true. But you must not
forget that this whole dispute originated from the fact that years ago, our community was given a verbal promise by these developers about what the fate of the lot in question would be. And our community made the fate of that law an absolute condition of us approving the variances the developer needed for the
first part of their project, which is almost done. Now, this promise was verbal, but in a way it's reflected in writing in the current Fyet Avenue redevelopment plan because that plan spells out exactly what's supposed to happen to that law in detail. No demolition of structures, no vertical
construction at top of them. And we were all hoping for a grocery store at the new at the Buchini site. But several years later, the developers betrayed us by deciding that our promise didn't stand and that that now they would pursue something large and luxurious there. Um, and it would require the
demolition of the building that housed Bologonos. You will all be hearing from me. Please listen to my voice. >> It'll be easy to listen to. >> That will conclude our public speakers. We are now moving on to
our regular part of our agenda. Can you give up? Okay. All right. Sorry, I'm jumping the gun. You could go. Okay. Any questions or comments on petitions
and communications 6.1 through 6.36? Any questions or comments on officer communications 7.1 through 7.2? Any questions or comments on reported directors 8.1 through 8.2 hearing? None. We're just going to invert the order of
business. There are a couple of resolutions that have to be approved before we approve the claims. So with that being said, going to be taking a vote on items 10.1 through 10.13. >> Council person Ridley >> I.
>> Council person Hulings >> I. >> Council person Bajiano voted yes and voted no on 10.11. Council person I. Council Person Gilmore, >> Peter, if you can answer. Um,
with regards to 10.11, um, someone brought up an interesting question and I just don't know the answer to it as it relates to the recharge station. Um, who pays uh who pays for the electricity
for the actual charging? I'd have to confirm with the infrastructure, but I believe the property owner would have to pay for it because it goes directly through their facility. >> We going to we going to 11, right, John? 10.13.
Okay. All right. Council >> person deise. >> I council >> person rea >> I >> council president waterman >> items 10.1 through 10.10 10 are
approved. 80 council person Solomon absent. Item 10.11 is approved 71 with council person Bajiano voting no and council person Solomon absent and
10.12 through 10.13 is approved 80 with council person Solomon absent. On to our next set of resolutions items 10.4 4 14 through 10.23. Just keep in mind 10.17 was changed from
obtaining one mobile out mobile outreach unit to two mobile outreach unit as discussed at the caucus. With that being said, Council Person Ridley, >> which number are we going up to, Sean? >> That one was uh 10.17. We're going from
10.14 through 10.23. I >> council person Yulings. >> I council person Bajiano voted I earlier. Council person >> I >> council person Gilmore >> I.
>> Council person Deise >> I. >> Council person Rivera. >> I. >> And council president Waterman. Items 10.14 through 10.23 are approved. 80 with council person Solomon absent.
Items 10.24 24 through 10.32. Council person Ridley >> I. >> Council person Healings. >> I. >> Council person Bajaniano voted yes earlier. Council person Sole >> I. >> Council person Gilmore. >> I. >> Council person Deise.
>> I. >> Council person Rivera. >> I. >> And council president Waterman. Items 10.24 through 10.32 are approved 80 with council person Solomon absent. for the balance of our resolutions items 10.33
through 10.42 42. Council person Ridley >> I. >> Council person Huings >> I. >> Council person Bajiano voted yes with the exception of 10.37. He voted no. Council person Sole >> I. >> Council person Gilmore.
>> I. >> Council person Deise. Council person reur. >> I. >> And council president Waterman. Items 10.33 through 10.36 are approved. 80 with
council person Solomon absent. Item 10.37 is approved. 71 with council person Bajiano voting no and council person Solomon absent. Items 10.38 through 10.42 are approved. 80 with
council person Solomon absent. Our last our last business that we have to conduct are our claims and addendums number one 2 3 and four. Council members, I'm going to be taking a vote on addend claims and addendums number
one, two, three, and four. Council person Ridley, >> I. >> Council person Hulings, >> I. >> Council person Bajiano voted yes earlier. Council person Sole, >> I. >> Council person Gilmore, >> I. >> Council person Deise,
>> Council Person Ribera, >> I. >> And Council President Waterman. >> Hi. >> Claims and addendums number one, two, and three, and four are approved. 80 with council person Solomon absent. >> John, before we conclude, I just want to
say as it relates to our port side, we have had uh a series of meetings to address many of the concerns that you guys brought forth earlier. Um I know it is extremely frustrating as we've been
on this journey for quite some time. Um, but our intentions are to send out the RF RFIs. Um, well, probably had probably have to be Monday. Um, but we did go through a
series of different questions for different um different department uh or division directors. Um, and we all working with legal. So, I mean, I get it. It's extremely frustrating. I do sympathize
with the with the delay in a way. Uh but we have been meeting on several occasions. Um and we are looking to address a lot of the concerns that the residents had today. Also regarding the elevator situation,
the city conducted a review to determine if port side met the qualifications for an exemption to the security guard ordinance and the city determined that they did not. And they began inspecting them for violations.
They have now appealed our ruling and uh the judge has put a restraining order in place preventing us from enforcing the violation. But I I think you know that Kevin, right? >> I I don't know if uh the information's filtering out to everyone else.
>> Kevin knows it. >> You know that. Do they know that? Okay. So, they do know that. All right. Thank you. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> I have a motion to adjourn at 11:35
p.m. by council person, seconded by council persona. on the motion to adjourn at 11:35 p.m. All council members present by acclamation, please say I. >> I. >> We are out of here at 11:35 p.m. Thank you so much everyone present and
everyone watching at home. Remember, teamwork makes the dream work. Have a great and happy and healthy Thanksgiving and a happy holiday. Stay safe, everyone.