The inance for the chapter 2 public as a senator public meeting was provided by notice at municipal council meetings in the five on the bulletin board of the first
floor of city hall. In addition, the annual notice was also filed in the office of the city clerk on Friday, November 15th, 2024. The agenda of this meeting was similarly disseminated to the municipal council, mayor, business administrator, corporation council, and
local newspapers on Friday, October 3rd, 2025 at 5:12 p.m. The agenda was concurrently posted on the city's web page web page. say yes. >> Consequently, I can certify as to our complete compliance with the Sunshine Law.
>> Uh, council members, before we address the first reading ordinances, I understand that Councilwoman Ridley would like to make a motion to add agenda item 10.26, resolution 25-651 entitled, a resolution to save our
hospital and save our communities. Is that correct, Councilwoman? >> Correct. Motion. Do you want me? >> Very well. Motion made by Ridley. Is there a second? Second. >> I think I heard Waterman for that first. So, I'll give that credit to Council President. Uh, council members, please
remember that adding a late item requires a six vote majority. The motion to add agenda item 10.26. How do you vote? Council person Ridley. >> I. >> Council person Julings. I. >> Council person Bojano. I.
>> Councilman Cle. Not here. Councilman Solomon. >> Council person Gilmore. Hi. Council person Deise >> I. >> Council person Rivera. >> Hi. >> And council president Waterman. We have seven votes. That makes it
official. Uh the motion to add agenda item 10.26 has been added 7. Council person Ridley is your is it your intention to make a motion to defer to agenda item 10.26 and consider it now at the beginning of the meeting? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Very well. So motion to defer to agenda item 10.26 is made by Ridley. Is there a second? >> I believe that was Rivera. I heard on the motion to defer to agenda item 10.6. How do you vote? Council person Ridley.
>> Uh I vote in f. Do you need me to read it into the record or no? >> Well, we'll we're just going to add it. Motion to defer. Okay. Yeah. >> I council person. >> I. >> Council person Biano. >> I And can uh just say something? Well, we've just >> All right.
>> All right. We'll you'll get a moment. Council person, >> Council Person Solomon, >> I. >> Council person Gilmore, >> I. >> Council person de Jes. >> I. >> Council person Rivera. >> I. >> And Council Person Waterman. Motion
approved. Uh, Council Person Ridley, would you like to read the motion? Uh, the resolution to the agenda? >> Okay. This is a resol resolution uh for University Heights Hospital says uh whereas
University Heights Hospital formerly Christ Hospital in Hudson County uh oh sorry if University if Heights University Hospital formerly Price Hospital in Hudson County closes thousands of residents healthcare will
be in jeopardy in 2023. Price Hoboken and Bayon Hospitals served over 12,000 inpatient procedures and 70,000 emergency room visits. Patients will have to travel further and wait longer for care or go without. It has been proven that when a hospital closes,
other area hospitals and patients suffer as well with patient volume going up and inadequate care increases resulting in higher patient death rates. Hudson Regional Health should be transparent about seeking state approvals and provide a written approval before a
closure plan can be implemented. Hudson Regional Health needs to be transparent to the unions and residents with detailed closure plan which includes proper notification to patients, staff, and relevant agencies and provide documentation such as financial and census reports. Hudson Regional Health
must seek all resources for financial assistance such as Medicare, DSH payments, emergency Medicaid, dedicated state grants, graduate medical education dollars before uh Hudson Regional Health submits a certificate of need
application for termination and discontinuence of services. If Heights University Hospital closes, over a thousand healthc care jobs will be lost. And it was reported in 2022 almost $200 million in salaries and wages were paid to workers. It is clear that this is a
critical investment in Hudson County that helps keep our small businesses and local economy healthy. District 1199J ABSME is asking the county and the state to provide a financial safety net and save our hospitals so our Hudson County
residents get what they deserve in healthcare. Now therefore, be it resolved, the city of Jersey City Municipal Council supports District 1199J and is demand that lawmakers consider radical legislation up to and including the drafting of state legislation that authorizes a healthcare
tax which would be an annual payment to the municipalities general fund but designated for healthcare facilities that can offset the charity care only. Be it further resolved that the city of Jersey City municipal council calls on the state to immediately release funds
that would assist the hospitals in continuing to operate in Hudson County as their closures would be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of its residents. That is it. Let the record reflect that Councilman
Solomon appeared at 6:09 p.m. and and in a tuxedo. >> It is my my high honor and pleasure to introduce newly married Councilman Cetle who is here at 6:13 p.m.
>> Thank you everyone. Thank you so much. Love you all. >> Councilman Bojan, I think you had uh something you wanted to say about this resolution. >> You didn't take her vote, did you? >> No, we didn't. >> We didn't vote yet. You want me to? Oh, okay. >> I thought you wanted to speak.
>> All right. No, look, I was today I was at the Christ hospital with the city. I with the county, the state, and the federal representatives. Everybody was asking, none of our city officials were there, but there was over 150 people and
we have to keep that hospital opened. It saved many lives during 911 and it saved many lives thereafter. And the hospital cannot close. This city cannot survive with just one hospital. Years ago, we used to have four hospitals. Today,
we're down to the just the two. And Christ Hospital is extremely important for the Heights, Ward C, Ward D, and for everybody in Jersey City. So, I vote yes. not on you. >> We haven't called the vote yet, but um if the council is prepared, I will
entertain a vote on that now unless there's any further comment. Uh for approval of resolution 25-651, how do you vote? Council person Ridley. >> Uh I just want to say that um you know, healthcare is very important. We all
know that. And growing up here in Jersey City, there were many hospitals when I was younger. We had Greenville, St. Francis, Christ Hospital, Jury City Medical Center. Our city is expanding and our hospitals are depleting. Um that doesn't seem to be moving in the right direction. So um I think it is
imperative that we support uh our local hospitals and instead of dwindling we actually increase healthcare in this city. So, uh, I stand with 1199J in their fight to make sure that the whole process is transparent, uh, for unions,
for the employees, uh, and also for residents of Jersey City. So, with that, I vote I I know there are some, uh, union members who are on the speakers list and you can still speak. We're just taking that vote. >> Okay. >> Uh, Council Person Huings, >> yes. Council person Bojan
>> already voted yes. And the reporter sitting here at this table was there today and I hope he writes a good story about what went on today. All right. And get a different hat, will you? For Pete's sake. >> Very well, sir. Council person.
>> Hi, >> Council Person Solomon. Uh let me just say briefly um you know I think it's really important that uh whatever does come forward we ensure that there's real um accountability and restrictions put in place. So if the
state aid does come we to make sure that the long-term health of the hospital is secured uh and that the hospital that takes precedence before any type of uh real estate development uh could occur. Um but I understand that that's in the resolution what's being called for. So I vote for I I vote I.
>> Okay. Thank you sir. Council person Gilmore >> I. >> Council person de Jes. >> Want to thank the council woman for putting this together. I believe I was born in Christ hospital. I know I spent an awful lot of time in that hospital growing up. My sister and I were a bit accidentrone. Um and it's very important
for the community. It was a local place to go. My mother didn't drive. It was easy enough to get there but walking or on on the bus. Uh so it's needed throughout our community. And also the healthcare is a booming occupation all over New Jersey and we have to attract those jobs here because a lot of those healthcare workers are still living in
Jersey City and still living in Hudson County. We want them to stay here. I vote I. >> Council person Rivera. >> Uh I vote I. I just want to just echo a lot of what my council colleague said. you know, I mean, losing a hospital or even the thought of losing a hospital
causes a lot of stress in the only hospital that's open in Jersey City, you know, and um it's not fair to the healthc care workers that are here that work in the hospital, the residents that are about to graduate from their residency program in that hospital. I
mean, I I give a big shout out to 1199J for making this happen and Councilwoman Ridley, thank you for this 100% vote eye. and council president Waterman >> I. >> Resolution 25-651 is approved 90.
Moving on to consideration of the first reading ordinances whose titles I will now read into the record. >> Oh, John, I think wait three 3.4. Don't we have to are we voting as a late item? Because I know I wasn't know. What do we
What are we doing? And um if is anyone here from um Randy Wine, is anyone here? Come >> Greg, you can come up.
>> Someone come up. >> Yeah. Um before we entertain this motion, I just have a few questions. Um as it relates to the different entities, the SID and the other um EDC, did you
guys did you guys meet with the SID? Early on in the process, we met with uh several community groups um to talk about Jackson Square. What what is early on? >> The ministerial alliance and uh with the
Jackson Hill uh main street sid >> when what is what is early on? >> Uh when we first built the first annex, the first building. >> What year? If you could give us a >> Oh, 2010. >> 2010. >> 2015. Sorry. >> I met with Michelle on every project
council. >> Oh, so you haven't you guys know it's a whole new SID, new leadership and everything, right? So, you didn't you haven't had the opportunity to meet with them, correct? All right. And what's the name of Mera? Uh, the division she did you did you have a chance to meet with
the EDC? >> Yes. >> Yeah, we did in July. >> Okay. Um, and al so for for Peter um do do we have a better idea of what exactly will be going in these buildings? Um,
because $5.2 $2 million in rent over 30 years is a lot of money. Um, so we just want to make sure that we're making a responsible decision from a financial standpoint. If we can understand the offices that's displaced now, how much
we're paying for rent versus how much we would be paying if they were going to that building. >> Yeah. So the original discussions were around having either autonomous agencies there EDC like I mentioned MUA JC and kind of doing a hub for that or doing a
mixture of autonomous and overflow from other offices. Um the latest discussion was having the EDC there like I mentioned possibly having overflow from HHS and then some of the floors will be dedicated to public spaces such as like a senior you know benefits um wellness
center and youth programming. So, is it fair to say that we don't definitively know what's going to go there? >> Yeah, we we we do have a definitive list. Talking to the administration. >> Well, I'm I'm I'm the assistant. >> With respect, Greg, really quick. >> Sure.
>> The the latest plan was to have the EDC is there, the MUA for a few floors, a wellness center, youth programming, and senior services. However, like any project, it's a lease. We obviously take feedback from the council and if that would change, if there's other program that want to go there, we're not setting
it. We're not leasing it floor by floor, we're leasing the whole building. So if something else would go there or the council wants something there, we're obviously open to those discussions. >> But the issue I'm having here, right, is if your argument is that we're building this to
save money on spaces that we're renting all around the city. That's that's the argument, right? >> That's not the argument. The argument is that this is the final phase of the Jackson Square project and it is mostly about a statue for the Jackson brothers.
It's about building arches and and tower uh columns um to make the space the sacred space it deserves. And I'm sorry I had to speak in the mic and you're in the middle of that crossw. So, I apologize con uh councilman, but and
it's also about two brand new parks. We have a uh a park that's on Carney that's going to bring green space and uh children's uh playground. There's a park behind uh the restaurants that are going to be going in there and that's for
families. The whole idea is now to take the civic center and finally finish it. And from the very beginning, it was supposed to be a very special space. So it although the EDC building has been become the conversation, that is not the vision here. The vision is to make it
the special space that it deserves. And so when you drive into that area, you're going to say, I am in somewhere different. So we've got, you know, you you saw the presentation, we've got uh columns as you're coming up the drive. We've got columns coming into um from
the different side streets. We're going to put medallions up with with faces of famous Jersey City people. So, we have Flip Wilson Drive. We're going to put Flip Wilson's medallion in one of the arches. Say why he was, you know, why he's important. Then, we have the
statues of uh the Jackson brothers right in front of the annex. Um, larger than life. It's going to have a a uh you know, a plaque that'll say who they are, why it's important. That's the focus of this. Um, not not the building, although
you should ask questions about what you just said, but that's not the main argument. The main argument is let's finish this beautiful place. >> I'm glad you gave me a background on that. Um, however, I'm old enough to
know the original vision was to revitalize that area for black and brown business and that have yet to come to fruition. So, I'm glad you gave me a brief background, but for the sake of us voting on this project as it relates to the financial capacity that the city
will be undertaking, what specific buildings, I mean, what specific offices are we going to stop paying rent on and start paying rent on in this building? I'm just trying to see from a financial standpoint, is it a good
>> is it is is it a good business to is it a good tradeoff for the community and I take it is we don't know definitively what is going there. It's one thing you say, "Hey, Councilman, the MUA is renting a building on McGomery Street
and the rent is $5,000. Uh, youth and recreation is renting a building on a Lindon Street and every month that building is $15,000 and so forth and so on. Now, as a council, we can make an educated decision to say, "Hey, does it
make sense to stop paying rent all around the city, put it in one building?" >> Ba, do you have an answer? That's all because we got there's a lot we got to cover. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Some of them have to leave. So, >> let's roll it up here. >> As I stated at caucus, we're committed
to finding out exactly how much space we would be putting in there. There are offices that are overflowing right now. HSS for instance had we had to convert conference space into office space. So there is a need for general office space. What I'm offering to you though and why I'm saying it's not definitive
is I don't want to say the entire building is already booked up. If the council has ideas about senior space, other spaces, we're open to exploring that and adding that to the grand vision of the civic center that the space would create. >> Okay. All right. One sentence is that it's lease to own.
So rent stops. >> Okay. Anywhere else you rent goes on forever. >> All right. Thank you. >> I just I just think in light of >> Okay. to >> Oh, I don't know. >> It's Eric Moore. E R I C Moore. M O O R
E. We're >> Yeah. I just >> How concern is this, Peter? Cuz I'm talking to the council up here. Our concern is how the money That's That's the concern. That's the concern, Greg. They want to know about the money. So, could we just um have a conversation
before we vote on this? Cuz they want to know about the money. Am I correct? That's what I'm getting. >> I I think we should. >> That's what they want to do. So, let's just so vote for all the rest. And just >> I just want to clarify for the record that these are first reading ordinances.
It is not considered a late item because this was discussed at caucus and was advertised 48 hours in advance. So this is a motion to introduce these ordinances, >> not to adopt them. >> Okay. Okay. >> Well, I'm making a motion to withdraw it.
>> Withdraw. Yes. We have enough buildings in this city here and half of them are empty. They're not full. Central Avenue up north around the city. Even this building here, they pulled people out of here and they sent them down to uh the other end of the
city. We have to stop it. We have a parking lot across the street which should be uh used where a building should have been built with a parking lot right next to city hall. >> So again, this is a this is for introduction,
>> correct? >> So you can vote to not introduce it. So, I'm going to read the items into the record and I'm going to call a vote and then you can vote however you wish to introduce or not introduce as you see fit. Okay. So, agenda item 3.1,
ordinance 25-106, an ordinance amending and supplementing chapter 260, rent control to introduce rental increase limitations. Agenda item 3.2, two, ordinance 25-107 and ordinance of the municipal council
of the city of Jersey City, amending chapter 187, inclusionary zoning. Agenda item 3.3, Ordinance 25-108 and Ordinance supplementing chapter 332, vehicles and traffic, article 2, traffic
regulations, amending section 332-9, stop intersections, to designate various intersections into multi-way stop intersections. And lastly, the agenda item that we just discussed, agenda item 3.4, 4, ordinance 25-109,
an ordinance authorizing the city of Jersey City to enter into a lease purchase agreement as LEI with Jackson Square office LLC as Lassour for a 9-story office building to be constructed on block 22502
lots 36-37 between Orian Avenue and Carney Avenue on Martin Luther King Drive and ancillary improvements throughout Jackson Square. So, council members, I'm going to be taking a vote to introduce agenda items 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.
How do you vote, Council Person Ridley? on 3.1. I just had a a question for the law department because we got a few emails and I just want to make sure that um this was it it was reviewed right and everything was submitted. I know there were some questions that came from was
director Richardson and you know we never we didn't really go deep into detail so I know we got a few questions on I guess the legality of 3.1 and I know it's just introduction so I just want to make sure. Yes, the law department did work on it. We did also
receive um calls as well and we're going to be continuing to have meetings and look into it and provide the council with a more in-depth memor memorandum. >> Introducing it and then after that we'll do amendments.
>> Does this include one, two, three and four family homes >> on a Yes, it would include anything. It changed the exclusion. It used to be four and under. Now it would be five and under uh with an owner occupied unit. So
yes, a two family that has two tenants in it and neither one of them are the owner. It would be subject to it. >> Yeah. >> To the rent control. >> People they getting killed on the south side of the city. >> So if someone if someone have a one family and they're renting out to one
family, how does technically? Yeah. because it's not owner occupied. So, it's still >> right. >> It's still be >> part of the issue is on the south side of the city, you have different developers that's buying up one and two family homes. And because they're buying
up one and two family homes, they are raising the rents very high, which is pushing the people out of the place. That is this issue with this ordinance. So we can introduce it and we can have a conversation with the rest of them to see how you could amend it. But people
on the south side of the city is being pushed out because they are buying one and two families and they are not in the house. They're not occupying it and people are in the streets. >> But this is just to introduce it to have conversations on how you can make it
work. >> Go ahead. Can we introduce it but have the second reading in November so that we have time for us to have all these conversations? >> You can do that. No problem. But we have to introduce this because the people are hurting on the south side. >> And then John, do we need an amendment
on that or or do we just >> Well, you could you just vote to table at the next meeting if you wish. >> Okay. But as long as we're okay. I just don't want people mobilizing to come to a meeting if we know they're not going to vote on it type of a thing. I mean, it's >> they haven't even all over the city
because of the taxes and they're being forced out of the city all over the city and because the developers don't give a darn about the people of the city. >> You can introduce it and carry it to the November 12th meeting for second read. >> Okay, >> that's fine. Great.
>> So again, this is a vote to introduce agenda items 3.1, 3.2, 2, 3.3, and 3.4. How do you vote, Council Person Ridley? >> Uh, I vote I for introduction on all with the with having the conversation on
3.1 and 3.4. >> So that's I for all. Correct. Okay. Council person Hulings. >> I vote I for introduction on 3.1, 3.2, 3.3. and 3.4. What is your
>> 3.4? >> No. Okay. >> Council person Bojiano, >> you say no on 4.1, 4.2. >> It's We're in 3.2 and 3.4.
>> I'm sorry. Let me just recap that. Agenda items 3.1, 3.2, 2 3.3 and 3.4. How do you vote? No one knows three and yes on 3.3. three. I would argue we do not have a need for
rehabilitation. This is building boxes on boxes on boxes. A multi-use building where we have already a disaster at that intersection. people can't even function to do their day-to-day work and lives here in the city and you are clogging up
the works. I also want to argue that affordable housing in this city has become a dog whistle. It actually means profits and 15% affordability is not enough.
I know Miss June Jones put forward a a 100% affordable housing plan years ago and some of you on this council kept that from happening. So, I think you are afraid to show that it's possible. And I think that as I actually look, if
you look into this proposal and you look into the application, first of all, everybody, I want to make sure you know the application is actually for a 35-year tax abatement. And I see here the number of units. And yeah, it looks good to have a unit
at $668 a month, but that's a single studio apartment. There are 43 studio apartments that would be listed at $2,877 a month. And some of you up there will call this
affordable housing. Shame on you. Hello everybody. My name is Christopher De Los Angeles. C H R I S T O P H E R. De Los Angeles is de E. Los Angeles. Just like in California.
I own a business here in downtown Jersey City and I've been part of this community for 15 years. I've watched as new buildings have gone up, most of them luxury, catering to one segment of residents. As a small business owner, I can tell you what really keeps neighborhoods vibrant is having a mix of
people who actually live, work, and shop here. That's why I support this project. Affordable homes in this area means more families, more workers, more people who can make downtown their home. That helps local businesses like mine, and it helps
the local economy diverse. It helps keep the local economy diverse and sustainable. The abatement for this project is what makes that mix possible. And if this tool allows developers to include affordable housing downtown, we would have a healthier, more balanced community. I'm proud to offer the same
highquality service and products to everyone who walks through my door, no matter their income. And I'd be proud to see more developments like that reflect the same spirit of inclusion. Thank you. Hello everyone. My name is Adriana
Pitus. A D R I A N A P O L I T I S. I am a lifetime resident of Hudson County who has called Jersey City home for many years. Throughout my adolescence and still today, new buildings have almost always been luxury. I understand
projects like that will continue to be a part of Jersey City's landscape, but projects like this must be included as well. This project is bringing in almost 70 affordable homes, which is something we all know is few and far apart in
downtown Jersey City. If we want to be leaders in sustainable community development, developments like this must be encouraged. Saying no to projects that have real solutions to our affordability crisis will further harm the future of Jersey
City and the urban communities that replicate your success. Tax abatement is key to unlocking affordable housing and this team can be a new benchmark for development. They have been transparent, responsive
and hire local talent. These rarities give me the confidence they will deliver the plan as promised. Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Eric Powers. E R I C E O W E R S. I've lived in the
Palace neighborhood since 1998. I live a block away from this project. I know that some in the neighborhood have expressed concern and while I respect those opinions, I want to share a different perspective. I actually really like the look of this development. I
think it's a thoughtful balance between the historic character that makes Paul special and the kind of modern architecture that we're already surrounded with. I'm also happy to see the expansion of the nursery school included in the plans. even though it's
private, it's a community anchor and I know that many families rely on it in the community and it um you know it's a it's a benefit to the to the neighborhood as a whole. Um the addition to the retail space along that stretch
of Grand Street makes sense since there are no retail spaces on that side until after you go by Grove Street. Um so it it will help define the neighborhood and make it more vibrant
and connected in my view. Um but for me the most meaningful aspect of this project is the inclusion of affordable housing um in Polook. This is an area where affordable housing is almost non-existent and it's something that the
neighborhood needs more than most might be willing to admit. Creating 62 affordable homes in this area is an opportunity to bring balance and inclusivity to a part of the city that has become increasingly out of reach for
many. We should welcome this affordable housing into the neighborhood. If a tax abatement is going to be used for any project, it should be one like this, one that delivers on so many tangible benefits uh as a beautiful design and respects
the neighborhood. uh retail and enliven the street. The expanded the expanded school for the families uh the affordable housing is what we need to bring more people into Polus hook and I think that's something we should all
support. Thank you. Philip Petraelli P H I L I P Petraelli P T R U Z E L L I Jersey City resident for over 25 years
and I'm against 4.1. Granted, abatements may have been needed at the start of development of the Jersey City waterfront, but that time has passed. We have some of the most expensive real estate on the East Coast. Now, New Jersey has some of the highest
taxes and rents in the nation for subpar education overall. This abatement takes money away from schools and will only go to increase taxes on existing houses as we must make up the difference developers won't be paying for 30 years.
The original project did not request the abatement. It must not have been needed. what has changed between now and then now then and now the abatement uh so that it must be to uh the developers for the developers to make more money and
they have already it's already been noted today that they have more money than most of us not all of us here the inflation rate has come down Jersey the city residents uh taxes should not increase to improve the ROI of a
developer The mayor and many city council members campaigned originally on stopping or eliminating abatements. Are we going back on this promise to the residents that have been here a long time? If the abatement is passed, this will
further decrease the pro the public's trust in Jersey City government as what is in the best interest of its constituents. If the city uh believes that school taxes are too high, then pass an ordinance so that people can vote on the school budget and try to bring it down
and back into line. And really, one of the things I'm looking for is after 30 years, you know, I'll be 106 years old, are they willing, you know, before I see the benefit of this uh property paying the taxes they're supposed to be paying?
I can't wait that long. Thank you. Good evening. Uh Tony Sandamp, SA N D K. Uh good evening council. I'm a long-term resident of Van Boris Park. Uh also
small business that's a construction business in Jersey City and have run that business for 30 some years. Pilots for new construction in high rent areas need to end today.
I'm a proud suppor supporter of affordability measures in Jersey City and the way to achieve that goal is to make everyone pay the same property tax rate. High-rise properties on the waterfront need to be taxed by their valuation and income equally.
allow a property owner to make the market rate on their units and tax them accordingly. If we do that, we go a long toward a long way toward restoring a sensible tax rate. Without it, the 60 affordable units make
everyone else's life here a little bit more unaffordable. All the conventional taxpayers are now subsidizing the rent on the affordable units. Property tax pervades everything. our rent, our mortgage, our food, drink.
Since it's a component of the food seller's cost, our repairs, our clothes, if we patronize local stores, every abatement we give locally adds to the cost of the average homeowner and renter
that and what they pay to live here. If Silverman can't afford to build without an abatement, the people of Jersey City can't afford to let them. I feel certain that the building will be constructed without an abatement.
Vote no to the abatement and help Jersey City to become affordable for all citizens. Thank you. >> Good evening, Stephanie Daniels. s t e p ha n i d n i ls 143 Grand Street uh
07302. I am speaking tonight as the president of the board of the historic Paulook Association and it's kind of hard to believe that tonight we are talking about a 30year abatement on a project in one of
the most soughtafter neighborhoods in the entire city. What happened to no abatements downtown? You know, it almost feels like 1995 again. Who knew what could happen in 30 years?
Yet, here we are. And you're being pulled in two very different directions. You want to build the project. I don't blame you. It's got affordable housing. It's going to produce some jobs for a little while.
And these are significant. I know that. At the same time, you want to be fair. You want to be equitable. You want to protect your constituents who are actually wondering if they're going to be able to afford to live here in the next 10, five, one year.
And because of abatements like this, it becomes a whole lot more difficult. Please understand that the community directly impacted by this request has had zero input.
Yes, the developers came. They showed up at our meeting and this is really hard for me to say because I have a relationship with them and they've done a lot for this city. But they came, they showed up twice. We offered some
suggestions and we when I asked specifically are any of our suggestions going to be taken into consideration I was told point blank no. That's not community input. This project is poised to receive
special treatment for three decades. And we're not just talking about the people in this room. We're talking about their children. A one-year-old is going to be 31 and it'll still have impacted that person. The give back,
it's wonderful. St. Peters will get a bigger field. There'll be another prek on the ground floor, but these are private schools. Our public schools are getting nothing. So, I implore you to please weigh each
side. Understand the implications of your choice. This is a legacy decision for many of you. It's how your constituents are going to remember you. And I hope that you will
make the right decision tonight. Please vote this abatement down. Thank you. Excuse me. Good evening. Jeffrey Allen, 143 Bay View Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey. Ge O FF R E Y
Allen. A L L E N. Good, excuse me. Good evening, council. Um, I'd like to start by saying thank you to um Councilwoman Denise Ridley for listening to our concerns. I'm a local contractor here in Jersey City and I'm
not here to oppose or hype up the project. I'm here to bring attention to the lack of local contractors that are being uh I guess bid I mean sending work to be bidded out from us. Um the general
contractor has started reaching out to people for this project. I want to put it on a record that the council should hold the developers feet to the fire because there are tons of tons of projects going on and there's tons of projects that has been finished
with lack of minority contractors, you know, brown, black, whatever in the city. And I want the city council to continue to convo with the developer to make sure that going forward, especially if
there's abatements involved, to make sure there is representation for minority contractors like myself. But that's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Connelly, 102 Grand Street. That's s e- n c o n e l l y.
Good evening, council president and members of the council, our patient city clerk, and my fellow citizens. There a couple of points I'd like to make here. People keep saying we need affordable taxes. Well, you must understand that what a a large part of
what makes something affordable is affordable taxes. As taxes go up, rents go up. People are fleeing our city because of the taxes. They're killing us. In areas that were once called slums, they're charging 40, 50, $60,000 in taxes. Now, if all these
abatements were to have helped us lower our tax rate, then with all the development with the abatements, we'd have no taxes at all. Even the state controller study together with other private financial institution studies show that when the cities give out
abatements, it's the taxpayers get stuck holding the bag. The abatement doesn't pay for school taxes. only a fraction of the county taxes and we get stuck. We get stuck with the bank and and I I can't understand that. You all don't understand this. Please don't fall for
the carrot, the one shot big payment. So maybe you'll do something on this year's budget with it. Don't fall for it. It has not worked ever since the 80s. That's when Jersey City became unaffordable. With a more with each new abatement, taxes went up and up and up
again. The school budget went up, which they're not paying. So, we got stuck paying for it. It doesn't work. It never has. And right now, the idea that we have to lure someone in uh to develop because we won't get developers, that's nonsense.
Now, I'm not against the uh developer. He's a good man. He's a businessman and he's playing by the rules. It's not the developer bad. The law is bad and it's to be changed. And my last point will be this. When that dreaded rebound came around, all those abated properties were
unaffected. Are we to understand that this 30-year abinment will also be unaffected when we get locked over with another rebal? If you hope to vote for this, I would hope you put something in it that would subject them to the reval
that every other taxpayer is subjected to. Because I'll tell you, you know, my family's been in the same household 120 years, and I think I'm being forced out. Where's my affordable housing? Everything I need to do goes to city
hall with my $35,000 tax bill. I'm sorry. I'm a little passionate. I love you all. I know you love me, but it's it's really killing us. And I don't see that this abatement will do anything but in the end raise our taxes once
again. Thank you very much. >> It's okay. Just keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Yeah, they got they got to keep it. So your name? >> I'm Diane Casease. D I A N E. Last name's K A S E. 192 Washington Street. I'm the vice president of the historic
Paul Hook Association. Good evening. As a resident and homeowner in Paul Hook, I have numerous concerns regarding the project at 177 Grand Street. But for this hearing, my focus is on the requested 30-year abatement. And for the record, 3 minutes
is nearly not enough. The historic Paul Hook Association and other residents of Paul's Hook were the first in the city to work with the planning department and develop developers to address the land around our neighborhood when Colgate and other manufacturing facilities vacated the waterfront. We have steadfastly
requested accommodations for our seniors and others that lived in the area that quickly realized that they would be priced out of their units. The response was always, "That's not the best and highest use of the land." When we asked for open space in the
Colgate redevelopment plan, we were told by the Colgate lawyer that they would make the sidewalks a foot wider. When it came to the Grand Street property that we are discussing tonight, we carefully crafted the transitional plan that allowed for five stories of maximum height as a buffer for our historic
district. The developer has patted me on the head because I also am passionate about the overdevelopment in my neighborhood. They have claimed that this project is all about affordable housing. It is not. We owners in the historic district provide the affordable
housing. I, as a townhouse owner and landlord, can't provide garage parking for my tenants. They grapple for the limited street parking. I, as a resident, don't have a swimming pool or concierge service or a fitness room, nor do my neighbors. I, as a resident, take
out my own trash. And as a resident, I pay taxes, large taxes. But now this is developer is asking me and my neighbors to pay for him to provide affordable housing. The cost of which will likely exceed the costs of our rentals. I am
not only supposed to pay for it in increased taxes but in a secondary hit on the quality of life in my neighborhood and for my neighborhood school. The Silvermans have done many good things for Jersey City, but this building is not one of them. What are their give backs to the community? land
for a private school's football field and the construction of a preschool for a private school. And note that both schools have religious affiliations. Those are not community benefits. They also brought this abatement to the council without notifying the neighborhood. They had two presentations
to the association, one in August and one in September to inform us of what they wanted to change in the plan. They have stated that they remain open committed to engaging with the community, but they certainly have a funny way of showing it. I request that you deny this application for this
30-year baitman or at a minimum table it so that this can be looked at closely. It is not needed or necessary for this project. A 26 and 18tory towers and a five-story zone are more than enough of a giveback to a developer with no with a
project with no community benefits. Thank you. Hi, my name is Paige. Could >> Could you raise the mic? >> E A I G E K E C. I live at 157 Sussex Street. Um few houses away from this development. I want to be clear that I
am not opposed to this building. At first I was, but I mean having more people in this neighborhood that I've been in for 20 years is kind of nice. It's nice to see the restaurants, nice to see everything. Um, the people um, lost my train of thought.
What I am opposed, I'm not even opposed to the affordable housing. I wish there were more. I'd love seeing people of different ethnicities. It gets it because seeing people like me walking around all the time. Um, >> get a little closer to the mic. Sorry.
Sorry. Um I'm not opposed to the affordable housing part of this. What I am opposed to is that um the abatement, the tax abatement and not uh and these people who are living in the affordable housing units not having a
place to send their kids to school to public schools. That's my biggest my big concern is that if they're not paying taxes, this money is not going to public schools for their children who would be living in these affordable user housing units. Um I live in a two family house.
We rent our bottom unit to um a couple one of whom is currently unemployed. We rent under value because we like them. And so I would argue that we are providing low-income housing. Um, where's my abatement? We pay a
skyrocketing property taxes. That's it. Thank you. I would like you to pose vote no. >> Hey guys. Yes, my name is Tina North. Yes, I do work for Education of Gilmore, but I'm speaking for myself. Like really
I already know that education of Gilmore going to vote no because $18 million they what we can do with $18 million in our community. We can do a lot with $18 million in our community. I remember Jerry Walker had me walking around to all the sites and we found out none of
the guys worked in our community. They was out of town. And that's a shame. We need to have a safe spot in each community that people are able to go into their spot to let people know what's going on in their community. not y'all making a decision for us to tell us what y'all going to put in our
community. We already know low income is not working. I call both of my bosses at night time telling them how someone needed apartment because we don't have lowincome apartment. I was just discussing this with chief staff Erica about Airbnb apartments because right
now I got three families in there because they can't put down a payment for apartment. But I guess y'all wouldn't know because y'all keep letting these developments in our community. Y'all not having y'all boots on the ground going in our community, finding out what we need. That's the reason why they keep coming in our community. I
just seen somebody do a commercial about they sold one of the the um the blocks for $10. Like y'all got to do better. That's the reason why we having new people in November because of the reason why y'all not doing your job. Y'all need to freeze for a minute and stop and stop building and find out what we really
need in our community. I just read another article. They said Philip doing good. Yeah, he doing good. He doing good for himself cuz he sure enough didn't do good for Georgia City. >> Hi, my name is Kyle Higgins. K Y L E H A
G N. Um, I'm a Jersey City resident live in downtown Paul Suk and I work for the general contractor KL Masters. So, we work on projects in the area and right now I'm at the Scholars Village project uh over in Jersey City and daily we have 21 people that work on site including
myself who are employed uh and live in the city. So, I just wanted to lobby on behalf of this abatement that um having this project go through would provide myself and others uh with an opportunity to earn an income. Thanks. Good evening everyone. Thank you. My
name is Casey Cockett spelled K A C E Y. I'm a tenure resident here at in Jersey City. Um some faces are familiar here. Um I personally do not see the downside in this project. I work in research, social intervention research to be
exact. Um, so you know when I hear people talking about compassion and all these things like obviously it speaks to my core and my why. Um, but I would have to say that you know having affordable housing here especially 62 someone said it's only 15% but when you look at any
other building that offers affordable housing this is considered a large amount you know and it creates a step in the right direction and a stage for others to follow. Right? So for the people in this community, I view this as an opportunity, you know, not something to be opposed. And again, I heard people
even on the panel here speaking earlier about, you know, having more affordable housing. So it'd be kind of hypocritical to say, you know, no to 50 more than 50 houses for families who want to live and work in Jersey City. Um, people like me, you know, and if the tax abatement is what makes that happen, then we should
really, you know, work towards making that get the result that seems like everyone seems to be looking for here. Um, and from my understanding, the project does um will be paying over $2.5 million to the city. So, it does not mean that the abatement um the
debatement does not mean that the building would not be paying taxes. Um, so I do think that that should be understood all around. Um, having lived here for long enough, I do identify when people hide behind school tax arguments to oppose new buildings. Um, I also see
it for what it is and I think it should be called as it is. you know, it's nimbism um dressed up as concern and every time a project includes affordable housing, someone suddenly decides to worry about tax impacts. But where is this concern when luxury buildings are going up one after the other year after
year? If we truly care about the future of our city and the people who live here, we should be supporting opportunities for more residents to find homes that are affordable, not using school taxes as an excuse to keep them out because we've seen far too long these people being kept out. Thank you.
C O C K T. Thank you. Erica Walker. I work with the office of Councilman Gilmore, but I'm speaking on behalf of myself tonight as a Jersey City resident. Good evening, Council President, colleagues, and members of the public. Tonight, we're being asked to approve a
30-year tax abatement for a high-rise project on Grand Street, a luxury two tower development with over 400 residential units, but only 15% affordable. I went to school on the south, so my southern accent is coming out cuz this is ridiculous. That's 62
affordable homes and 351 market rate units. Let's call it what it is, a market rate luxury project asking the taxpayers of Jersey City to subsidize it for the next three decades. Doing the bare minimum is not a public
benefit. This developer is doing exactly what's required by our inclusionary zoning ordinance, nothing more. They've met the 15% minimum and that's it. But they want the same tax break we've given to developers who build 100% affordable housing. If we reward the bare minimum,
we'll never get better results. An abatement should be earned, not handed out because a developer checked the lowest box the law allows. It's a bad deal for the city. Under this pilot, the city gets around 2.4 million a year, but that replaces normal prop property taxes
of around 3.4. And here's the part that most people don't hear. Under a pilot, our public schools get nothing. We're forfeiting tens of millions in future tax revenue, the kind that funds classrooms, crossing guards, parks, and public safety. So, a luxury tower can
keep more of its profits. If 85% of the building is market rate, how is that a public benefit? That's not affordability. It's inequity in glass and steel. The ordinance praises a nursery school. We heard about that. That's private. St. Peter's private.
Meanwhile, there's no binding local hire requirement for the 487 construction jobs they're bragging about. No commitment to hire Jersey City residents. No guarantee for minority or womenowned contractors. No teeth in the so-called project employment agreement. Just promises, not accountability.
We're abusing the purpose of this redevelopment law. Let's not forget tax abatements were created to help blighted areas, not waterfront property already thriving with cranes and capital. Grand and Sussex streets are not underdeveloped. This isn't about revitalization. It's about maximizing
profit while minimizing taxes. If we can hold we can hand out abatements in the wealthiest parts of the city. What hope do we have for attracting investment where it's truly needed? In Ward F, in Lafayette, in Greenville, where affordable housing and opportunity
actually hang in the balance. Right now, the message we send is clear. If you can afford to build luxury towers, we'll give you a break. This is the Jersey City that we've been practicing, that we've been seeing. If you're struggling to stay in Jersey City, you're on your own. That's not
fairness, it's failure. We need to reserve abatements for projects that truly serve the public. Thank you, >> Mark Loyals. M A R K B O Y L S I read through the ordinance and on the top of page two it says the project
cannot be achieved without the tax exemption provided herein. Why? Why can't this project be completed without a tax exemption? Because the principles won't make obscene profits without corporate welfare. Tell them to sharpen
their pencils or go back to their spreadsheets or work out how to make a reasonable profit without a tax exemption. Tax abatements have worked about as well as trickle down economics. I'm not against the project, just the tax exemption.
>> Hi Michelle Hirs. M I C H E L E H I R S C H. Council, I'm making a request that you please either vote no or you at least table this ordinance. In December 2020, Mayor Fulip said,
quote, "We haven't granted a tax abatement in well over 3 years, and yet we're seeing more widespread development. We're incorporating more affordable housing and we're building new schools, libraries, parks, flood
resiliency infrastructure, among other countless other opportunities to directly benefit our residents and community. You heard from many constituents tonight some reasons why uh you should vote yes
on this and they all talked about affordable housing. I don't think anyone in this city is against affordable housing. What we're against is a tax abatement that's not necessary and it's going to shift the burden to homeowners
and their taxes are going to go up. You heard from multiple people. We all know that these abatements are a problem because the schools get the public schools get zero dollars from them, right? And the county gets only about 5% of the money and the rest of the city
gets to keep to do whatever it wants with. That's an issue. I don't know where all that money goes, but it doesn't go to help the the homeowners with their taxes. So, please vote no. Table it. That corner. I'm going to miss the Golden Cicada. And if there's going
to be development there, I don't know who Silverman is to be completely honest, but whoever is going to build there should be a should be able to afford to build there without an abatement. And one last point, the Pompy-Doo Center, because that's kind of
the same thing with different clothing on it. What a slippery slope we're on now that the Pompy Due Center abatements were approved. Don't approve this one or again, reasonably speaking, table it until there's further discussion from
people who live in the neighborhood. Thank you. Hi, my name is Daniel Feldman, last name Feel D M. And just as others have stated, uh, please vote no on this. Uh, 30 years is
a very, very, very long time. I'm 31 now. So, 30 years ago, I don't think I could walk yet. I couldn't talk. And 30 years from now, I'll be almost eligible for Medicare. So, that's a really long time for a tax abatement. Um, your constituents have made it pretty clear
they don't want this. In my opinion, there have been a lot of really good reasons why you should vote no. So, please vote no. Thank you. >> Hello, my name is Brendan Coglin. B R E N D A N C O U G H L I N. Please vote no.
It's a 30-year tax abatement on a building that has will have zero actual controls on its rent. Unless, of course, they actually follow the laws because so many landlords in Jersey City do that. And why are we why are we rewarding someone for doing the barest minimum? If
a kid throws makes a giant mess in a room but didn't knock over the vase, we don't reward the kid. If they do the bare minimum, they should get absolute. They should get the bare minimum in return. This is not this isn't affordable housing. This is a developer
making a high-rise and putting eight unit whatever the the amount of units aside for low in for affordable housing. They're going to do absolutely nothing. It's not actually going to help the neighborhood. If Silverman needs money to profit, needs this taxment for this
thing to be profitable. Maybe he shouldn't have bought the building and sat on it for a year. This is simp this is simply an excuse to rip off the Jersey City taxpayers, those homeowners who've lived and build and actually contribute to the city, not a developer
who's going to build it, rent it out and sub and leave the leave the leave the city with the tax bill while not actually funding any of the services we need for the city to function. Thank you. Vote no. Motion mo
motion to close the public hearing made by Gilmore. >> If y'all going Y got to come up. Y gota Yeah, we >> I'm here. >> Okay. Anybody else can speak? Just stand up so that way we have to keep stopping.
>> Danilo. D A N I L O. You got You got it. D A N I L O K I R S C H N E R. Good evening. Um I have a couple of
questions and uh I live in the neighborhood. So some facts maybe about that area. 5 minutes actually is the key fact. 5 minutes from great restaurants, 5 minutes from great schools, 5 minutes
from the waterfront, from the ferry, 5 minutes from Path, 5 minutes by car to I78. It's an probably the lowest crime neighborhood in the city. So basically a
jewel. Why gifted away without getting the fair share of the profits back? I don't understand that. And the reason that affordable housing needs a tax
abatement is the other thing I don't understand because if I'm not mistaken, tax law is written in the sense that if someone makes a loss on their business, so if that wasn't profitable, they would be able to do deductions for the units
where they make a loss anyway. meaning they wouldn't pay taxes if there is a loss attached to that building. Why do we need a tax abatement? I don't understand it. And looking at the budget of that city and I live here for 12
years almost, we can simply not afford it. Look at our streets. Look at the sewer system. Look at the public transport. How can we bear hundreds of more units without even keeping up with
the things that we have right now? We need more public transport. We need better roads. We need more uh let's say basic necessities to keep the city going
and not just adding adding adding more units that put more stress on a system that is already overwhelmed. Three pass stations in Jersey City. This is a joke. One tram line. This is a
joke. We need infrastructure first. And I agree with what was said earlier. We need to slow down, take a step back and think about a holistic long-term plan for this city. And now this project,
this development is generally approved. But the tax abatement is not. And I urge you to vote no to keep the city going and to get the taxes in, to get the budget and the uh funding for public projects uh in a better place. Thank
you. Jack Scura ready. Um, this uh this developer uh has a good track record of building uh neighborhoods and contributing to the community and and all that should be weighted. And uh I have other examples
that that haven't been illustrated here today. However, I think you need to take a larger picture view beyond the individual business case presented to you. Pilots over time shifts the burden of growing expenses to a growing city to the local taxpayers. To illustrate this,
if you go to the userfriendly budget on sheet six, you will see a list of about 156 existing pilots that compares what the city uh build each developer according to the terms of their agreement in 2024 versus what would be built conventionally on the property's
full assessed value. I had to manually add what was actually built because the total was asterisk out. though and it total about $95 million versus $222 million if they were taxed conventionally. Um you know uh so that's about $127
million difference. Now you could pick any year and you'll see the same the same results. The reason is is that in over those you know the long periods of time that's some over 30 years um is that inflation has gone up over time and and it may get worse in the future. uh
and the costs to manage your growing city has gone up accordingly and as has the real estate values and all outpaced the revenue received from their agreements. The developers obligations are more certain over time but the taxpayers's obligations are not. So uh
so they will always they will go up. Um it's not as easy as as as that you know if you unfortunately there's no like lifetime analysis of these pilots because some of them uh you know give give a lot a lot more benefit than than others. There's a bit of a you know a
law of diminishing returns to them in my opinion. So as more of these are coming up, I just you know want you to consider you know the the other financial headwinds that uh you know such as paying your deficits, loss of non-recurring revenue and other inflationary matters that that are uh
come up when you're that may come up uh after your 2024 independent audit report gets you know finally filed. Uh this isn't a commentary against this project really. It's just the the city needs to revisit its overall pilot strategy for
future transactions. Analyzing pilots are are you know part science and like I said before there's a law of diminishing returns to them and and you just need to factor in also if like natural momentum of the real estate market will achieve your goals and um for full disclosure
Sean Connelly and I are uh classmates class of 76 St. Peters Prep. So uh that's it for me. >> Thank you Jack. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Johan Zapata. J O H A N Z A P
A TA. I came here for something different. It was in support of the hospital. But not hearing about this, this is completely new to me. 30-year abatement, tax abatement. I work in the hospital for the last 22
years in the emergency department. Every day EMS and the police, Jersey City Police Department and other PD departments bring patients to my ER.
Many of these patients are homeless. They don't have a home. They don't have resources. or maybe they do have resources but they don't know how to access them. So if we're providing tax abatement to
big corporations while there are people basically dying on the street because I've seen many people die in the ER or frozen to death in a winter
in front of the hospital. In 22 years, I've seen many people Night. that they would uh reach out to our commissioner Walker as he has the construction school on Pacific Avenue. They did uh have that meeting with him
and agree to take some apprentices from that school. Um, I also reached out to our diversity and inclusion office because in the past with some developments and a what they've done is had an open house for local contractors so that they can uh start an open bid
process with people who work here. I have met with a lot of the local contractors in our area of the city in Greenville. A lot of black and brown contractors have come to the council. A few of our council people have met with them. I did make that promise to them that the next time we had an opportunity
that we would do our best to make sure they were represented. I know that we have done limited tax abatements since I've been on the council. Um, but I know that one in the past we did in Journal Square recently and we had all the
unions come out and everybody voted for it because the unions were here and we said we were putting the unions to work and I love the unions. I support the unions. I voted for that. Um, and the unions employ a lot of people locally. So, I think that that is a good thing. But I think we also can't forget our
homegrown contractors who are not necessarily in a union, but they own businesses here. They're trying to support their families. They still live here and they're Jersey City homegrown people. Um, and I did make that commitment and that promise to them. So, because of that, um, and like I said, I
don't think it's a horrible project. I am going to vote I. Council person and healings. Affordable housing is long overdue downtown. We all know that. We see it happening in other parts of the city. We rarely see it happening
downtown. I hope this is the beginning of seeing more. 62 units is not enough, but it's 62 affordable units downtown. St. Peters Prep and OLC are part of the community downtown. They've both been
there a long time. I'm from St. Peters Parish originally and I'm glad to see a developer helping them. Even though they're private Catholic schools, they are part of the downtown community. So, I'm voting yes.
Councilman Bojano. >> Uh, I know about St. Peters, which is fantastic, but with all these billionaire developers in the city, I don't know why they can't do something and help St. Peters. I was going to ask that maybe this be held off until we sit
down with the developer and work some different issues out, but uh, evidently it's not going to happen. I'm going to abstain on voting on it tonight. Council Counc. >> Uh, to date, there have been no
affordable housing units that have been built downtown post the inclusionary zoning law coming into effect. The inclusionary zoning law states that we need 15% affordable housing downtown in the upper income tract. However, since
its inception, nothing has been built with that. Um, so we had the planning board uh expert Matt Ward. He was here and he said in his professional opinion that this needs to be revisited because people are right.
This is the bare minimum. It's a bare minimum that we as a council established. But I when you look at the economy today with the tariffs, with the cost of building, with the loans, um, and how they come due with the banks, you know, if you think the developers
are bad, the banks are million times worse. Um, and that's what's probably causing them to revisit this. Uh, let's see. It's there's a supply issue all across the United States. We have a 5 million home shortage. And
someone spoke about the hospital that needs assistance in it's Christ hospital in the Heights and we need to build more density around that hospital. We need senior homes around the hospital so that we there's a clientele base. Right now
there's no one. It's 24 25% don't have insurance that walk into that hospital. Um, and I confirmed with the um the BA that we already did pass a resolution that said that the board of ed would get their fair share. This was several years
ago. They'll get 24%. And that was under the old tax regime. If it needs to be updated to reflect present day, you know, this council should do that. And yeah, it's currently an empty lot. It's not the best use of
the land. And so the city the taxes that the city is collecting right now are dimminimous and we should build more affordable housing. This would be the first project downtown. We should revisit the IO and see how we could incentivize more affordable housing.
That I vote I. >> Council person Solomon. >> Sure. There's a couple points that I I want to make here. Um, the first thing is when this came before the council three years ago and the developer asked us to give him the extra height and there were a lot of neighborhood objections to that, I voted in favor of
it. And I voted in favor of it because to me the affordable housing was so important that it was worth the sacrifice that even though the transition zone had been carefully planned and even though there were real genuine concerns about that project, it was worth it. Um, at the time though the
developer was clear that he was not asking for an abatement. Three years later, that has changed. And so, okay, well, he's asking for an abatement. What does that mean for the other projects downtown? And I can tell you there's another project about five blocks away where that developer has said he can
build it without the 15% without the 15% without an abatement. So, if this passes, then he's going to come back to us the next day and say, "Well, wait a second. Why am I the the idiot here? If we're given an abatement for one project, we got to give it now for the other. and and and when I sat with this this
specific developer in particular and when I said the administration I said I would be supportive if you can do the study and show the policy for everybody so we don't do this case by case by case because that opens up the potential for corruption it opens up the potential for
miss for abuse develop a policy because if the market conditions have changed for one developer they've changed for all developers so do the homework and come to this council with an official policy policy that we can then vote on that would apply to all projects in either this this upper income tier or
the other tier. So again, we can be clear and consistent and the rules apply to all equally. But then furthermore, when we had the first reading, I asked for a simple question. I said, give me the analysis on whether we can do 20% affordable. And the analysis came back and the answer is we can now have to change the mechanism by which it's being
done. It would be called a pilot RAB as opposed to just a pilot. But we could do 20% affordable on this project financable tomorrow. And this council has not given an abatement on projects that don't meet the 20% threshold. We have given it on 20% but not below the threshold. So again, if we move forward
on this, we're setting a new precedent that now we can go forward on lower than that. And so for the folks who said, "Hey, vote for this because of the affordable housing." I hear you and I promise you if this project reapplied with 20%, my vote would be yes, just as it was yes to increase the upzoning,
even though I got a lot of heat from folks in the community that I took that vote. But what I will not do is approve abatements on a one-off basis. Oneoff here, oneoff here. When we know when we know from the financial analysis that this could be a 20% affordable project,
the numbers are clear. We ask for them, it can be 20%. And so with that, I vote no. >> Council President Gilmore. >> Yes. Um, so I mean, everybody's talking about affordability. I guess it's the
new cliche now. Um, but for me, when I'm trying to figure out if something makes sense financially, I have to look at how much the city is going to be losing out on taxes and what are they getting for in return. So, they say, "Hey, well, you
know, we're going to have 61 units affordable. That is a beautiful thing. But it's going to cost you over $100 million for those 61 units from a financial standpoint. Is that a good deal? Then I know that this project was
supposed to be five stories. So let's move the gold post in the middle of the game. Let's make it 12 stories. You know what? No. Let's move the gold post again and make it 20 something stories. It triggers the ICO. Just for a point of information, it's the 15% is already by
there. That's what the law mandates. They're not you're not doing anything extra. The law already mandate that if it triggers the ICO in said area, you must set aside 15%.
Right? So, this is not it's it's it's not a matter if if you say, well, you know, this developer is not as bad as that developer. At the end of the day, developers are in the business of making profits and we all understand that and my responsibility is
to protect the financial interest of the constituency of Jersey City. So, in light of all that, I'll vote no because the numbers don't make sense for me. >> Council person dee. >> Yes.
Council person Rivera. >> Hi. >> And Council President Waterman. >> Um before I take my vote, um the IO we we did the O and this is the first projects that's following the ICO.
And so when you put a ordinance in place, you have to have some type of measurement. So this is the first one that we are doing. The tax abatement part of that money will go to the school. that is written there. The affordable housing people are asking for
affordable housing. This is the first project that we got for affordable housing downtown. This is the very first one. Now, when we go other places, people are asking for affordable housing. Why isn't affordable housing downtown? So, this is the first project
that is merited like that, which please don't do that. I you know, when you guys talk, we listen. So, you should have the same respect. We can disagree, but we don't have to be rude. Okay? We don't have to be rude. All right? You don't have to. You You have
your freedom to walk out if that's your choice. But you should be respectful. That's one thing. We will be we will be respectful in here. We can disagree, but we will be respectful. And so for me, this is the first
project. We need to start measuring all the projects that come downtown. This is a tax abatement. And so with that, I do vote I. I never said I was against the tax abatements. Look at my history. I never said I was against them.
>> Very well. Ordinance 25-101 is adopted. Six in favor, two against, one abstension. >> Like I said, listen, listen. Like I said, be respectful. Don't be childish. Be respectful. We can disagree.
We can We can be dis Like I said, don't be disrespectful. Don't do it. Don't do it. >> John, let me finish voting on the uh rest of the agenda. I have to leave. >> Okay. So, we're going to move on to the remaining second reading ordinances and
then we can take your vote on the claims and resolutions. You have to leave. I believe Councilman Cle has to leave as well. >> No, I'm leaving now. That's what I'm saying. we could do if we could uh if I could just take my votes now for everything. >> Okay. So, you want to vote on ordinance
25-103 and ordinance 25105 uh 04 and ordinance 25105. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Let me just uh So,
so as far as agenda item 4.2, which how do you vote? I. >> Okay. Uh, agenda item 25, I'm sorry, agenda item 4.3, ordinance 25104. How do you vote, sir? >> I.
>> And agenda item 4.4, ordinance 25105. How do you vote, sir? >> I. >> And as for the claims and addendum, >> I >> I for the claims. Uh, as far as resolutions 10.1 through 10.14, how do you vote?
>> I. >> Agenda items 10.15 through 10:25, how do you vote? >> I. >> And we already voted on agenda item 10.26. >> Okay. Uh, Councilman Slayer, are you waiting till the end of the second readings?
>> I'll I'll wait. I'll vote now. Okay. Vote over. >> You want to vote? Okay. All right. So again, we're going to go back to agenda item 4.2. H, how do you vote, sir, on ordinance 25103? >> I vote I.
>> With regard to agenda item 4.3, ordinance 25104, how do you vote, sir? >> I vote I. >> And agenda item 4.4, ordinance 25-105, how do you vote, sir? >> I vote I. >> Okay. As far as the claims,
>> I >> I on the claims. And as far as resolutions 1 uh 10.1 through 10.14, how do you vote, sir? >> Going to vote I. >> And agenda items 10.15 through 1025. How
do you vote, sir? >> I vote I. >> And again, agenda item 10.26 was already voted on at the beginning of the meeting. >> Thank you, everyone. Clerk, I I will leave after the second readings. So, I'll I'll stay for the next three votes. Okay. Very good.
>> Then I will vote at that point. >> Councilman C, you'll be leaving this evening. >> Well, I would again on behalf of the clerk's office and myself personally, congratulations on your marriage earlier today. I wish you the best, a happy and healthy life together.
I love New Jersey City and I have a wife. So, thank you. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay, then. So, again, with regard to our second reading ordinances, uh we're going to move on to agenda item
4.2, 2. Ordinance 25-103, an ordinance supplementing chapter 332, vehicles and traffic. Article 3, parking, standing, and stopping, amending section 332-31, parking restrictions for street cleaning
purposes at Lincoln Park. We will now have a public hearing on this ordinance. Anyone wishing to speak, please line up in front of the podium. >> Motion. >> Motion made by Council President Waterman. >> Close the public meeting. Uh second made by Councilman Solomon. On the motion to
close the public hearing, how do you vote? Council person Ridley. >> I. >> Council person. >> Yes. >> Council person Bojano. >> Council person Solomon. >> I. >> Council person de Geese. Obviously Gilmore is not here.
>> Council person Rivera. >> I. >> And council president Waterman. >> I. Motion public hearing passes for final consideration and adoption of ordinance 25-103. How do you vote? Council person Ridley. >> I. >> Council person Princeari.
>> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm used to this. I'm sorry. Council person Huings. >> Yes. >> Council person Bosiano. >> Council person has already voted. Council person Solomon. >> No. >> That's a no. That's a no. >> Council person de Jes. >> Hi.
>> Council person Rivera. >> Hi. >> And council person Waterman. >> Motion h sorry ordinance passes 81. That's ordinance 25-103 adopted 81. Next item on the agenda is agenda item.
>> Sorry I apologize. I wasn't paying as much attention as I should. I didn't realize that was 4 point the Lincoln Park one. >> Okay. >> Is that that's the one we discussed about Lincoln Park and the thing? Yeah, I'm going to vote no on that one. >> Okay, let me I'm just going to go through the vote tally one more time,
Ben. So, for final consideration of ordinance 25-103, how do you vote? Council person Ridley, that's a no now. >> No. >> Okay. Council person Huings, >> yes. >> Council person Biano. Council person Slay has already voted yes. Council person Solomon, I presume
it's still no. >> Yep. >> Council person Gilmore has already voted yes. Council person Deise, >> yes. Council President Rivera. >> Hi. >> And Council President Waterman. Okay. Ordinance 25-103 is still adopted. Now it is 72.
Okay. Uh, next item on the agenda is item 4.3 uh 4.3, ordinance 25-104, an ordinance supplementing chapter 332, vehicles and traffic, article 9, parking for the disabled, of the Jersey City
Code, designated a reserved parking space at various locations throughout the city. We will now have a public hearing on this ordinance. Anyone wishing to speak, please line up in front of the podium. Motion >> motion made by I believe that was council person Rivera, seconded by I
think I heard that as Waterman. Is that right? Okay. On the motion to close the public hearing, how do you vote? Council person Ridley >> I. >> Council person Huings. >> Yes. >> Council person Biano. Council person Solomon. >> I. >> Council person Deise.
>> Council person Rivera. >> Hi. >> And council person Waterman. Motion to close public hearing adopted. for final consideration of ordinance 25-104. How do you vote? Council person Ridley. >> I. >> Council person Hulings.
>> Yes. >> Council person Biano. >> Council person has already voted. Council person Solomon. >> Yes. >> Council person Gilmore has already voted. Council person Deise. Council person Rivera. >> Hi. >> And council president Waterman.
Ordinance 25-104 is adopted unanimously 90. And moving on to our last second reading ordinance, agenda item 4.4, ordinance 25-105, an ordinance amending and supplementing
chapter 1, general provisions, chapter 218, multiple dwellings, chapter 260, rent control, chapter 254, property maintenance, and chapter 1 of the code of ordinances of the city of Jersey City to establish mandatory minimums for
violations of housing related ordinances. We will now have a public hearing on this ordinance. Anyone wishing to speak, please line up in front of the podium. Please clearly state and spell your name for the court reporter. You will have three minutes. Kevin Weller, ke v I n we
l e r. Good evening, council. My name is Kevin Weller and I live in the forever rencont controlled portside towers east in Councilman Gilmore's ward F. I'm here tonight to support ordinance 25105.
This ordinance establishes mandatory minimum fines for violating Jersey City's housing laws, as you just heard. Chapters 218, which includes uniform security, 254, which includes mandatory resident supers for buildings such as
ours, and 260, of course, rent control ordinance. Let me be clear, Jersey City doesn't have a law problem. This city has some of the strongest housing laws in the country. What we have is an enforcement problem. Let me illustrate. In November 2022, we
came before this council with a crisis. No uniform security. No resident superintendent. Our landlord was violating New Jerseys landlord identity law. No rent roles filed. No registration statements. Harassment. Unauthorized rent increases. Rent
control violations. alleged algorithmic price fixing, thousands of documented violations, and what happened? What did 3 years of city enforcement produce? Three non-working vents and one
uncovered mattress. That's it. That's the enforcement record. And aside from those four citations, every single one of those thousands of violations continue to this very day. Ordinance 25105 can change that.
This ordinance establishes a mandatory minimum fine of $100 per tenant or per unit per day. Mandatory minimum. Not a suggestion, not a maximum that gets negotiated down to nothing. A floor.
And this applies to all of Jersey City. Although our landlord would want everyone to believe this is just a portside towers issue, this is about protecting every tenant in every building in the city. Following the law is free. Only lawb breakakers will have
to pay. Right now, Equity Residential probably pays their lawyers more to watch these city council meetings than they've paid this city in fines for thousands of violations over the last 3 years. That's not enforcement.
Please vote yes on 25105 and give Jersey City's housing laws actual teeth. Voted 90 on the first reading. Finish the job. Pass ordinance 25105. Thank you very much. Mark Boils M R K B O Y L S. Madame
President, Ordinance 25105 is an overdue step towards accountability, a way to make sure every landlord and property owner in our city provides safe, decent, secure, and lawful housing. Here's how we protect tenants, preserve our neighborhoods, and uphold fairness
across Jersey City. The problem is weak enforcement. For too long, our enforcement system system has been weak. Violations of housing and rent control laws are treated as minor infractions with fines so small they barely register. Negligent landlords
know this. They do the math and decides it's cheaper to ignore the law than to fix the problems. Meanwhile, tenants, especially low-income families, seniors, or people with disabilities, are the ones who pay the price. They live with leaks, pests, mold, unsafe wiring,
broken locks, inadequate security. while the landlords delay, deflect, and most importantly, profit. It's an unacceptable in a city that prides itself on justice and equality. This ordinance finally gives our enforcement system teeth by changing two
key things. It sets mandatory minimum fines, not may be fined, but shall be fined. Real penalties that actually deter bad behavior. For example, $100 per unit per day for security violations
or per occupant per day for harassment. It completely changes the cost equation, making delay more expensive than compliance. It clarifies that every day of non-compliance is a separate offense. No more dragging things out for weeks or years without consequence. Each day
counts and that means each day costs. It matters because the principle here is simple. deterrence and fairness. When violations are costly, problems get fixed. That means safer buildings, healthier homes, and more accountability.
This ordinance also protects responsible landlords, the ones who play by the rules, from being undercut by slum lords who cut corners. It levels the playing field and strengthens trust between tenants, landlords, and the city. Council members, it's about basic
dignity. No one in Jersey City should live with unsafe conditions because enforcement is weak. By passing Ordinance 25105, you'll send a clear message. Our city stands with tenants, with fairness, and with accountability. Please adopt this
ordinance, strengthen our housing code, and prove that Jersey City protects all its residents, not just in words, but in actions. Thank you. Daniel Feldman, D-N Fel D M. I live at Portside Towers East
at 155 Washington Street, which is has always been, and always will be rent controlled. Now, I'm here to support ordinance 25-105. And I want to tell you why this ordinance supports our dear friend, Director Chyone Richardson. The way the
law is written right now makes Director Richardson's job nearly impossible. When a landlord cares so little about the law and our safety that they violate it thousands of times, Director Richardson would basically have to wake up, start filing paperwork, and never stop all
day. No bathroom, no meals, nothing. Start to start to the day to the end of the day, just filing paperwork. Now, Chapter 260 isn't just about rent amounts. It covers harassment, registration, disclosure, documentation, and dozen other requirements. And I
think I heard someone say at last council meeting that um director Richardson isn't issuing summons for most violations of 260. And I mean, can you really imagine being in his position? Can you imagine not having time to file anything for violations of section 260-7, which addresses
harassment? I'm sure if he could do something about harassment, he would. but he can't because he's drowning in paperwork from landlords who completely ignore the law. We're sending in at port side at least 14 violations every single day just for our two buildings. We don't take a break on Saturday or Sunday. We
do this every single day. That means when Director Richardson gets to work on Monday morning, he has 30 violations to process just from Portide Towers, just two buildings. Now, multiply that across the entire city. Ordinance 25-105 fixes
this administrative nightmare in two critical ways. First, it creates continuing violations. Right now, if a landlord violates the law for 100 days, Richardson has to process 100 separate violations. With 25-105, one summons is enough to trigger
continuing violations. Each day becomes a separate offense automatically per tenant per unit. That's 98% less paperwork for the worst offenders like Equity Residential. And second, the mandatory minimum makes breaking the law so expensive that the violation should
actually go down. When landlords know that every single day of non-compliance costs them $100 per tenant, they start following the law. Now, Director Richardson might actually come before you one day and say, "There are far fewer violations to process because
landlords, once we adopt this, are finally following the laws of this city." This ordinance doesn't just protect tenants. It gives Director Shyron Richardson the tools to do his job effectively instead of drowning in paperwork from landlords who treat city code like a mere suggestion. Vote yes on
25-105. Support this tenants. Support Director Richardson. and most importantly support the law. Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm Michelle Hirs, president of Portside Towers West Tenant Association, Jersey City Democratic
Committee member representing District F32 and co-chair of the JCDC Subcommittee on Civic Engagement. As a tenant advocate with wide reach, I urge you to vote yes on ordinance 25-105
tonight. I live in a building where my landlord, Equity Residential, faces a 400 uh million dollar lawsuit for allegedly collecting illegal rent for more than 20 years. where over 100 security violations sit unprosecuted in
municipal court, where tenants have endured chronic elevator failures in our high-rise towers, pest infestations, HVAC bills reaching over $600 monthly, and numerous very real safety issues.
But I'm not here to target one landlord. I'm here because every tenant in Jersey City deserves protection. Up until now, when landlords break the law, prosecutors have been known to dismiss violations or reduce fines to zero. Bad
actors treat penalties as merely the cost of doing business. That's why we need mandatory minimums to ensure the law has teeth. We're not alone in this fight. New York City mandates $350 to $1,500
daily fines for heat violations. Philadelphia, Washington DC, Newark, Chicago, Denver, Oakland, all have established mandatory minimums because they recognize that voluntary compliance
does not work. These cities understand that when a family shivers without heat, when children breathe mold, when seniors climb stairs because elevators don't work, a slap on the wrist is not justice. This ordinance doesn't target
any specific landlord. It protects all tenants and demands accountability from all landlords whether they own 500 units or five. The $100 minimum fine is reasonable, lawful, and necessary.
Some will say enforcement is enough, but our current mayor has reinforced that enforcement without consequences is theater. Council members, you have the power tonight to say Jersey City stands with tenants. We won't let corporate
landlords calculate that violations are profitable. The ordinance before you represents the bare minimum of accountability. Our neighbors in crisis deserve at least that much. Please vote yes on ordinance 25-105.
Thank you. Motion >> motion made motion to close the public hearing made by council person Rivera. >> There a second. >> Second. >> Second made by council person waterman
for final consideration and adoption of ordinance 24105. How do you vote? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry. Motion to close public. Let me just uh let me just run down the list of votes there. I'm sorry. I'm getting ahead of myself. Council person Ridley. I >> council person Helings.
>> Yes. >> Council person Bjano. >> Council person Solomon. >> Hi. >> Council person Aiz. >> Hi. >> Council person Rivera. >> I. >> And council person Waterman. >> I. >> Motion to close public hearing passes for final consideration and adoption of
ordinance 24-105. How do you vote? Council person Ridley. >> I. >> Council person Helings. >> Yes. >> Council person Bojaniano. Council person has already voted yes. Council person Solomon. Uh so just briefly I want to thank everyone who kind of worked to bring this forward. I
had Isaac on my team, a law department, municipal prosecutor, and our friends uh at Portside. And I think it was a good example of good policym where um you know, we were listening, heard concerns about the ability for us to issue these fines, have long been frustrated by the slaps on the wrist that don't properly
deter illegal and bad behavior, and ultimately by uh kind of multiple series of conversations, I think came up with an ordinance that's really going to make a difference in people's lives. uh at the end of the day, we're going to have a Jersey City uh where we now have significantly greater power to hold bad
landlords accountable. And now it's going to be up to the prosecutor and the mayor to deliver on that. Uh so uh with that, I'm proudly vote I and uh excited for this to pass. >> Councilman, thank you sir. Councilman Gilmore has already voted yes. Council
person de Council person Rivera. >> Hi. >> And council president Waterman. Ordinance 20 Ordinance 25-105 is adopted unanimously. 90. Uh now, Councilman Solomon, you will be leaving
us this evening. >> I will. I will. >> Okay. So, if if you may, sir, I'd like to get your vote on the claims. >> I >> Okay. And as far as resolution resolutions 10.1 through 10.14, how do you vote, sir?
>> Um, abstain on 104, I and all the rest. >> Okay. Abstain on 104. You said correct? >> Yeah. Substain on 104 I and all the rest. >> Okay. And with regard to agenda items 10:15 through 10:25, how do you vote, sir? >> So, I'm going to vote I until 10:24 and then no on 10:25.
>> No on 10:25. Okay. And before you leave, one more uh housekeeping matter. I understand the council is considering or would like to carry agenda item 3.1 which we just introduced earlier today to the November
12th 2025 hearing. Is that correct? You did not want to introduce that. >> I mean it's count but that is what we discussed. >> Yeah. Yes. >> So shall I entertain a motion to carry agenda item 3.1 for a public hearing at the November 12th
>> council meeting? >> Sure. Motion >> motion made by council person Solomon. >> Second >> second. I didn't Was that River? >> Second. >> Second by Rivera. >> All in favor? Council person Ridley. >> I.
>> Council person heings. >> Yes. >> Council person Biano. >> Council person who was not not here. Council person Solomon. >> Hi. >> Council person Gilmore is not here. Council President DeG >> stepped away.
>> Oh, okay. >> Stepped away. >> And Council President Rivera, >> hi. >> And Council President Waterman. >> Yes. I just want to note I'm carrying it, but I want people to know this is an effect because on the south side of the city, they are buying up people, one family and two family houses, not living
there and hiking the rent and pushing people out. So, we're trying to put slow that process down because people will not have a place to live. So you want to advocate, go on the southside and advocate for them, too. >> So again, just to recap, agenda item
3.1, which is introduced earlier today, ordinance 25-106. The public hearing for that ordinance will be held at the November 12th council meeting. Okay, moving on to our public hearing on the 2025 2026
Municipal Square special mun uh Mcinley Square special improvement district assessment role and budget. Uh we have a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak, please line up in front of the podium. >> Motion to close public hearing made by Waterman. >> Second.
>> Second by Rivera. >> All in favor? Council person Ridley? >> I. >> Council person Huings. >> Yes. >> Council person Bojiano. Council person is not here. Councilman Solomon is not here. Councilman Gilmore is not here.
Council person Deise. Oh, she's not here. Okay. Council person Rivera and Council Person Waterman. >> Hi. >> The public hearing is closed. Six and three abstensions. Uh by virtue of absence. We are now moving on to the
public speaking portion of the meeting. I will call the names in the order that they are listed on the agenda. Each speaker will have three minutes to speak. You may address the council on any issue that you wish. Please be mindful of the countdown counter to my left, your right. The first speaker is
Leverne Webb Washington. >> Not here. >> Not here. Okay. Okay. Moving on. Uh Tina Nulls. Okay. >> Tina Davidson here.
>> Is here. Oh, okay. Good evening, Gina Davidson, council aid to Mr. Gilmore, speaking on behalf of myself as a resident tonight. Really disappointed in that vote. Miss Helings, I asked you if you were
going to be a rubber stamp for this administration. And I think you just answered my question. >> Gina, don't insult them. Okay, >> I'm not insulting. I'm talking about people's voting records >> because they be insulted. Okay. So, just say what you >> I am insulted by the way that this
council has failed right >> to support >> okay >> the citizens of this city and I am disappointed in the way that some of you continue to misrepresent yourselves to the people and your records. So, I'm here tonight to continue to try to drive
accountability >> because something is really wrong in the city. Everybody has an opinion. >> It is my time, Miss Waterman. >> Yes, it is. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> It is a shame.
It is a shame that some of you allowed threatening us. Wait a minute, Gina. Wait a minute. Are you threatening us with this? >> See, people have to understand this is a different day and time. When you walk by the council and you go like this, what does that mean? Would you pause my
time, please? >> Yes. Don't worry, Gina. We going to make sure you get >> We're going to make sure you get your time back. >> Don't you worry. Is that a threat to this council? >> Because this is a different day and time. We don't know you. You walk past us, you point at us and point to your
eyes, you know. >> Okay. >> That is a threat. >> Go ahead, Gina. >> Go ahead, Gina. We start your time over. Don't threaten this council. Enough is enough. You can disagree with us. That's your right.
>> So, yes, as a resident of Ward B, I am disappointed in that vote and I want to share that with you today. And I'm disappointed with the lack of focus on lowincome housing in the city. I want to again bring our attention to some of the numbers from that item that we most of
us voted in tonight. We voted for a tax abatement for a company that's going to make $18.5 million a month in rental income. That's a lot of money. And the whole
point of getting developers in is to pro provide housing to the people that need it. We're not doing that. It's to provide tax income. It's to provide improvements to our city. We're not doing that. So, I'll again repeat my previous statement that this is an inappropriate application of the local
redevelopment and housing law NJSA4A12A1 as are most of the abasements in downtown Jersey City. And if y'all were doing your jobs and walking around the rest of the city, you would be seeing that and you'd be confronted with it constantly. And some of you are, and I
want to credit you for that. But most of you aren't and I'm really disappointed. >> Thank you. >> Next speaker, Edward Per. Edward Perkins, not here. Uh, Rayard Howell,
no. Alexander Bal, >> no. Uh, Esther Whitner. No. Alyssa Jacob. No. Christopher Capers. Okay.
Good evening. My name is Chris Capers. As some of you know, Labour's Local 3 has been protesting in front of 29 Van Ripen and 612 Pavonia Avenue for the last several weeks. These
projects are being developed by Nambdor Group who have quickly become one of Jersey City's most active developers with no signs of slowing down. Tonight, I want to talk about one contractor in particular that is operating at NAMA
sites. Concrete Rising is a non-union concrete um contractor with a history of shady leadership and wagering hour violations. Concrete Rising co-owner Tom Bulli plead
guilty in 2022 on corrupt interference with tack laws and he has been accused of coordinating voter fraud connected to Steve's Fullups city council victory in Jersey City in05.
More recently, in April 2023, Concrete Rising was issued a stopwork order at Left Racks Bisby Development by the Department of Labor for allegations of unpaid and late wages, failure to pay
overtime, illegal deductions, improper classification, construction workers. After the do finished their investigation, Concrete Rising was barred from public work for three years. They also had to
pay a half a million dollars in back wages. And last but not least, during the summer 2024, Kushner Companies, the Journal Square and NAMDA group at 35 Cottage
spent hundreds of concrete workers employed by GP Concrete went weeks without pay. concrete rising who has hired GP concrete replaced them with another contractor but did not pay the
workers. Our union helped over 70 workers file wage death claims with the do and we recently learned that concrete risen and GP concrete are disputing the do's
findings. Workers have now been waiting over a year and are demanding that concrete rising and GP concrete stop delaying the process and pay the workers what they're owed. You can all help by
signing our petition that I left in the back on the table. And I also want to personally invite every one of you here to our information line from 7 to 2. Thank you for your time. Percy Lujang.
>> Good evening everyone. My name is Percy Luhang. I am an organizer with the Labor Resistant Region Organizing Fund. We're currently protesting at 29 Van Rapen Avenue to draw attention to the responsible development practices of the Nander Group. I am fairly new to Jersey
City, but in this brief time, I've come to really appreciate this place. It is a vibrant, diverse city oozing with culture and history. It is also a city undergoing very drastic changes made evident by the rapid development of Journal Square in the past years.
Speaking to longtime residents and community groups, I've come to learn many times they feel excluded from these developments. Jersey City has led the New York metro area in housing production. Yes, this new housing is unaffordable for many of the longtime
residents. Other 29 Van Rapen Avenue and 612 Pavoni Avenue sites, Nandar Group is developing 1,126 units, 968 of them are studio apartments
and there are zero zero affordable units. AJ, Nander Group's go-to choice for general contractor, has a history of hiring unscrupulous contractors. The New Jersey Department of Labor currently has
five open cases against contractors that operated on AJ's job sites, included a n including at Nambers's 35 cottage project for revelations, including non-payment of wages, failure to pay overtime, lack of workers compensation
insurance, and hindering the Department of Labor's investigation. Many of these workers are still waiting to be paid. I am personally I personally witnessed workers buying their own safety equipment and this last summer workers at AJ sites told me that they were not
being provided water during heat waves by hiring AJ again for their van rapen and pavonia projects. Nandar is undermining the livelihoods of construction workers in Jersey City. Nander has deep pockets and recently secured uh $578 million in financing
from TYKO Capital which is backed by a 76 million dollar hedge fund billion dollar hedge fund. They are quickly becoming one of the most prolific developers in Jersey City and they should be setting the example for what responsible development looks like and
it definitely does not look like luxury studios being built by responsible contractors like AJ. We are building traits people. We love building. But our union understands that what we build comes with a social responsibility of improving the lives of our members and
their communities. JCCD residents deserve better and workers deserve better. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Arjaman Jera, not here. Uh Mona, um sorry if I'm pronouncing this. Mona, are you here?
Uh Jake Efos. Oh, he's here. Okay, hold on. Sorry. >> Yes. I'm sorry. Sorry. I didn't I didn't see you here. Uh yes, number you are listed as number 12, correct? Mona, I I don't know. Ray Deboy.
Well, You are eligible to speak. So you are here. So feel free to do so. Sir, you have three minutes. >> Thank you very much. >> I came here. You >> have to use the mic. Sir, >> I came here not just to city council. I
came to all people in this chamber. The November force approaches and we have to be responsible for this city. Not just politician but every
citizen is responsible for our destiny. I'm talking about my councilman Solomon. I already said to council uh that his
strange unusual um I would say lying behavior. Um you remember already fascist America is okay. Uh defund police okay recently he changed this he
changes his uh opinion about Palestine problem but it's not about Palestine. He don't care about Palestine or Israel. He care about his
name, his ambition. uh if uh he don't know I can recall him the Israel just
80 years ago was created and within this 80 years population of Israel go to 10.1 million Palestine had a lot of opportunities is
to create own state. President Clinton was able to manage this situation and offering the Palestine the capital half of Israel.
Palestine declined this opportunity. So Mr. Salomon, I have for you one simple suggestion. Remove your name from people who pretend
to be our our mayor. Please do it if you respect yourself. I know very well your relations with our management. I know very well how you
uh relate to them. You are wrong when you said I am still not for sale. You have to say I am still not for resale because you already sold yourself completely.
Thank you very much. Thank you sir. >> Appreciate it. Jake Ephros. >> Good evening, council. My name is Jake Ephos um here in Jersey City Heights. I'm here today in solidarity with the members of local 3, the laborers local
3. um also in solidarity with the members of 1199J and of HPAE at Christ Hospital in in multiple sites. Uh we're seeing that there's this threat and this attack on what Jersey City should be, which is
a union town. Jersey City is a union town, but it doesn't feel like it right now. And it doesn't feel like it because we are seeing not only non-union workers uh go through deep deep exploitation developing a zero affordable housing uh
site at Journal Square. Um but we're seeing what amounts to wage theft by contractors like AJ and Namar uh that are developing there. This is a disgrace and I stand in wholehearted support and solidarity with labor uh the labor's
local three uh in fighting back and pushing back against them. Um, also in the Heights in our neighborhood, uh, at Christ Hospital, now HR, uh, we have HPAE, Health Professionals and Allied Employees Workers and 1199J workers
pushing back against the attacks by new management on the what they're calling non-essential services at that hospital uh, with a threat of closure. Thankfully, this hospital can't just close outright, but we as a city need to be proactive in supporting our union
workers at this hospital, um, our union workers at our construction sites, and we need to be holding these big corporations accountable. We need to be bringing them in here. Our city council should be subpoening these people who are at the top of these companies to
hold them to account. ask them what they are going to do to write the wrongs that are being done onto our community and to our laborers here in Jersey City. That's my piece for this evening. Again, Jersey City is a union town. Let's live up to it.
Joel Brooks. Joel Brooks. No. Kevin Weller. Again, council, I want to thank Councilman Solomon again and now this entire council for passing ordinance 25105
tonight. That was the right vote, of course, which brings me to what happens next. With 25105 now law, there really is nothing preventing Director Richardson from enforcing all
of Ordinance 260. The administrative burden, well, you just fixed that. So, let's talk about what in full enforcement actually looks like. Before the last council meeting, Jake Hudnut,
municipal prosecutor Hudnot, would answer emails and take phone calls. Since the last meeting, that all stopped. I don't know why. I'd rather communicate directly than raise these issues through the press or in public comment. But here we are.
Before he stopped communing communicating, Mr. Hudnet told me something interesting. He said only a few sections of chapter 260 ever actually get acted on. Initial rent determinations, rent roll filings, that's about it. Let me read you ordinance 260-17,
something he and I discussed. A violation of any provisions of this chapter shall be punishable as provided in chapter one. A violation affecting more than one tenant shall be considered a separate violation as to each tenant.
Any provisions, not some provisions, any. Not rent provisions, any. So, let's talk about section 260-7, anti-harassment. That sounds like an important one. In all of Jersey City's code enforcement
and Jersey City's code, anti-harassment lands squarely under ordinance 260. That's a provision. Yesterday, Councilman Gilmore asked me, "How would Richardson even know if 260-7 is triggered?" The answer is in the ordinance. Section 260-7
gives us one of the triggers, two words, inadequate security. We've reported inadequate security to Director Richardson since at least June of 2024. And we've reported it every single day for the last 170 consecutive
days. So, let's do the math. 170 days over 1,000 tenants. That would be a violation affecting more than one tenants. So, that's 170,000 separate violations of Ordinance 260-7. Director Richardson, how many of those
170,000 harassment violations have you personally acted on? A thousand, 100, 10, one. In 20 days, the continuing violations provision of the now unanimously passed 25105 becomes fully
enforceable. When that happens, one summons will take care of all of those violations. So, I really hope that that's what we see happen. Thank you. Jess Razulo not here. Okay. Uh
Mabel. Okay. Subie. Good evening, council members. My name is Subie Huikuri. I'm resident of Portide Towers owned by Equity Residential. Chapter 218 of the Jersey City Code requires every building with 100 or more
units to have 247 uniform security. Both buildings at Portsite Towers have far more than 100 units. Yet we have no trained licensed guards on site. Instead, our landlord Equity Residential
relies on cameras and concurses. that cameras can stop an intruder and consurers are not licensed to handle emergencies. That's exactly why the law says uniformed security guards, meaning professionals trained in homeland
security and counterterrorism, emergency response, theft prevention, limits on use of force, detention of suspects, ethics, and first aid, CPR, AED. These are not interchangeable roles.
We've seen why this matters. Last year, on November 22nd, a man violently assaulted his girlfriend and entered our East Tower lobby. On June 9th, a stray bullet struck a child's bedroom window in our building.
This summer, a resident's car was masked beside her daughter's car seat. Two weeks ago, a female resident realized a man standing behind her pants unzipped next to our buildings. These are not isolated events. They are
proof that we need the uniform.