The Council's costly vendetta

This City Council majority is turning out to be very expensive for Hoboken taxpayers.  

Since three 'reform' members have turned against the Administration, animus and/or politics have been driving their actions, not common sense. 

Sure, it was one thing to boot the mature, thoughtful Jim Doyle off the Planning Board, replacing him with a no-show boob; there is no taxpayer price tag attached to the boob. Sure, the boob has already missed 2 out of 3 meetings, picked fights with the Planning Board Chairman and professionals, disrupted the hearings with erroneous arguments.  But, that bad decision has not dented a single taxpayer's wallet.  

It's the other bad decisions this Council majority is making that threaten city coffers (and our wallets).   

Oh, this is not hyperbole. GA will give you 3 recent examples, with possible taxpayer costs totaling  in the millions. 

(1) COUNCIL TO DEFY CITY'S LEGAL OPINION  

According to Hudson County View, the sponsors of Ordinance B-10 will not heed the advice of Hoboken Corporation Counsel, therefore will not remove B-10 from the agenda, thus will defy Corporation Counsel's opinion that  Ordinance B-10  is "invalid."  

Council President Ruben Ramos told reporter John Heinis, that the governing body currently has no plans to change their agenda for later this week.  

So, the Council will adopt Ordinance B-10 to take appointment power (3 full seats, 2 alternate seats) away from the mayor, in order to re-appoint Giattino campaign surrogates Cheryl Fallick and Mike Lenz to full seats on Hoboken Rent Leveling Board. Fallick and Lenz will replace the mayor's appointees Heath Urban and Father Warren Hall.  

Ramos and the other sponsor of B-10, Council VP Jen Giattino, may not agree with Corporation Counsel, but (1) neither are attorneys, (2) neither represent the City of Hoboken, (3) neither understand (or otherwise care about) the legal consequences of proceeding against the City's legal opinion.   

What are the consequences of adopting law against the City's legal opinion? A seasoned attorney told GA:

"Any decision made by the Board is subject is automatic and legitimate appeal by the aggrieved party. The aggrieved party will have a quick and valid appeal that the board was not properly constituted and therefore their actions are void.  They will likely prevail on that basis.  It's like when you have a rogue cop, it renders all of their convictions suspect.  The Council will create every incentive for people to appeal any decision. All this will do is generate needless legal appeals, and Exhibit A is corp counsels opinion. People not properly appointed may not have government immunity that they would ordinarily have as a duly appointed body and therefore may be personally liable for any of their actions. Hoboken is not Passaic.  We have a contentious rent leveling board. Any swing votes by Fallick or Lenz will be automatically subject to appeal.  Wasting time, wasting taxpayer money." 

Yikes. Let's recap:

(1) Any landlord or tenant with an unfavorable decision is incentivized to appeal. 

(2) The City may not indemnify board members appointed by "invalid" resolution against it's legal advice, making them personally liable for litigation/judgment costs. 

Boy, oh, boy.  

How much will Ordinance B-10 end up costing Hoboken taxpayers?   

(2) TABLING SUEZ CONTRACT INDEFINITELY

In September, then-President Giattino tabled the renegotiated SUEZ contract, leaving taxpayers to foot the ever-increasing contingent liability, expected to reach $17M by the contract's 2024 expiration*.   (*The current contract only allows for $350K per year for Hoboken's water infrastructure maintenance and repair; the renegotiated contract increased that amount nearly 6X plus eliminated the contingent liability!)

Reason: Electioneering.  Animus toward Mayor Zimmer, casting aspersions on her competence and honesty, harming Bhalla by proxy.  Cries to "Investigate" the mayor. Councilwoman Fisher proposed a Municipal Investigating Committee with subpoena power. 

Cost to Taxpayers:  The estimated $17M contingent liability at the end of our current SUEZ contract, although SUEZ has reserved the right to call it in anytime.

(3) TABLING 2ND READING OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR UDD PROPERTY 

In late September, Mayor Zimmer urged the City Council to move forward quickly to approve acquire UDD.  The Resolution passed on First Reading, then Council President Giattino tabled the second reading until after the election.  This decision allowed NY Waterway to swoop in and buy the property for $11.3M.

Reason: To forestall a Zimmer/Bhalla-by-proxy accomplishment until after election day. Council President Giattino stated "To make sure this is policy not politics, the second reading will be after the election." Really? The council overwhelmingly supported ED- 8 approved it on First Reading.  

Cost to Taxpayers: The Council has just approved the acquisition of the UDD property by eminent domain (First Reading) at an assessed value of $11.63M. It is unknown whether the City could have obtained the property for a lesser amount had eminent domain passed in October 2017.

CONCLUSION

When will these 'reformers' put their constituents (and Hoboken) first and drop the vendetta against the mayor? 

And, thanks for the no-show boob on the Planning Board.