Fact-checking Jen Giattino's fact-checking (oy vey )

Someone whom I respect sent this to me, and said:

Hey there-- do these explanations make sense to you?

The short answer is "NO."

The longer and more accurate answer is, these explanations are unresponsive to the three points in the mailer that Giattino calls "lies."  Her explanations are equal parts unresponsive true statements and dissembling.  One by one:

GIATTINO says:

Correct:  the Zoning Board recommended that the council reconcile inconsistent language in the zoning code.  That is true. 

However, the Zoning Board did not write Ordinance B-40. Ordinance B-40 was found to be defective by the Planning Board, and the findings were shared with the council. Nevertheless,  Jen Giattino voted for B-40  after the Planning Board Review memorandum noted:

"the Yard Regulations do appear substantially inconsistent with the 2018 Master Plan Re-examination Report & 2018 Land Use Element. Specifically, the proposal to exempt the projection of single rear egress stairs from the lot coverage would conflict with the Master Plan recommendations for maximum lot coverage, rearyard regulations and preservation of the “donut hole”. 

CONCLUSIONS

1. While the inclusion of definitions would appear consistent with the Master Plan’s recommendation to make the Code more user-friendly, the exclusion of the architectural features from the lot coverage is contrary to the Plan.

2. We also note that the proposed Amendment is not supported by the Annual Reports prepared by the Zoning Board. As mentioned previously, consistency with the Master Plan may also be informed by the Zoning Board’s Annual Reports.

3. The primary concern is that the exemption from the lot coverage for the proposed projections into the rear yard are inconsistent with the Plan’s recommendations for the preservation of the “donut hole” and proposed recommendations for the District Standards

So yes, Giattino voted for Ordinance B-40 with the knowledge that it was inconsistent with the Master Plan recommendation to preserve the "donut hole" AND with the knowledge that it was not supported by the Annual Reports prepared  by the Zoning Board. 

And yes, Giattino voted for B-40 after the Planning Board sent the Council the following resolution opposing its adoption:

 

In conclusion, Jen Giattino knowingly voted to increase lot coverage by 2%, decreasing the donut--a boon to developers: larger building footprints, larger profits.  Not rocket science.   Thankfully, Mayor Bhalla vetoed Ordinance B-40.

FACT-CHECKING JEN:  The CCP mailer was correct; no "lie."

GIATTINO says:

Unresponsive.  The CCP mailer did not dispute an 8-year old vote, it was referring to Giattino tabling a 2019 resolution for the City to take "all reasonable measures" to enforce local Pay-to-Play law (the one Giattino voted for in 2011). Giattino has tabled this 2019 Pay-to-Play legislation THREE TIMES.

Why?  Does it have anything to do with helping her Council ally Michael DeFusco who has racked up local P2P violations on his 2019 campaign?  It is unclear why the alleged "reform" council persons would not want to vote on P2P enforcement.

FACT-CHECKING JEN:  The CCP mailer referred to 2019 legislation, not 2011; no "lie."

 

 GIATTINO says:

Baloney.  On October 4, 2017, the Ordinance to authorize eminent domain  for the UDD site was brought to the Council as an “Urgent Matter,” meaning that if it was not heard immediately, the City’s position in the matter could be negatively impacted.   And so it happened.  Council President Giattino moved First Reading until after the Hoboken's highly contested election.

She told Marilyn Baer of the Hudson Reporter the reason why she delayed the UDD vote: 

“This is very important to all of us,” said Council President and mayoral candidate Jen Giattino, “to make sure this is policy, not politics, the second reading will be after the election.”

So you see, Jen Giattino's "Fact Check" on UDD is not truthful.  In 2017 she explained that the reason she kicked the eminent domain can down the road had to do with election time politics.  Most likely, she chose to stick a finger in Dawn Zimmer's eye by not having the City acquire UDD during her administration.  Look where it got us. 

FACT-CHECKING JEN:  The CCP mailer is factual, not a "lie"