Hoboken is now at a crossroads because of decisions made by Mayor Bhalla that have placed our city in a difficult and costly position.
The choice before us tonight is not one we would ever want to make, but it is the result of unauthorized actions taken by Mayor Bhalla without City Council approval—actions that have led to a lawsuit threatening to burden taxpayers for years to come. This is a decision none of us take lightly, and I want to ensure you are fully informed before it happens.
At the heart of this issue are two, large-scale redevelopment projects in the Western Edge that in 2020 were approved by the City Council and signed (and celebrated) by Mayor Bhalla because of, among others, the 107 affordable units, including 17 for homeless veterans, and the $9 million in contributions towards community recreational infrastructure (pool, rec center, etc.). But in 2021, without City Council approval, Mayor Bhalla reversed his position on these projects after facing political pressure from a neighboring State Senator / Mayor, and to avoid a challenger in the then upcoming 2021 mayoral race. He even went so far as to threaten the developer publicly to reduce the heights of the buildings.
His decision and unauthorized conduct led to a lawsuit by the developer alleging, among others, that Mayor Bhalla conspired with Union City to block the projects, breaching the previously signed contracts for redevelopment. A lawyer for Union City came to our last City Council meeting and actually read aloud a letter from Mayor Bhalla to the Union City mayor saying he would only approve a development acceptable to Union City. I have raised this with you in the past, highlighting our mayor putting the interests of a neighboring city ahead of ours.
This litigation has now dragged on for four years, with the City Council having no choice but to approve the legal bills funded by taxpayers. Nine out of the 14 counts against the city have already been lost – for these 9, a judge ruled that the Hoboken Planning Board was required to approve the developments after initially denying them—something rarely seen in cases like this. If the remaining 5 counts concerning Mayor Bhalla’s unauthorized actions are proven true at trial, Hoboken taxpayers could potentially face paying out tens of millions of dollars in damages.
The City Council is now faced with having to approve a settlement negotiated by Mayor Bhalla to resolve these remaining 5 counts. I fully understand that we need to settle this litigation to avoid a costly trial and devastating outcome for Hoboken taxpayers. But how can we be sure that the terms of this settlement proposed by Mayor Bhalla are truly the best available for Hoboken residents when the mayor's conflict of interest raises serious concerns about the integrity of the settlement? To avoid this conflict and ensure the settlement is in Hoboken’s best interest, last week, I requested in writing twice that we delay the vote, and that Mayor Bhalla delegate his negotiating authority to the City Council. One request was ignored, the second request was denied.
Below is more color on the situation and why I believe we must ensure transparency and accountability before moving forward.
OUR TWO CHOICES:
- We go to trial and risk losing, which could cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in damages for the now four year delay to the projects being built, and the developer builds the projects as originally approved.
- We settle the case under terms that Mayor Bhalla himself negotiated—with terms that are highly favorable to the developer and more financially burdensome to Hoboken residents than the original approvals: giving them up to 900 (90%) more residential units, five additional stories, $5 million less in community benefits, elimination of LEED certification, 75% reduction in open space, and a 30-year PILOT agreement with the best terms available under state law.
These are not the choices Hoboken deserves. They are the result of Mayor Bhalla’s politically driven decisions. His reversal in 2021 was not about serving Hoboken—it was about avoiding a political challenger in his re-election campaign. This political maneuvering has led us to a point where taxpayers are the ones left with the consequences.
It’s worth noting that the developer is a Hoboken neighbor who has invested significantly in our community, and they did not deserve the sudden reversal from Mayor Bhalla after the projects were already approved.
THE COUNTS IN THE LAWSUIT
The developer’s lawsuit includes 16 claims (summary after my signature), grouped into three categories:
- Claims 1-5: These relate directly to Mayor Bhalla’s unauthorized conduct and the City of Hoboken, focusing on breach of contract, conspiracy, and other related actions.
- Claims 6-14: These are related to the Hoboken Planning Board’s improper denial of the two projects. The Planning Board, under pressure from Mayor Bhalla, denied the applications in a manner that the developer argued was arbitrary, capricious, and based on improper motives.
- Claims 15-16: These involve only Union City’s interference in the projects.
It’s important to note that the proposed settlement only addresses the claims related to Mayor Bhalla’s unauthorized conduct and the City of Hoboken (Claims 1-5). The claims related to the Planning Board’s denial of the two projects have already been resolved (Claims 6-14, which are the only ones that included the City Council as a defendant although no mention of any wrong doing). If the proposed settlement is approved, Claims 15 & 16 will survive against Union City.
POLITICALLY DRIVEN, COSTLY ACTIONS
The reason Mayor Bhalla changed his position was politically driven: to appease a powerful political figure and avoid a challenger in his 2021 re-election campaign. This was widely known and wasn’t just speculation—a group of union leaders confirmed that Mayor Bhalla himself said he opposed the project to avoid facing an opponent. This expands the issue beyond civil litigation into potential criminal misconduct.
Under New Jersey law (N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2), "official misconduct" is defined as unauthorized actions by a public servant intended to benefit themselves or harm others, using their position improperly. Another statute (N.J.S.A. 2C:27-10) addresses when a public servant receives a benefit in exchange for official conduct. This is why referred this matter to New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin and State Comptroller Kevin Walsh last week.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS
The fundamental question is this: Are the terms of the proposed settlement the best possible settlement terms for Hoboken? How can we be sure when it was Mayor Bhalla—whose actions created this situation—who negotiated the settlement?
This is a clear conflict of interest. The mayor has a stake in resolving this as quickly as possible and sweeping it under the rug to protect his political future, but the residents of Hoboken deserve a deal that serves their best interests. Under New Jersey statute (40A:9-22.5), this conflict calls into question his ability to act independently on behalf of Hoboken residents.
WHAT I AM ASKING OF MY COLLEAGUES
The same thing I asked the administration, the lawyers for the city and a handful of my colleagues last week. I am urging my City Council colleagues to delay tonight’s vote, demand that Mayor Bhalla step aside from the negotiations, and allow the City Council to take over and finalize the settlement. We owe it to Hoboken to ensure the best possible outcome, one that prioritizes the interests of our residents, not the political future of any one individual.
WHY NOW
This is not the first time I have raised this issue about the mayor’s unauthorized conduct. I have told the lawyers for the city multiple times in the past couple of years that the interests of the City Council and the interests of the Mayor are not aligned, and that the mayor acted independently and without authority when he took steps to block the project that we all had previously approved. But now we are faced with an actual vote on two choices that are worse off for the public than the original approvals. Caused by the political motives and unauthorized conduct of our mayor.
HOLDING THE MAYOR ACCOUNTABLE
Mayor Bhalla’s actions have not been in the best interest of Hoboken and his actions have created a terrible financial risk and burden for Hoboken taxpayers and residents. As I stated at our last meeting, this type of conduct not only warrants stepping aside from these negotiations but IMHO, also stepping down as mayor. It is that serious of an issue. The City Council must not only hold him accountable but ensure restitution for the harm he has caused to Hoboken residents and taxpayers.
This is a serious matter. And one that I strongly feel the public needs transparency on before it is resolved.
Our City Council meeting is tonight at 7pm at City Hall. You can watch on the city's Facebook or YouTube pages. To participate, you need to join in person and sign up to speak during the public portion.
As always, please share this with everyone you know who may be interested and reach out any time on any issue important to you: 201-208-1764 or [email protected].
Tiffanie Fisher
Hoboken City Council, 2nd Ward
Engage. Inform. Advocate.
“More Voices are Better”
Learn more: www.Hoboken2ndWard.com
SUMMARY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED 1/4/22
Below is a summary of 16 counts included in the amended complaint. The only five (Counts 1-5) being considered as part of the settlement are at the top in red. In all of these, the defendant is the City of Hoboken, NOT the City Council. And in fact, when you read the counts, the City Council is not ever mentioned. It says each time “Hoboken, by and through Mayor Bhalla and its other officials” and given the City Council has only supported these projects, it can only be construed that the actions in question are NOT related to actions of the City Council.
The two relating to Union City (Counts 15 & 16) are listed next. And the nine that follow (Counts 6-14) were resolved when Judge Turula remanded the land use applications for the two projects back to the Hoboken Planning Board, stating the court no longer had jurisdiction, and the applications were subsequently approved by the HPB.
COUNT ONE: Breach of Contract (JB112 v. Hoboken)
Plaintiff: JB112
Defendant: City of Hoboken
Summary: JB112 claims that Hoboken breached the redevelopment contract for Block 112 by failing to cooperate with necessary approvals and publicly opposing the project, resulting in significant financial harm.
COUNT TWO: Breach of Contract (HWE v. Hoboken)
Plaintiff: HWE
Defendant: City of Hoboken
Summary: HWE alleges that Hoboken breached the redevelopment contract for Block 106 by failing to cooperate with necessary approvals and engaging in public opposition to the project, causing substantial financial loss.
COUNT THREE: Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (JB112 v. Hoboken)
Plaintiff: JB112
Defendant: City of Hoboken
Summary: JB112 claims Hoboken acted in bad faith by frustrating the purpose of the Block 112 Agreement through actions that impeded necessary approvals and pressured JB112 to amend the agreement under unfavorable terms.
COUNT FOUR: Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (HWE v. Hoboken)
Plaintiff: HWE
Defendant: City of Hoboken
Summary: HWE alleges that Hoboken acted in bad faith by frustrating the Block 106 Agreement, particularly by ensuring that necessary approvals would be denied unless the agreement was amended.
COUNT FIVE: Injurious Falsehood (All Plaintiffs v. Hoboken)
Plaintiffs: JB112 and HWE
Defendant: City of Hoboken
Summary: JB112 and HWE claim that Hoboken made false and defamatory statements about the plaintiffs, harming their interests and public perception to gain an unfair advantage in negotiations.
COUNT FIFTEEN: Tortious Interference with Contract (All Plaintiffs v. Union City)
Plaintiffs: JB112 and HWE
Defendant: Union City
Summary: JB112 and HWE claim that Union City interfered with their contracts with Hoboken by pressuring Hoboken to breach the agreements, causing financial harm to the plaintiffs.
COUNT SIXTEEN: Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage (All Plaintiffs v. Union City)
Plaintiffs: JB112 and HWE
Defendant: Union City
Summary: JB112 and HWE allege that Union City interfered with their economic advantages as redevelopers in the Western Edge Redevelopment Area by pressuring Hoboken and the Planning Board to obstruct their projects. HERE
COUNT SIX: Arbitrary, Capricious, and Unreasonable Denial of Block 112 Application (JB112 v. Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board)
Plaintiff: JB112
Defendants: City of Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board
Summary: JB112 alleges that the Planning Board’s denial of their Block 112 application was arbitrary, capricious, and based on false premises, and seeks to have the denial declared null and void.
COUNT SEVEN: Improper Purpose in Adoption of Block 112 Resolution of Denial (JB112 v. Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board)
Plaintiff: JB112
Defendants: City of Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board
Summary: JB112 argues that the Planning Board adopted the Block 112 Resolution of Denial for improper purposes, primarily to force further concessions from JB112 under pressure from Union City.
COUNT EIGHT: Violation of Constitutional Rights to Substantive Due Process and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (JB112 v. Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board)
Plaintiff: JB112
Defendants: City of Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board
Summary: JB112 claims that the denial of the Block 112 application violated their constitutional rights to due process, as the decision lacked a rational basis and was made with improper motives.
COUNT NINE: Estoppel from Enforcing Block 112 Resolution of Denial (JB112 v. Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board)
Plaintiff: JB112
Defendants: City of Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board
Summary: JB112 argues that Hoboken and the Planning Board should be estopped from enforcing the denial of the Block 112 application, as it contradicts the agreed-upon terms in the Block 112 Agreement.
COUNT TEN: Arbitrary, Capricious, and Unreasonable Denial of Block 106 Application (HWE v. Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board)
Plaintiff: HWE
Defendants: City of Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board
Summary: HWE alleges that the Planning Board’s denial of their Block 106 application was arbitrary and capricious, based on false premises, and seeks to have the denial declared null and void.
COUNT ELEVEN: Improper Purpose in Adoption of Block 106 Resolution of Denial (HWE v. Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board)
Plaintiff: HWE
Defendants: City of Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board
Summary: HWE argues that the Planning Board adopted the Block 106 Resolution of Denial for improper purposes, aiming to force further concessions from HWE under pressure from Union City.
COUNT TWELVE: Violation of Constitutional Rights to Substantive Due Process and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (HWE v. Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board)
Plaintiff: HWE
Defendants: City of Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board
Summary: HWE claims that the denial of the Block 106 application violated their constitutional rights to due process, as the decision lacked a rational basis and was made with improper motives.
COUNT THIRTEEN: Estoppel from Enforcing Block 106 Resolution of Denial (HWE v. Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board)
Plaintiff: HWE
Defendants: City of Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board
Summary: HWE argues that Hoboken and the Planning Board should be estopped from enforcing the denial of the Block 106 application, as it contradicts the agreed-upon terms in the Block 106 Agreement.
COUNT FOURTEEN: Violation of the New Jersey Fair Housing Act (All Plaintiffs v. Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board)
Plaintiffs: JB112 and HWE
Defendants: City of Hoboken, Mayor Bhalla, the City Council, and the Planning Board
Summary: JB112 and HWE allege that Hoboken and the Planning Board violated the New Jersey Fair Housing Act by imposing unlawful measures that obstructed the development of affordable housing in Blocks 112 and 106.
Do you like this post?
Showing 1 reaction
Sign in with
Facebook Twitter