This blog started looking into the deals and relationships
driving our town’s development, and already there are some fairly questionable
issues.
On 3/14/12, Mayor Jackson received a $2,500 contribution
from Michael R. Ambrosi:
On 4/11/12, Jackson received a $2,500 contribution from a
Gregory M. Perel:
Who are Michael Ambrosi and Greg Perel, and why are those
contributions important? Michael Ambrosi is Vice President of Leasing and
Marketing at ARC
Properties, a local developer group. Ambrosi’s father, Robert, is the
Chairman and CEO of ARC Properties. Gregory Perel, who lives in New York but
contributed to a local Montclair campaign, doesn’t work for ARC Properties. But
his father – Marc Perel – does. He’s the President
and COO.
While searching through business entity records, this blog
discovered that both Robert Ambrosi and Marc Perel are principals at an entity
called Montclair Commerce, LLC:
Interestingly enough, Montclair Commerce, LLC owns the deed
to
233 Bloomfield Avenue, which was recommended as a redevelopment area in the
October 2014
Montclair Center Redevelopment Study. The Township Council authorized the
Planning Board to undertake the preliminary investigation on March 4, 2014 and
June 18, 2014 – votes that helped advance the developers efforts.
A New Jersey statute, NJ
Rev Stat § 40A:12A-4 (2014), grants the municipal governing body the
authority to conduct a preliminary investigation, make recommendations, and
implement redevelopment plans. According to a local law firm
specializing in the area of redevelopment and planning, “Bluntly, a
redevelopment agreement is a zoning contract.”
Jackson and Councilor McMahon abstained from voting while on the
Planning Board, as they would be voting on the matter at the Council level. On 3/10/15, the Township Council passed a
resolution, based on the findings of the Planning Board and their public
hearing, and designated 233 Bloomfield Ave. as an area in need of
redevelopment. The plan was the first resolution on the Consent Agenda: the
“Council of the Township of Montclair does hereby declare the parcels of land
known and described above on the Tax Maps of the Township of Montclair to be an
area in need of redevelopment,” which included 233 Bloomfield Ave. Jackson voted for
the redevelopment plan (tune into the Council Meeting at the 71:44 minute
marker on 3/10/15 to hear Jackson’s vote).
Under redevelopment plans, developers like Ambrosi and Perel
get tax abatements in exchange for “the developer’s promise to build in
distressed or blighted areas.” According to the Montclair
Times:
“Montclair's elected officials say
tax abatements have become a useful tool in their quest to attract development
and increase tax revenues for the township.
The PILOT, or Payment In Lieu Of
Taxes, agreements permitted under state statutes allow municipalities to offer
developers a reduced tax burden in exchange for the developer's promise to
build in distressed or blighted areas.”
Some community members have already expressed concerns over
the PILOT program, saying developers
were getting too many benefits on the taxpayers’ dime:
“Scott said that there is going to
be development in Montclair one way or another, but it was up to residents
to keep up with development proposals as
they relate to the density and scale involved and oppose any elements of the
master plan and redevelopment plan they feel would alter the town’s character. He
added that Planning Director Janice Talley had an obligation to keep updated
the various redevelopment plans on the township’s website. Many residents were
disgruntled over the Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) program, which they felt
gave too many benefits to developers on the backs of the taxpayers. Resident
Jarvis Hawley expressed interest in getting a petition signed by residents to
prevent future PILOT deals.”
So Ambrosi and Perel were awarded a contract with the city
and quite possibly earned tax credits in exchange for promising to redevelop
the property.
But Montclair has an ordinance
establishing “that a business entity which makes political contributions to
municipal candidates and municipal and county political parties in excess of
certain thresholds shall be limited in its ability to receive public contracts
from the township of Montclair in the county of Essex.” The ordinance states
that no business entity, which includes an individual, the individual’s spouse,
and any child/children, can be awarded a contract if they had made a
contribution to a candidate (Jackson) within a twelve-month period.
Based on Montclair’s ordinance, even discussing future
development projects would be strictly prohibited. In other words, if Perel and
Ambrosi had discussed these redevelopment plans with the mayor from March/April
2012 (when their sons first contributed) to March/April 2013, they would be in
violation of the ordinance. The New Jersey Local Government Ethics Law would
also likely be relevant here – and is particularly concerned with public
actions that create even the appearance of a conflict.
This Montclair ordinance was designed to protect “taxpayers
and residents as to their trust in government and its business practices” from
deals like this. Even if there was not a discussion and a specific violation of
the ordinance, it seems to this blog that the Mayor's actions certainly
violated the spirit of the ordinance, which was intended to prevent even the
appearance of public corruption and to promote trust in government. Mayor
Jackson should have rejected the contributions from Perel and Ambrosi, or avoided
any involvement in city projects associated with them. He certainly shouldn’t
have voted to advance their project himself.
As a final note, the fact that both campaign contributions came from these developers’ sons (instead of from themselves) seems particularly odd and plenty shady to this blog…
No comments:
Post a Comment