Did Mayor Jackson’s Actions Violate The Spirit Of Montclair’s Pay-To-Play Ordinance?, Part 2

This blog was irked to discover that ARC Properties’ Robert Ambrosi and Marc Perel’s properties were included in the Redevelopment Study and voted on by both the Planning Board and Township Council. Did this blog mention that both Perel and Ambrosi had their sons contribute to Mayor Jackson in 2012? Yeah, that definitely happened.

As was previously mentioned, on 3/14/12, Mayor Jackson received a $2,500 contribution from Michael R. Ambrosi (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):

This blog laid out Montclair’s ordinance in the previous post, but just to recap, the ordinance establishes “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 negotiating future development projects would be strictly prohibited. In other words, if Ambrosi had discussed/struck a deal/negotiated redevelopment plans with the mayor from March/April 2012 (when his son first contributed to Jackson’s campaign) to March/April 2013, he would likely be in violation of the ordinance.

Around the time Mayor Jackson received a contribution from Ambrosi’s son, Jackson became the “driving force” and was the “architect of the idea” behind a plan to move the police headquarters to a privately owned building. According to a Montclair Times article from 2012:

“Montclair's aging police headquarters and municipal offices may soon be relocated together into a new building, part of an ambitious project that could also include offices and restaurants on the parking lot across the street from the Lackawanna Plaza shopping center, a project that would increase the tax stream and decrease the township's debt, municipal officials said.

The idea is in its early stages and is being explored at this point, according to officials, who said it would include leasing the land on which the police station is located - at the corner of Valley Road and Bloomfield Avenue - and/or leasing the land on which the Municipal Building sits, at 205 Claremont Ave.

Mayor Robert Jackson, the architect of the idea, envisions the fiscal value of the police and municipal property not only paying for the new project, but also adding additional income of $2 million to $3 million a year to the town's coffers as either taxes or as a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) fee - income that could help control taxes and reduce Montclair's tremendous debt.”

An interesting tidbit, Robert Ambrosi owned the property Jackson was interested in. In fact, Jackson told the Montclair Times that he discussed the plan for the property with Ambrosi. Jackson was unsure if Ambrosi’s property would be bought or leased, but did hint at current and future negotiations:

“The owner of the property, Robert Ambrosi, founder of ARC Properties, Inc. of Clifton, did not return calls for comment.

Jackson, however, said that he's spoken to Ambrosi about the project and "he likes the idea very much. He was very favorable."

Jackson does not know whether the land would be bought or leased from Ambrosi.

"It can take a number of forms," he said. "When you negotiate, you say, 'Here's what we have, here's what you have, this is what we want, how can we make this happen?'"

So Mayor Jackson already discussed the property with Ambrosi in 2012 (the Montclair Times article was from 12/24/12), a few months after Ambrosi’s son (who works for the company) had contributed to the Mayor’s campaign. In 2013, the Montclair Times article reported that Ambrosi was unsure if he would sell or lease the land to whoever develops the project.

“I think it's a good idea," said Robert Ambrosi, a Montclair resident and founder of Clifton-based ARC Properties, Inc. "The locations where the Police Department and Municipal Building are now are underutilized.

"We are very open and receptive to it," said Ambrosi.

At this stage, Ambrosi doesn't know whether he will sell or lease the land to whoever develops the project. "There are so many details," he said, "it's impossible to say."

As a Montclair resident, Ambrosi sees the projects as "good for the taxpayer.”

All the big developers in town were probably already on the mayor’s Christmas card list before he got elected, but that doesn’t excuse under the table and behind the scenes dealing like this one. There’s a lot of details around this but one fact is clear: Our dear Mayor and sometime-developer Robert Jackson was discussing and negotiating plans for the property with Ambrosi in the months shortly after he received a big check from Ambrosi’s son, who works for the family company. And as best as this blog can tell, that would violate the Montclair ethics ordinance.

Did Mayor Jackson’s Actions Violate The Spirit Of Montclair’s Pay-To-Play Ordinance?

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…

Questioning the Legitimacy of Business Deals In Town

The talk of the town is the Redevelopment Project that has been ongoing. While some are supportive of the project, others have their doubts, saying the project would increase taxes, displace residents, and cause more congestion in that area.

This blog intends to look into the business deals happening in our town. Are the business transactions legitimate? One way to figure out if any favoritism in our town has existed is looking at publicly available campaign finance disclosures in order to have a clear understanding of how money influences politics. Should we be concerned with any pay-to-play activity? This transparency is only valuable when the public actually looks at the contributions and determines for itself whether there is any "pay-to-play" dealings or outside influences at work here.

It’s like a puzzle, putting all of these pieces together. This blog hopes to uncover some of these questions over the next few days. Stay tuned.

Steve Maginnis Updates Blog Profiles To Remove BaristaNet From The “About Me” Sections

In yet another interesting turn of events, it looks like BaristaNet’s freelance reporter Steve Maginnis updated his blog profiles for “Miscellaneous Musings” and “Pictures of Beautiful Women.”

If you notice the “about me” section on both of the above screenshots taken from his two blogs, Maginnis’s old bio read: “I am a freelance writer with several published articles to my credit, especially at two leading local news sites in New Jersey – The Alternative Press and Baristanet.”

His new “about me” section is a little simpler: “I am a freelance writer with various interests.” Like calling women bitches and ogling girls.

Why did Maginnis update his profile? Perhaps BaristaNet is reconsidering Maginnis’s tenure, given his record as a creepy misogynist who uses sexist slurs to describe women with authority. They certainly ought to be - it’s embarrassing to have someone like him on their staff.

Steve Maginnis Scrubbed His Blog Of The Word “Bitch,” Admitting Fault But Not Apologizing For Sexist Slurs

Previously, this blog noted that BaristaNet’s Steve Maginnis recently changed the age limit of young women appearing on his “Pictures of Beautiful Women” blog from 18 to 20.

It now appears that Steve took this blog’s previous posts seriously and scrubbed his other blog, Miscellaneous Musings, of its derogatory and rife use of the word “bitch” to describe women of authority. Not to worry Steve, this blog saved your sexist comments:

Instead of apologizing for his disparaging remarks, he attempted to hide them by removing the posts from the internet.

It’s infuriating that BaristaNet is still allowing this misogynist creep to blog, though they’re well aware this. We all should consider the implications of having Steve report on sensitive political events and our Montclair schools given his creepy, misogynistic tendencies.

BaristaNet Reporter Admits That It’s Inappropriate To Ogle 18 Year Olds On His Blog, Will Only Ogle 20 Year Olds From Now On

On Friday, this blog reported that BaristaNet’s freelance writer Steve Maginnis has some creepy and misogynistic tendencies, including keeping a blog devoting to ogling women, and repeatedly disrespectfully referring to women as “bitches” on another blog he maintains. BaristaNet’s lack of interest in the matter (i.e. blocking this blog’s twitter account), was not exactly inspiring transparency or accountability from local media.  

But it turns out that at least Maginnis himself was interested in the revelations. He’s now made a few changes to his “Pictures of Beautiful Women” blog, writing that “even though eighteen years of age is the age at which legal adulthood is conferred, I've  concluded that that's too young” and “Twenty years of age seems to be a more appropriate threshold.” Right, Steve. Take note, everyone with a college-aged daughter. BaristaNet’s creepster reporter graduated from college in 1988.

So while his action might seem (to him at least) like a step in the right direction, it’s not much of one, and it is still deeply troublesome that BaristaNet has enabled and continues to enable this misogynist creeper to write for them.

The problems with Maginnis run deeper that just his ogle-blog, particularly his clear contempt for women in positions of authority that aren’t just modeling for him. Calling Hillary Clinton, Jonie Ernst, Sarah Palin, and others “bitches” is demeaning and disrespectful, period. 

In Maginnis’s 1950’s view of the world, there seem to be only two kinds of women: young women whose pictures he salivates over, and women in power who he thinks are “bitches”.

It’s disturbing that BaristaNet is just blocking this blog for raising the issue, instead of dealing with the real problem.

BaristaNet: Not So Interested In Accountability And Transparency

This morning, we posted a blog about a misogynist freelancer who is writing for BaristaNet. The reporter, Steven Maginnis, has a creepy blog following hundreds of “women I like, that I want to share with others” and has loosely thrown around the word “bitch” to describe many women on one of his other blogs.  

When we tweeted about our blog post to BaristaNet informing them of their repulsive freelance writer, BaristaNet blocked our Twitter account. Not exactly inspiring transparency from our local media.  

We need better accountability in our community. A reporter like this, who has obvious issues, shouldn’t be trusted with reporting on the issues important to all of us. BaristaNet should remove this misogynist from their staff.