Here is the link to the Hoboken Patch article: http://hoboken.patch.com/articles/business-owner-granted-full-access-to-1714-willow-ave-site.
My comment: The initial agreement that the city had for this location has was only for two months to begin with. With the complication of Hoboken Unleashed tenant being the primary leaseholder it looks like it is possible that the search for another site will continue unless the City wants to press for eminent domain. With a lack of viable sites, the use of this action could still be a possibility. Remember that eminent domain requires any government entity to justly compensate whoever it takes the land from for public use.
The Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791, which reads, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".
For more on eminent domain go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
Of course, if consistent with their legal strategy with the nullified Hekemian deal, the City of Hoboken could go back to the original location after October 12th. We will have to see how this plays out.
Update 8/18/2010 10:20AM: A lawsuit filed by Hoboken Unleashed against the Landlord and the City of Hoboken will be heard again in Hudson County Superior Court in Jersey City today. The judge on Monday had given the parties 48 hours to come up with a solution before he would consider issuing any type of injunction. Stay tuned.
Original Post 8/16/2010: In a story broken by Hoboken Patch it is clear the new site of the Municipal Garage has come under formal legal contention. Kudos to Claire Moses for getting this scoop on all other local sites.
Mike Stigliano, one of the partners of dog day care business Hoboken Unleashed, filed suit against the city on Friday afternoon with his goal to being get the City to remove their vehicles from the premises where his business holds a long term lease.
Here is the full article on Hoboken Patch:
http://hoboken.patch.com/articles/local-business-owner-sues-city
It was presented to the City Council during last Wednesday's meeting Michael Kates, attorney for the City of Hoboken did acknowledge that the was an issue with the lease under cross examination from political operative and potential 5th Ward Candidate Perry Belfiore. Kates went on to explain to Belfiore and the City Council that he was aware of the lease and that since it was short term it did not pose a conflict with the other business since their agreement was only for 60 days and they would not have the variance they need by that point to occupy the building. He said that the City was in communication with the other business about exploring a time frame beyond 60 days. Hoboken Patch has reported that up until Friday Hoboken Unleashed had been in talks with the city but decided to press forward with a lawsuit as the City had been unresponsive.
The next step is a court date in Hudson Superior Court in Jersey City today at 1:30pm where both parties attorneys from the City and the business will be present.
- When did the City know about this lease at 1714 Willow with another entity?
- Why does it appear that the landlord didn't tell the City about it ahead of time? Or did they?
- Why didn't the Clinton Street site become the next option given that revelation?
- Did the City get poor legal advice given the fact that this has now developed into another lawsuit?
- Who in the Administration leaked that information out to Perry Belfiore if the negotiations with the other party were at the time in confidence? (Transparency has its limits and some negotiations do occur behind closed doors).
- Who is "Deep Throat" in the Zimmer Administration? This isn't the first leak.
- Or do you think the City of Hoboken was simply trying to cover up that fact of the lease at the time?
- If the current business that has the long term lease doesn't need the property now, why are they suing the City if it is only a 60 day contract? Why are they not suing the landlord instead?
- Or, is the Dog Day Care business rightly just trying to protect their long term interests at the site?
- Did the Developer Hekemian actually have the $25 million to close on Friday?
- Did they (Hekemian) actually have the evidence of financial documents to show that they had the money?
- Is difference in time of 11:00am (Hekemian) Friday or 4:15pm Friday (when the City was ready) material in the eyes of the law for the close time of the garage in terms of being "broom clean" for turnover?
- Why did the City of Hoboken not pursue that path of Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) process? According to Mike Novak, who is an expert in this area this path could have expedited the remediation process for the City. Even though we may have political differences I do defer to his expertise in this area.
- Why did the City wait until the 11th hour to clean up the garage? Yes it was cleaned up by 4:15 PM of Friday August 13th as documented by many in the media but it still looked very last minute.
- When did Mike Russo know about the Pino Site? It is known that he has family ties to John Pope and it is now known amongst insiders that John Pope had pursued the Pino Site under the Roberts Administration as the predominant site of choice.
- If Mike Russo did know about the Pino Site beforehand why didn't he speak out against it during the Roberts Administration when the plan was under consideration? It is possible that Mike Russo did not know but I find it highly unlikely.
- Did Dino Bogdanos who spoke at several meetings on this issue actually have a financial interest in the Jersey City Site as a broker or some kind of finders fees arrangement?
- If so, why wouldn't he (Dino) disclose that?
- Why didn't Mile Square towing respond to the RFP process if they were offering such a great deal?
- Did the Developer drag out the process of a simple remediation by obstruction as the City Council Majority and the Zimmer Administration has maintained?
- Or did the City drag its feet on the remediation effort?
- Or did the City not know about a key piece of the remediation effort due to a poor transition of information between departing legal counsel?
- Why hasn't another newspaper website covered the angle of the fact that Lane Bajardi was responsible in part as the head of the Committee to sell the Garage in the first place?
- As chair of that committee doesn't he (Lane) share responsibility in helping create this "debacle" (his words) in the first place?
- Do you the reader feel it is an obvious conflict of interest to have had a nearby property owner like Lane Bajardi as chair on the Garage Relocation Committee during the Dave Robert's era when his interests could be in conflict with other residents?
- Does anybody really believe it would have been in the best interests of Hekemian to close on a property now worth about $14 million that is contracted for $25 million and change?
- Will the City of Hoboken actually get the DEP letter within the ten day cure period?
- If the City does in fact get the letter, could that mean that they could re-open the sale of the garage to the developer Hekemian or is this still going to court no matter what?
