Hometown Chatham

Author: brigidmcmenamin

  • You can run

    Has longtime Borough Council Member Jocelyn Mathiasen finally come around?

    Might she heed the growing chorus of residents requesting a public forum to consider alternatives before the Council hires someone to chop down the trees and pave up to 80% of one of the last few green spots in the Borough, right next to Memorial Park? 

    To the surprise of nobody, Ms Mathiasen still refuses to reconsider needlessly sacrificing the unique, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue.

    What’s amazing is that a powerful elected official would stoop to trying to justify not holding that public forum by making baseless personal attacks on private citizens who have requested such a forum.  

    Just look at what Ms Mathiasen said at the most recent public Council meeting, held Tuesday October 13, 2026. https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=561

    At that meeting, Ms Mathiasen falsely accused unspecified residents of misbehaving at a previous meeting, where she had invited an expert to explain PILOT agreements at the request of “some of the same people here.” (2:37:59) https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=298

    “[A]t that forum, there was booing, hissing, interrupting,” said Ms Mathiasen. “There were insults, insults at, towards the expert…. the behavior was so appalling.” 

    But is that true? We haven’t found such behavior in the video of that October 15, 2024 meeting, shown here:  https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=298 (Please let us know if you find any.)

    (Was Ms Mathiasen appalled that a Borough lawyer interrupted a public speaker who was explaining that PILOTs are actually stealth taxes? See 4:45:40)

    More to the point, are the professional experts we taxpayers pay to advise and represent the Borough in tough situations actually so delicate that they require Ms Mathiasen’s tender protection from cross words and eye rolling?

    As if those strange claims weren’t bad enough, at the recent October 13, 2026 Council meeting, Ms Mathiasen also stooped to making false and personally defamatory comments about a certain longtime Borough resident and volunteer who was not present. (2:37:10)

    Ms Mathiasen falsely accused that resident of posting things “…on the Chatham Choice website… that are simply not true… also things that are absolutely untrue.”

    What, for instance? Ms Mathiasen did not cite an example. Not one.

    She claimed she had “…spent a lot of time identifying statements that are not true…” 

    Such as what? Ms Mathiasen did not cite an example. Not one.

    She claimed, “…it’s just not based on honesty…. there’s a lot of dishonesty floating around… 

    An example? Ms Mathiasen did not cite an example. Not one.

    At the same October 13, 2026 meeting (2:37:10), Ms Mathiasen also insisted she stands by an op-ed she published in the Patch last March 2026, yet she didn’t explain  why it had been taken down. And she didn’t  refute any part of the point-by-point debunking shown here: https://chathamchoice.org/2026/03/just-the-facts/

    Why would a third-term Council member like Mathiasen stoop so low?

    Perhaps she stooped to lies and defamation because she couldn’t defend the remarks she had made at the previous Council meeting, on September 28, 2026. (https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=557 at 2:35:44), unwittingly demonstrating the need for the public forum she refuses to consider:

    1. At that September 28, 2026 meeting, Ms Mathiasen had blamed the state of New Jersey for her handling of the Borough’s affordable housing plan, claiming, quote: ”…towns… were given a very short timeframe to come up with a complete affordable housing plan…” 

    FACT: That timeframe is irrelevant to our ongoing request that the Council hold a public forum as soon as practicable AFTER receiving the final Certificate of Compliance, an option described by the Borough’s affordable housing lawyer at the December 8, 2025 Council meeting.

    (She won’t even reveal if the Certificate is final now and, if not, when it will be final.)

    2. Ms Mathiasen also tried to pass off a short list of properties as due diligence.  

    FACT: As she knows, that list is not complete. It totally excludes most privately owned parcels. 

    3. Ms Mathiasen insisted, quote, “…there was no way… that we could come up with an agreement with any private property owner… [before June 30, 2025]”

    FACT: That’s no excuse not to seek alternatives AFTER the court grants the final Certificate, as our experts described at the June and December 2025 Borough meetings.

    4. Ms Mathiasen told us, quote, “We subsequently learned that once …you’ve gotten a judgment from the court, that if you reopen the plan, you can reopen your entire plan….” She added, quote, “And that was said at a Planning Board meeting…”

    FACT: Which Planning Board meeting? Ms Mathiasen has not responded to an email asking that. And, if true, why didn’t the expert lawyer or planner warn about that at the June 18 or December 8 meeting?

    We heard nothing like that until the planner spoke at the March 9, 2026 Council meeting, nearly a month after the judge approved the settlement.  

    What changed between December 8 and March 9 that the Borough’s housing attorney couldn’t handle? 

    Why not have the Borough’s expert affordable housing lawyer explain at a public forum?

    5. Ms Mathiasen told us, quote, “… the only other lot that could potentially be used is… a much worse candidate…” 

    FACT: Even if true of Borough-owned properties, it is not true of the privately-owned sites that routinely go up for sale. 

    6. She cited the cost of a substitute lot, saying, quote, “…the number one thing we hear about is taxes.”

    FACT:  Sure, nobody wants to pay higher taxes. Yet they sometimes decide a certain benefit is worth the cost. A public forum would reveal if residents would rather save $50 to $100 per year or preserve the green lot next to Memorial Park. 

    7. Ms Mathiasen insisted using another site, quote, “… is just not feasible…” as “… we’re supposed to break ground within two years….” 

    FACT:  Only extra step is buying the lot. If that would blow the two-year deadline, she should have the lawyer come to a public forum and tell us why.

    8. Finally, Ms Mathiasen cited her op-ed on the subject. You can see it and the point-by-point rebuttal in a March 2026 post on ChathamChoice.org (https://chathamchoice.org/2026/03/just-the-facts/)

  • You Matter

    Would you needlessly sacrifice this unique, taxpayer-owned, green parcel right next to our Memorial Park, behind the library?

    Would you consider instead investing taxpayer funds to preserve this green space and merge it with our Memorial Park next door?

    Shouldn’t our Mayor & Council hold a public forum BEFORE they plunge ahead and pave over 58 North Passaic Avenue?

    Speak Up

    bhargrove@chathamborough.org          

    cdempsey@chathamborough.org

    jmathiasen@chathamborough.org            jstrickland@chathamborough.org

    kkoronkiewicz@chathamborough.org                khay@chathamborough.org

    mgilmore@chathamborough.org

    Show Up

    Public meeting, Monday, September 28, 2026, starting 7:30 pm:

    Come as you are, whenever convenient. Sit wherever you like. Leave whenever you please. Speaking is optional.

    Questions? Contact us: ChathamChoice.org or (212) 243-7651

  • What? River Road again?

    Guess who’s in court trying to force Chatham to bring back the big Redevelopment Plan to allow up to 720 more apartments on the Ivy end of River Road?

    Screenshot

    That’s right:The one now pushing another big Redevelopment Plan is AJDM, the very same Ivy-affiliated developer Chatham just gave the green light to build a small, 100-apartment project on the same part of River Road! https://chathamchoice.org/2026/06/__trashed/

    https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/sections/government/articles/chatham-borough-planning-board-approves-site-plan-for-4-story-100-unit-rental-community-with-first-floor-retail-on-river-road

    But why? Isn’t AJDM happy with the project it was pushing all last spring? Didn’t the Mayor suggest that project would satisfy everyone?

    Looks like that project was simply a. ploy. Now AJDM won’t give up until the Council adopts a Redevelopment Plan so that AJDM can build many more apartments on the same property, and also likely get Mayor &. Council to grant a PILOT, excusing AJDM from paying any property taxes.

    And on 8/28/26 Fair Share Housing Center joined the fray.

    Screenshot

    Why exactly would our Mayor & Council want to grant yet another developer like AJDM a free pass not to pay property taxes like the rest of us?

    What just happened?

  • “We deserve a forum.”

    Would you pay someone to pave over most of a unique, green, wooded, taxpayer-owned parcel next to Memorial Park without first carefully considering the alternatives?

    That’s exactly what your elected Mayor & Council plan to do on your dime.

    Think you can’t help that? Sure you can. Two ways:

    1. Tell your elected representatives you expect them to schedule a public forum BEFORE they hire a contractor to chop down the trees and pave over 58 North Passaic Avenue, right next to home plate at Memorial Park, behind the Library.

    bhargrove@chathamborough.org

    cdempsey@chathamborough.org

    jmathiasen@chathamborough.org

    jstrickland@chathamborough.org

    khay@chathamborough.org

    kkoronkiewicz@chathamborough.org

    mgilmore@chathamborough.org

    2. Show you care: Show up for the next public Council meeting on Monday, September 28, 2026, anytime after 7:30 pm, either

    • in-person at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue; or
    • by phone or Zoom, using the links to be posted in the calendar at www.ChathamBorough.org

    Come as you are, whenever convenient. No need to sign in. Sit where you please. Pay no attention to the boring parts. Leave whenever you feel like it. SPEAKING IS OPTIONAL, but you may hear some great ones.

    Start at 2:17:51 here: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=539

  • If not now, when?

    Now that the Borough has the all-important Certificate of Compliance, permitting the Mayor & Council to consider improving their Fair Share plan, when will they schedule the long-awaited public forum to answer basic, unanswered questions and consider alternatives to paving over the green, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue, right next to Memorial Park?

    Details: https://chathamchoice.org/2026/07/great-news-2/

    What are the realistic alternatives? If buying another lot to preserve 58 North Passaic would cost the average homeowner no more than $122 per year for ten years, is it worth the price?

    What about other Borough-owned properties that are NOT vacant and right next to a park? Maybe consider repurposing one that’s underused and costing taxpayers a fortune to maintain?

    Face it: if you allow the Mayor & Council to sacrifice the unique, green, taxpayer-owned parcel next to the public park without answering even basic questions, you will have given up all hope of having any say in any other local issue in the future.

    Don’t let that happen.

    Tell your elected representatives you expect them to schedule a public forum BEFORE they hire a contractor to chop down the trees and pave 58 North Passaic Avenue:

    bhargrove@chathamborough.org

    cdempsey@chathamborough.org

    jmathiasen@chathamborough.org

    jstrickland@chathamborough.org

    khay@chathamborough.org

    kkoronkiewicz@chathamborough.org

    mgilmore@chathamborough.org

    mayor@chathamborough.org

    mayorcouncil@chathamborough.org

    Visit the next Council meeting, set for Monday, August 10, 2026 at 7:30 pm, either:

  • Inaccessible?

    ANOTHER UPDATE: Instead of paving Front Street to the dead end as announced in the letter (below) dated July 31, 2026, the Borough chose to pave only part of Front Street, skipping the end leading to the parcel supposedly “inaccessible” as shown here:

    UPDATE: “Due to a contractor delay, paving on… Front Street has been rescheduled for Monday, August 10, 2026, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., weather permitting…”

    In the past, our Council tried to increase the property tax base by selling surplus, tax-exempt, Borough-owned land, including the vacant, 0.62-acre parcel just south of the train tracks at 39 Front Street:

    https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/articles/chatham-borough-officials-take-steps-to-unload-pr

    Today 39 Front Street remains Borough-owned, tax-exempt, and only about a block from the train station, as shown on the Borough’s official tax map:

    https://chathamborough.org/forms-documents/forms/maps/1262-chatham-borough-tax-map-atlas/file

    Though 39 Front Street remains vacant and tax-exempt, it’s now called “rear of 16 Walnut St,” or “16 Walnut Street, rear”and the Mayor has deemed it “inaccessible”:

    How can a parcel with a 50′ frontage on a downtown public street be called “inaccessible”?

    Is the trouble that that end of Front Street isn’t paved?

    If so, that will soon be remedied. A few days ago the Mayor’s Department of Public Works announced its plans to pave the dead end of Front Street:

    https://patch.com/new-jersey/chatham/these-streets-chatham-will-be-closed-road-work-see-list?utm_term=article-slot-1&utm_source=newsletter-daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&user_email=45cd36d8018b2d2f2a3c81cd31e06f87557f986417c1034c9a32f8b22cee30b6&user_email_md5=99f0fb25fe6d8600218071479c9de48a&lctg=4ffdcf0f8d95b8cbc0d3fd7f

    bhargrove@chathamborough.org 

    cdempsey@chathamborough.org

    jmathiasen@chathamborough.org

    jstrickland@chathamborough.org

    khay@chathamborough.org

    kkoronkiewicz@chathamborough.org

    mgilmore@chathamborough.org

    mayor@chathamborough.org

    mayorcouncil@chathamborough.org

    Visit the next Council meeting, set for Monday, August 10, 2026 at 7:30 pm, either:

    • in-person, Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, or
    • virtually,  using details to follow at chathamborough.org.

  • Great news!

    The time has come!

    Now at last our Mayor & Council can finally hold a public forum on their decision to pave 80% of the unique, green, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue, right next to our Memorial Park!

     Aerial view of vacant, wooded, taxpayer-owned 58 N. Passaic, marked to show site chosen by Council for construction of 4-apartment, 7-parking space project. Source: Google images

    What do the Mayor & Council plan to do with that wooded parcel? They plan to chop down most of the trees to build four apartments and seven parking spaces:

    Diagram of the 4-apartment, 7-parking space project designed for the vacant, 0.3-acre parcel at 58 North Passaic. Source: PowerPoint first revealed to the Planning Board on May 7, 2025, outlining the Fourth Round Affordable Housing Plan created by an insider-only committee that met behind closed doors, kept no records, and even left the Council in the dark until late April, 2025.

    Wait. What?!

    For the past year, residents have been asking how the Council had chosen that site for the project, how much it will cost taxpayers, and the pros and cons of the alternatives.

    Residents got few answers. Borough experts said the Mayor & Council could not consider alternatives until a judge had certified the Borough’s affordable housing plan.

    Now Judge Allen has officially certified the Borough’s housing plan:

    Screenshot

    Every other excuse not to hold a public forum and answer residents’ questions has also collapsed. See: https://chathamchoice.org/2026/06/debunking-the-myths/ & the video 1:57:57 – 2:01:52 here: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=530

    That means now our Mayor & Council can finally hold that public forum and residents can finally get the facts on the plan to sacrifice 58 North Passaic Avenue.

    The only question is, when?

    Should our Mayor & Council hold the public forum right away? At their regular meeting on August 10, 2026? Maybe in September, when most residents are back in town?

    Tell your Mayor & Council what you prefer, using these addresses:

    bhargrove@chathamborough.org 

    cdempsey@chathamborough.org

    jmathiasen@chathamborough.org

    jstrickland@chathamborough.org

    khay@chathamborough.org

    kkoronkiewicz@chathamborough.org

    mgilmore@chathamborough.org

    mayor@chathamborough.org

    mayorcouncil@chathamborough.org

    See you at the next Council meeting, set for Monday, August 10, 2026 at 7:30 pm, either:

    • In person at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, or 
    • virtually,  details to follow at chathamborough.org.

  • Powerless

    The storm that swept the Chathams last Friday, July 3rd wrecked havoc with our plans and our lives. It also underscored our total dependence on regular electrical service.

    Chatham only began to dabble with the stuff in 1901 when, after careful analysis, bidding, and informed public debate, voters approved a proposal to build a municipal electric plant to light the streets.

    That kind of timely, meaningful, public review is exactly what today’s Borough Council should do before embarking on major projects.

    Chatham Press, May 18, 1901

    The new electrical utility got residents to sample electric lighting by offering to supply the wiring and the fixtures:

    Screenshot of ad in Chatham Press, September 14, 1901

    Everybody got hooked. By 1920, even a brief power outage was more than a minor inconvenience:

    Screenshot of Chatham Press, Saturday, May 29, 1920, p. 1

    Why doesn’t today’s Borough Council include residents in such big decisions?

  • What just happened?

    UPDATE: Recent developments have shed new light on the events described below, revealing important facts. They are incorporated to help explain what this situation means for Chatham Borough as of October 5, 2026.

    Borough residents got a big surprise at the special Council meeting on Monday, June 22, 2026. https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=519

    At that meeting, our Borough Council stunned observers by voting DOWN a big Redevelopment Plan the Mayor & Council had been pushing hard for more than two years. https://chathamchoice.org/2024/06/visioning/

    Why would the Council vote down a pet project? What the heck is going on here?

    The Mayor said the Council voted down the Plan because of a more recent proposal by AJDM Chatham, LLC to build apartments on River Road under existing zoning law, meaning without the lucrative PILOT property tax exemption and other special incentives available under a redevelopment plan.

    (See that proposal here: https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/chathamborough/7fe546f1-090f-11f1-bb28-005056a89546-21f92362-28af-4727-9270-fd5a12163dfa-1778081726.pdf)

    The Mayor’s explanation doesn’t match the facts. (See 42:54 here: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=519)

    In fact, AJDM’s proposal is NOT more recent. It actually PREDATES the Redevelopment Plan. How do we know?

    When the Council first unveiled that Plan, on April 14, 2026 https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=488, the Planning Board ALREADY HAD SEEN details of the AJDM proposal, as you can see in the following letters, dated March 6 and 27, 2026:

    AJDM_Chatham_LLC_3-6-26 2Download

    https://www.chathamborough.org/forms-documents/forms/affordable-housing/3022-chatham-presentation-04-14-26/file

    Planning_Board_Submission_3.2026_-_PH_2Download

    What all that means is when the Mayor & Council first presented the new River Road Redevelopment Plan to the public, they already knew what the AJDM was preparing to build without the benefit of such a plan or a PILOT tax exemption.

    So contrary to the Mayor’s explanation, seeing the developer’s proposal cannot be the reason the Council chose to reject its pet Plan at the June 22 meeting. So why did they?

    To figure out what’s actually going on here, it helps to know how the Plan for River Road got on the agenda, and the effect of its rejection.

    First, though the Mayor & Council had spent years angling for a new Plan for River Road, they probably were dismayed when, in December 2025, the compulsory affordable housing program virtually forced them to propose such a plan on command.

    A December 9, 2025 settlement agreement with Fair Share and a big developer provided for unpleasant consequences if the. Borough Council failed to accept or reject a plan for River Road before July 1, 2026, and hinted that it had better provide for high-density apartment buildings.

    So in April 2026, the Mayor & Council did propose a Plan that would have allowed up to 720 new, high-density apartments on the Borough end of River Road near the Ivy, including something like 169 on the AJDM property.

    Meanwhile, AJDM’s smaller 100-apartment proposal was before the Planning Board. Some assumed that proposal was a bargaining chip, meant to prod the Borough Council to adopt the big Redevelopment Plan. Others insisted it was a hedge, in case the Council rejected the Redevelopment Plan.

    Nobody expected what happened next.

    Our Council’s June 22, 2026 vote to reject the River Road Plan triggered consequences under another decision our Council made at that same June 22, 2026 meeting, voting to approve a court order that wasn’t in the agenda package posted online, and the public couldn’t see until it was filed with the court the following day.

    The mysterious document the Council approved was a court order setting the terms of the Certificate of Compliance the Borough needed to gain immunity from lawsuits over its affordable housing policy for 2025-2035.

    That order, which the court ok’d a few days later on June 26, 2026, gave the Borough until July 1, 2026 to decide whether or not to adopt the Plan for River Road, and gave others up to 30 days to weigh in on that decision.

    Consent Order Final Compliance 2Download

    By approving that court order, our Council simultaneously gained the benefit of the Certificate of Compliance and opened the door to demands for ever higher density zoning on River Road.

    https://chathamborough.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=chathamborough_b5a5307bccb6659729cd063fb1501bf8.pdf&view=1

    That wasn’t necessarily a bad move. Our Mayor & Council needed that Certificate to protect the Borough and, at the same time would have been fools to rubber stamp a Plan allowing up to 720 new apartments in one small part of River Road, even if rejecting that Plan might trigger an objection by some would-be developer, demanding that higher density to make a project feasible.

    And to some that risk seemed small given AJDM’s proposal to build 100 apartments. Didn’t that prove that current zoning was sufficient to attract development?

    All good, right?

    Surprise! Less than two weeks after getting that approval, AJDM itself filed an objection to the Compliance Certificate, claiming essentially that the level of density that had attracted it to River Road was NOT sufficient to attract development. The Borough must adopt another Redevelopment Plan, allowing higher-density housing.

    AJDM objectionDownload

    Others essentially concurred, including Fair Share Housing Center:

    Fair Share objects. 8 28 26Download

    So the Borough must, either fight those objections or cave and accept a sea of very high-density housing on River Road.

    If anyone can handle this situation, it’s the Borough’s longtime affordable housing lawyer. But he isn’t the one who decides whether to stand firm or cave and adopt a very high-density Redevelopment Plan for the rest of River Road. That’s up to our Mayor & Council.

    Let’s jus hope they’re equal to the task.

    Meanwhile, the Borough’s Fourth Round housing plan seems to be on hold.

  • Debunking the myths

    Have you seen your latest Chatham Borough tax bill?  

    Then you’ve also seen Mayor Dempsey’s enclosed letter, full of rumors, myths, and misinformation about the Borough’s plan to pave over the wooded, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue.

    Screenshot: Borough’s drawing of the project to be built on the wooded taxpayer-owned parcel. at 58 N Passaic shown in the Google aerial image above. Source: outline presented to the Planning Board on May 7, 2025, of Plan unveiled June 5, 2025, adopted June 18, 2025, and submitted to the state without public explanation or vote by the Borough Council.

    The Mayor’s letter doesn’t answer any of the questions driving the growing demand for a public forum on that project.

    • Why would the Mayor wish to pave that green lot, right next to our Memorial Park? 
    • How much will that project cost Borough taxpayers? 
    • What are the alternatives? 
    • What are the pros and cons?

    Tell the Mayor & Council you expect straight answers:

    Don’t accept the usual nonsense:

    MYTH: The Borough must develop 58 North Passaic to meet the state’s affordable housing quota.

    REALITY: The state did not target 58 North Passaic for development. It was selected by eight Borough insiders who met only behind closed doors and claim they kept no records. All we know is they had many alternatives, including some on Main Street, whether or not they considered those options.

    MYTH: Developing 58 North Passaic would help the Borough meet its affordable housing quota at no cost to taxpayers.

    REALITY: Nothing is free. That project would cost the Borough that. parcel and Borough taxpayers would be ultimately responsible for ALL of the costs of building, operating, and maintaining the North Passaic project, as the Council agreed on March 9, 2026.

    MYTH: Developing 58 North Passaic is the only way to meet the Borough’s affordable housing quota without buying land.

    REALITY: Of course, there are other options. One disadvantage of building the project at 58 North Passaic is it would mean the permanent loss of trees, fresh air, natural habitats, and the opportunity to use that land to benefit all residents.

    MYTH: The only alternative to developing 58 North Passaic would be a much bigger project, with much higher density.

    REALITY:  In fact, the Mayor’s contractor is willing to build the same project, with the same bonus credits, at ANY location in the Borough.

    MYTH: There is no other potential location.

    REALITY: The viable options include both other Borough-owned land and privately-owned sites.

    MYTH:  It is too late to consider alternatives to developing 58 North Passaic Avenue. 

    REALITY: In fact, it is too early to consider alternatives. The Borough cannot propose one until after receiving its Certificate of Compliance.

    MYTH: Even proposing an alternative to developing 58 North Passaic would put the Borough at great risk of lawsuits.

    REALITY:  If it were risky to propose an alternative, the Borough’s experts would have warned about that when they spoke at the Planning Board hearing on June 18, 2025 and at the Council meeting on December 8, 2025. They didn’t. The affordable housing lawyer and planner warned only that such a proposal must wait until after the Borough receives its Certificate of Compliance. 

    MYTH: It would take too long to select and develop another location.

    REALITY: We haven’t seen any evidence to back up that claim.

    Myth:  Buying a privately-owned lot as an alternative site for the project would be expensive – too expensive for taxpayers. 

    REALITY: With an irreplaceable, taxpayer-owned asset at stake, the question is not whether buying an alternative site would cost us, but whether it’s cost-effective: Is preserving one of the last few green spots in town worth that? The Mayor can’t say. She chooses not even to estimate the cost to the typical homeowner.

    MYTH: Environmentalists are trying to force the Mayor &. Council to spend our money to preserve the tree canopy at 58 North Passaic Avenue.

    REALITY: All we are asking the Mayor & Council to do is to hold off paving over that green lot until after a public forum, where people can get basic facts, ask questions, and get answers. The Mayor & Council can do that at no cost to taxpayers now that a local has offered to pay the experts’ hourly fees. If 58 North Passaic turns out to be the best choice for Chatham, so be it.

    MYTH: The questions about the 58 North Passaic project have been asked and answered at many Council meetings.

    REALITY: While residents have been asking questions, the Mayor &. Council have not disclosed even basic facts, such as cost estimates and the viable alternatives rejected without explanation.

    Enough is enough. Demand an answer:

    When will the Council hold a public forum on the plan for 58 North Passaic Avenue?

    • attend the public Council meetings on Monday, June 22, and Monday, July 13, 2026, 7:30 pm, at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level. (Come as you are, whenever you can. Sit where you like and leave when you please.