In that video, the Mayor & Council sit on the raised dais, poker-faced and apparently oblivious to the Snailster’s antics until a longtime Borough resident calls and brings it to their attention.
“There is a puppet snail in the background…” observes the caller. “It’s quite distracting…When I’m looking at a speaker, all I see is the snail puppet… Are you aware of that?” (1:59:36)
“No, I have no idea what you’re talking about, ” replies Mayor Dempsey.
So the caller specifies the location of the stuffed snail. Council members perk up and peer at the podium. Smiles cross their faces. A giggle sweeps the Chambers.
“Do you see that?” asks the caller.
“We’re all good. Keep going,” says the Mayor, neither confirming nor denying having seen the Snailster’s stellar performance. And no wonder.
In effect, the clever snail danced circles around our Mayor & Council’s new policy requiring walk-on participants to give their names and full home addresses on live television and Zoom.
Of course, our Mayor & Council don’t give their own home addresses at public meetings. They don’t even disclose them in state filings almost nobody ever sees. Too risky for them.
Perhaps once upon a time requiring such personal disclosures at Council meetings created no barrier to public participation, Today, it does. Those meetings run live on cable tv and Zoom, and in reports and videos permanently posted online, making each speaker’s name, address, voice, words, and moving image readily available to everyone all over the world forever.
Requiring such personal details undermines the purpose of Public Comment by making it impossible for residents to participate in local government without advertising in real time that they are not at home. That and other resulting risks discourage participation by residents who live alone or with vulnerable family members, lack security systems or personal protection devices, or simply like to maintain a little privacy.
Solution? The Mayor & Council could easily gather any necessary personal information off-camera, as does the Board of Education.
Only thing is, that might lead to more public participation at meetings.
The next two Council meetings are on Tuesday May 26 and Monday, June 8, 2026, at 7:30 pm at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue.
Rest assured that you won’t need to sign in or out. There’s no dress code. Come as you are. Arrive at your convenience, sit wherever you like, leave whenever you please.
You know our Mayor & Council often turn a deaf ear to the residents who elected them.
Sometimes they have to listen to you. Now for instance.
With a strong candidate like David Andeasen challenging the Party machine in the June 2nd primary, our Mayor & Council cannot ignore your views on the two big issues facing them:
To meet a July 1 deadline, the Council needs to vet a new Redevelopment Plan for River Road by its June 8th meeting. The proposed Plan would allow up to 720 MORE apartments on River Road, at least 64% more than allowed under current zoning. https://chathamchoice.org/2026/04/another-project-on-river-road/
Only after that is resolved will the court issue a Certificate of Compliance. As such, the Mayor & Council have plenty of time to hold a public forum to explain their plan to develop the green, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic, next to Memorial Park, versus buying an alternative site, before hiring a contractor to pave over 80% of that green gem. https://chathamchoice.org/2026/03/just-the-facts/
Wondering why the Council hasn’t already laid out the facts about its plan for 58 North Passaic Avenue – at least the construction costs?
Why would the Mayor & Council even consider allowing 720 new apartments on River Road when it’s already flooded with cars?
Wouldn’t a Redeveloper inevitably get a PILOT property tax break at the expense of the rest of us?
attend public Council meetings on Monday, May 11 and Tuesday May 26, 2026, 7:30 pm, at Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level. (Speaking is optional.)
There is NO excuse for the Mayor & Council not to hold a public meeting to discuss the pros and cons of 58 North Passaic and the alternatives BEFORE they hire a contractor to pave over 80% of that vacant, taxpayer-owned nearly 0.3-acre, wooded parcel, right next to our primary recreation area, 6.9-acre Memorial Park.
We know the Mayor & Council have NO excuse not to hold that meeting, because if there were any excuse, it would be found in the piece Council member Jocelyn Mathiasen posted in the Patch on Friday, March 20, 2026 at 9:16 pm ET.
See for yourself in that piece, which is set forth in full below, with factual corrections interspersed in boldface:
“In recent weeks, a number of residents have been asking for a public hearing to explore alternatives to 58 N. Passaic for a small part of our affordable housing plan. In addressing this, I would like to correct the record on a few items:
Fact: “Correct” the record? No, the word is “spin.” You seek to spin the record.
The property is not a “de facto” extension of memorial park. It has been fenced and unused for well over a decade — before that it had a house.
Fact: More than 43 years ago in 1982, the Borough used taxpayer dollars to buy 58 North Passaic Avenue, right next to Memorial Park, hoping to use that parcel for recreation. Last checked, the parcel is tax-exempt as a “playground”. For details, see: https://chathamchoice.org/2025/05/
The property will not be “mowed down” – most trees will be preserved, including a 15” buffer between the driveway and Memorial park.
Fact: “Most”? No, you HOPE to save ONE tree, as specified at the far left of the image show in the outline the Council presented to the Planning Board on 5/7/25 (if amended, please advise):
The Borough Council has received extensive feedback – and responded to it – related to 58 N. Passaic.
Fact: Getting “extensive feedback” is all the more reason the Council should hold a public forum to discuss the pros and cons and alternatives BEFORE hiring someone to pave over 80% of 58 North Passaic Avenue.
Most importantly, there is no viable alternative.
Fact: If not even ONE of the many known alternatives were “viable,” then the Council should WELCOME the opportunity to show residents why you ruled out each one. But just BTW, as you know very well, the Vacant Land Adjustment (VLA) used to justify the realistic development potential (RDP) is NO substitute for proper due diligence on possible sites for the 100% affordable project, including underused Borough lots and private property, including the lots for sale on Main Street.
For an alternative project to go forward, we would have to:
Fact: The Borough has on retainer (paid by taxpayers) several top experts who know how to do all of the following as efficiently as possible, assuming they need to be done at all, and if not, should explain why not in a public forum.
Find a private site with a willing seller who will wait a year or more for the purchase and will follow state procurement law.
Fact: Developing any site, including 58 North Passaic Avenue, would cost something.
Find a willing partner to develop the project with access to construction funding.
Fact: We have seen NO reason to think the Council’s current no-bid partner – or its construction funding – wouldn’t be available at an alternative sitein the Borough.
Submit this potential change to the Affordable Housing Program and get their approval (which is unlikely to be granted without some kind of sweetener)
Sweetener? If saving a green, public space like 58 North Passaic by investing millions of taxpayer dollars in an alternative site for affordable housing would’t qualify as a sweetener, what would?
Fact: Every choice involves tradeoffs. Borough residents, who will bear the burdens, deserve the opportunity to weigh in on the choices.
After the success of the above four tasks, we then need to revise our affordable housing plan and complete permitting with shovels in the ground only two years from today.
Fact: If, as claimed, this Council came up with a ten-year housing plan in a few months, this Council certainly can break ground on a small project in two years.
Assuming a generous 50% chance for each item, there is about a 6 percent chance that this would succeed, and it would cost a lot of time, money, and effort — and expose the Borough to serious risks.
Fact: What “serious risks”? That’s a brilliant combination of false precision and fear-mongering. You have shown NO evidence that the Borough’s expert lawyer ever warned of any such risk. Why not invite him to address that claim in a public forum – at no cost to taxpayers, as an individual has publicly offered to pay the legal fee?
The Borough is tackling many challenges for the betterment of our community. Diverting time to a disingenuous public meeting based on a false premise is not a good use of anyone’s time. Fact: You are spending countless hours holding multiple meetings where you argue against holding a public forum, instead of simply holding one meeting to put this issue to rest once and for all. Why? And, if history is any guide, the individuals most vocally calling for this event will then seek to turn it into a circus of insults, interruptions, personal attacks, and rhetorical “when did you stop beating your wife” questions.
Fact: No, the “individuals most vocally calling for this event” have merely urged the Council to hold a forum to consider the pros and cons and alternatives – or prove your claim that there are none – before needlessly sacrificing a unique, taxpayer-owned asset, one of the last vacant, green parcels in town, and right next to our large, central recreation area. Is that simple request what you call a “personal attack”?
Residents should know that the Borough is working through a more potentially impactful element of our affordable housing program, drafting and considering a redevelopment plan for River Road north of The Ivy by July 1. For this, we will be holding a number of public meetings, and these provide an important opportunity for the public to provide input. I will write more on that in the future, but keep an eye out for notices from the Borough.
Fact: If the Council can hold multiple public meetings to discuss plans for River Road, there is NO EXCUSE not to hold even one public meeting on the sacrifice of taxpayer-owned 58 North Passaic Avenue AFTER the court issues the Certificate of Compliance and BEFORE the Council hires the contractor to chop down the trees and pave over 80% of that vacant,green parcel, right next to Memorial Park.
As volunteers, Borough Council members don’t always have the time and wherewithal to fight the constant barrage of negative and misleading rhetoric and commentary from a small handful of residents, most of whom have much more free time than we do. We do have a smart, dedicated, caring, and thoughtful Council, and if something seems too absurd to be true, please reach out. It probably is.
Fact: If Council members are too busy to deal with a “constant barrage” from residents asking for a public meeting on 58 North Passaic Avenue, it would be far more efficient to hold one public forum than to go on holding multiple meetings with individual constituents and battling them on every available forum.
NOTE: Please tell our Mayor & Council that AFTER the court issues the Certificate of Compliance, we expect them to hold a public forum to discuss the pros and cons and alternatives to paving over the unique, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue BEFORE the Council hires the contractor to chop down the trees and pave over 80% of that vacant, green parcel right next to Memorial Park.
Have you heard that our local elected officials plan to pay someone to pave over and develop 80% of our unique, green, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue, right next to our Memorial Park, without ever having publicly discussed the alternatives.
They’d have you believe it’s too late to correct that mistake. Not so!
Once the court issues a Judgment of Compliance – probably by April, the Mayor & Council can propose preserving 58 North Passaic by swapping it out for another site. The Borough’s expert lawyer and planner have told us so at least twice.
Now our Mayor & Council can and SHOULD schedule a public meeting to discuss the pros and cons of alternative sites BEFORE they sign a contract to pave over80% of our unique, green, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue, right next to our Memorial Park.
That’s the right thing to do.
What can one person do to make sure the Mayor & Council do what’s right? Plenty:
1. Tell the Mayor & Council to schedule a public meeting to discuss options BEFORE they sign a contract to pave over 80% of our unique, green parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue, right next to Memorial Park.Email:
Before the Mayor & Council plunge ahead with plans to pave over our green, vacant, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue, right next to Memorial Park behind the Library, they need to GIVE US A FORUM to discuss the pros and cons and alternatives. There is no excuse to do otherwise.
Tell them so! Or at least show them you care about your hometown.
Have you heard that the sacrifice of the taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic is a “Done Deal”?
That’s an old trick called a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” Meaning if you can get enough naive people to go around repeating it, it becomes true.
In fact, there is NOTHING requiring our Mayor & Council to pave over the green, Borough taxpayer-owned parcel right next to Memorial Park.
They can just as well house the same four families at another site in town. Maybe repurpose another Borough-owned lot that isn’t vacant, green, or right next to a park.
Or they can acquire a privately-owned parcel for less than most households already spend on coffee or tea.
At the very least, the Mayor & Council should hold a public meeting to discuss alternativesbefore disposing of that irreplaceable Borough asset.
They are holding such a meeting to discuss options for the privately-owned project that will replace the Cottage Deli.It’s Wednesday Feb 11.
There is NO excuse not to give the same consideration to the permanent disposition of a unique, taxpayer-owned parcel right next to our Central Park.
Why do the Mayor & Council continue to refuse to schedule a public meeting to discuss alternatives to sacrificing taxpayer-owned 58 North Passaic?
Why do our Mayor & Council continue to refuse to consider alternatives to paving over the green, Borough taxpayer-owned parcel right next to Memorial Park?
The Mayor & Council have formally promised at least one such public meeting to discuss options for the privately-owned project that will replace the Cottage Deli.It’s Wednesday Feb 11.
There is NO legal reason not to give the same consideration to the permanent disposition of that vacant, green, irreplaceable, Borough taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue.
Why do our Mayor & Council continue to refuse to schedule a public meeting to discuss alternatives to sacrificing the taxpayer—owned parcel at 58 North Passaic?
3. Ask at the Cottage Deli meeting: Wednesday, Feb 11, 2026 at 7:00 pm, Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Avenue, upper level.
Heard that the sacrifice of our green 58 North Passaic is a “done deal”? That’s a standard trick known as a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” It’s popular because naive people often fall for it.
Why are our Mayor & Council negotiating yet another Redevelopment contract, when they haven’t even unveiled their plan for the second big Redevelopment project they aim to build on River Road, next to the massive, 245-unit Ivy apartment project?
Or simply email the Mayor & Council and ask: Why are you negotiating yet another Redevelopment contract, when you don’t even have a plan for the second big Redevelopment project you aim to build on River Road, next to the massive, 245-unit Ivy apartment project?
