Have you seen your latest Chatham Borough tax bill?
Then you’ve also seen the letter Mayor Dempsey enclosed, full of rumors and myths about the Borough’s plan to pave over the wooded, taxpayer-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue.
Screenshot
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 Brough taxpayers?
What are the alternatives?
What are the pros and cons?
For those who prefer facts:
MYTH: Environmentalists are demanding that the Mayor & Council preserve the tree canopy at 58 North Passaic Avenue.
REALITY: Residents are asking the Mayor & Council to put off paving that site until after a public forum, where people can get basic facts, ask informed questions, and get answers.
MYTH: 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 about that project, such as estimated costs and alternatives rejected. Without such facts, nobody can intelligently discuss options
MYTH: There are no options to discuss. The Borough must develop 58 North Passaic Avenue to satisfy the state’s affordable housing quota.
REALITY: The state did not target 58 North Passaic for development. It was chosen by eight Borough insiders. We don’t know why or how, as they met in secret and kept no records.
MYTH: Developing 58 North Passaic would help the Borough meet its affordable housing quota at no cost to taxpayers.
REALITY: 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 would enable the Borough to meet its affordable housing quota without buying land.
REALITY: Not only would taxpayers be on the hook for the cost of the project at 58 North Passaic, that project would also mean the permanent loss of recreation space, trees, fresh air, natural habitats for birds, bees, bats, and the option to lease, sell, or use that land for the benefit of all.
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 at ANY location in the Borough. And the Council has many other alternatives.
MYTH: It is too late to consider alternatives to developing 58 North Passaic Avenue.
REALITY: In fact, it is too early to consider an alternative. The Borough cannot propose one until after receiving its Certificate of Compliance.
MYTH: It would be too expensive for taxpayers to buy a privately-owned lot as an alternative site.
REALITY: How expensive? With an irreplaceable taxpayer asset at stake, taxpayers are entitled to know what it would cost them to preserve it. Yet the Mayor & Council refuse to estimate the effect on property taxes, simply insisting the cost is too high.
MYTH: Even proposing an alternative to developing 58 North Passaic Avenue would put the Borough at great risk of lawsuits and other legal jeopardy.
REALITY: If it were risky to propose an alternative, the Borough’s experts would have warned about that when they talked at a Planning Board hearing on June 18, 2025 and at a Council meeting on December 8, 2025.
They did not mention such a risk. On those occasions, the affordable housing lawyer and planner warned only that such a proposal must wait until after the Borough receives its Certificate of Compliance.
If, as the Mayor claims, it would be risky to propose any alternative, why not have the Borough’s affordable housing lawyer and planner say so at a public forum, now that a local has offered to pay the hourly fees?
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 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?
Do you know what’s happening in Chatham Borough? Find out before it’s too late. Attend the Borough Council Meeting:Monday, Oct. 27 🕢 7:30 pm 📍Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Ave.Or, at the very least, Zoom from the calendar at chathamborough.org
For years, Council candidate Karen Koronkiewicz enjoyed the loyal support of career firefighter and Ground Zero alum Captain Robert Penn, a respected longtime Borough resident.
Not anymore.
Now even Captain Penn has washed his hands of Karen and her political bosses, in part over their mishandling of the new Housing Element of the Master Plan.
Karen played a big role in that fiasco.She is on the back room committee that opted to let an unspecified developer pave over 58 North Passaic Avenue, the green, Borough-owned lot right next to home plate in Memorial Park.
Though she represents the Council on the Borough Shade Tree Commission, Karen dismissed that wooded lot as “useless” and agreed to sacrifice all but one tree without first weighing the alternatives or taking public input.
At the October meeting of the Shade Tree Commission, Karen flatly refused to explain why she had withheld that pubic news from her Commission colleagues, including her own running mate Miles Gilmore.Could the reason for her silence have something to do with the location of the most obvious alternative site?
With Karen’s re-election at stake, the rest of the one-party controlled Mayor & Council aren’t talking either. They would have you believe they cannot talk about it because it’s in litigation and settlement talks. That’s utter nonsense.
In fact, there’s no gag order, and settlement talks are NO excuse not to explore alternatives in executive session, so the Mayor & Council will be prepared to update the public on alternatives once Chatham Borough receives its Judgment of Compliance and Repose, likely in January.
It’s high time the Mayor & Council did the right thing: consider alternative ways to satisfy the Borough’s housing quotas without sacrificing the green lot right next to home plate in Memorial Park.
How can one person help persuade them to consider the alternatives? It’s easy.
Attend the Council Meeting:📅 Monday, Oct. 27 🕢 7:30 pm 📍 Borough Hall, 54 Fairmount Ave. Take the elevator to upper level. Enter the last room on the left. (Your presence matters. Speaking is optional.)
If it turns out that 58 North Passaic Avenue is the best bet, then so be it. But to hand that lot to a developer without due diligence would be unconscionable.
Myth: It’s over. Chatham Borough must sacrifice the vacant, Borough-owned parcel at 58 North Passaic Avenue to build four apartments right next to Memorial Park.
Reality: It isn’t over. Once the Judge has ruled on Chatham’s affordable housing plan, the Borough Council can propose an alternative site or project.
Source:Sworn testimony of Chatham Borough Planner Kendra Lelie at the 18 June 2025 Planning Board Hearing on the new Housing Element of the Borough’s revised Master Plan:
Q: Planning Board Member William Heap: Kendra, let’s say the Plan is adopted. It is approved. And somewhere down the line, somehow, magically, another piece of land appears. Is there room after approval for a little bit of horse trading?
A: Kendra Lelie:So, after the approval from the Court, it is not uncommon that things happen, things change… Maybe something better comes up – and a better opportunity comes up. So yes, it’s a possibility.
To fill that quota with inclusionary rental housing, Chatham Borough would be forced to make space for more than 1,200 additional families, putting at least 2,000 additional cars on our busy streets.
Why haven’t the Mayor & Council demanded an adjustment for the lack of vacant land in the Borough?
If they go ahead and accept the number, will they have another opportunity to demand an adjustment?
When will they make that demand? What are the chances they’’ll get it?
Word is that our planners will adjust the numbers shown in that report to allow for the scarcity of vacant land in Chatham Borough, and then try to persuade the State to accept its adjusted numbers as the quotas.
That analysis will probably be similar to that used in 2022, as shown on page 5 of the current Housing Elements, linked here:
The State says the Borough Council has until the end of this January 2025 to negotiate the final quota, and to adopt a binding resolution accepting it.https://www.njlm.org/civicalerts.aspx?aid=2924
