Tag: housing quota

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): 

Fact: The Council’s plan is to develop 80% of that 250′ deep lot, as shown in Ordinance #26-02 here: https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/chathamborough/b65d1fed-f2fa-11f0-bb28-005056a89546-21f92362-28af-4727-9270-fd5a12163dfa-1773064446.pdf

• 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: That’s doable. It’s a buyer’s market in commercial real estate. Consider, for instance, this property that’s up for auction after languishing on the market for months: https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/434-Main-St-Chatham-NJ/39432555/ [auction completed :https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/434-Main-St-Chatham-NJ/39432555/]
• Obtain public approval to spend $1+ million on this alternative. 
• FACT: As you know, the Council does NOT need public approval to spend on such projects. The Borough CFO explained that in public at the 3/23/26 Council meeting, as shown in the video at approx. 2:22:00 here: https://chathamborough.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=478
• 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 site in 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.

Jocelyn Mathiasen jmathiasen@chathamborough.org“

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. 

You will find email addresses here: https://chathamchoice.org/2026/03/should-residents-have-a-voice-in-the-future-of-chatham/

For a more complete explanation, click here: https://www.tapinto.net/towns/chatham/categories/op-eds/articles/chatham-borough-must-not-trade-away-its-green-space-without-first-hearing-from-the-public?fbclid=IwY2xjawQg5ltleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFqVjVWNUxNYnBIcmoxZ29mc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHtL0jLUIbN1WBE0zst2l2TectUx_bNUeAvyVCubFxSmz2Wv59_oaIK7CEJoy_aem_dKc_-0jZ-2SrkGcE8-9TdQ