I wish we could make a wager, you'd be easy money.

FYI there was more than the Monarch project voted on at this meeting. Presumably Councilwoman Marsh was not conflicted out of everything.

For the Monarch vote other planning board members showed up to vote on the other agenda items but recused themselves from the specific votes they were conflicted on.

"Board Chairman Keith Furman, Frank Magiletta (a mayoral appointee), and city Director of Community Develop Brandy Forbes recused themselves from the vote. Carol Marsh, a member of the City Council, was absent from the meeting. The remaining votes were unanimously in favor of denying the application without prejudice."

I see the confusion, there is no special counsel in the record of the planning board meeting. The Mayor is likely referring to Joe Maraziti who was hired by the City to sue Shipyard Associates to stop them from building Monarch. It was this lawsuit that the Planning Board's attorney Ronald Morgan referenced in his advice to the planning board at the meeting.

Reading the record the only lawyer giving advice to the Planning Board was Ronald Morgan.

Given that Fund for a Better Waterfront joined the city in its suit against Shipyard to stop the monarch project it seems like that suit was the right thing to do and the City is right in continuing to fight the monarch project in the courts.

The Planning board's actions were an entirely separate process from the City's lawsuit. Comments or action on the City's lawsuit probably lead Councilwoman Carol Marsh, the council's planning board designee, to recuse herself and skip the meeting and Planning board member Brandy Forbes, a Hoboken City director, to attend the meeting but also recuse herself

Kurt you're just wrong on the facts. This wan't a special counsel this was the attorney the board themselves hired. There was no special counsel hired by the City. Who told you there was?

"The city planning board denied the Monarch at Shipyard Project after a recommendation from its attorney, Ronald Morgan, on Tuesday night. The application was denied without prejudice before a hearing even took place in a crowded Wallace School Gym Tuesday, July 10 at 7 p.m. This allows the developer to submit their application to the board in the future, following a court decision."
http://www.hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/192...

Besides the Shipyard Associates is there any group in Hoboken that wasn't against this project?

Again Roman, and I'll use small words, it was not the denial that was the problem it was the decision not to hear the application that drove the appellate court decision. And the decision to not hear the application was driven by the Planning Board Counsel's advice so I don't blame anyone on the planning board for the decision not to hear the application. I think most people would have done as Dan Weaver and Ann Graham did and followed the advice of the board attorney.

Roman you're missing the the big print. The Mayor, the City Council, The Fund for a Better Water Front, and the residents of the Hudson Tea building all were against this because they believed the application lacked merit. What the courts ruled is that the Planning board had every right to rule on the merits AFTER HEARING THE APPLICATION. The error was that the planning board did not hear the application and instead summarily ruled, without prejudice, to deny the application.

So yes the Mayor and others opposed the application, and I personally believe still do, based on the merits of the application.

From the appellate decision:

"If there is a lesson to be learned from this case, it is that the rule of law is paramount and cannot be sidestepped to avoid deciding unpopular land use applications. As here, failure to follow the law may insure the success of an application that local objectors vigorously oppose. We appreciate that it may be difficult for planning board members, who are unpaid appointees, to stand firm in the face of vocal objectors and carry out their statutory duty. We have read the transcript of the July 10, 2012 Board hearing, in which objectors were interrupting the proceedings and shouting, "we want tennis courts." However, the Planning Board was obligated to hear Shipyard's application, no matter how controversial it was.

Ironically, had the Board considered the application on its merits, it had authority to deny the application unless Shipyard's evidence justified modifying the original PUD approval which included the tennis courts. But, because the Planning Board yielded to public pressure, and refused to hear Shipyard's application, the result is automatic approval of the application."
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate...

The planning board is an independent body with its own professionals and makes its own decisions. Especially considering the people closest to the Mayor recused themselves from the matter. I've not seen that any planning board member either on the board's record or in news accounts say that the Mayor took a hand in this matter and it appears the Mayor let the independent planning board make its own decision.

Are you suggesting that Ann Graham and Dan Weaver made a bad decision and because the Mayor appointed them she shares in their blame?

Ravi is not a de facto incumbent he does not enjoy the electoral influence of an incumbent doing the job, he however enjoys the endorsement of the person who has done the job for 8 years to very high approval ratings and personally and professionally knows all the Council people running for office. I'd agree that is a very powerful endorsement and I could see how it would be a problem for other candidates to the point they'd try to attack the Mayor at any turn. However to attack the Mayor on the Monarch vote is to first attack Dan Weaver and Ann Graham, something I don't agree with, and if you're willing to make them collateral damage as part of Jen's campaign that's on you.

I think it's fair to say the independent planning board was guided by their counsel and in my personal opinion errored in not giving the Monarch applicants a hearing. As they were guided by Counsel I don't think it fair to blame acting planning board chair Dan Weaver or the sponsor of the motion board member Ann Graham, or frankly anyone else on the board who followed their lead.

Given that the people leading the planning board at the time of the Monarch vote are both supporting Jen Giattino for Mayor why would Ravi or the Mayor pay a price? Is Jen going to criticize Dan Weaver and Ann Graham for the results of that meeting?

From the record it appears Dan and Ann were following advice of board counsel, Ron Morgan, so I don't see how anyone would blame them, I certainly don't. However in not blaming Dan and Ann I don't see how you make the leap to blaming people who weren't at the meeting, didn't participate in the vote, or give advice to the board.

Can you walk me through your logic as to how the planning board or it's counsel are not responsible for the planning board vote but somehow the Mayor and a specific counsel person who wasn't on the planning board, Carol Marsh was the City Council designee but she skipped the meeting to recuse herself, are responsible?

Oh Tony Soares didn't vote on the original United Water contract that required United Water to spend over half a million in maintenance Tony voted on the extension to the contract that reduced the United Water obligation to 350K and put residents in the positions for paying the rest. Perhaps Tony didn't understand how bad a deal this was and he thought he was doing the right thing. Tony doesn't seem like a bad guy so he simply could have screwed up however that screw up has hurt Hoboken residents.

Here's the record of his vote and the contract extension he voted on. It was posted weeks ago on MSV so this is not new news, though perhaps some people wish the record would just go away.
https://imgur.com/a/icgps

As for Roberts as far as I know he's no longer involved in politics, either directly like Ruben Ramos or from the sidelines like Tony Soares, so much like the other council people who voted on the bad contract extension there isn't much use in commenting on them specifically. I haven't spoken to Dave Roberts in well over a year and while I didn't support him politically I wish the man well.

FYI If Tony owned up to the screw up on voting for the contract extension and gave some explanation for the vote I think people would be willing to forgive him. I think I would if it was a sincere act.

Word from whom? I think anyone who was at the meeting or at the very least has reviewed the record can see what happened. I get that it was two people who currently support Jen that chaired the meeting and who made the motion, Dan Weaver and Ann Graham respectively, doesn't fit your anti-zimmer and anti-bhalla narratative but this word on the street bull is obvious and pathetic.

You need to back up your bull with some proof. Like when I claim that Tony Soares voted for the united water/suez contract that screwed Hoboken residents I actually went back into MSV comment history and found someone who posted proof and then I include that proof with the information.

Like so: https://imgur.com/a/icgps

Now if you have proof beyond your own self serving narrative, say something from a publicly available record, I'm all eyes/ears. Do you have any proof of what you say?

I don't want to start a Hatfield/McCoy conflict with you Propeller, especially over someone like Tony, but the record shows Tony Soares voting for the United Water/Suez deal that royally screwed Hoboken residents.

Here's the proof
https://imgur.com/a/icgps