Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on redevelopment, eminent domain for Classic Cleaners, traffic enforcement and meeting Q&A policy
Summary
During public comment Highland Park residents pressed the council on planned downtown redevelopment and the threat of eminent domain for Classic Cleaners, urged more traffic enforcement at local intersections, and criticized a new meeting procedure that, they said, limits immediate answers to follow-up questions.
Multiple Highland Park residents used the council’s public-comment periods on April 1 to press the borough for action and transparency on several issues, including redevelopment and potential use of eminent domain, traffic enforcement at neighborhood intersections, and the council’s public-meeting procedures.
A resident who identified herself as living on South Second Avenue urged redevelopment officials to avoid using condemnation against Classic Cleaners, a long-standing local business, and asked the borough to seek creative alternatives that would allow the business to remain. The speaker said Classic Cleaners has operated in the borough for 75 years and argued that forcing the business out would send a negative signal to smaller, local business owners considering investment in Highland Park.
Alan Liebman, a Highland Park resident, said drivers frequently disregard stop signs in neighborhoods — naming Abbott and Eighth as an example — and said he had sought an update after asking about the issue previously. He asked the council or police to provide a plan or follow-up and warned that the failure to act could lead to serious accidents.
Another resident criticized changes to the council’s public-comment procedures and the role of the borough attorney in a recent rent-control-board meeting. The speaker said a policy implemented in February requires commenters to put all questions on the record and then wait for the mayor or an appointed respondent to reply later, limiting real-time follow-up. The speaker also questioned whether attorney-client privilege belongs to the attorney or the client after observing contentious exchanges at a rent control meeting, and asked for elected officials to respond publicly.
Lois, a caller on Zoom, urged the council to review the shelter lease (ordinance 25-2109) and said she had discussed accessibility with the Access Board and Department of Justice. She warned that a shelter operating in an upstairs apartment may raise compliance concerns under federal accessibility rules and said she could provide more information.
Council members acknowledged the public comments and in some cases directed residents to speak with staff or the police chief for follow-up. Redevelopment and eminent-domain questions were discussed briefly by the chair, who said conversations with property owners are ongoing and that the condemnation process is lengthy and not immediate. Several public commenters suggested possible alternative downtown parcels and urged the borough to consider options that would preserve existing small businesses.
No formal council action on eminent domain, traffic enforcement policy changes, or meeting procedure revisions occurred at the April 1 meeting; several of the issues the public raised were referred to staff for follow-up.
