Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Abatements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges council to void developer tax abatements; city attorney calls claim 'a lie'
Summary
During public comment Vincent Lepore urged the Long Branch City Council to void all developer tax abatements, alleging they have harmed the Board of Education; the city attorney and council members disputed his premise, saying no such abatement discussion occurred and explaining legal limits on rescinding past contracts.
Vincent Lepore, a Long Branch resident, used the public-comment portion of the April 22 council meeting to present a proposed resolution to void all developer tax abatements in the city and criticized a perceived council willingness to grant abatements for recent development.
"Resolution voiding all developer tax abatements in Long Branch," Lepore read into the record, saying abatements have placed the Board of Education and resident taxpayers “in a state of distress.” He cited allegations that the developer of Pier Village Phase III failed to provide authenticated audits and said that the city should treat the issue as an emergency requiring immediate abolishment of abatements.
City attorney and council responses: The city attorney (Reinauer) sharply disputed Lepore’s factual premise during the public-comment period, saying in response that the resolution’s starting premise was false and that there “never were any discussions” to grant Kushner a tax abatement tied to a fire. Reinauer warned that attempting to repeal long-standing abatement contracts could breach agreements and expose the city to legal consequences. He also clarified a separate point about Title 39, explaining that motor‑vehicle enforcement falls to the police department rather than the health department.
Other commenters and context: Speaker JP urged greater transparency and a more participatory public-comment process, recommending that proposals and attachments mentioned in comments be posted with meeting notes so the public can review proposed bills. JP also warned against treating Pier Village as wholly private without careful examination of property‑ownership history and First Amendment access questions in mixed private/public redevelopment sites.
What’s next: Lepore said he would resubmit the resolution to the clerk and requested it be added to the May 13 agenda; the clerk will process the submission and the council’s rules and legal counsel will dictate whether any item can move forward. Officials said legal constraints and existing contracts limit the council’s ability to retroactively dissolve prior abatement agreements.
Provenance: Lepore’s comments begin at SEG 331; the city attorney’s rebuttal and legal explanation begin around SEG 468 and continue through SEG 562.
