Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dayton Ave Sale topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident Charles Cooper challenges Dayton Avenue lot sale; council affirms ordinance
Summary
The Borough Council adopted Ordinance O.25.16 to sell 1731 and 1735 Dayton Ave. to ALE Investments despite objections from Charles Cooper, who said he and his wife purchased the lots in 2020 and seek repayment; the ordinance passed after a tie-breaking mayoral vote.
Get email alerts on the Dayton Ave Sale topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Borough of Paulsboro on Sept. 9 finalized the sale of two Dayton Avenue lots (1731 and 1735) to ALE Investments by adopting Ordinance O.25.16 after a public comment and a 3–3 council split that was broken by Mayor John Giovannitti’s vote.
Resident Charles Cooper told the council he and his wife purchased the lots in 2020 and paid what he characterized as $11,000 for the two parcels but said the borough later reclaimed the land after a redevelopment agreement time limit lapsed. "We should get our money back," Cooper said, urging the council to reverse or revisit the sale. Solicitor Maley responded that the transaction was governed by a redevelopment agreement with specific time limits and that when those limits lapsed the borough elected to retake the parcels; he recommended the Coopers meet with borough officials to review the original paperwork.
Councilman Singleton moved to table the ordinance after public questioning, but that motion failed. On final adoption, the roll call listed Ayes: Council President Thomas, Councilwoman Evans, and Councilman Haynes; Nays: Councilwoman Armistead, Councilman Singleton, and Councilwoman Turner. Mayor Giovannitti cast the tie-breaking Yea, and the motion carried. The motion to adopt was made by Council President Thomas and seconded by Councilman Haynes.
Council minutes show the ordinance sells the two lots to ALE Investments for $10,000. Officials directed the Solicitor, the Administrator, and the Coopers to schedule a meeting to examine the original redevelopment agreement and the timeline that led to the Borough reclaiming the property.
The council did not indicate any immediate refund or restitution decision during the meeting; follow-up was assigned to borough staff.
