Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and attorney debate builder-remedy claims as council weighs settlements
Summary
Public commenters and the township attorney debated active builder-remedy lawsuits (including 410 Main Street) and whether the township should pursue settlement to secure immunity; attorney said preserving immunity reduces further litigation risk but limits public disclosure during negotiations.
Several residents urged the council to oppose backroom settlements that they said amount to "a knife in the back" for neighborhoods targeted by redevelopment. Susan Lenczyk cited a June 24 court order in which a judge conditioned a developer's withdrawal of opposition upon execution of a settlement agreement within 45 days.
Township Attorney Samuero addressed the public at length, saying the township has faced multiple builder-remedy lawsuits and that negotiating settlements can be necessary to preserve a fragile immunity order that protects the municipality from additional suits. "You have to be realistic about what your exposures are, and then you have to try to reach a settlement that is something less than what your potential exposure is," Samuero said, arguing the approach aims to minimize the township's risk and costs.
Residents and several council members criticized the pace and transparency of disposition decisions for town-owned parcels and asked whether immunity and settlement terms could be made more public once legal privilege no longer applies. The attorney and redevelopment counsel said they would provide public materials where legally permissible, and the council signaled it would continue discussions in and out of closed session as litigation progressed.
