Montclair Councilor at Large and mayoral candidate Peter Yacobellis, in a email to constituents Monday, shared he was withdrawing a lawsuit “against a current resident and a former resident who we feel crossed serious lines with their conduct earlier this year.”
The crossing of the lines Yacobellis refers to occurred in February 2023, when David Herron and Martin Schwartz made statements during public comment at a Montclair town council meeting alleging that Yacobellis has a conflict of interest and should recuse himself from all votes, discussions and related communications connected to the Lackawanna Plaza redevelopment.
At the February 21 meeting, Herron stated that Yacobellis’ position as executive director of Out Montclair is a “direct conflict of interest” because the organization had received “monies, donations, financial support from individuals seeking to develop Lackawanna Plaza.”
Herron also said: “Be advised, a formal complaint has been filed with the New Jersey Attorney General’s office concerning these very serious matters.”
On Monday, March 13, Schwartz and Herron learned they were being sued by Yacobellis, who alleged that the two defendants engaged in a “self-interested, defamatory smear campaign” designed to damage his reputation.
Regarding his announcement to drop the lawsuit, Yacobellis wrote: “This was a decision I made out of a desire to try and put the need for some inner peace and community healing in front of the need to be right. I had a very strong case that I was prepared to litigate fully. But as a mayoral candidate now, this is a distraction and my focus needs to be on solving some of our larger challenges as a town.”
On Tuesday, during public comment at the June 13 Montclair Council meeting, Herron disagreed with Yacobellis’ characterization of why he was withdrawing his lawsuit.
“He withdrew that lawsuit because he was facing a frivolous lawsuit complaint that I was about to file. And, by the way, the deadline for him to have withdrawn that lawsuit was today.”
Herron also disputed Yacobellis’ claims that he had strong case.
“There’s a high bar for an elected official to win a defamation lawsuit. It requires actual malice, or total disregard for the accuracy of one’s statement. He could not have won. This was nothing but a feeble attempt to silence me.”
Herron said of the lawsuit: “It was mean spirited, it was vicious. It was outrageous.”
Herron also said that before withdrawing his lawsuit, Yacobellis made a settlement offer that would require Herron to agree to releasing a joint public statement with Yacobellis, where Herron would be quoted as saying he and Yacobellis had come to an amicable resolution and that he didn’t have all the information when he said Yacobellis had a conflict of interest.
On Tuesday, during public comment, Herron said Yacobellis thought to make him his “political slave,” and then stated “I am not your Negro.”
In an email Tuesday, Schwartz said that before withdrawing the case, Yacobellis, through his attorney, had offered to settle in May for $20,000 to recover his attorney fees and costs. Schwartz’ attorney had responded by calling Yacobellis’ suit a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).
Herron said Thursday he never planned to settle and would have never agreed to that statement.
“I was quite disappointed. I wanted the matter to be decided by a judge. Unfortunately, a person can file a suit and withdraw it at any time for any reason.”
Yacobellis, in a statement Tuesday night, said: “I don’t need to be right. I want peace. The community needs healing and peace. Everyone can look at all of the facts and details and these individuals past behavior and statements and their online behavior and much more and develop their own points of view. I’m choosing to move forward and focus my time, talent and energy on the bigger picture which is governing for 41,000 people.”
Herron said Thursday he was reviewing all his options legally, and without sharing specific details, alluded to other possible actions that he may take.
Yacobellis has been the most vocal of any of the Montclair councilors in his support of the Lackawanna Plaza plan. The legal sparring between Herron, Schwartz and Yacobellis parallels the polarizing debate around what to do about Lackawanna Plaza and the intense feelings Montclair residents, both for and against the plan, have about the redevelopment project.
Wanted: A Montclair Diversity Preservationist
Montclair Residents for Responsible Development, an organization Herron is a member of, was founded in an effort to scale back the Lackawanna Plaza plan. The group first started a petition. Its members, who continue to raise awareness during public comment and have organized community meetings and walking tour, remain focused on the redevelopment and continued concerns about gentrification.
“The lawsuit has nothing to do with me. I understand both sides,” said Aminah Toler, a member of Montclair Residents for Responsible Development, on Saturday. “My concern is the gentrification that will rapidly happen if Lackawanna is approved at what it currently is.”
Toler lives in the Fourth Ward. She grew up on Central Avenue, in Montclair’s Frog Hollow neighborhood, until gentrification pushed her out. She remembers the changes to housing in the town, starting in the mid-1990s.
“So many two family homes have been flipped and turned into single families. These type of changes push families out. If Montclair continues to pride itself on diversity, we have to do something to protect that diversity.”
She added: “If this development goes up, it will be a big slap in face to African Americans in the Fourth ward. It will cause a ripple effect.”
That ripple effect, says Toler, who also serves as vice chair of Montclair’s Landlord and Tenant Advisory Committee, will be more people leaving Montclair because of rising rents or landlords not maintaining amenities in an attempt to get tenants to move so rents can be raised.
“We matter and the council needs to show us we matter,” said Toler, referring to African Americans in the Fourth Ward and around Montclair. “It’s up to the town council to find ways to preserve the diversity we have.”
Herron said many people in the Fourth Ward are not aware of the proposed plan and that the township had not done enough to engage the community or give residents a seat at the table. Toler says the plan seems designed to serve newcomers.
“If the town cares about the community and all the people in it, then their thought process can’t be to make it a visitor paradise,” says Toler. “They have to focus on the residents.”
Toler said the council as a whole can make it priority to ensure and preserve the diversity it touts on its website and then look for ways to do that, rather than simply point to the 20% of affordable housing units as well as the 10% of workforce units in the proposed redevelopment plan.
She added: “Montclair is really broken. You can see it with this current council. Where’s the humanity, the compassion?
Other members of Montclair Residents for Responsible Development also spoke at Tuesday’s council meeting.
Rachel Quinn Egan said, that in addition to gentrification, the redevelopment will cause serious congestion and traffic issues. Egan read a statement she found on social media made by Yacobellis in 2017, before he became a councilor, where he also expressed concern about the residential volume being discussed by the previous town council regarding the number of units (at that time 350 apartments were being proposed) for the town’s previous Lackawanna redevelopment plan.
“We don’t need the Magic Kingdom on that site,” said Maggie Joralemon. “We need a supermarket, affordable housing, workforce housing, townhomes, pervious green space, a community space, all sourced with solar energy.”
An introduction of an updated plan for Lackawanna Plaza is expected to take place at the July 18th Montclair Township Council meeting.
Please, just stop! You’re cracking me up! C’mon, aren’t you educated people. Certainly, you have common sense. Is an educated, common sense conversation possible. Can you? Hate to bring it up because this town hates dealing with numbers. Has a real fear of data. Did you even read all the demographic data – the baseline data and projected changes – in the Lackawanna Redevelopment Plan? Oh, yeah, sorry, there is none. This is Montclair! We don’t need any stinking’ numbers. Data? Hah!
Please, look at that thing called a 2020 census. Maybe even elevate your thoughts by mixing that with the American Community Survey. Yes, it might or might not fit your personal narratives. The question is do you want to find out or do you want to site back and enjoy your assumptions, your out-dated, anecdotal facts, your prejudices and bias?
I get why we don’t. We won’t even do a deep dive of the new census data for the Master Plan Re-examination Update. No, that would make too much sense. Data is a pain. Most of it comes from government sources and we should be dubious on that basis alone. No, data is not helpful. we know what we know now. We are Montclair!
And instead of the dog ate my homework excuse, we now have updated it to COVID ate my demographics excuse. Such a smart, educated town. I am in awe.
I find it amazing how there are so many factions that have different visions of Montclair. Those factions are only thinking of their best interests which shouldn’t be surprising. People are resistant to change but that attitude is unrealistic. Montclair is on an economic upswing and some of the areas that are being what is called gentrified were at one time part of an economic downswing. The only limits put on Lackawanna should be height, set backs, and state ordered mandates. Dictating there be supermarket and making it less “high end” will only lead to cheap construction. Why shouldn’t Montclair be developed to its full potential? Would people not let their kids go to college? Not let them spread their wings and leave the nest? Is it a case of munchausens? Let’s face it, probably more than 50% of the current homeowners couldn’t afford to rebuy their homes. It’s called progress.
Per the plan, the estimated changes to just Census Tract 167:
# of Households:
Current 1,321
Projected 1,619*
*adds 298 new housing units, but excludes 15% short-term housing
(Current Township Overall Avg is 14,517)
Median Household Income:
Current $98,100
Projected $111,400
(Current Township Overall Avg is $156,000)
Average Household Size:
Current. 1.96 people
Projected 2.12 people
(Current Township Overall Avg is 2.82)
Average Vehicles Per Household:
Current 1.17 vehicles
Projected 1.16 vehicles
. (Current Township Overall Avg is 1.59)
The silliness of this back & forth is if you drop the housing units to 255 from 298 and just flat our eliminate the short-term housing, & its space.
The numbers I posted above don’t change significantly, if at all.
The biggest change is projected household income drops to $109,800 from $111,400. Again, the current is $98,100.
FYI, Workforce Housing: the maximum household income for a 2 person household is $110,585 (per the Planning Dept).
And yes, the (Current Township Overall Avg is 14,517) in earlier post should say Total, not Avg.
Yacobellis had no hope of prevailing in his lawsuit. None. As a member of government, he simply does not have the right to silence his critics.
He’s an elected official. If he can’t handle voters disagreeing with him, he needs to find a different line of work.
Angry,
Hear, Hear!!
Growing up in the area, I remember when Lackawanna was redeveloped and booming. Oh my the amount of traffic. I think people forget there was traffic then. Maybe they got used to the property being closed for so long, they forgot! Granted with the amount of units projected will create a little more. (The county changes on the Ave won’t help) I tend to believe that about a 1/4 of the tenants won’t have vehicles, so hopefully that helps. Maybe drop it down one floor and build out wider, possibly less green space. I would love to see those lots redeveloped again. It was fun to watch!
“This was a decision I made out of a desire to try and put the need for some inner peace and community healing in front of the need to be right. I had a very strong case that I was prepared to litigate fully. But as a mayoral candidate now, this is a distraction and my focus needs to be on solving some of our larger challenges as a town.”
Peter, for starters, how about you and the TC resolving the gas leaf blower issue. How long has it been now? Do you see that as a “larger” challenge? I am seeing right through you!
No, now the issue has morphed into banning electric leaf blowers as the goal. And that is on Councilor Russo and the residents that are moving the goal posts. The best part of it is they have the former head of New Jersey’s Lemon Law administration leading a bait & switch initiative. Bob, seriously? And Bob, you want everyone to invest in all these electric blowers and their batteries with the knowledge your ignition is to ban them. Seriously? And then you eliminate noise as a reason because I told you that wouldn’t work and your lawyers agreed with me. Now you are using broadly generalized health detriments…after you essentially told people to buy electric blowers to further these heath detriments? Stop me when this gets too stupid even for the People’s Republic of Mtc.
Just let everyone know blowers of any type will be banned by 2026. At least be straight with people, Be a standup guy. Tell them the rug will come out from under them. They’ll love you for it. I swear.
And what is the decibel level for an air conditioner condenser that is allowed to be placed on a concrete pad, next to building walls to maximize the noise level… and, allowed by law, up to 6 feet from your neighbor’s property? And how many are still using Freon, that ozone depleting substance that was banned worldwide?
Irrespective of Yacobellis (wisely) withdrawing his lawsuit, in a word, could someone get me up to speed RE the original Herron and Schwartz allegations.
I wonder if banning leaf blowers will cause gentrification or at least some sort of demographic change of the town. Older residents probably aren’t physically able to rake leaves and let’s face it the cost of fall and spring clean ups will be dramatically higher. It would be nice if the leaf blower ban brigade would make a commitment to senior citizens to come out in force and rake their leaves. Maybe the goal is to keep raising taxes and the cost of home maintenance until all the old folks are forced out of town. That will teach those old coots to ask for Senior Citizens Center. In the mean time is that another jet I hear flying overhead dumping jet fuel exhaust on Montclair? Let’s ban Amazon with all the toxic packaging they deliver. How about all the food deliveries? Montclair is an environmental wasteland.
This new & improved version of “ban the leaf blowers” advocacy is just not the level of smart you would expect coming out of Montclair.
Putting their smarts aside, I mistakenly thought they were better prepared to get a more stringent ordnance passed. I didn’t appreciate how much they relied on riding the coattails of Maplewood and failed to do their due diligence or even have a basic understanding of the task.
Now the Council is totally confused – and exposed – and the Law Dept is likely to farm this out for a second opinion. A tip…start at the beginning. Because we will almost certainly be sued and lose or have to settle on unfavorable terms. Just sayin’.
And on a related note, someone quoted in the above article called this Council broken, but then asked on this {broken} Council to help fix the problem. This is someone that either doesn’t get what broken means or doesn’t listen to their spoken words.
Yes, the Council is broken. The big question is how many more major decisions do you want this Council to put their imprimatur to? Maybe we just tread water for another year and light a bunch of candles at Our Lady of Mercy. Maybe the next Redevelopment Area!
flip – Seeing that Montclair is an “environmental wasteland”, I’m thinkin’ since you came up with the brilliant idea of raking the leaves of our seniors in town, why don’t you take the lead. I am sure the Parks Dept. will work with you in putting a volunteer program together.
And for the few who see it and the vast majority that don’t, I love the contrast of The Many’s righteousness in regulating The Few while simultaneously arguing The Few’s righteousness to dictate the wellbeing of The Many.
God, this will be an entertaining Summer!
Yes, that area needs a supermarket, even though some seem to think that is downmarket. The density of the project really needs to be reduced. What they are jamming in there is ridiculous. Saying this, the area needs to be redeveloped. Sorry if having a supermarket makes some think it will be a lessor project.
This town needs to think about whether we want an immature mayor that sues people, blocks people on social media, deletes comments in order to change the meaning of the exchange, and always plays the victim. Personally, I think he is too immature. Besides the serious problems of the health benefits. I also thinks how he runs to any situation where he thinks he is going to get publicity is problematic. He obviously didn’t realize, and I don’t know why, that more school aid numbers will be coming out in July/August. If he had realized that, I assume he would not been down at the schools, with a bullhorn, with those kids, calling for the head of Dr. Pond. And he subsequently said the budget should have been sent out to the public to vote in to be able to exceed the cap.
i would take Russo, before this guy any day. And yes, I have lived in Montclair long enough to remember when Russo was mayor.
It’s easy to criticize people, LP will be redeveloped, I know some people take their concerns too far, but as someone that has lived here for many years, I have my concerns about density and traffic.
Silverleaf,
I am a senior and I have a rake just for you. See you this fall and bring your friends.
Flip, you just made the proposal and already you’re delegating. Lol. Why am I not surprised?
“Irrespective of Yacobellis (wisely) withdrawing his lawsuit, in a word, could someone get me up to speed RE the original Herron and Schwartz allegations.” – silverleaf
So, back around 2013-14 there was this new school superintendent that everyone referred to by a condescending nickname. We had a lot less class then. She wanted to elevate the quality of our schools by addressing student performance. She, like almost all of our superintendents, was no match for Montclair’s toxic parent/teacher culture. They ran her out of town.
OK, next…oh, sorry, that wan’t in a word. There were accusations & allegations and then there were more allegations and accusations and then here we are today. New day, same manipulative behavior.
Thanks Frank, I remember. So much has happened since, it seems like it occurred when the Pilgrims came over.
Yes, allegations and accusations by Herron and Schwartz around Yacobellis position as Executive Director of Out Montclair being a direct conflict of interest and proposed recusal from all votes, discussions and related communications in connection with Lackawanna Plaza redevelopment. Has any action, resolution, etc been taken? I’m good after that. I just don’t recall seeing any follow-up here (if there has been any), only the lawsuit itself by Yacobellis and now his recent withdrawal of it.
Here you go Silverleaf. https://montclairlocal.net/2023/03/conflict-allegations-montclair-has-been-here-before/ — which has a good summary of all.
And the very clear comment within that from former Township Attorney Ira Karasick:
“Now to Councilor Yacobellis, since I was quoted (correctly but incompletely) in the article. This is not about Councilor Yacobellis’ integrity or the bona fides and good works of Out Montclair. A disqualifying conflict of interest does not require any misconduct by the official or anyone else, actual, intentional or unintentional. Nor did I mean to suggest any such thing. The facts as I see them are admitted. They are: BDP Holdings is the owner and seeks to develop the Lackawanna property. To that end, BDP is negotiating with the Council to have a redevelopment plan ordinance adopted which permits the project that BDP wants. Peter Yacobellis is a founder of Out Montclair, has identified with the organization publicly since its inception, and is now the paid Executive Director. BDP Holdings contributed $40,000 to Out Montclair to sponsor the Montclair Pride festival in 2022, according to Out Montclair’s 2023 sponsorship brochure. Based on those facts alone, I believe that Councilor Yacobellis has a disqualifying conflict of interest with regard to any matters involving the Township and BDP Holdings, including of course the Lackawanna redevelopment. These are my thoughts, in answer to Liz George’s question. It is not a formal legal opinion.”
And the section of the actual law which impacts Yacobellis here:
N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5
Code of ethics for local government officers or employees under jurisdiction of Local Finance Board Local government officers or employees under the jurisdiction of the Local Finance Board shall comply with the following provisions:
a. No local government officer or employee or member of his immediate family shall have an interest in a business organization or engage in any business, transaction, or professional activity, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties in the public interest;
d. No local government officer or employee shall act in his official capacity in any matter where he, a member of his immediate family, or a business organization in 6 which he has an interest, has a direct OR INDIRECT (emphasis added) financial or personal involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence of judgment;
And from Grabowsky v. Montclair an Appellate ruling, the State’s highest court has already directly addressed this issue from another situation earlier here in town:
…”where public public responsibilities and volunteer commitments conflicted in a land use dispute, there is a simple solution, the public official should refrain from involvement in the matter”…Id at 562.
Consequently, my good friend Frank Rubacky is totally misguided here dismissing and misdirecting the important take-away. He has wrongly conflated a political dispute with a school Superintendent who had an educational agenda many opposed, to this very clear cut legal issue impacting, where a town Councilor is in my opinion and that of others, acting unlawfully. And thus, wrongly put himself into a position from the start we believe, to allow his decision-making to be influenced and compromised — as the law states should be avoided.
Seriously Martin? I would refile the suit against you just because you are obnoxious in your erroneous ways. To my way of thinking, you just defamed the Councilor, again! Let your whatever the reason for your fixation, go. Just let it go. There are 7 votes on this Council. You have lost objectivity and are dragging down the community dialogue.
You never answered my question whether you still live in town.
And I am more than amused by all the whining townspeople over this Council. I told, and gave examples to the many whiners almost a year ago the entire Council had to go. It was just another set of failures across the board. People like Martin will never get it because of his devotion to real politik, not ideology.
Yet, the outspoke townspeople did me a favor with their lack of all-around clarity and considerable handwringing. It gave me immeasurable amounts of entertainment. Thank you. And just think, another year left. I am blessed. Keep doing what you’re doing people. I would love to see remote public comment return. Now that would be so utterly amazing.
It’s time for your long overdue take-down here Frank, since you decided to turn a policy disagreement with me, very personal now with: “I would refile the suit against you (Martin) just because you are obnoxious in your erroneous ways. To my way of thinking, you just defamed the Councilor, again!”.
So Frank, not only are you unable to see the serious ramifications from the Councilor’s actions here now stifling public debate and chilling free speech from takeaway fears given the SLAPP suit Yacobellis filed (see my Facebook post comment on this along with the article link posts in Secret, Aware or Montclair Community) you have no idea what you’re talking about re: libel and defamation. Go to our legal file in the courts and read the motion papers and legal briefs, which really should have been easily linked here in the story.
Regardless, almost your posts above are once again, just examples of you getting lost in minutia everywhere, on every comment pretty much across the board. Focusing continuously, as I see it for the most part, on seemingly unconnected leaves…sometimes trees. Rarely ever tied into a coherent point of view impacting the forest.
And everybody else sees it too IMO.
You are simply unable to present a coherent, big picture view on any issue that you comment on Frank and when you do, it’s at an analytic plane that virtually no one can follow. Hints and inferences only…
Say all you want that “Martin will never get it because of his devotion to real politik, not ideology”. I think most readers would disagree. My political philosophies and land use povs (and communications) are pretty consistent and clear as to what kind of township I believe we should have here. That’s both architecturally, commercially and politically. So that even if people don’t agree, they at least understand my positions and thinking.
Not so from your grumpy, curmudgeon ‘Man of the Baristanet mountain’ routine which you believe has a sage — “I know best” overlay. But in reality, does not resonate. Tolerated and amused more is the reaction, as you come down off the peak to rant….since you continuously try to dominate the dialogue with multiple posts, giving no one else space to even focus their comments.
That said, I have no problem admitting that within those rambles, there are sometimes very helpful “ah-ha” pieces of of good information that aid in one’s wider pov. Which is why I still read you. And yet, I also know that many other readers here constantly struggle to determine what you are actually saying, or want. And pass you by because most of the time, it’s a disconnected diatribe to them that only you can see.
Was that “real politik” and “obnoxious” enough for you? Because sometimes the truth helps.
I now suggest, (for your own benefit) that as we move into the next council election cycle — that you really begin to think more who the good guys are here and who the bad guys are. And focus your comments more simply like that. Through that lens. As I’ve previously advised privately. And just try to stop talking so much here because you’re really not saying anything that sticks as a takeaway most of the time — in my opinion. Just overwhelming the conversation with posts.
That’s if you have any hope of staying relevant and actually making a contribution. Rather than continue to only howl at the moon.
Martin,
Thank you for the takedown. I can only wish I am becoming increasingly irrelevant. And whether a majority of readers understand me is not really the point, is it? And if this Council was making good & timely choices by the slimmest of majorities, it would have its reputation intact. Whether one member was an outlier or even perceived as ethically conflicted, we wouldn’t hold against the Council overall. So, we roundly agreed and gave the Jackson Council a pass. Actually, we gave them a lot of credit or ignored things what many are now calling bad. It’s a shifting world with shifting agendas and bedfellows.
You are fixated on Yacobellis. Others are fixated on Russo. Or Spiller. You are & these others are missing the forest here. It’s the Council itself. As a body. Pick a year, pick a month and really look at this Council’s performance overall. Over their entire tenure. Look at all of them. There is not one that didn’t contribute multiple times, in meaningful ways to the utter, unmitigated disaster this town is enduring. And don’t misunderstand me please on this point. The voters, us, deserve the bulk of the blame. We were self-absorbed, complacent (sounds better than lazy), and we were not smart. Not smart at all. For all this township has in intellectual capacity, experience and spirituality we should give ourselves a grade of D. The parents are just the last , really big group to demonstrate their deficiencies. I give them a C+ because they entertained us in public. So, you want to criticize me for all the things I am, fine. But, at least I have higher standards than the parents that [ut on that travesty of civic participation. And, yes, I think the 3rd Ward our weakest ward.
Well said, Martin.
Martin, thanks for the link provided. Very informative. I missed the story when it posted in March.
What if the candidate choices in next year’s Mayoral election amount to a vote for Summer School Valedictorian?
And for all the good civic people out there, where did you go on the issue of the Council eliminating remote public comment. I know this is less important. I know it is not relevant to our democratic process. I know we had much more pressing aspirations and amenities that needed funding. And we all know how we carried on about our time before the cameras being cut from 3 min to 2 mins. Oh, the horror! Can we get any more superficial?
FYI: Meta has a map app to help y’all find the high road to realizing the most fulfilling, most practical life nearest you. And there are no baggage restrictions.
Thank you Calvin.
Frank, please. Just stop. I have so many Barista posts and facebook comments over the years on our Council’s overall disfunction and why…I hesitate myself sometimes to post. For fear of an ad nauseum, repetition image take-away.
Yacobellis just happens to be the current focus within that today — given his assertive moves being made.
But you really need to take a self-awareness break. Some similar reflection on your end — before you hit send — would be very helpful for all…
Martin,
Lack of introspection? Guilty.
Over-posting? Guilty.
Curmudgeon? Self-appointed.
But, I only post here. Not on FB/Secret Mtc or Twitter, or anywhere else. I no longer give public comment in person as I banned myself on principle.
And I don’t send emails to posters telling them what or how to comment on Baristanet threads because it doesn’t align to my agenda to shape the published commentary. You have to own that.
And really, how hard is it for people to see my name on a post and just skip over it?