Power struggle over Trenton redevelopment continues after judges denies injunction

As a federal investigation of grant funding looms over his administration, Mayor Reed Gusciora is taking harbor in the small wins.

A judge this month denied council’s request for a temporary injunction that would’ve forced the Gusciora administration to cooperate with legislators’ attempts to establish a new redevelopment authority for the city, records show.

Superior Court Judge Robert Lougy’s decision effectively keeps redevelopment in the hands of the mayoral administration for the time being.

He hasn’t issued a final ruling on a permanent injunction that will dictate how redevelopment powers are effectuated going forward.

Gusciora vetoed an ordinance passed by council setting up the new redevelopment authority, arguing those rights are properly vested in the administration per the Faulkner Act.

Legislators claimed in their lawsuit that the administration was blocking them from seeking approval from the Local Finance Board at its April meeting.

Lougy hinted in a 29page decision issued May 19 that legislators were out of order in the way they went about establishing the new redevelopment authority, which will supersede the functions of the housing and economic redevelopment department led by Andre C. Daniels.

Council passed the ordinance first, then sought approval from the LFB, while the judge wrote that the Local Authorities Fiscal Control Law makes it clear that “no authority shall be created by any local unit … without the prior approval of the Local Finance Board.”

“It becomes more apparent that Plaintiff’s legal rights are unsettled, and Plaintiff cannot clearly and convincingly show a reasonable probability of ultimate success on the merits of its claims,” Lougy wrote. “Plaintiff contends that without temporary restraints it will be unable to exercise its statutory authority and create a Redevelopment Agency. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the alleged hardship weighs in favor of granting relief.”

Attorneys for council sued, citing emails from the law firm Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer that was handling council’s application to the LFB.

The firm explained it couldn’t proceed with the application because the administration didn’t agree to it.

“We cannot be in a position where we are adverse to the City in any legal matters. The administration will oppose the application before the LFB and we cannot legally advocate for an application being contested by the administration,” the firm’s attorney, Everett Johnson, wrote in an email to council. “Thus, unless the Council and the administration are able to come to a meeting of the minds, we will have to recuse ourselves from being involved in the submission of the application to the Local Finance Board.”

Despite the judge’s decision rejecting council’s push for a temporary injuction, the two sides remain at odds over who is in control of the city’s redevelopment efforts.

On May 26, City Clerk Penelope Edwards-Carter emailed Director Daniels on behalf of council claiming his department had been stripped by ordinance of the authority to issue Request for Proposals (RFP) for future redevelopment projects.

“Please cease and desist from requesting and obtaining bids or RFPs dealing with redevelopment projects in the City of Trenton,” she wrote.

City officials provided Lougy’s opinion as a rebuttal to those claims as the case proceeds, with Lougy writing that council is still free to apply to the LFB and see if it “receives a favorable outcome in the future.”

“The denial of preliminary injunctive relief does not prohibit Plaintiff from obtaining the relief it seeks,” he wrote.