Edison, NJ – In a contentious council meeting, Councilman Rich Brescher introduced an ordinance aimed at repealing the recently passed Ordinance O2215-2024 and restoring Chapter 17 to its pre amended state. This move sparked a heated debate, highlighting concerns about the ordinance’s legality, enforceability, and potential financial burden on residents.
The recently filed lawsuit alleges that O.2215-2024, adopted on April 25, 2024, says it imposes an illegal licensing requirement on multi-family apartment complexes and demands improper information and payments for individual unit registration.
Council President Nish Patel attempted to delay the introduction, citing ongoing legal proceedings and requesting Councilman Brescher to hold off until the following meeting. However, Brescher expressed his urgency, stating O2215-2024 was not adequately explained upon its initial introduction and has led to a lawsuit from 41 different property owners. Brescher stated “I believe this ordinance was a mistake, I believe it is flawed and I believe what this ordinance requires is not possible for us to do. I have been asking our attorney for over two months for this ordinance to repeal O2215-2024. I believe this is bad law pushed forward by the mayor and council president and we should move forward tonight.”
Councilman AJay Patil voiced his strong reservations about the ordinance’s feasibility, stating, “We do not have the manpower to enforce this. This is technically and practically impossible for us to enforce.” His statement underscored the growing concerns among council members about the lack of resources and infrastructure to implement the ordinance effectively, further fueling the push for its repeal.
In an unusual break from his typical alignment with the council president and mayor, Councilman Asaf Schmuel expressed his support for repealing the ordinance. “I agree with Councilman Patil,” Schmuel stated. “With thousands of apartments and only three inspectors, I don’t think we have the infrastructure to enforce this ordinance. I would support repealing it.” His unexpected stance further highlighted the deep divisions within the council and the mounting opposition to the controversial ordinance.
The ordinance to repeal O2215-2024 is set for further discussion at Wednesday’s meeting and appears to have support from the majority following a divided vote on its introduction. Council members Brescher, Schmuel, Patil, and Harris voted in favor, while Coyle and Patel opposed it. Council member Poyner abstained from the vote. The upcoming meeting promises a deeper dive into the ordinance and its potential implications.
