Constitution Avenue redevelopment plan

Spent over an hour arguing the plan skipped planning board review, was pushed through at the last meeting of the council, and lacked a public vetting of traffic, water, and affordable housing issues.

Railed against 50-story towers, broken infrastructure, and lack of amenities, urging the city reassess its master plan before approving more density.

A 30-year tenant who demanded a public hearing and decried lack of transparency on the tower project.

Planning board member who said the project should go through the normal planning board process where city professionals ask the hard questions.

Questioned the tax abatement, water capacity, Newark Bay extension, and asked that the $3-4 million contribution go to schools or parks rather than traffic lights; asked the item be sent back to the planning board.

Asked whether existing units stay and whether a school impact study was done.

Attorney speaking for the project (not the developer, he said) argued it is legally before the council, described the $3-4 million contribution and 5% workforce housing, and asked for a yes vote.

The retiring city planner said she never saw the traffic study, urged a highway access permit requirement, and flagged water/sewer capacity and legacy affordable housing obligations.