The Recent One Westfield Place Court Decision (My Opinion)

As your Ward 3 Councilman Candidate, and a practicing attorney, I wanted to give you my POV on the recent OWP court decision.

NJ Appellate Division Decision on One Westfield Place Underscores the Need to Have Elected Officials Who Listen to the Concerns of the Community 

On Friday, the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled against the Westfield Advocates for Responsible Development in its challenge to the One Westfield Place project, affirming the trial court’s ruling from a year ago.    

In a written statement, Mayor Brindle asserted that this ruling affirms the trial court’s “decision that the Town acted appropriately and responsibly in determining that One Westfield Place is consistent with our Master Plan.”  

It must be made clear, however, that this appellate ruling was not an approval of One Westfield Place.  Neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Division addressed whether the Town had acted “responsibly” in its decision-making process or whether the Town Council appropriately considered widespread community concerns before moving forward with this large-scale project.  

Rather, the Appellate ruling was grounded in the legal tenet that there is a “presumption of validity” to decisions voted on by a town’s governing body.  This creates a heavy burden on anyone challenging such a decision to show that the ordinance is either not consistent with the town’s Master Plan (a Master Plan approved by the same governing body) or is otherwise “arbitrary and capricious,” which generally means a decision having no rational basis. 

As the Trial Court explained, “a presumption of validity attaches to the adoption of a redevelopment plan with deference given the governing body in making such a determination” and “[i]t is wholly inappropriate for any court to substitute its judgment for that of the legislative body of the city . . . .”   

In other words, no New Jersey court has ever weighed in on the merits of One Westfield Place, and this most recent ruling was certainly not a ratification of the project.  

It should also be noted that Westfield Advocates prepared an extensive memorandum outlining the issues with the project and this information was presented at a planning board meeting prior to the Town Council’s final approval of the project.  However, this memorandum was barred from the evidentiary record and not considered by the Trial Court because “[t]he record show[ed] that the governing body [the Town Council] did not review the WARD memo or the February 6 planning board meeting transcript when it adopted the ordinance on February 14.”  

This fact cannot be understated: despite being presented with concerns and a detailed memorandum from Town residents, the Town Council did not review this information before voting to approve the One Westfield Place project.   

There are two main takeaways from this most recent legal ruling.  First, the Appellate Division’s decision is in no way an approval or endorsement of One Westfield Place.  Second, it matters who is on Town Council as having elected officials who consider and listen to the views of their constituents is imperative.  

This is why the upcoming election in November is so important.  Our team and I are focused on the issues important to the Town’s residents.  All we want is a return to normalcy, where residents feel confident that their concerns are heard and thoughtfully considered, especially before major decisions with long-lasting impact are made.  

Should you have any questions or want to sign up to receive campaign updates, please contact me at lallisforward3@gmail.com or visit my website, https://www.dannyforwestfield.com/.