GOP rivals Barberio, Musella tackle development, tax breaks in Parsippany mayoral debate
Bitter rivals since they took office together almost four years ago, Parsippany Mayor James Barberio and Councilman Justin Musella rarely see eye to eye on the issues.
But facing each other on May 15 in a much-anticipated online debate — just weeks before Republican voters decide which one to nominate for mayor in the general election — the candidates found common ground on several points during the hourlong event.
Parsippany's building boom and tax deals for developers continued to divide Musella, 33, and Barberio, 64, who is seeking a fourth term leading Morris County's largest community.
But topics of agreement included the state of disrepair at the Lake Hiawatha Branch of the Parsippany Library. With a current estimate of more than $9 million to renovate the building, neither candidate predicted an affordable solution to save it. Barberio said the town was looking into a lease to occupy the Lake Hiawatha Rite Aid store, which closed last year. Musella suggested they look into shared services with neighboring Montville.
The forum was hosted by the League of Women Voters Morris Area, the Daily Record and the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Morristown Alumnae Chapter.
Both men agreed the town had to do a better job at granting building permits in a timely manner, a common complaint in town from both contractors and residents. Barberio defended the existing staff but pointed to a problem recruiting construction code officials to come on board.
"We're involved with a lot of new construction," Barberio said.
Musella said building permits were "a top priority" for him, including adding staff and digitizing the process.
Both also admitted that towns have little control over the affordable housing mandate that has fueled a wave of construction throughout the state, particularly in Parsippany, where more than 2,300 residential units are currently under construction.
Barberio blamed the "Trenton Democrats" in control of state policy. Musella said it was essential for New Jersey to elect a Republican governor in November "to shut down the mandate." Both of them also insisted they would negotiate development deals for the town, not the developers.
More: Parsippany demolished 2 million square feet of office space. Here's what will replace it
One thing they did not agree on was the omnipresence of former township municipal attorney John Inglesino in many of those Parsippany development deals, including several that included the sometimes controversial practice of awarding tax discounts known as PILOTs, or "payment in lieu of taxes." Inglesino is now a private attorney who has represented several developers in negotiations with the township.
PILOT supporters include Barberio — "they are absolutely necessary" he said during the debate. Backers say the tax deals give builders incentives to knock down vacant office buildings in town and replace them with revenue-generating properties.
Musella said PILOTs can be a useful tool in certain negotiations, but he blasted the flurry of agreements granted by the Barberio administration as "corporate welfare for the mayor's top fundraiser and our former town attorney, John Inglesino."
Barberio defended Inglesino and his administration's PILOTs. "We had certain projects that if they didn't get PILOTs, they were going to leave," Barberio said. "They would have left, they would have demolished the buildings, and who would subsidize the taxes? The taxpayer. We can't allow that to happen."
"We have to end the culture of cronyism in town hall," Musella said later. "It is a serious problem that [Inglesino] does the majority of the development in town and receives all the PILOT contracts."
"You got to let John Inglesino stop living rent-free in your head," Barberio shot back, adding that Musella voted in favor of the Inglesino development proposals, if not the PILOTs that followed.
"If the guy was that evil, I wouldn't have invited him to my wedding," Barbero added. "But that's beside the point. John does not push development forward here in Parsippany."
"In Parsippany, having good relations with John Inglesino is essential to getting anything done," Musella countered. "Developers know that. Residents know that. Anybody on the outside looking in knows that. I want things being done fairly, equitably, and transparently, where one person in particular doesn't just cut the line to get whatever they want."
Musella questioned why, in addition to housing construction, that PILOTs had been granted to two warehouse projects and a new Lifetime Fitness gym along Sylvan Way.
"The mayor is incentivizing the very things that are in extreme demand right now," he said. "Everybody is knocking down our door to build an apartment building or a warehouse. And to put us into business with a gym for 30 years I thought was completely the wrong thing. Because it's Parsippay taxpayers that assume the risk."
The debate ended on a more civil note as each candidate was asked to say something nice about the other. Musella said Barberio was "a nice person" who cared about the town."
"Our issues are not personal," he added.
"Justin's absolutely correct, I don't take it personal, and I hope he doesn't take it personal after I read my closing statement," the mayor joked. "What I do really like about Justin, like myself, he cares about the town, he cares about the residents. One thing that touches my heart, when he had his baby. I had no problem congratulating him and his wife, Courtney, There's no greater gift in the world."
Finally, both agreed to support the primary winner in the general election.
Barberio and Musella ran together four years ago but have clashed in public practically since they took office. Now, they'll vie in the June 10 GOP primary for the right to lead the town of 56,000 people, which has Morris County's only full-time mayor's office.
Barberio is seeking a fourth term after being elected in 2009 and 2013, losing in 2017 and then reclaiming the post in 2021. He is running on a ticket with two town council candidates: current Council Vice President Frank Neglia and Jigar Shah, who the mayor appointed during his first term as his liaison to the large Indian American community in town.
Musella was elected with Barberio and Neglia, but has broken with his fellow Republicans, becoming a vocal critics of the town's deals with developers. He has also criticized the township's adoption of project labor agreements that favor larger unions for big municipal projects.
Musella is running with former Planning Board Chairman Casey Parikh and John Bielen, a business development professional.
The GOP council candidates will not debate. Parikh and Bielen agreed to take part in a League of Women Voters forum but Neglia and Shah declined.
Democrats have endorsed Pulkit Desai, president of the Lake Parsippany Property Owner's Association, for mayor and Matt Kavanagh and Diya Patel for council. Unopposed in the primary, they will meet the winners of the Republican race in the November general election.
A second mayoral debate proposed by the Puddingstone Community Club that would have included Desai was postponed last week after conflicting reports about the event posted on local websites created public confusion.
This article originally appeared on Morristown Daily Record: In Parsippany, GOP rivals Barberio, Musella clash in mayoral debate
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
33 minutes ago
- CNN
Officers throw flash bangs to disperse crowd protesting immigration enforcement in Los Angeles
Federal immigration authorities carried out enforcement activities at businesses across Los Angeles on Friday, prompting clashes outside at least one location as authorities threw flash bangs to try to disperse a crowd that had gathered in protest. Immigration advocates confirmed at least 45 people were arrested without warrants across seven locations, including two Home Depots, a store in the fashion district and a doughnut shop, said Angelica Salas, executive director for the Coalition of Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, at an afternoon press conference denouncing the activity. Federal immigration authorities have been ramping up arrests across the country to fulfill President Donald Trump's promise of mass deportations. Todd Lyons, the head of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, defended his tactics earlier this week against criticism that authorities are being too heavy-handed. He has said ICE is averaging about 1,600 arrests per day and that the agency has arrested 'dangerous criminals.' Protests recently broke out after an immigration action at a restaurant in San Diego and in Minneapolis when federal officials in tactical gear showed up in a Latino neighborhood for an operation they said was about a criminal case, not immigration. In Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass said the activity was meant to 'sow terror.' 'As Mayor of a proud city of immigrants, who contribute to our city in so many ways, I am deeply angered by what has taken place. These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city,' Bass said. Salas, of CHIRLA, echoed that language. 'Our community is under attack and is being terrorized. These are workers, these are fathers, these are mothers, and this has to stop. Immigration enforcement that is terrorizing our families throughout this country and picking up our people that we love must stop now,' Salas said, surrounded by a crowd holding signs protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE declined to discuss the details of its operations. The agency said it routinely makes arrests of noncitizens 'who commit crimes and other individuals who have violated our nation's immigration laws,' said an emailed statement from an unnamed spokesperson. Yasmeen Pitts O'Keefe, a spokesperson for Homeland Security Investigations, a branch of ICE, told the Los Angeles Times that federal agents were executing search warrants related to the harboring of people illegally in the country. In Los Angeles, videos from bystanders and television news crews captured people being walked across a Home Depot parking lot by federal agents as well as clashes that broke out at other detention sites. KTLA showed aerial footage of agents outside a clothing store in the fashion district leading detainees out of a building and toward two large white vans waiting just outside in a parking lot. The hands of the detained individuals were tied behind their backs. The agents patted them down before loading them into the vans. The agents wore vests with the agency acronyms FBI, ICE and HSI for Homeland Security Investigations. Armed agents used yellow police tape to keep crowds on the street and sidewalk away from the operations. Aerial footage of the same location broadcast by KABC-TV showed officers throwing smoke bombs or flash bangs on the street to disperse the people so they could drive away in SUVs, vans and military-style vehicles. The station showed one person running backward with their hands on the hood of a moving white SUV in an apparent attempt to block the vehicle. The person fell backward, landing flat on the ground. The SUV backed up, drove around the individual and sped off as others on the street threw objects at it. Immigrant-rights advocates used megaphones to speak to the workers, reminding them of their constitutional rights and instructing them not to sign anything or say anything to federal agents, the Los Angeles Times reported. Katia Garcia, 18, left school when she learned her father, 37-year-old Marco Garcia, may have been targeted. Katia Garcia, a US citizen, said her father is undocumented and has been in the US for 20 years. 'We never thought this would happen to us,' she told the Los Angeles Times. Eleven of the LA City Council's 15 members issued a statement accusing federal immigration agencies of 'an egregious escalation.' 'This indiscriminate targeting of children and families not only harms the individuals who are directly impacted, but destroys our communities' sense of trust and safety in their own homes,' the statement said.
New York Times
39 minutes ago
- New York Times
Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes
By Ralph D. Russo, Stewart Mandel and Justin Williams A federal judge Friday granted final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, a watershed agreement in college sports that permits schools to directly pay college athletes for the first time. The settlement, which resolves a trio of antitrust cases against the NCAA and its most powerful conferences, establishes a new 10-year revenue sharing model in college sports, with athletic departments able to distribute roughly $20.5 million in name, image and likeness (NIL) revenue to athletes over the 2025-26 season. Previously, athletes could earn NIL compensation only with outside parties, including school-affiliated donor collectives that have become instrumental in teams' recruiting. Advertisement The NCAA and the power conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC), as defendants in the settlement, also agree to pay nearly $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were not allowed to sign NIL deals, dating back to 2016. The damages will be paid out over 10 years, with most of the money expected to go to former power-conference football and men's basketball players. Universities can begin directly sharing revenue with college athletes starting July 1. Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, who previously ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon and Alston cases, granted approval roughly a year after parties agreed to settlement terms and nearly two months after a final approval hearing on April 7, where Wilken heard testimony from more than a dozen objectors. Lawyers for both the plaintiffs and defendants noted that the number of objections and opt-outs in the settlement represent a tiny fraction of the nearly 400,000 athletes in the certified class. However, some of those objectors delayed approval, largely citing the settlement's new roster limits. These limits, which replace sport-by-sport scholarship limits, cap the maximum roster size per team while allowing for every roster spot to receive a scholarship. Schools can offer scholarship funds — partial or full — as they see fit, which creates more potential opportunities. But as schools preemptively prepared to comply with those new limits, they removed roster spots for thousands of walk-ons, particularly in football, and partial scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports. In late April, Wilken offered an ultimatum, instructing the settlement parties to revise the terms in a way that mitigated any lost roster spots as a result of schools preparing for the new roster limits, or she would deny the whole agreement. Settlement lawyers responded with an amendment that allows for voluntary 'grandfathering' of any athletes who lost roster spots as a result of the roster limits, a status that will follow those athletes through the remainder of their eligibility, whether they return to their original school or transfer elsewhere. Advertisement The initial House v. NCAA case — brought by plaintiffs Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, and Sedona Prince, then an Oregon women's basketball player — was filed in June 2020. It challenged NCAA policy at the time that prohibited athletes from being compensated for the commercial use of their NIL rights or from sharing in the revenue generated from NCAA and conference television contracts. The case was later consolidated with two similar suits, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. The cases had not gone to trial. The NCAA and Power 5 conferences, fearful a verdict might result in much higher damages, agreed to a settlement in May 2024. Wilken granted preliminary approval in October 2024. The NCAA's traditional amateurism model, in which athletes could not receive any compensation beyond a scholarship, began to crumble in 2014 when Wilken ruled against the NCAA in a suit brought by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon, who objected to his image being used in an EA Sports video game without his permission. Wilken ruled for the plaintiffs, but after an appeals court struck part of her decision, the only tangible effect was that schools began offering cost-of-attendance stipends. The next major case, Alston v. NCAA, made it to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 9-0 against the NCAA. Often mischaracterized as a case about NIL, Alston's main impact was that it allowed schools to provide athletes $5,980 a year in academic expenses. However, the lopsided decision left the NCAA vulnerable to additional legal challenges regarding rules that limited compensation, and it was delivered on June 21, 2021, nine days before numerous state laws allowing NIL payments were set to go into effect. The NCAA quickly scrapped most of its intended restrictions on NIL. In the years since, many athletes have entered into deals with local companies and struck lucrative endorsement deals with national brands like Gatorade and New Balance, as intended. But a far more common practice involves boosters using purported NIL deals to lure recruits or players from the transfer portal to their favorite school. The NCAA's enforcement division initially sought to punish schools that used NIL as a form of 'pay for play' or recruiting inducement, but when the University of Tennessee came under fire in early 2024, the state's attorney general sued, and a judge issued an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing those rules. Advertisement The amount of money being spent in the NIL arena has skyrocketed since 2021. Last year, Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said the Buckeyes football team — which later won the national championship — was earning $20 million in NIL. CBS Sports recently reported that a number of men's basketball rosters have already topped $10 million for next season. To this point, collectives supporting specific schools have ruled the market, but administrators are hoping the House settlement will curtail that influence. In addition to schools being allowed to make NIL deals themselves, the new model also requires all outside NIL deals of more than $600 to go through a clearinghouse that will determine whether the payments are for a valid business purpose and reflect fair market value. Meanwhile, the settlement establishes an enforcement arm that will penalize schools that go over the $20.5 million cap. All of this will be overseen by the newly established regulatory body, called the College Sports Commission, which is in the process of shifting considerable oversight and control of college sports away from the NCAA and to the power conferences. The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors recently approved a series of proposals, pending settlement approval, that will strike 153 rules from the association's handbook and clear the way for the settlement terms to be implemented. The settlement represents a significant shift in college sports, but it will not mark the end of the NCAA's legal challenges. Among numerous ongoing cases, Johnson v. NCAA was filed in 2019 in Pennsylvania and seeks to have athletes classified as employees who are entitled to minimum wage compensation. The NCAA's efforts to dismiss the case have thus far been denied. Revenue sharing and third-party NIL constraints could also invite additional lawsuits on the basis of Title IX, antitrust violations and conflicts with state laws. NCAA and power conference stakeholders continue to pursue antitrust exemptions in the form of Congressional intervention, in hopes of codifying the settlement and its effectiveness moving forward. President Donald Trump has explored a new commission focused on the issues facing college sports, led by former Alabama head coach Nick Saban and billionaire Texas Tech board chair Cody Campbell, though it is paused as members of Congress pursue legislation.
Bloomberg
40 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Abrego Garcia Returns to US to Face Charges
"Balance of Power: Late Edition" focuses on the intersection of politics and global business. On today's show, Mary Lovely, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, shares her thoughts on what to expect Monday as US and Chinese negotiators will resume trade talks in London. Leon Panetta, Former US Secretary of Defense, voices his concerns about the US Supreme Court giving DOGE access to social security data after Elon Musk and President Trump's feud. Zeke Hernandez, Associate Professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, discusses Kilmar Abrego Garcia being brought back to the United States to face criminal charges. (Source: Bloomberg)
