'Slap in the face:' Paramus mayor threatens to sue American Dream mall over Sunday sales
Paramus officials say they're exploring a lawsuit against American Dream, after learning that retail shops at the Meadowlands megamall are open for business on Sundays in defiance of Bergen County's Blue Laws.
The stores at American Dream have been operating in violation of those laws for nearly a year, The Record and NorthJersey.com reported last week, despite the county's longstanding prohibitions against the sale of nonessential items such as furniture, appliances and clothing. The restrictions, in place since the 17th century, exempt some services, including groceries and drugstores.
Paramus residents in particular have been proponents of the Blue Laws over the years. Supporters say they grant them a day of reprieve from heavy traffic that plagues the town the rest of the week due to the borough's four malls.
Mayor Chris DiPiazza said Thursday that he, the borough council, local businesses and residents are all 'very upset' about American Dream's Sunday sales.'The businesses in town are now at a disadvantage and unlevel playing field which had been level for decades,' said DiPiazza, a Republican.
Town officials have been meeting with a lawyer to investigate legal options, the mayor said. He said Paramus has also turned to state representatives and county government for help, though DiPiazza declined to identify them before they officially announced their support.
'Being mayor of Paramus, I know how important the Blue Laws are to our way of life and the peacefulness of Sundays,' he said in an interview. '[It gives us] the ability to move around town, the ability for our emergency services to have less calls and regroup. As mayor, I'm going to fight like heck for Paramus and the county as a whole.'
DiPiazza said when he hears executives at American Dream are 'flaunting that they are open on Sundays,' it's a 'slap in the face to the resident of Paramus and Bergen County as a whole.'
County officials have also vowed to fight to make the mall comply.
More: When will Garden State Plaza redevelopment break ground? Timeline comes into focus
Westfield Garden State Plaza, Paramus' biggest mall, didn't respond to a message asking how it might respond to American Dream's Sunday activity. Instead, Stephen Fluhr, senior vice president of development at owner Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield, said that the shopping center "continues to only operate its entertainment and dining options on Sundays in accordance with both Bergen County and Paramus blue laws."
"Our guests can enjoy their favorite restaurants, the Food Court District, and our premier entertainment concepts like Planet Playskool, Pinstripes and AMC Theatres year-round on Sundays," Fluhr said in a statement.
A spokesperson for American Dream declined to comment on Friday. In a statement last week, Don Ghermezian, CEO of Triple Five, the Canadian company that owns the mall, said the business was "ecstatic that our extensive list of offerings operates on Sundays, allowing everyone to enjoy the very best of American Dream whenever they want."
Spokespeople for two other major Paramus malls, Bergen Town Center and Paramus Park, also declined to comment when reached Friday.
Staff Writer Daniel Munoz contributed to this article.
Stephanie Noda is a local reporter for NorthJersey.com. For unlimited access to the most important news from your local community, please subscribe or activate your digital account today.
Email: noda@northjersey.com; X: @snoda11
This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: Paramus threatens to sue American Dream mall over Sunday sales
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
16 minutes ago
- Axios
Public media funding cuts hit Chicago: WBEZ, WTTW brace for impact
President Trump and the Republican-majority U.S. House moved one step closer to cutting funding for public media, putting local organizations in limbo. The latest: The House passed a bill Thursday afternoon to cancel over $1 billion in funding for PBS and NPR, via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This funding was included in the 2025 fiscal year budget, but this action removes it. Why it matters: Federal funding for public media could vanish — and Chicago stations like WBEZ and WTTW are bracing for the fallout. The big picture: The move breaks decades of bipartisan tradition treating CPB funding as apolitical and throws public media companies into budgetary chaos. What they're saying: "If approved, this cancellation of funding would eliminate critical investments, stripping resources that we use to power independent journalism, educational programming, emergency alerts and the infrastructure that supports the entire network of newsrooms nationwide," Chicago Public Media CEO Melissa Bell wrote to station members. "This could threaten the ability of PBS, and member stations like WTTW, to operate autonomously," a WTTW spokesperson said in a statement. By the numbers: The cuts would amount to about 6 percent of Chicago Public Media's budget, which the organization estimates to be about $3 million annually. That's not factoring in possible syndication costs handed down by National Public Radio, which is also losing funding from this bill. For WTTW, 10% of its 2024 budget came from federal funding. Zoom in: Chicago Public Media and WTTW (which also includes WFMT-FM) are among the largest public media organizations. Chicago Public Media (WBEZ/Sun-Times) reported revenue of $70 million for 2024, while WTTW had a total operating budget of $32.7 million. Both organizations receive significant revenue from member donations. Yes, but: Smaller Illinois radio stations, such as WILL-FM in Urbana, WUIS-FM in Springfield, and WNIJ-FM in DeKalb, have significantly higher federal funding, in some cases accounting for half of their budgets. Those stations are attached to local universities. Zoom out: It's unclear if the organizations will supercharge fundraising to attract more private donors or cut back on programming and staff. Chicago Public Media recently cut staff at both the Sun-Times and WBEZ. The intrigue: The rescission package aims to claw back funding that Congress previously approved for fiscal year 2025. It primarily consists of cuts identified by DOGE, which include funding for foreign aid programs such as USAID. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting's funding is usually allocated every two years, so this cuts the second year of funding and puts future allocations in serious doubt. The rescission bill is rare in government. Trump attempted to use it during his first term, but was defeated in the Senate. Between the lines: Republicans have increasingly painted public media as left-leaning and biased, citing PBS programs like "Sesame Street" as "woke propaganda." The other side: Public media offers a variety of independent programming from news, culture, food and children's programs, funded to avoid programming influenced by corporations and commercials.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
SCOOP: Comer probing Newsom, Bass response to Los Angeles riots
FIRST ON FOX: The House Oversight Committee is now probing the riots in Los Angeles and California officials' handling of them, Fox News Digital is learning first. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., who chairs the subcommittee on law enforcement, sent letters to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and to the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday. "The rioters in Los Angeles have committed vicious acts of violence and fearmongering directed at law enforcement and others. They set fire to vehicles and property around the city, and assaulted officers with deadly weapons such as rocks and Molotov cocktails," Comer wrote to the DOJ. "Assaults on law enforcement officers legally executing their orders are reprehensible and those responsible must be dealt with in accordance with the severity of their actions." Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Cracks Down On Biden's Student Loan 'Scheme,' Top Republican Says Comer wrote similar letters to Newsom and Bass, accusing them of having "protested President Trump's action to quell the violence caused by the rioters in Los Angeles, even resorting to falsely blaming him for the actions of violent rioters." Read On The Fox News App "You have championed California's sanctuary policies, which prevent local law enforcement's cooperation with federal immigration authorities. You have also made it clear that you intend to block the objectives of the federal government, and defend aliens, regardless of their immigration status, criminal activity, anti-American views, or incitement to riot," the Oversight Committee letter said. GOP investigators are requesting documentation of any communications between Bass and Newsom regarding the protests, as well as their communications with state, local and federal law enforcement. Noncitizen La Rioters Could Be Deported Under New House Bill Comer is also requesting a staff-level briefing on the demonstrations. Days of rioting erupted in Los Angeles after Immigrations and Customs Enforcement raids resulted in over 100 suspected illegal immigrants being arrested last weekend. President Donald Trump sent the National Guard into Los Angeles over Newsom's objections. Democrats have accused Trump of needlessly escalating the situation, while the president's GOP allies argued it was a necessary step to quell the violence. Comer said law enforcement "were forced to fire pepper spray to disperse crowds and made dozens of arrests," blaming the escalation on the rioters. A federal judge ruled Thursday that Trump must return control of the California National Guard to Newsom, but an appeals court quickly reversed that decision. The demonstrations in Los Angeles, while severe, are not isolated – activists across the country have sprung up to protest the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. Fox News Digital reached out to Bass, Newsom and the DOJ for article source: SCOOP: Comer probing Newsom, Bass response to Los Angeles riots
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mike Lee brings back proposal to sell public land in Western states
Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, participates in a forum hosted by the Sutherland Institute at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics on Oct. 14, 2024. (Katie McKellar/Utah News Dispatch) A version of this story originally appeared in the Utah News Dispatch. Utah Sen. Mike Lee is bringing back a proposal that would allow the federal government to sell off several million acres of public land in Utah, Colorado and other Western states. Lee says it will open up 'underused' federal land for housing and help communities manage growth — opponents, including a number of Democrats in Congress and environmental groups, say it's an attempt to pay for tax cuts and warn it will jeopardize access to public lands. Introduced Wednesday evening, Lee's amendment to congressional Republicans' budget bill, nicknamed the 'big, beautiful bill,' renews an effort initially spearheaded by Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, and Mark Amodei, R-Nevada, that sought to dispose of 11,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in southwestern Utah and some 450,000 acres of federal land in Nevada. But Lee's proposal is much broader — rather than earmark specific parcels of land for disposal like Maloy and Amodei's amendment, Lee wants to require the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture to sell off a percentage of land managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. According to the amendment, both agencies would be required to dispose of between 0.5% to 0.75% of land they manage, which amounts to about 2.2 million to 3.3 million acres. State and local governments would be allowed to nominate parcels of land, and would be granted priority to purchase. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Eleven states would be eligible — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Notably, Montana is exempt, and Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke was instrumental in sinking Maloy and Amodei's original proposal, stating that selling public lands is a line he would not cross. Though the scope is much bigger, Lee's reasoning behind the proposal is the same as Maloy and Amodei's — identify parcels of federal land near high-growth areas, and sell them at market value to local governments to use for housing, water infrastructure, roads and other development. The amendment prohibits the sale of land that's already designated, like national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas or national recreation areas. Land that has an existing right, like a mining claim, grazing permit, mineral lease or right of way is also off limits. If it passes, the secretaries of the departments of Interior and Agriculture would have to prioritize nominating land that's next to already developed areas, has access to existing infrastructure or is 'suitable for residential housing.' The amendment also directs the secretaries to nominate land that's isolated and 'inefficient to manage,' and to reduce the checkerboard land pattern, the result of railroad grants in the 1800s that left small plots of private land scattered within swaths of federal land and vice-versa. 'We're opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development and get Washington, D.C. out of the way for communities that are just trying to grow,' Lee said in a video address. 'We're talking about isolated parcels that are difficult to manage, that are better suited for housing and infrastructure. To our hunters, anglers and sportsmen, you will not lose access to the lands you love. Washington has proven time and again it can't manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands.' But that reasoning didn't fly for a number of environmental groups, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which called Lee's proposal an attempt 'to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.' 'Senator Lee's never-ending attacks on public lands continue. His hostility stands in stark contrast with Americans' deep and abiding love of public lands. Senator Lee's plan puts Utah's redrock country in the crosshairs of unchecked development,' said Travis Hammill, Washington, D.C. director for the alliance. 'In Utah and the West, public lands are the envy of the country — but Senator Lee is willing to sacrifice the places where people recreate, where they hunt and fish, and where they make a living.' The Center for Western Priorities, a public lands advocacy group, called Lee's amendment 'a shameless ploy to sell off pristine public lands for trophy homes and gated communities that will do nothing to address the affordable housing shortage in the West'; the National Wildlife Federation dubbed it a 'fire sale' that is 'orders of magnitude worse' than Maloy's proposal; The Wilderness Society said it was 'a betrayal of future generations and folks on both sides of the aisle' and warned that could spark political backlash. Maloy's proposal identified parcels owned by the Bureau of Land Management to sell to Washington and Beaver counties, the Washington County Water Conservancy District and the city of St. George. The land would have been used for water infrastructure (like reservoirs and wells), an airport expansion in St. George, new and widened roads, recreation and housing. The proposal was widely celebrated by the water district and local governments, who said it would help them make adjustments as the region continues to experience rapid growth. But nearby tribes, environmentalists and politicians from both sides of the aisle were skeptical. Utah News Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Utah News Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor McKenzie Romero for questions: info@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
