In a letter to the editor, former Hoboken Councilman Mike Lenz explains why he doesn’t think 3rd Ward Councilman Mike Russo would be able to live up to the legacy of his father, former Mayor Anthony Russo, if elected.
Dear Editor,
Michael Russo is in the runoff for Hoboken Mayor. How did that happen? He started in a tough spot. With over a decade in office, Michael has precious little governmental success to show for it.
His record had been one of making a big show of saying no until the folks trying to run the city met his price to say yes. His business experience was no help as his physical therapy practice had cratered over billing disputes.
His ethics weren’t a plus to anyone familiar with the FBI tape. Slick campaigning, flexibility with facts, and lots of developer cash can only get you so far. So, Michael leaned into the image he has honed throughout his career.
That of his father, Mayor Anthony Russo, decisive, effective but without the corruption.
The “without the corruption” part has been a tough sell ever since the feds released that hidden camera tape.
In it, Michael seems ready to make a corrupt deal with an FBI plant.
Always out for himself, that’s the Michael I know, someone who learned the shortcuts and the deals, but not the leadership, discipline, or drive to actually deliver for the public, except when he can gain personal advantage.
Michael would not be near the runoff without the Russo name. But the Russo legacy is more than a name.
It’s also the dark bag of political tricks that he mastered growing up. A perfect illustration of their effectiveness comes from the recent debate at the high school.
Folks who never knew the senior Russo certainly missed it, but it was as if Michael was brilliantly channeling his father. Michael smiled and blustered and at one point boldly implied support he knew he didn’t have.
They were talking about rent control when he stated he had been singled out for praise by tenant activist Cheryl Fallick when she had done no such thing.
At most she had grouped him with some others for mild praise one week, just as at other times she had grouped him for criticism, but nothing personal.
Michael knows Cheryl and he are at odds on rent control as often as they agree. He also knows Cheryl had not agreed to support him despite his specific request.
Yet he lied about a comment she never made and lied effectively to create the illusion of support and so far, has gotten away with it. Just like his father did for a real long time.
Anthony Russo was a formidable organization builder, a keen judge of talent, and a highly effective, if deeply flawed, leader. He was a force, a presence.
Under him, the city functioned well in many ways. Streets were clean. Work got done. Sure, a lot of money went missing, and we paid for it, but people mostly showed up and performed. He was vicious to those who stood up to him.
He inspired loyalty from allies and returned it. Years later, even with the bad stuff now publicly aired, many still miss his outsized presence and would be happy to vote for him one more time.
Mayor Anthony Russo, dominated Hoboken for over a decade in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. He built Hoboken’s most successful – and notorious –political machine. He suffered a major setback in 2001 losing the Mayoral election.
He then regrouped and was threatening a return when the authorities stopped him for good, landing him in prison for public corruption. Age and illness made sure there were no more comebacks.
Now many, out of nostalgia or hope have transferred that loyalty to Michael. But if they carry the day, we all lose. May he rest in peace.
Those of us who knew Anthony Russo and loved him, and those of us who knew Anthony Russo and really, really, didn’t, know a simple truth: Michael Russo is no Anthony Russo.
Even if Michael had his father’s strengths, which he does not, it’s not his father that we need. Anthony left real damage behind. He sold off schools for a pittance we will struggle to replace today.
He privatized the publicly owned water department to cover his overspending, a decision that continues to cost Hoboken.
Vendors were forced to donate politically and then overcharge the city to make it back. His legacy was a volatile blend of ruthless effectiveness and corrosive corruption.
Strip away the elements of leadership Anthony had and Michael lacks, and the mythology of the Russo name and what remains is swagger without sweat, attitude without accomplishment.
Michael treats power as all leverage and zero responsibility.
Council colleagues speak in awed tones about his ability to extract concessions when his vote is needed for critical legislation — concessions that typically benefit him and his circle rather than the public at large.
Hoboken doesn’t need a mayor who has mastered the art of saying “no.” We need one working to say “yes” to solving our pressing problems.
Emily Jabbour is different.
Her earnestness makes her easy to underestimate — but that would be a mistake. While Michael cuts deals behind closed doors, Emily talks to residents, listens, and works to make things happen.
She is consistent. Emily in public is Emily in private. That matters.
Recent mayors had their strengths and weaknesses. Dawn Zimmer made real strides on flooding and began rethinking our endless cycle of more parking and more cars but was too often tripped up by trusting the wrong people.
Ravi Bhalla defended important freedoms and ran much of the city capably, but at times seemed too comfortable operating in the gray zones of New Jersey’s overly permissive political culture.
There are successes here to build on, and mistakes not to repeat. If you talk to Emily Jabbour for five minutes, you’ll see that she understands this very very well. She’s watched Ravi and Dawn very closely.
What she’s seen will serve her well when she becomes mayor. We all recognize the same issues. The question is who is ready to do what needs to be done. Who will work for all of us.
With any mayor, there is risk. You never know exactly what you’ll get. But with Councilwoman Jabbour, I like our chances. She is running because she believes in effective public services and helping those who need it most.
She is not running because she sees office as a reward or a transaction. She’s motivated by what she can do, not what she can get.
She will have to grow into the job. Everybody does. She may stumble. But her values are clear, her intentions genuine, and her commitment real. She has my vote, I hope she has yours.
