Inside the Chabad House Controversy: The Attorney for the Opposition

In Patch’s continuing coverage of the ongoing Chabad House controversy, we spoke today with Noel Weiss, attorney for the opposition to the development.

Mr. Weiss has represented neighbors in the immediate vicinity of Chabad House, who have united as the West Chandler Blvd. Homeowners Association to oppose this construction of a new synagogue  at 13079 Chandler, .

Yesterday Patch published , as well as .

We asked Mr. Weiss for his response to their statements.

"Prior to my taking office,” wrote Paul Koretz, “this synagogue was fully entitled and the matter was embroiled in litigation. The situation that I inherited was a mess and, sad to say, full of vitriol."

“You know something? To say that it was a mess is a gross overstatement,” said Weiss. “It was not a mess at all. It was a very simple situation. You have laws, and you enforce the laws. It’s only a mess if you want to gain the system and screw with the people, and accommodate a special interest.

“It’s not a mess at all,” he continued, “it’s very simple if you enforce and follow what the law says you’re supposed to do, and have openness and transparency, and not secret, behind-the-scenes negotiations.”

“He calls it a mess because it makes it an insoluble. It’s easy for him to say it’s a mess and hide behind the City Attorney, who then protects his political backside. And the City Attorney’s lack of leadership is paramount.”

“It’s only a mess politically because he doesn’t have the courage to tell his people – which are Chabad, as far as I’m concerned – that they are wrong. Chabad is wrong. They’ve been wrong since day one. Their attorney is very good at playing the system. This was all a behind-the-scenes deal with Jack Weiss, and now with Koretz. And Koretz needs to stand up and say, ‘These are the rules.’”

Returning to Councilman Koretz’s statement:

"My staff and I immediately and repeatedly encouraged both sides to meet, talk face to face, and reach common ground. Indeed, we have hosted such meetings, in hopes of some mutual accommodation. I have met with both sides on multiple occasions to discuss the issues and hear the concerns, and have pushed for an open and fair process."

“Okay, as far as I’m concerned,” Weiss interjected, “I can’t attest to how many times he met with the people. I was privy to one meeting. I’ve never had any contact with his office.

“In terms of Koretz’s responsibilities,” Weiss said, “what he should have done, if he was really sincere, was to bring the City Attorney in, bring the other attorneys in, sit down and say, `People, we’ve got a problem and we’ve got to have it solved. Let’s define the difference and try to bridge the gap.’

“But they don’t want to alienate anybody, so they come up with excuses for no leadership or limited leadership and/or mediocrity.”  

From Koretz: "The Appellant Court recently concluded that a small number of the final elements, dating back to when my predecessor was in office, were not done correctly and needed to be revisited.”

“Yet we’re not talking about a small issue here,” said Weiss. “We’re talking about a very important issue, which is the inability of the City Council to make the appropriate findings to support their conclusion. That’s not a small matter. Is their conclusion consistent with the laws and the facts of the case?

“The other issue,” he continued, “has to do with who is the person that makes that determination? The answer is the Zoning Administrator, not the City Council. That comment is an erroneous statement of the law. It’s legally incorrect, and the City Attorney should correct him, if the City Attorney was the City Attorney for the people, he would correct him. But the City Attorney stands down and stands silent, basically because the City Attorney wants to cover Koretz’s backside.”

As to Rabbi Abend’s statement to Patch yesterday that this project is entirely legal and appropriate?

“It is not legal,” Weiss said. “Where is it legal? The Court of Appeals said that the City Council, whatever rights they have, they got illegally. Maybe the Rabbi means legal rights from a higher authority that he’s operating off of, but this is not a religious issue. This is an issue of respect for the law.

“If someone who lives next to you wants to build a commercial structure and they just started building, they don’t have the legal right to do that. That is, in effect, what’s going on here.”

Asked if Chabad’s intent is to grow this congregation, Rabbi Abend said, “I’m not sure what growth means. I don’t know what this had to do with Chabad. Do I go out and recruit people? No. I don’t recruit people. That is not our intention, no."

“That is a non-denial denial,” Weiss replied. “That’s better than Richard Nixon. Your question was not if they were out recruiting. Your question was if it was their intent to grow. He can be philosophical, like Clinton asking about the definition of the word ‘is.’ Come on, Rabbi, we’re talking actuality. Do you intend to grow or not? Where are you now?”

When informed that many neighbors feel this is a fight already loss, Weiss disagreed.

“No. What the community can do is to sue Chabad to abate the nuisance. They are making use of their land in an unlawful way, which is contrary to what the zone allows. The system allows for variances and exceptions, but there are rules that you have to abide by in order to procure those exceptions. And the City Council has to abide by those rules. But they refuse to do it.

“So what this is all about,” he said in conclusion, “is a complete lack of leadership. The City Council and City Attorney have undermined their social contract with the people and their government.”