Hoboken is heading into a highly anticipated mayoral runoff next Tuesday, and Tuesday night’s debate at Hoboken High School offered voters a clear view of how the two remaining candidates plan to frame their campaigns. While the venue provided a nostalgic backdrop for one candidate, the substance of the discussion ranged from school funding and taxes to development and parking—issues that touch nearly every resident of the Mile-Square City. For deeper coverage of statewide political dynamics, readers can explore our politics section.
Michael Russo, a lifelong Hoboken resident and son of a former mayor, opened the debate by highlighting his personal connection to the city, even referencing his time attending Hoboken High School. “I actually walked these halls—that’s the difference between you and I,” he said, aiming to contrast his deep local roots with those of Emily Jabbour, who moved to Hoboken from Massachusetts in 2008. Russo used this personal history to frame his broader argument: as a native resident and longtime council member representing the Third Ward, he believes he is uniquely qualified to address the city’s challenges.
Jabbour, elected at large, emphasized her commitment to public service from the outset, stressing attention to everyday concerns like trash collection, pothole repairs, and general city maintenance. She positioned herself as a pragmatic leader focused on results, while Russo’s opening remarks leaned into character-based distinctions, framing himself as honest and independent of donor influence.
The candidates clashed repeatedly over issues of governance and city finances. Russo accused Jabbour of catering to her supporters at the expense of broader community interests, while Jabbour countered that she is committed to all residents, regardless of political affiliation. Taxes were a major point of contention. Russo criticized her record on votes for tax increases, while Jabbour pointed to his own extensive support of city bonding, framing him as no stranger to fiscal decisions that affect taxpayers.
Affordable housing and development policy were also central themes. Russo argued that his background and local experience give him an advantage when negotiating with developers, particularly in the context of creating much-needed affordable housing units. Jabbour rejected the notion, emphasizing that leadership and collaboration, rather than personal history, determine a candidate’s effectiveness.
Campaign finance became another flashpoint. Russo raised a claim regarding a $150,000 donation, attributing it to Jabbour’s husband, while public records indicated that Jabbour herself made the contribution. She rebuffed the assertion sharply, calling it inappropriate to bring family into the debate.
Parking and traffic emerged as one of the liveliest exchanges, reflecting a frustration familiar to any Hoboken resident. Russo criticized current city policies for reducing hundreds of parking spaces, while Jabbour countered that the adjustments largely involved eliminating illegal spots. The debate underscored how local infrastructure issues remain front-and-center for voters, often generating as much passion as fiscal or development policy.
Closing statements highlighted the contrast in styles. Russo maintained a forceful, urgent tone, appealing to voters’ desire for change: “You all know that there needs to be change in the city of Hoboken, because we need to make our lives better. On Dec. 2, vote Team Russo.” Jabbour closed with a calm, measured approach, emphasizing steady leadership and adherence to principle: “I don’t yell and scream. I have a quiet sense of leadership. And I try to do what’s right.”
With less than a week until voters decide, Hoboken residents are weighing experience, local roots, leadership style, and policy positions. The runoff promises a tight race between two sitting council members, each presenting distinct visions for the city’s future while navigating familiar tensions over taxes, development, and day-to-day municipal operations.
