The Hoboken Board of Education Election of 2026: Experience, Accountability, and the Questions That Remain Unanswered

The 2026 Hoboken Board of Education election raises questions that extend well beyond school facilities, enrollment growth, and the familiar promises of educational excellence. At its core, this election provides an opportunity to examine how elected school officials exercise oversight, communicate with taxpayers, respond to questions about administrative integrity, and address persistent disparities in student achievement.



Two incumbent candidates, Sharyn Angley and Sheillah Dallara, are running on the Together for Tomorrow ticket alongside Adrian Oxman. Their campaign emphasizes continuity, experience, institutional knowledge, and the district's reported accomplishments. Those are legitimate considerations. But a serious evaluation of school board governance must also examine decisions made during their tenure, including decisions that generated public controversy.

Four issues warrant particular attention: the proposed $330 million school construction referendum, oversight of Superintendent Christine Johnson's academic credentials, the accuracy of public claims about school recognition, and educational outcomes for Black students.

These questions are especially relevant because both incumbents have emphasized their experience as evidence of their qualifications for continued service.

1. The $330 million referendum: What does responsible governance require?

The proposed $330 million school construction referendum remains an important case study in public accountability.

A capital proposal of this magnitude requires more than confidence in district leadership or assurances that facilities need improvement. It requires a transparent explanation of the educational need, consideration of alternative approaches, credible financial projections, and meaningful opportunities for public examination before voters are asked to make a substantial long-term financial commitment.

The relevant questions for Angley and Dallara are specific.

What alternatives were evaluated before the proposal was advanced? What evidence established the need for a project of that size and cost? How were taxpayers involved in the planning process? And what lessons did board members draw from the public's response?

Angley identifies a background in accounting and finance and previous service as chair of the Board's Finance Committee. Dallara emphasizes her institutional knowledge and commitment to responsible budgeting. These experiences make their explanations of the referendum particularly relevant to voters assessing their records.

In her 2026 candidate statement, Angley emphasizes community involvement in future facilities decisions, explaining that any solution must be developed with the community. This is a constructive principle. The question is how it compares with the process surrounding the earlier referendum.

An evidence-based review should examine the original board votes, meeting minutes, public presentations, and referendum timeline before assigning individual responsibility for the proposal's development or characterizing either candidate's intentions.

2. Superintendent Johnson's credentials: The importance of independent oversight

The controversy surrounding Superintendent Christine Johnson's reported doctoral credentials raises a distinct question about the responsibilities of elected school board members.

In educational leadership, professional credentials carry significance. They communicate preparation, expertise, and credibility. Public representations of those credentials should therefore be accurate and verifiable.

If a superintendent publicly used a doctoral title without having earned the corresponding degree, the board's responsibility would extend beyond determining whether the superintendent performed effectively in the position. It would include establishing what representations were made, when trustees became aware of any discrepancies, and what corrective action followed.

This is not simply a personnel matter. It is a governance matter.

In her candidate statement, Dallara explicitly expresses support for Johnson's leadership. Angley similarly describes working closely with Johnson and the board over many years. Those statements establish their publicly expressed support for the administration, but they do not establish what either trustee knew about any credential controversy or how they responded privately.

The important unanswered questions are whether the board independently verified the superintendent's credentials, whether any discrepancies were formally reviewed, and whether the public received a clear explanation.

A school board cannot fulfill its oversight responsibilities solely by expressing confidence in its superintendent. Effective governance requires independent verification, appropriate scrutiny, and transparent responses when legitimate questions arise.

Public reporting provides substantial evidence for examining this controversy. In 2023, Hudson County View reported that Johnson had used the doctoral title for at least 14 years before Drew University conferred her Doctor of Letters in August 2022. The reporting also documented a January 2023 explanation from then-Board President Angley and Vice President Malani Cademartori concerning Johnson's degree requirements.

Johnson acknowledged that her degree was not officially conferred until 2022 and apologized for failing to resolve the matter sooner. She also maintained that she possessed the qualifications required to serve as superintendent. The distinction matters: the controversy concerns the accuracy of her academic title, not whether a doctorate was legally required for her position.

The public record therefore supports a direct examination of Angley's documented response. Dallara's individual knowledge and actions require additional documentation before equivalent conclusions can be drawn.

3. Blue Ribbon recognition: Why precise language matters

School recognition programs serve an important purpose. They identify accomplishments, encourage improvement, and provide communities with information about educational quality.

But different recognition programs have different criteria, sponsors, and levels of independent review.

The traditional National Blue Ribbon Schools program, administered by the U.S. Department of Education, has historically recognized schools under specific federal criteria. Recognition from a state agency, local organization, or other educational initiative is not automatically equivalent to receiving that federal designation.

The concern raised about Hoboken is whether public statements describing district schools as Blue Ribbon recipients accurately identified the awarding organization and the nature of the recognition.

This is a question that can be resolved through documentation.

For each school described as a Blue Ribbon recipient, the district should be able to identify the award's official name, sponsoring organization, year, selection criteria, and publicly available award record.

The supplied candidate statements do not establish that Angley or Dallara personally misrepresented the schools' awards. The original campaign communications or district announcements would be needed to determine precisely what was claimed and whether those claims were accurate.

The broader principle is straightforward: educational accomplishments should be communicated with the same precision that educators expect from students engaged in research. A district's credibility is strengthened when its achievements can withstand independent verification.

4. Black student achievement: Looking beyond district averages

Perhaps the most consequential educational question concerns differences in academic outcomes among student populations.

School districts frequently report aggregate proficiency rates, enrollment growth, awards, and college acceptances. These indicators provide useful information, but they do not necessarily reveal whether educational improvements are reaching all students.

The Hoboken district's 2026-2027 budget presentation reports that districtwide English language arts proficiency increased from 39% in 2015-2016 to 71% in 2024-2025, compared with a statewide rate of 53% in 2024-2025. That is a substantial reported improvement at the aggregate level.

Yet aggregate improvement and persistent subgroup disparities can exist simultaneously.

The results underscore why subgroup-specific analysis is necessary. For example, GreatSchools reports Grade 5 mathematics proficiency of 10% for Black students in Hoboken compared with 23% statewide for Black students, while other grades show different patterns. Small subgroup sizes, cohort variation, and assessment year must be considered before interpreting such differences.

In her 2026 statement, Angley identifies closing academic gaps as a goal of the board when she first took office. Dallara, who currently chairs the Curriculum Committee, emphasizes academic opportunities and support for students with diverse needs.

Those commitments invite measurable follow-up questions. What specific interventions have been implemented for Black students? How have proficiency gaps changed over time? What measures are used to evaluate the effectiveness of those interventions? How are families involved in identifying barriers to achievement?

Neither candidate's supplied statement provides a subgroup-specific plan for addressing Black student achievement. That absence is documentable. It does not, by itself, establish that either candidate has never addressed the issue in another public forum.

A board committed to educational equity should be prepared to explain how its policies and resource allocations respond to differences in student outcomes, not merely how the district performs on average.

A May 2026 investigation by NJ Spotlight News provides important additional evidence. The investigation reported that Hoboken paid $32,500 for recognition of five district schools by the private organization Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence. The schools were Hoboken High School, Hoboken Middle School, Brandt Elementary, Connors Elementary, and Wallace Elementary. These were not awards conferred through the federal National Blue Ribbon Schools program.

This establishes a concrete financial and transparency issue for the board: how the expenditure was approved, how the recognition was described to the public, and whether communications adequately distinguished the private program from the federal award.
5. Experience, continuity, and the responsibilities of incumbency

Angley and Dallara have extensive histories of service to the Hoboken school community. Angley reports 12 years on the board, including service as president and finance chair. Dallara describes three terms of service, curriculum leadership, and substantial involvement in special education advocacy. These are relevant qualifications.

But institutional experience also creates a record that can be examined.

The 2022 referendum illustrates this point. Contemporary reporting established that the original construction proposal was approximately $241 million, with projected financing costs bringing the total to approximately $330 million. The referendum was rejected on January 25, 2022, by 5,401 votes to 2,847. Public criticism centered partly on the limited opportunity for community participation before the special election. District officials defended the project as a response to aging facilities and enrollment growth.

The candidates' statements in 2026 should be read alongside that history.

Angley's emphasis on community participation, Dallara's commitment to transparent budgeting, and Oxman's focus on evidence-based decision-making are all principles that can be evaluated against specific actions and measurable outcomes.

Oxman, as a first-time candidate, does not share the incumbents' board voting history. His stated commitment to transparency and evidence-based practice can instead be examined through the policies and oversight procedures he proposes.

Patricia Waiters raises different concerns in her candidate statement, particularly representation, unequal access, and whether families and employees can raise concerns without fear of retaliation. Her assertions about political favoritism and misconduct require independent corroboration, but the underlying questions about access, representation, and grievance procedures are legitimate subjects for public inquiry.

Conclusion: Four questions that deserve public answers

The central issue in this election is not whether Hoboken has experienced educational successes. Available evidence indicates that it has. Nor is the issue whether long-serving board members have contributed time and effort to their community.

The issue is how those accomplishments coexist with unresolved questions about financial decisions, administrative oversight, public communications, and disparities in educational outcomes.

A substantive public discussion would benefit from direct answers from Angley and Dallara on four matters: what they learned from the failed 2022 referendum; how they responded to the superintendent's credential controversy; what oversight they exercised over the privately funded Blue Ribbon recognition program; and what measurable progress the district has made in improving outcomes for Black students.

These are questions of governance rather than personality. They can be answered with board records, documented decisions, financial disclosures, and disaggregated educational data.

A school board's public accountability should not depend on whether the questions being asked are convenient. It should depend on the quality of the evidence and the willingness of elected officials to explain their decisions.

Understanding the 2026 Hoboken Board of Education Election: A Community Overview

As Hoboken prepares for the upcoming general election, the local community is turning its attention to the vital race for the Hoboken City Board of Education. While national and congressional midterm races often dominate headlines, the local school board election directly shapes the policies, budgets, and educational future of our city’s public school children.

The race features distinct perspectives on the issues currently facing the school district.

Key Issues Facing the District

Profiles published by local media indicate that facility planning and enrollment growth are central themes in this election cycle.

Candidates highlight the pressures of an expanding student population, noting that district enrollment has increased significantly over the past decade. They emphasize the need to address aging infrastructure—noting that several facilities are over a century old—while managing the financial realities identified in the district's recent proposed budget, such as salaries, benefits, and mandated charter school tuition. This follows the community's rejection of a $241 million facilities referendum in 2021, which has prompted ongoing community engagement roundtables to explore alternative facility solutions.

Conversely, perspectives focus on systemic reforms, calling for greater equity across different geographical areas of Hoboken. This includes prioritizing the direct needs of special education, supporting union employees, and actively eliminating perceived political influence within the school system.

Voting Logistics

Registered voters in Hoboken will determine which candidates will guide the district's long-range facilities planning, strategic budgeting, and curriculum development for the next term.

Consult official election authorities and local voter resources to verify the election date, certified results reporting, candidate lists, specific slates, and background profiles for the Hoboken City Board of Education race.

Candiates: Sharyn Angley, Sheila Dallara, Adrian Oxman, Patricia Waiters 

• Sharyn Angley (Incumbent):
  • Platform & Vision: Focuses on continuing academic progress, closing learning gaps, and expanding extracurricular offerings. She leverages her background to manage resource allocation amidst rising district enrollment.
  • Qualifications: A 24-year Hoboken resident and community volunteer with a professional background in finance and accounting. She is completing her fourth term (12 years of service) on the board, having served multiple times as Board President, Vice President, and Finance Committee Chair.
• Sheillah Dallara (Incumbent):
  • Platform & Vision: Centers her campaign on managing growing student enrollment, executing long-term facilities planning, balancing school costs against responsible budgeting, and handling charter school tuition pressures.
  • Qualifications: A 16-year resident and mother of three students in the district. She is a three-term trustee who serves as Chairperson for the Curriculum and Wellness Committees, is a member of the Special Education Parent Advisory Group (SEPAG), and founded the Hoboken Special Needs Parent Group.
• Adrian Oxman (Newcomer):
  • Platform & Vision: Focuses on addressing enrollment spikes and financial constraints by finding a balance between academic achievement and student mental health. He advocates for enhanced transparency, evidence-based practices, and listening to parental feedback.
  • Qualifications: A public school parent and professional child psychologist. He positions himself as uniquely qualified to evaluate student well-being and child development through a professional lens.

• Patricia Waiters (Newcomer):
  • Platform & Vision: Campaigns heavily on systemic reform, anti-corruption, and geographic and racial equity. She alleges that current board leadership favors special interests and "pay-to-play" politics. She promises to launch an immediate investigation into district political practices and focus resources on marginalized students, special needs, and unions.
  • Qualifications: A perennial challenger who has spent 30 years attending board meetings and interacting with local residents. She emphasizes her independence from political bosses and her deep institutional memory of the district's historical issues.

Get Your Costumes Ready! A Guide to the 2026 Hoboken Ragamuffin Parade

Spooky Season is officially here, and one of our absolute favorite local traditions is just around the corner! The annual Hoboken Ragamuffin Parade is returning on Halloween—Saturday, October 31st!

Whether you have little monsters, teenagers, or furry friends who love to dress up, this community celebration is the perfect way to kick off your Halloween festivities. At our practice, we always love seeing our patients' incredible creativity, and we can’t wait to check out your costumes this year.

Here is everything you need to know to map out your Halloween afternoon:

The Ragamuffin Parade

Everyone is welcome to participate, including kids, adults, and pets!

• Lineup Location: Washington Street, right between 10th and 11th Streets.
• Lineup Time: Make sure to arrive by 2:00 PM to get your spot.
• Parade Route: The procession kicks off and heads south down Washington Street from 10th Street to 5th Street.

The HI-CHEW Mystery Manor

This year's parade features an extra sweet stop! The HI-CHEW Mystery Manor is rolling into town with plenty of treats and family-friendly tricks. You can step inside, meet FrankenChewbie, grab some Mystery Flavor chews, and try to guess the secret flavor before it's officially revealed during the parade.

• Location: 5th Street, between Washington and Hudson Streets.
• Hours: Open from 12:00 PM to 5:00 PM.

Good Intentions, Questionable Process: How Hoboken Can Fix the Grand Street Reconfiguration Feedback Loop

This psychometric and statistical analysis evaluates the City of Hoboken's Grand Street Pilot Community Survey. Given the local disagreement surrounding the street's reconfiguration, the design of this instrument is critical to ensuring valid, reliable, and actionable data.

Below is a breakdown of the survey's strengths, psychometric and statistical weaknesses, and actionable steps the City can take to ensure objective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The City of Hoboken’s year-long Grand Street Complete Streets Pilot aims to tackle essential community goals: enhancing safety, mobility, and local accessibility. However, as the pilot nears its end, the administration's recently released community feedback survey raises significant technical red flags. While gathering public opinion is vital for infrastructure consensus, the structural integrity of a survey instrument dictates the validity of its results.

From a psychometric perspective, the current survey suffers from three critical design flaws that compromise its data. First, the introduction introduces immediate framing bias by explicitly front-loading positive project expectations. Second, the survey utilizes an unauthenticated, public link that invites severe selection biasand leaves the loop highly vulnerable to external manipulation or ballot stuffing. Finally, the questionnaire exhibits incomplete construct measurement, failing to include nuanced scales that track critical friction points like parking loss and traffic flow.

Survey Strengths

• Clear Demographic and Behavioral Segmentation: Questions regarding residency, connection to Grand Street, and primary/secondary modes of transportation are excellent for data cross-tabulation. This allows analysts to filter responses (e.g., comparing the opinions of drivers versus cyclists, or local residents versus commuters).
• Mutually Exclusive Primary Transport Option: Forcing respondents to choose a single primary mode of transportation prevents data muddling and establishes a clear behavioral baseline for each participant.
• Low Cognitive Load: The language is simple, accessible to non-native speakers, and uses straightforward multi-choice formatting that reduces survey fatigue.

Psychometric & Statistical Challenges

1. Framing and Response Bias (Acquiescence Bias)

The introduction states that the project "aims to enhance safety, mobility, and accessibility." By explicitly stating these positive goals at the outset, the survey inadvertently introduces framing bias. Respondents may feel subtle pressure to agree that the project achieved these noble goals, or conversely, it may prime frustrated residents to react negatively.

2. Risk of "Ballot Stuffing" (Selection Bias)

Because this is an open, unauthenticated online link (ArcGIS Survey123), it is highly vulnerable to self-selection bias and manipulation.

• Special interest groups (both pro-bike lane and anti-bike lane advocacy groups) can easily share the link outside Hoboken.
• Without unique participant tokens or strict IP/cookie deduplication, a single motivated individual could submit the survey multiple times to tilt the results.

3. Incomplete Construct Measurement

Based on the text provided, the survey heavily documents who the user is and how they travel, but it lacks nuanced psychometric scales (like 5-point Likert scales) to measure the core disagreements (e.g., impact on parking, traffic congestion, delivery access, or perceived safety changes).

How the City Can Assure Objectivity & Build Trust

To de-escalate tension and prove the data is being handled without political bias, the City of Hoboken should implement the following steps:

Data Cleaning & Transparency Protocols

• Hire a Third-Party Auditor: The City Administration should hand the raw data over to an independent academic institution (e.g., a statistics department at a local university like Stevens Institute of Technology) or an independent polling firm to conduct the final analysis.
• Publish a Pre-Registered Analysis Plan: Before analyzing the data, the City should publicly state exactly how they will treat the data. For example: "We will report the results of Hoboken residents separately from non-residents," or "We will cross-tabulate safety perceptions by primary mode of travel."
• Release Anonymous Raw Data: To ensure absolute transparency, the City should publish the de-identified, raw CSV data alongside the final report so independent citizens and statisticians can replicate the findings.

Statistical Controls for Bias 

• Strict Deduplication: Analysts must filter the dataset for digital fingerprints (timestamp clusters, identical IP addresses, or sequential sub-second submissions) to identify and isolate automated bot submissions or "ballot stuffing."
• Weighting the Data: If the survey demographics drastically mismatch Hoboken's actual census data or known traffic data (e.g., if 80% of respondents state their primary transit is cycling, which is statistically unlikely for the general population), the analysts should apply statistical weighting to correct the imbalance.

Renaming History: What Hoboken’s JFK Stadium and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Teaches Us About Public Memory

BACKGROUND: In the direct wake of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November 1963, municipalities across Hudson County, NJ immediately sought ways to honor his legacy by dedicating major transit arteries and community landmarks to his memory. The most prominent and widespread tribute was the renaming of the massive, 20-mile-long Hudson Boulevard to John F. Kennedy Memorial Boulevard, a change enacted by the Hudson County Board of Freeholders that held deep sentimental value because Kennedy's 1960 campaign motorcade had famously traveled down that very road. This designation extended to the highly scenic cliffside roadway running along the Hudson Palisades, officially named John F. Kennedy Boulevard East, which still weaves through Weehawken, West New York, Guttenberg, and North Bergen today. While these two iconic roadways endure as lasting tributes, a third major dedication in 1964—John F. Kennedy Stadium on Jefferson Street in Hoboken—which was also intended to be a lasting tribute to the slain 35th President of the United States was renamed in 2022. 

The controversy over adding Donald Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center raises a question closer to home: why did Hoboken have to remove John F. Kennedy’s name from its stadium to honor Coach Lou Taglieri?

That question deserves a thoughtful answer. Respect for Taglieri and concern for an existing public memorial can coexist. A community should be able to discuss both without treating the discussion as an insult to a beloved coach or his family.

The chronology matters. Contemporary reporting describes Superintendent Christine Johnson proposing the stadium renaming and the Hoboken Board of Education agreeing in August 2020. The district subsequently announced a dedication ceremony for October 21, 2022, identifying the facility as Louis M. Taglieri Jr. Stadium, formerly JFK Stadium. The approval and dedication were separate events.

Taglieri’s claim to recognition was substantial. He served Hoboken as a teacher, coach, and mentor, and served in the United States Air Force. His work touched students whose lives extended well beyond the football field. Honoring that contribution was a reasonable civic purpose. 

There was also organized public support. A petition launched in August 2020 now records hundreds of verified signatures supporting the renaming. Those signatures do not show what every resident believed, but they make it unfair to describe the decision as lacking community backing.

Yet support for honoring Taglieri does not settle the question of removing President Kennedy.

Public names carry obligations. When a community dedicates a facility to someone, it makes a statement intended to survive the officials who approved it. A later board may have reasons to reconsider that statement. It should explain those reasons, consider alternatives, and acknowledge what the change removes.

Kennedy’s name was already attached to this public space and had been since 1964. Why was a field dedication, scholarship, commemorative installation, or combined name insufficient? What did replacing the stadium’s name accomplish that an additional honor could not?

Johnson’s reported explanation makes this question more pressing. She described her friendship with Taglieri and his admiration for Kennedy. Those feelings are understandable. They explain her desire to act. But friendship cannot substitute for a public standard, and Taglieri’s admiration for Kennedy does not, by itself, explain why Kennedy’s name should completely disappear.

I would want the Board of Education to explain what alternatives it considered and how it weighed the existing dedication. There was little, if any,  public deliberation. That limitation should prevent accusations of a secret or unlawful process. It should also encourage officials to make the record accessible.

A board vote and a public referendum are different things. The absence of a referendum does not automatically invalidate a decision. Representative government depends on officials making choices. But the authority to decide should come with a willingness to explain. A public memorial deserves more than an assumption that a worthy new honoree settles every question.

The Kennedy Center controversy involves additional issues. Its board voted to add Trump’s name in December 2025. In May 2026, a federal district court ruled that the unilateral renaming was unlawful because Congress had established the institution’s name. The court also described Trump’s replacement of trustees and his subsequent election as board chair. 

That creates a significant distinction. Taglieri received a posthumous honor from others. Trump received an honor from an institution over which he exercised power. The concern about personal benefit is therefore much greater in Washington. So is the legal obstacle. Nothing in the evidence presented here establishes an equivalent violation in Hoboken.

Those differences help explain the stronger national reaction. A national presidential memorial reaches a larger audience. A sitting president’s personal interest attracts scrutiny that a deceased veteran, coach, and educator’s recognition does not. Political loyalties may influence reactions too, but we should not assign hypocrisy to people without knowing what principle they actually hold.

Still, Hoboken should resist the comfort of saying that Washington’s conduct is worse and therefore its own decision needs no examination.

A person can oppose President Trump’s use of institutional power and support honoring Taglieri consistently. A person who argues that Kennedy’s memorials should never be altered, however, should apply that principle locally as well.

For a school district, this is also an educational question. Names can invite students to learn about national history and local service. Preserving Kennedy’s dedication while adding a meaningful honor for Taglieri could have created that opportunity.

No one is calling for another hurried renaming...but an explanation and a more deliberate standard for future decisions would be appropriate. 

Hoboken’s officials should be able to tell residents why honoring an admired coach required replacing an existing presidential dedication. Asking that question respects the community’s capacity to think seriously about its history. It also respects both men enough to insist that public remembrance deserves more care and attention than what was undertaken. 

Click to Enlarge 

The decision by the superintendent and the school board to strip John F. Kennedy’s name from Hoboken’s premier athletic complex is a deeply shortsighted bureaucratic move. It represents a textbook case of historical erasure under the guise of local acknowledgement. 

Wiping away a historic 1960s tribute to a beloved, assassinated president creates a false choice. It suggests that a community must cannibalize its own history just to honor a local hero. The decision pits the memory of a martyred world leader against the undeniably rich legacy of Louis M. "Coach Tag" Taglieri Jr.—a man who dedicated over 25 years of his life to Hoboken's youth as an educator, championship football coach, and dedicated veteran. What makes this dynamic particularly egregious is that JFK was Coach Tag's personal hero. Erasing Kennedy’s name from the stadium is an insult to the very history that inspired the man Hoboken sought to honor. 

Hoboken did not need to erase JFK to uplift Coach Tag. Municipalities have vast inventories of naming rights at their disposal. The city could have easily kept JFK Stadium intact while bestowing Taglieri's name on a multitude of significant, hyper-local spaces:

The Hoboken High School Football Field: The city could have renamed the physical playing surface itself—becoming "Louis M. Taglieri Jr. Field at JFK Stadium"—preserving the historic facility's name while cementing the coach's legacy exactly where he stood on Friday nights.

The High School Gymnasium or Weight Room: Given his 25+ years of daily mentorship shaping the physical and mental fortitude of thousands of students, anchoring his name to the high school's training facilities would perfectly mirror his lifetime of work in education and physical fitness

A Dedicated Veterans Plaza or Memorial Wing: Because Taglieri was a proud veteran, the city could have dedicated a prominent civic space or veterans' monument in his name, celebrating his service to both his country and his hometown.

Instead, by completely stripping the JFK moniker, local leaders took the lazy path of renaming rather than expanding. They traded away a piece of Hudson County’s collective grief and 1963 history, ignoring creative alternatives that could have beautifully coexisted to honor both men.