Sixth Ward Councilman David Roberts is suspicious about this week’s showing of “Delivered Vacant.” He is also suspicious about the movie as a whole. Roberts said last week while that the 1992 film does a good job of portraying the displacement that was occurring in Hoboken in the 1980s, it incorrectly portrays Roberts as anti-tenant. And now, Roberts says, he believes the Russo administration is showing it again only to make Roberts look bad. (Roberts may run against Russo for mayor next year). When it was noted that the city shows the movie every year, Roberts said, “No they don’t. They took a few years off.” Geri Fallo, the city’s cultural affairs director, pointed out last week that it’s not actually the city that shows the film. Projected Images, a non-profit, state-funded group she runs that shows independent films, is showing it. Fallo said that Roberts and former mayor Steve Cappiello complain to her about it every year. “It has nothing to do with Dave,” Fallo said. “It’s a fundraiser. That’s ridiculous. I’ve been getting calls from Steve Cappiello, too. He wants [filmmaker Nora Jacobson’s] phone number. Apparently he gets upset every time we show it. But it’s not like she made it up. Let’s put it this way: When’s the election? Is [Roberts] running for something right now? I show this every year. [Roberts] calls me every year. I say, ‘Dave, this is a movie about Hoboken. I don’t think you look bad.’ Maybe I’m not seeing something. This has been going on every year. And I didn’t make the movie. Talk to Nora. What can I say?” Roberts said that the movie shows him opposing an initial vote on an ordinance that demands that developers include a percentage of affordable housing in their projects. But he said the film doesn’t show that he worked on a revision of that law that was eventually passed. Roberts said that the affordable housing he is presently providing on Park Avenue proves he’s pro-tenant, along with his recent stance against a measure that weakens rent control. He said he has been helping tenants for 15 years. Roberts also said that he believes there were political overtones to the film to begin with that have never been discussed. It was released a year before a tenant advocate in town, attorney Ira Karasick, ran for mayor. Roberts was rumored to be a candidate in that upcoming election. And the filmmaker, Nora Jacobson, was Karasick’s girlfriend when she was making the film. Thus, Roberts said, he believes it’s no accident that Karasick looks like the good guy in the film and Roberts looks like the bad guy. “It was a very self-serving documentary where Ira’s role was put above others, and it wasn’t true,” Roberts said. “Guys like Tom Olivieri, Annette Illing and Dan Tumpson were the real heroes. Not Ira Karasick. History proves and our records prove that I have not been portrayed favorably in the movie but have a really good record. Ira [was] disingenuous with the public for not mentioning that it was his lover that did the movie.” “Now,” Roberts added, “Russo has succeeded as becoming mayor, and Russo has used the movie for the same purpose as Ira.” Fallo said, “I’m sorry he feels that way, but my showing the film has nothing to do with Dave. I like Dave. All year, people call me and say, ‘When are you showing it again?’ It’s a historical film. New people come to town, they like the town. They want to know what went on.” Nora Jacobson, who now lives in Vermont, said that she did not go out of her way to cast Karasick in an unusually good light and that the film was completed before the election. “Ira’s just one small part of that whole thing,” said Jacobson, who met Karasick while making the film. “The film covers a much bigger scope than Ira Karasick and the work he was doing in terms of representing tenants. The film makes a lot of people look good. The film documents people’s work, whatever it was they did. In terms of the whole discussion going on now, all I can say is, as a filmmaker, you hope that your work generates discussion about issues. The fact that the film is still making people talk, I am pleased about that. If a film can do that, can encourage discussion, if the film at this point is still raising issues about development and housing, as far as I’m concerned, that’s good.”