Analysis: Election post-mortem
Key takeaways for the losing candidates (in no particular order)...
Schwartz, Crowley- They will certainly blame the negative campaigning they faced just before Election Day, but the wide margin by which they were defeated (they each missed the cut by well over 500 votes) belies this claim. Bottom line: they were well enough organized & well enough financed to hit back forcefully and they did. It was their message and their affiliations that were rejected by the voters. In a campaign in which easing the property tax burden was the number one issue, they chose to align themselves with the interest groups who have their hands in the Township's coffers and they paid the price for that. They also made the mistake of galvanizing their opposition through the untoward actions of their campaign manager Dr. Joseph Harris, proving that not all publicity is good publicity.
Hennig- Personal popularity could not trump the fact that it was a bad year to be a candidate from the Board of Education given all that's gone on there and the still fresh voter outrage. Add to it that campaigning on a platform of shared services among the B of E and the Township without having achieved that as a Board member rang hollow with some voters.
Gonzalez- By all accounts a genial fellow and a good campaigner who couldn't project a serious message. Promising Starbucks? Oh, please. Telling a candidate forum that if given a hypothetical $10,000,000 windfall to spend you'd use it to upgrade sports facilities was probably not a great idea either.
Mian- Gets points for originality in proposing to levy a 1% tax on businesses & tax-exempt institutions such as Holy Name Hospital and Fairleigh Dickinson University. Loses points for a poor grasp of economic principles- higher taxes on businesses are a disincentive for businesses to come to Teaneck and will only erode an already narrow tax base. The voters seem to have understood that.
O'Brien- Some good practical ideas. Not much of a campaign effort. A steak with no sizzle. But he contributed positively to the dialogue as he was one of the few candidates with actual policy prescriptions.
Martin- Call me a know-it-all, but I know almost nothing about his candidacy. The Record had him down as opposed to rent control, but also highlighted his opposition to big chain stores in Teaneck. A non-factor in the race.
Arrington- With his tenants' association endorsements and his focus on resolving lawsuits quickly (sounds like more cash settlements), he didn't come across as taxpayer friendly.
Langford- Hard to find too many faults as he only lost by a narrow margin. Enjoys a reputation for fairness, honesty, and community engagement, so he was certainly electable. There are rumblings that his far too diplomatic response to The Record on the key issue of rent control lost him votes. The article gave an impression of a him as an anxious-to-please politician who would rather waffle than take a principled position. Few could believe that a sitting councilman did not know enough about the issue to express a view.
Annillo- Would have expected him to have fared better given the professional experience he brought to the table, the broad support he seemed to enjoy from all quarters, and the abundant signage. He did show himself to be a fighter, and given a little more name recognition and a touch more polish in public speeches, he could be a formidable contender in '08.
Rose- Had a defined platform, had visibility (except for lawn signs, which I didn't see), had qualifications. The message just wasn't right. Voters do not want the Town Council to take up whatever national or international issues the Teaneck Peace & Justice Coalition is agitated about. Council as glorified debating society has been soundly defeated.
Waheed- Mantra was development, but not overdevelopment. Let's see... I'm in favor of development. I'm not in favor of overdevelopment (who is? isn't overdevelopment excessive by definition?). Needed something more than a slick color brochure featuring endorsements from citizens who are not well-known throughout Teaneck and a trivial position on economic development.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 9:31 AM
13 Comments:
Thank goodness the election is over. It was astoundingly rancorous considering that the platforms of all the candidates were nearly indistinguishable. I'm on a long time Teaneck resident and frankly, I'm disgusted. Time to move on.
The one key to economic development in town that barely got any attention was the burden of the county blue laws. Is it possible for the town to petition (or sue?) the County for an exemption from the blue laws as they impose an economic burden due to the unique demographic circumstances in town. With an exemption to the blue laws, Cedar Lane and the other shopping districts might stand a chance. With the blue laws in place, we're dead in the water.
One more thing - you might want to consider turning off the comment moderation. This blog is never going anywhere unless people think that it represents an open discourse. What are you afraid of?
Not afraid of open discourse- afraid of posters pushing Cialis and Viagra at discount prices.
Comments well taken! See you in '08
Contact me anytime, not just election time. VoteAnnillo@verizon.net
JohnAnnillo4Council08
County blue laws have been strongly supported in the most recent referendum on the subject, which was several (something like five) years ago. Getting a town-wide exemption from the blue laws is highly unlikely, given that the commercial interests in the Paramus malls will object strongly. (I believe that Paramus has its own blue laws that continue regardless of what the county does, so Paramus merchants don't want to be at a disadvantage if the county abolishes its blue laws entirely.)
A more winnable idea (I think) is to amend the blue laws to allow individual stores that are required to close on Sunday under the current law to choose another day of the week. There might be enforcement costs, but these could be minimized by requiring stores that choose a day other than Sunday to post a prominent notice specifying their closing day. I think clergy of various denominations could be persuaded to support this on fairness grounds, and since I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of stores in the county would continue to opt for Sunday closing, it should have little effect on the improved traffic flow on Routes 4 & 17 on Sunday, which is one of the main reasons for the continued popularity of the blue laws.
How come no one is writing about the issue of the lawsuits against the town by the employees? The harrassment, the poor condition of the buildings that the employees talk about? I don't know much about these things myself, I guess because as out of court settlements, the details were not made public. But it did sound as though a considerable amount of our tax money went this way. So far, this blog has surmised that thoughtful taxpayers voted against New Beginnings because they would raise taxs, but wasn't N.B the ones who wanted to prevent more of these lawsuits? Maybe the police and firemen supported New Beginnings because N.B. represented a hope for them being treated fairly by the town. And where does the Town Manager come into this? How come no-one questions her management when there has been so much litigation?
So far, this blog has surmised that thoughtful taxpayers voted against New Beginnings because they would raise taxes, but wasn't N.B the ones who wanted to prevent more of these lawsuits? Maybe the police and firemen supported New Beginnings because N.B. represented a hope for them being treated fairly by the town.
Actually, most candidates spoke in favor of working to improve employee relations to head off future lawsuits.
N.B. did indeed emphasize this issue more than most, but it was their association and endorsement by the groups whose members have initiated these legal actions and who have threatened further litigation that harmed them. Voters rightfully feared that N.B. was likely to spend lots of money caving into to all the demands of the police and fire unions who would have been owed payback for helping to elect them. Having three Council members who would be beholden to the town's employees was not an appealing prospect, and it introduced an element of partisanship into town politics that many people are extremely uncomfortable with.
"Having three Council members who would be beholden to the town's employees was not an appealing prospect, and it introduced an element of partisanship into town politics that many people are extremely uncomfortable with. "
You are forgeting Monica Honis, a fourth council member that took money (sizable to what she raised) from the unions).
Now a majority of the council (had nb been elected) would have been indebted to the unions.
I've recently heard some statements/rumors/? concerning the Orthodox community and TNB that I'd love to see cleared up. What I've heard is that there were rumors on the Orthodox community that TNB was going to do away with the eruv, and even that one of the Rabbis said as much in his sermon just before the election. I've also heard -- and I tend to believe this -- that the Orthodox community was saw TNB as the ticket of the Teaneck Peace & Justice Coalition, which they (the Orthodox) don't like because they feel TPJC is anti-Israel.
I do think Teaneck Blog's analysis of the voting leaves out what can only be described as the mystifying victory of Elnatan Rudolph. How someone who has lived in Teaneck such a short time and who has done nothing in this or any other community could win against can, I think, only be explained by block voting. I think Gussman's victgory is similar, but at least he's lived here a while.
I don't really have a way to know whether there is any truth to the rumors you cite regarding the Orthodox Jewish community and TNB, but I tend to dismiss them as after the fact excuses for the defeat of 2 out of the 3 TNB candidates.
Was there any reason to think TNB would attract any support from the Orthodox Jewish community in the first place? It was abundantly clear that TNB represented the left wing. With their views on rent control, their strong support from the unions, and yes, the affiliations of Joe Harris and others with the Teaneck Peace and Justice Coalition, they held very little appeal to a community that tends to hold center-right views. Add to it the fact that they were perceived as having introduced the issue of religion and ethnicity into the campaign and you can see that whether or not any defamatory statements were made by anybody in the Orthodox Jewish community prior to Election Day, TNB was not going to get very many votes from Orthodox Jewish voters.
Just to hone in more closely on the issue of the TPJC and Israel, I think everybody knows that TPJC has carefully avoided taking any official stance on Israel in order to avoid provoking any segments of the community. However, the American anti-war left in general has not maintained the same neutrality. So I suppose it is quite natural that the Teaneck Orthodox Jewish community would shun a group that marches side by side with groups such as ANSWER.
But I still don't see why anyone would think TNB would have wide appeal in the first place...
I do think Teaneck Blog's analysis of the voting leaves out what can only be described as the mystifying victory of Elnatan Rudolph. How someone who has lived in Teaneck such a short time and who has done nothing in this or any other community could win against can, I think, only be explained by block voting. I think Gussman's victory is similar, but at least he's lived here a while.
Allow me to say in my own defense that this entry was only about losing candidates, so it wasn't really left out.
Here are a few factors to consider as far as Rudolph's win (with credit to S., who helped shape my opinion on this in a conversation yesterday)-
1) Rudolph did not beat the broader field of candidates, just Langford and Arrington, and won only by a narrow margin
2) Arrington definitely harmed Langford's candidacy by repeatedly questioning the propriety of the appointment process that installed Langford as the incumbent
3) Langford staked out few policy positions and therefore didn't motivate a base of enthusiastic supporters who were committed to a particular issue while Rudolph and Arrington made their views clear, especially on rent control
4) Langford himself had only been a Teaneck resident one year longer than Rudolph; if tenure in Teaneck really mattered, Arrington would have won in a landslide
5) Few voters actually attended the candidate forums in person and therefore most did not see who appeared the most composed and articulate
As for Gussen, I don't wonder for a moment why he won. He showed a great command of the issues and was extremely impressive in person for anyone who saw him at a forum or met him at a campaign stop. The fact that he was a local sports star during his time at THS might have helped him with some name recognition.
Personally, I thought he was the most impressive of all the candidates, and I hope his obvious understanding of the issues facing Teaneck, his poise, and his leadership skills will serve him (and all of Teaneck) well on the Council.
Teaneck Blog raises some very insightful points and I'm not trying to get into an argument, I just want to add to the discussion. Langford certainly hurt his own candidacy by failing to stake out any positions strongly -- his message, as I heard it, was that he was going to "listen" to the community by holding meetings" (that's what he told me when I asked him about cutting the budget). Not an impressive position to take, I must say.
But I found Gussman to be as near to demagogic as any candidate in the campaign, and I say it for this reason. At the TJ forum he rather bombastically said that he didn't understand what all the dispute was about "when the answers are staring us in the face." He did not elaborate. I went up to him and asked him what those answers were that were staring us in the face, he answered: responsible development, sharing of services and stopping the lawsuits. How original!
At the TJ forum he rather bombastically said that he didn't understand what all the dispute was about "when the answers are staring us in the face." He did not elaborate. I went up to him and asked him what those answers were that were staring us in the face, he answered: responsible development, sharing of services and stopping the lawsuits. How original!
You're right, that is pretty lame. Judging from what I saw of him, he is capable of a far better answer than that. Well, it's time for him to "put up or shut up."
Post a Comment
<< Home