The great unifying issue
If there is a single local cause that attracts support from all quarters of Teaneck, it would have to be a repeal of Bergen County's blue laws. No doubt there are individuals in Teaneck who prefer to have the area highways clear on Sunday, but most others recognize that the blue laws remain in force more for the benefit of Paramus than Teaneck. Though it has been thirteen years since the blue laws were last put to a public vote, the resounding margin by which Bergen voters approved them in 1993 has deterred opponents of the restrictions on Sunday commercial activity from agitating for another countywide vote. Instead, they have pursued other avenues for obtaining legislative relief from the measures.
Now the Suburbanite's Howard Prosnitz reports on the latest initiative, led by State Senator Loretta Weinberg, a longtime opponent of the blue laws. Following her abortive attempt in 2003 to pass legislation permitting municipalities to hold their own votes on the blue laws, Weinberg is back at it again. Prosnitz presents comments from Mayor Kates and Deputy Mayor Katz attempting to rally support for new "pinpoint legislation" that would lay out a series of conditions by which a municipality could qualify for its own referendum on abolishing blue laws. Presumably, only Teaneck would meet the standard, and therefore the bill would be less threatening to avowed opponents of any weakening of the status quo (can you picture the legislative aide writing in a clause like "in order to qualify, the town's name must contain the name of a hot drink followed by the name of a body part connecting the head to the torso?").
While a large number of Teaneck residents will strongly support Senator Weinberg in her latest attempt to free the Township of the burden of the blue laws for both economic and lifestyle reasons, it seems that this new strategy is doomed to the same fate that befell previous tries. This tack has the potential to draw the ire of two different groups who in the past have been on opposite sides of the blue laws issue.
- The residents of Paramus and other towns criss-crossed by major commercial thoroughfares who enjoy the peace and quiet afforded them by Sunday restrictions will pester their state legislators to block this backdoor attempt to repeal the blue laws. They will reason that if one town manages to get rid of them, other towns will soon follow suit, and then the stores that are so vital to the health of their town will renew the battle to abolish blue laws in Paramus as well or move elsewhere.
- The shopping mall operators and store owners of Paramus will likely move to defeat this initiative which could put their businesses at risk. While Teaneck does not have the zoning necessary to attract serious competitors (until the Township asks the residents who live near Rt. 4 to take one for the team), if other municipalities in the area succeed in circumventing the blue laws, it will be even more undesirable to be closed on Sundays in Paramus. Those who have large investments in commercial real estate or long term leases in Paramus locations will not sit back and watch their values plummet without a fight.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 11:13 AM
5 Comments:
Funny you mention it. I recently wrote about this very issue in www.teaneckprogress.blogspot.com (although without nearly as much erudition :)) Here are some of my thoughts:
There may not be such a rush among th smaller towns in Bergen to overturn the Blue Laws. As I recall, in the last go-around, the repeal of the blue laws in Bergen County was soundly defeated by the voters in small communities with struggling retail districts against the economic interests of their own communities.
I think a nuanced case needs to be made for permitting towns to have flexibility with respect to the Blue Laws. For example, if there is a concern that retail workers require a day of rest, why can't it be Monday rather than Sunday?
The case needs to be made that modification to the blue laws will help struggling retail districts countywide to compete against the Paramus juggernaut. And the ultimately effect (as long as the Blue Laws remained in effect in Paramus) would be a dispersal rather than a concentration of traffic congestion.
Towns with large observant Jewish populations such as Teaneck, Englewood and Fairlawn would be natural allies in any move to modify the Blue Laws. Another natural ally is the Mills Corporation, owner of Riverside Square Mall.
Does anyone have information on how individual towns voted in 1993?
In 1993, Teaneck voted 7,635 to 5,794 in favor of keeping blue laws. I don't have figures for other towns but I know in Paramus the vote to continue with the blue laws was almost unanimous, which is pretty amazing.
Thirteen years and plenty of economic and fiscal difficulties later, I would guess that the outcome would be very different if a Teaneck only referendum were held, although I would bet that plenty of money would come from out of town to fund a campaign blitz in favor of keeping the Sunday restrictions.
Funding for an effort to counter the blitz in favor of the blue laws would have to come from corporate interests who stand to benefit from relaxation of restrictions such as major mall owners and retailers outside of Paramus such as the Mills Corporation, Vornado Realty Trust, Home Depot, Target, Costco.
Hopefully Senator Weinberg has a few tricks up her sleeve, because as of now it still looks like a long shot.
And hopefully that trick up her sleeve is not another compact with a mirror and a powder puff, as it was the last time. Because her previous effort was nothing more than a cosmetic display for the home front.
It took me a while to track it down, but on September 22, 2002, The Record's Ron Allee had a column detailing a conversation with our then-Assemblywoman about her bill to allow Bergen muncipalities to opt out of the county blue laws through local referenda.
At that time there were a number of proposals for Meadowlands re-development, none of which envisioned a strong retail component. Nevertheless, as Allee reported, there was a good deal of speculation that Weinberg's bill was intended as much for East Rutherford (not in her district) as it was for Teaneck or Fort Lee. The theory, at the time, was that the Meadowlands might be be turned into a mega-mall and that East Rutherford would then allow Sunday shopping.
In a sympathetic column, Allee--and Loretta--made a very convincing case that all this speculation was nonsense. But in the process, Loretta made an interesting admission:
"When I put that bill in last June, it had nothing to do with the Meadowlands, in my mind. Teaneck and Fort Lee wanted me to put it in to help their little downtowns. It was simple," she said.
But here's what raises my eyebrow:
"It's still in committee," Loretta continued. "It has never come to a hearing, and, you know, I've never pushed that bill." (emphasis mine).
Which, of course, begs the question: Why introduce a bill you don't intend to "push"? The answer I keep coming up with is, because it racks up brownie points with my constituents, even if I don't follow through on it. How are they to know...unless I tell them?
Which is what Loretta did in an off-guard moment.
Asked in that September 22 column whether she had any intention of withdrawing her bill, Loretta answered:
"If there were a significant retail component going in at the arena site...and if I thought [withdrawing the bill] would affect this, I might. I might withdraw it then."
A month to the day later, Loretta withdrew her bill. Not because of anything going on at the Meadowlands arena site, but because Dennis McNerney, who was running for County Executive, was getting hammered by his opponent on the blue laws issue. It was the Bergen County Democratic leadership that "forced" Loretta to withdraw her bill, though I do not believe they held a gun to her head while she wrote her withdrawal letter.
County politics is quite likely to interfere with this new and improved "pinpoint" legislation again. But by all means, let's give it a chance.
Only this time, let's hold Loretta's feet to the fire. Let's insist that this time, she will actually push the bill she has introduced. No bill should be a cosmetic powder puff to make some legislator look good to a constituency whose attention span she counts on being short.
Post a Comment
<< Home