Teaneck Blog

Casting a wary eye on Teaneck politics and municipal affairs

Friday, September 15, 2006

Round one to the neighbors, KO for Council?

With JMCK Holding Corp. crying uncle and heading back to the drawing board with its plan for the corner of DeGraw Avenue and Teaneck Road, residents have proven their ability to flex their muscles and push back development in Teaneck's residential neighborhoods. It is too early to say whether neighborhood pressure will compel Holuba Realty to scale back its plans for a massive residential project near Herrick Park, but it is clear that residents are girding for battle. Given the many misgivings neighbors and officials alike have about Holuba's proposals, it would not be surprising if the rather ambitious project under consideration never came to fruition.

Taken alone, these developments are neither good nor bad for Teaneck, but they do have repercussions for the political scene. The newly elected members of the Township Council all campaigned to some degree on boosting ratables in order to ease the homeowner tax burden. As more and more potential projects are nixed by community opposition, the prospects for fulfilling this cornerstone campaign promise dim and the probability increases that current Council members will be forced to campaign as incumbents with nothing to show for their terms in office. Blaming the voters for blocking development is unlikely to work as an excuse.

This puts the politicians in a difficult position. They need to make a meaningful dent in tax bills (or at least slow the rate of increase considerably) and they have committed themselves to doing so by boosting ratables rather than cutting services. With this course ruled out by the residents, the pressure is growing to find shared services arrangements or other sources of savings to cover up the inability of the Council members to deliver on their main promise. Expect to see a frenzy of activity on this front in the future as the urgency is growing by the day...

32 Comments:

At 6:27 PM, Blogger Alan Sohn said...

The underlying issue is not an unwillingness of developers to pursue projects in Teaneck, despite the obstacles. The problem is that the current Master Plan prohibits virtually any of the large-scale developments proposed in Teaneck to be implemented as of right.

Teaneck is overwhelmingly zoned for single family homes and about 99% of available land is already developed. With the Glenpointe project already near maturity, Teaneck has almost no viable options available to builders who would love to start with a clean slate on a substantially-sized vacant lot.

This leaves developers poking at the edges, looking for suitable sites to redevelop, hopefully as far away as possible from those pesky neighbors, girded for battle, who seem to have the belief that they should not have to endure a multi-story mass of residences looming over their quaint little homes, jammed into a location that requires variances up the proverbial wazoo as the area is zoned for single-family homes. It should come as no surprise that among the recent proposals presented the Planning Board and Board of Adjustment are plans that involve development projects on New Bridge Road at the extreme Northwest corner of town, at the Bogota border against the CSX railroad tracks and on Teaneck Road facing the approach to I-95/I-80. While each of these locations minimize the exposure to adjacent homes, those darn, pesky neighbors don't seem to feel that they should endure the burden (and reduced property values) of a McTownhouse development so that those people living elsewhere in town can see fractional savings on their tax bill.

So what is the problem? The Master Plan. The current incarnation of our Master Plan maps virtually all of Teaneck as a bedroom community of wall-to-wall variations of our beloved single family home.

Our Township Planner provides the overwhelming majority of his services to the Township in the form of hours paid for at the expense of developers trying to find a way to squeeze something in. Unfortunately, this leaves the Township Planner with almost no time to seek out the big picture changes that need to be made to our Master Plan so that developers will be able to more readily identify locations already zoned to meet their prospective projects as soon as they acquire the desired site.

The problem is that the necessary changes to the Master Plan require the allocation of the time and resources required to develop a plan that reflects our collective desire for more rateables to help spread the property tax burden, and specifies in advance where these projects might be located in the future. A plan that more evenly shares the burden of siting these developments in areas across the Township will have a far greater chance of obtaining the community-wide buy-in to get these changes approved.

If the Master Plan is not amended, we will face the neverending battles on a neighborhod by neighborhood basis, with developers presenting plans that require dozens of variances and neighbors seeking to maintain the status quo that they feel they are entitled to by right from our existing Master Plan.

Alan Sohn

 
At 8:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alan Sohn is right -- Teaneck residents can't have it both ways. Residents are so infected by NIMBY and the historical character of their residential neighborhoods that somewhat good ideas for development get snagged. Whether Holuba will prevail and just scale back their plans enough to get this eyesore of 8 acres developed (perhaps with a stoplight at Herrick and Palisade Avenues, which can greatly help to curb speeding cars going from Cedar Lane to Bogota) will depend on a thorough independent review by our Planning Board and township officials, as well as a little courage. Ultimately, Teaneck residents must decide the larger question -- do we want to make some sacrifices for potential tax relief or do we cling to the single-family community concept that has proven to cost us dearly?

 
At 9:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Teaneck residents have had a long history of fighting development and have been willing to pay higher taxes in order to "cling to the single-family community concept." However phrased, the notion that, "Residents are ... infected by NIMBY," would support this view. While some who would disagree seem to think this has changed, I've seen no indication.

It is suggested that, "A plan that more evenly shares the burden of siting these developments in areas across the Township will have a far greater chance of obtaining the community-wide buy-in to get these changes approved." I think the opposite is true. The NIMBY "infection" will result in far greater community-wide opposition.

 
At 10:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fight Overdevelopment
Gonzalez, Gussen and Rudolph will oppose new residential developments that ruin Teaneck's small town character while increasing property taxes and leading to overcrowding in our schools. They will fight against the 35,000 square foot development on the corner of DeGraw Avenue and Teaneck Road that will create congestion, traffic and a greater property tax burden across Teaneck."
[Campaign literature]

Rudolph and Gussen just might survive the political repercussions if this project does not go through.

 
At 10:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem is that towship officials don't have any significant plan to generate
ratables. Slamming condos and townhouses
on the borders of town or in the case of the Bergen
Developers
project, behind other buildings--is absurd. Projects like this
does not increase ratables--and they are ugly. If the township really wanted to
increase ratables it would sit down with planners, architects, designers and business
people--as well as residents, to discuss plans that would attract business in
the allready existing business districts instead of wasting our time sitting in
meetings listening to developers and their "pay per plan experts" who's
only interest is sticking it to the town to make a profit.

 
At 4:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is kidding who? Both developers are playing that well thought out game of coming in with a ridiculously overgrown plan and then playing nice by reducing it to something more manageable. It is an old game and one that has been played time and time again in town. The purpose being, when the Zoning Board denies the variance request the applicant can go running off to County court and tell the sympathetic judge, "but your honor, I did reduce my original request." Think I'm wrong, ask someone thats been on the Zoning Board for awhile.

Lou Tiboldo

 
At 9:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Tiboldo is totally correct -- it's part of the "dance" to present a plan, then make sure the scaled back one still makes fiscal and development sense when it gets approved either by the zoning board, planning board or the overriding legal authorities. Besides, one way or anther, the property needs to be developed and cannot just sit there -- better to work with the developers than not.

 
At 10:25 PM, Blogger PublicSchoolParent said...

I can't resist asking whehter TB would be equally in favor of these developments if they were going up next to his house?

I'm not trying to be snide, but my guess is that many of the people who complain about this kind of NIMBY happen to live in areas where large developments would not possibly be an issue either because there are no empty lots available or because they live in an area of higher property prices.

Personally, I would like to see Teaneck develop up if it can be shown that we would be ahead of the game, net of town expenses. Which is to say, we should have large apartment buildings that only allow (a) retirees, (b) the Orthodox, (c) devout Catholics (who would send their kids to Catholic schools), (d) homeschoolers and (e) couples who submit proof of sterility.

 
At 7:49 AM, Blogger esther said...

f) gay couples who submit sworn affidavits that they will not pursue adoption / artificial insemination....

 
At 9:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swurgle...
With all the $$ us Catholics that send kids to Catholic Schools and Orthodox pay in school taxes and get NO BENEFIT from it (free money for the Schools) we can afford to have a few people move in that have kids that will go to the inferior Public Schools :-)heck we Catholics and Orthodox have already paid $$ that is not being used for our kids so why not let some other kids use it?!?!

 
At 1:45 PM, Blogger Teaneck Blog said...

I can't resist asking whehter TB would be equally in favor of these developments if they were going up next to his house?

Actually, I am not really in favor or opposed to either of these projects per se. I'll volunteer that having heard some of the details of the Soap Factory project, I think it is ill conceived, poorly timed, and destined for failure if it is ever built. But that doesn't translate to support or opposition.

What interests me more is observing how events unfold here because I think that will give us an indication as to whether the will truly exists to broaden the tax base or not. Neither the JMKC project nor the Holuba project has the power to make or break Teaneck, and they may be the wrong projects at the wrong time, but the reception they receive is instructive.

 
At 2:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

some very good points have been raised. Maybe some new white families with KIDS would be good p.r. for our schools and our non diverse schools.

 
At 3:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh the whites dont use the public schools...we send our kids to Catholic Schools or Yeshivas :-)
We leave the public schools to those that cant afford the private schools!

 
At 9:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, I know you meant this half in jest, and I know it is somewhat the reality (white kids only attending private or yeshivas) but there are still some of us white folks who send our kids to the public schools and who still are very pleased with the quality of education our kids are receiving -- just ask THS graduates, who regularly come back from college reporting they are often far ahead in preparation for their college courses than many of their peers (not to mention they are more comfortable interacting with many different cultures.).

 
At 10:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are those kids in normal classes or in the Honors program?
I have yet to hear or see anything good about the schools here in town..hence my kids do not attend them.
As to white kids in the schools...where are they? I have gone to all the schools for open houses and looking at classrooms and see very "few" white kids.
The schools seemed to have a better diversity in them when I attended them "way back when".

 
At 10:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

as to the jesting...nope I wasnt.
Every white family I know sends their kids to private schools.

 
At 12:57 PM, Blogger esther said...

Is anyone else as disturbed as me by the racism expressed by some in this thread? I'm sure that the person or people who made those statements was just goading folks like me to get a rise out of us, and frankly, it worked.

I'm sure most readers are familiar with the quote by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Not too many years ago many members of my family were among those murdered by racists.

I know this isn't my blog, but I hope TB won't mind if I urge commenters to cease and desist from the type of casual racism displayed in this thread. The kids who attend the public schools in Teaneck are our neighbors and individuals in their own right who deserve to be treated with respect.

 
At 1:24 PM, Blogger Teaneck Blog said...

I know this isn't my blog, but I hope TB won't mind if I urge commenters to cease and desist from the type of casual racism displayed in this thread.

Not only do I not mind, but I echo your comments.

 
At 7:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not only do I not mind, but I echo your comments.

I would echo the sentiments as well, but I don't believe the statements are at all casual.

Although it is often difficult to tell one anonymous poster from another, I think that this one has repeated his themes often enough that he can be distinguished. From his consistancy I assume he believes what he posts.

 
At 7:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swurgle.

Totally agree...the kids at the Teaneck schools are our neighbors..treated with respect, why?
I have neighbors that attend the public schools here...are they repsectful..NOPE so guess what I show them no respect...as far as pulling out the race card.."blacks" are usually the FIRST ones to pull it out not the "whites"...
Oh well I guess I do not agree with the majority here..you want respect you earn it..and so far from what I have seen many of these kids dont deserve it!

 
At 9:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have neighbors that attend the public schools here...are they repsectful..NOPE so guess what I show them no respect..

anyone ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?

my guess is that you had one or two run-ins with some kids who thought you were cranky - and now you paint everyone with the same brush.

I bet if you start taking the high road, and treat everyone with respect, kindness and compassion, you might get some in return

disclaimer: I have two very respectful, delightful kids in the public schools - I tend to paint them all with the same brush.....

 
At 9:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Golden Rule...
Actually never had any run-ins with any kids ... just my personal observations from looking at them on the streets and in the classrooms.
As to taking the high road...sure when pigs fly...I do not show respect or compassion to people that do not deserve it!

 
At 12:57 PM, Blogger PublicSchoolParent said...

Golden Rule...
Actually never had any run-ins with any kids ... just my personal observations from looking at them on the streets and in the classrooms.


How revealing, eh. How can we ever fight this kind of bigotry.

I'm reminded of when I used to go to Miami on business and worked with a guy who was my age (around 30, then) and who was fun to work with. I was telling him how much I enjoyed the architecture of Miami Beach when he said to me, "I don't like Miami Beach because it's full of old Jews". I looked at him and said, "I'm Jewish". He was stunned, and embarrased. I have no idea whether he changed his mind.

I don't know how to overcome racial, religious and ethnic prejudices when they are entirely self-referential. The above quote admits that the author's evidence is what people appear like, what he assumes they are doing. All he's doing is confirming his own prejudices.

 
At 5:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Publicschoolparent...
What the kids do in the classroom and on the streets is a REALLY good indicator of what type of people they are.
I have seen them in both instances...in the classrooms they show no respect for teachers or each other and on the streets it is the same.
And heck I dont like Florida either not becuase of the Jewish population but just TOO many OLD People in general.

 
At 5:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As to racial issues Teaneck is full of them as is the world..
someone should inform the blacks slavery is over and is not an excuse anymore for their lack of self respect, respect of teachers and their community!

 
At 9:53 PM, Blogger Teaneck Blog said...

As to racial issues Teaneck is full of them as is the world..

Please cease sharing your views on this topic.

 
At 2:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

WHY THIS IS THE U.S.A.

 
At 7:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But not when it comes to race issues or ones of faith...sad!

 
At 7:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

some people think that the race issue is a non-issue (that it does not effect anything) regarding the township of Teaneck

 
At 9:44 AM, Blogger Teaneck Blog said...

some people think that the race issue is a non-issue (that it does not effect anything) regarding the township of Teaneck

If you want to make a thoughtful point about how racial issues influence a particular policy discussion in Teaneck, be my guest. If, however, your idea of shedding light on a racial issue in Teaneck is "someone should inform the blacks slavery is over and is not an excuse anymore for their lack of self respect, respect of teachers and their community!", you ought to find a more appropriate outlet to air your views.

 
At 1:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

a men leroy

 
At 5:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ultimately, Teaneck residents must decide the larger question -- do we want to make some sacrifices for potential tax relief or do we cling to the single-family community concept that has proven to cost us dearly?"

The Bergen Record published an article lately called "Teaneck's Seismic Tax Shift," that explains the enormous tax increases us Teaneck residents stand to absorb this year. These "ill conceived" developments are, on the contrary, beneficial to all the parties involved; particulary to the relief of Teaneck taxpayers.

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk3MDc2NjIz

 

Post a Comment

<< Home