The first 100 days
This week's Suburbanite contains a letter penned by Councilman Adam Gussen trumpeting the new Council's achievements during its first few months in office and pledging to continue working in the best interests of Teaneck. Typical political boilerplate, for the most part, written to accentuate the positive in the confident and upbeat tone that usually characterizes communications to consitutents. What is interesting about this letter is that it brings home how entirely predictable the past few months have been. Consider the major developments since July:- the Council has placed a heavy emphasis on development and ratables, committing a significant sum of money to the hiring of a development planning firm and mentioning the importance of broadening the tax base at every opportunity (is 86% the most oft-quoted figure in Teaneck politics?)
- the Council has focused less on reining in the cost side, expending a small amount of political capital but no money to establish a Financial Advisory Board with no real power of its own
- a Council majority has balked at passing a popular resolution condemning unethical campaign practices, declining to make use of the moral authority many believe it wields even in areas outside its jurisdiction (the thrust of Councilman's Gussen's allusion to a refusal to be "distracted" from his primary goals in the Suburbanite letter)
- a Council majority has endorsed restoring certain government controls on the residential rental market
- the Council made an abortive attempt to marshal support for a push to review of the Blue Laws
- the unified front and esprit de corps exhibited by the more experienced outgoing Council (prior to the two temporary appointments) seems to have broken down as there has been more public sniping among members, especially between Council members Rudolph and Kates
Set those expectations aside for a moment, and a more forceful question suggests itself. How would the past few months have played out if a different Council were swept into office? Suppose the much ballyhooed Teaneck New Beginnings slate had experienced more electoral success and taken two of the three seats now occupied by Council newcomers Gussen, Rudolph, and Feit. Here's my conjecture:
- the Council would still be paying lip service to the idea of broadening the tax base, but the first hire would have been an ombudsman for labor relations issues rather than a development planner
- the Council would have as yet taken no steps toward reviewing expenditures, and there would be no FAB, especially since the Council would be far less willing to cross the Board of Education
- rent control legislation would be far tougher on landlords than the legislation passed recently
- some steps would have been taken toward imposing further restrictions on "McMansion" construction and other improvements or modifications to existing private homes
- no consideration would have been given to seeking relief from Blue Law legislation
- controversy would not have erupted over a non-binding resolution condemning unethical campaign practices (would it have even been proposed? we'll never know); controversy might have erupted over other potential non-binding resolutions condemning other things such as U.S. military presence in Iraq, the USA Patriot Act, and other global concerns not specific to Teaneck
- Teaneck municipal government would have been remade to be more union-friendly (staff shakeup?)
- the Council might have stuck together more despite the addition of at least one very combative personality as it would have been more ideologically homogeneous
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 12:33 PM
12 Comments:
Pardon me for observing, but I don't think it's just a question of one philosophical faction vs. another -- although your analysis is pretty much on target, in my opinion. Both scenarios seem extreme to me, and both could use some modifying if only the interested participants were willing to make more overtures to those who "don't see it their way" and help forge compromises that embrace more diverse points of view. I do think it's interesting to me that the current council talks alot about tax relief and municipal spending limits, yet they have already added a planner as well as a PR firm to their budget. I just wonder what will happen when the council majority ceases to walk on water...
how about researching and comparing this councils first 100 days to other past councils
i think you will find not one that has begun so much in so little time
Perhaps you are right -- although the council of 1990 had quite an agenda, if I remember correctly. But just because alot has "begun" doesn't mean I have to agree with all the projects themselves, much less the direction... I reserve judgement until I see the results of this direction.
So this council has accomplished more it's first 100 days than the hypothetical one you made up in your head. Mazel Tov.
Let's see if the the $87,000 planning study tells us anything about the obstacles to development that Alan Sohn hasn't already articulated in the comments section of this blog.
(is 86% the most oft-quoted figure in Teaneck politics?
86% may be the most oft-quoted figure but is it accurate? I can't get to 86% from either the 2005 or 2006 assessors report.
For 2006 1-4 family residences accounted for 84.95% of tax rated property. Only 85% and it does not include the apartments which are also residences. If they are included it goes up to 88.33% for 2006.
Total commercial plus industrial is only 11.21% for 2006. The remaining .46% is for vacant land.
Anyone have a better idea where the 86% might come from?
I enjoyed Councilmember Gussen's letter to the Suburbanite, which seemed to be a bit more positive than many of the recent letters supportive of the new Council, though perhaps this was due to the omission of the traditional gratuitous slap at our former mayor that seems to have become a new Teaneck tradition.
The lone concrete accomplishment in the first hundred days -- passage of a rent control ordinance that restored vacancy control -- was a situation in which the members of the Council voted their conscience and were not typecast into their usual 4-3 or 5-2 splits. That the ordinance's revisions don't actually go anywhere in addressing our Township's 30-year rental housing emergency is a subject for another time (and, perhaps, another letter to the Suburbanite).
While I am fully supportive of the formation of the Financial Advisory Board and the hiring of a planning firm, both are early, preliminary steps that will bear substantial fruit down the line; or, that may cause even greater strife on the issues of budgets and development down the road.
While much haste was made in forming the FAB, the task of getting nine members of a brand-new board up to speed in time to make a meaningful impact on the forthcoming Township budget are daunting. With the 2007 budget in development and budget workshops taking place in January, it will be quite a challenge to get nine people in agreement on recommendations given the lack of hands-on experience of many of its members in Township budgeting issues.
Any planning firm would have come up with a wide variety of recommendations for development around Teaneck for the Council's consideration, and there is no reason not to expect that Birdsall's suggestions will make for interesting reading -- and provocative discussion -- in the months ahead. Nor do I have any reason to believe that Birdsall will not present a nonpartisan series of recommendations to bring in the rateables we need to help ease the tax burden on residential property owners. But the details of its proposals and how the Council chooses to respond to their recommendations, will be the true test, not the fact that the planning firm was hired.
The failure of the Council to approve the draft resolution prepared by the Advisory Board on Community Relations for further consideration remains a major negative mark on the 100-day record. As to TeaneckBlog's musings that this resolution would never have seen the light of day had the election turned out differently, I can assure you that the disgraceful actions exhibited by supporters and opponents of the various candidates had been discussed as a serious issue worthy of strong action by the ABCR, well before Election Day, in an election that was very much up in the air until the final tallies came in. While there are valid reasons to have opposed consideration of the resolution (which were articulated most clearly and notably by Councilmember Gussen), the fact that it was rejected for further consideration with no more than an actual shrug of the shoulders by others on the Council should disappoint us all. I, for one, would have hoped that this issue would have seen the rhetorical heights of debate and backroom politicking to get it out of Workshop and onto a Regular Session agenda that seem to be reserved for the weighty issues of our day, say like the creation of a dog run.
One hundred days is simply too short a period of time to come up with consequential, paradigm-shifting improvements to our Township. I remain hopeful that we will see the substantive changes we need for our Township generated in a genuine spirit of of camaraderie, a challenge that all seven members of our Township Council must face in the months ahead.
Alan Sohn
So this council has accomplished more it's first 100 days than the hypothetical one you made up in your head. Mazel Tov.
Made up in my head?! You and I both know quite well that this "hypothetical" council was precisely what was on offer from a certain slate of candidates.
With the possible exception of the McMansion issue, which hasn't come up again recently and may not need to as the housing market cools, the Deputy Mayor's votes have given a pretty good indication that this is how things would be if the election had gone according to the wishes of the unions.
Let's see if the the $87,000 planning study tells us anything about the obstacles to development that Alan Sohn hasn't already articulated in the comments section of this blog.
This is not how I understood the purpose of this contract, and I sure hope you have it wrong. Teaneck has already had a high priced consultant come in and blow a lot of hot air about all the problems in developing Teaneck. I thought this chunk of money was going to actually implement some solutions and steer the private sector toward certain types of projects in particular areas. Another $87,000 for additional banal assessments of the obvious would be money extremely poorly spent, of course.
As I've said before, it would be useful for the public to be able to review the scope of services for the contract.
Having worked for many years for high priced consultants that borrow the client's watch to tell them what time it is, I'm curious as to what these consultants have promised to achieve through this effort.
I don’t know how productive it is to speculate on the “what ifs” of a New Beginnings sweep, but it’s not without its entertainment value. Here are my comments on the Blogger’s “alternate reality” scenarios:
the Council would still be paying lip service to the idea of broadening the tax base, but the first hire would have been an ombudsman for labor relations issues rather than a development planner
Given that the lead candidate for New Beginnings railed against the proposed hiring of a special "master" to look into union grievances (something the last council approved and then regrettably backed down on), making essentially the same type of hire would have required a rather breathtaking capacity for hypocrisy. Hmmm.
the Council would have as yet taken no steps toward reviewing expenditures, and there would be no FAB, especially since the Council would be far less willing to cross the Board of Education
I doubt it would have hit upon such an imaginative and unprecedented device, but do not think for a minute that a New Beginnings council would have hesitated to cross the BOE if given the opportunity. The people who ran on and/or pushed that slate have had it in for the BOE for the last 16 years, and they'll continue to have it in for it until they get two or three more of their candidates elected to the board.
rent control legislation would be far tougher on landlords than the legislation passed recently
Most likely
some steps would have been taken toward imposing further restrictions on "McMansion" construction and other improvements or modifications to existing private homes
Maybe, I don't know.
no consideration would have been given to seeking relief from Blue Law legislation
Given that veteran council members Kates and Katz were the two point people on this issue, it might still have been placed on the agenda. But seeing how Weinberg basically ran and hid from the issue after the false hopes raised by a Suburbanite article in May, her ally Ron Schwartz probably would have joined Parker and Honis in voting against pursuing the issue, and Mr. Crowley probably would have followed.
controversy would not have erupted over a non-binding resolution condemning unethical campaign practices (would it have even been proposed? we'll never know)
Had the same offending campaign communications appeared, they probably would have been taken up by the Advisory Board on Community Relations.
controversy might have erupted over other potential non-binding resolutions condemning other things such as U.S. military presence in Iraq, the USA Patriot Act, and other global concerns not specific to Teaneck
Perhaps, but except for the Patriot Act as it might bear on the procedures of the Teaneck Library, I wouldn't expect a 5-2 council vote on these matters. It would probably be 4-3, maybe even 3-4 depending on what Crowley did. (Note: while the current council’s just-announced approval of a resolution pledging to reduce greenhouse emissions “binds” it to a certain course of action, its decision to join in the U.S. Mayors Agreement and to become a “Cool City” does make it part of a movement whose subtle and not-so-subtle subtext is one of opposition to the Bush administration’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol. And that's fine with me.)
Teaneck municipal government would have been remade to be more union-friendly (staff shakeup?)
Probably more friendly toward TNB campaign contributors, but hopefully any staff shakeup under union pressure would have been opposed by at least three council members.
the Council might have stuck together more despite the addition of at least one very combative personality as it would have been more ideologically homogeneous
Again, I would expect more 4-3 splits than you would. It's not as if any of the current council holdovers other than Honis was actually rooting for Ron Schwartz to win.
Sometimes I think that Ron Schwartz is Teaneck's own Emmanuel Goldstein....
Does anyone have a copy of "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" that I could borrow? all of the Library's copies are out.
Alan Sohn
Sorry Alan. I think I threw my copy at John Abraham back in 1993-94 during one of those many frenzied "two minutes of hate" sessions and neglected to retrieve it.
Post a Comment
<< Home