Time to reconsider
Having just called into question the depth of the Mayor's commitment to development in light of the handling of the DMV issue, I cannot help but be surprised by the brewing controversy over a plan to construct a parking lot in Brett Park. Of course, it's not the opposition to the plan that surprises me, but rather the audacity of the proposition. Could Mayor Katz have chosen a more contentious issue than the sacrifice of protected parkland (especially in an area of historical significance) for the benefit of a restaurant owned by a member of a politically well-connected family as his next battleground?This boggles the mind. Even the most die-hard proponents of development as a solution to Teaneck's taxation woes must be reluctant to start the development push in the town's green spaces, and yet here the Mayor appears to be promoting a plan to do just that without even attempting to soften the blow by enlisting support from the community prior to bringing a previously negotiated deal to the Council. Given recent sensitivity to community concerns in the DMV issue, this seems more than a little strange.
Of course, one might argue that the concern demonstrated for community sensibilities in the case of the DMV came at little cost, as Council is actually powerless to prevent the deal, so why shouldn't they have taken advantage of the opportunity to score some points with residents? Better to save the political capital for tougher fights, such as the one now looming on the New Milford border.
Is it really cold political calculation at work here, or just a sincere desire to find avenues for development that is continually frustrated by underlying opposition from the community? It is hard to tell. No matter what the answer, faith in the development cure for Teaneck's budget ills should be severely dented by now.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 10:18 AM
13 Comments:
Katz & Co. have to learn how to handle these matters with greater senstivity to community concerns.
This proposal may be a great thing for Teaneck or maybe not. The public doesn't know because a minimum effort has been expended to communicate whhy the benefits of this proposal outweigh the costs.
This leads to distrust and makes it more difficult to obtain public support for future projects.
The "public" that is so against development is only the few who make the noise. The many, who are going about their private concerns and merely want the ratables to come from someplace to relieve their horrendous tax burden, do not turn out in any noise-making venue.It is time to wake the silent majority up to the fact that the treehuggers and NIMBYs are making life very difficult for the majority. This council was elected to find ratables. Trees don't pay anybody's taxes.
Since you like to throw around buzz words, YOUR A MORON. You think that your tax burden will be any less if the town council allows a private concern to build in our public parks. Keep dreaming, and if you don't like open space move back to Brooklyn or were ever Idiots like you come from.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
anonymous said:
"The "public" that is so against development is only the few who make the noise. The many, who are going about their private concerns and merely want the ratables to come from someplace to relieve their horrendous tax burden, do not turn out in any noise-making venue."
I challenge the notion that there is a silent majority whose primary concern is constraining the property tax burden and who will welcome any and all development to achieve that goal.
There are many different constituencies in town who are protective of different slices of the status quo. There are the tree huggers, the people who don't like high density development, people defending their "quality of life", the people who are concerned with increased traffic, the folks who agonize over parking issues, the people who advocate for infrastructure capacity and of course those who believe that the DMV will attract child molestors.
And there is a great overlap among the above groups.
Welcome to NIMBYtown!
Snarling Dog-
You don't have a civil tongue or typing finger. Is threat and intimidation your only resource? Of course, bringing new ratables is the only way to contain the tax burden. I'm afraid it is a choice between some of the numerous trees and being destroyed by taxes. If you are so fine a lord of the land, perhaps you ought to go back to Montana. How do you like being told whence you are from and where you ought to return? If you don't, try calmly explaining how there is an alternative to development.
Swurgle-
All the groups you mention could fit into a thimble together. It is the echo chamber effect in that thimble that convinces you the majority is not unhappy with the tax burden and willing to see change, even at some cost to themselves. Put some of the issues before the citizenry in a November election (when people force themselves to vote) and see what the results are.
What is civil about taking public land for private development. This is a park, not a township lot wasting away off the tax roll.
Why don't we ask Wal-Mart to partner with us and have them build on Votee Park. Target can have Phelps Park. Let's look at redeveloping what we have rather than destroying something ment for another purpose. Park land is valuable for other reasons, it improves a quality of life. Once we allow ours parks to be compromised we can kiss them good- bye.
Dog-
Now you are talking. Projects involving park land that are creatively undertaken make sense. In fact some of the parks of Teaneck could be dolled up from their present ratty condition by developers. If ball fields, pool areas etc. remain, sharing these parks makes sense. What is finer in NYC's Central Park than the view from the roof of the Metropolitan Museum (an encroachment on the "sacred" precincts of the park)?
Anonymous - Last week over a 100 Teaneck residents showed up at a meeting to angrily denounce the DMV as haven for child molesters. There's your smallest "thimble".
The other "thimbles" are considerably larger.
How do you think Teaneck voters would respond to the following referendum question: "Should Teaneck permit a New Milford business owner to pave over a portion of Teaneck's Brett Park so that they can better serve their customers? As compensation for loss of public park land, the business owner will throw in a gazebo and some shrubbery."
Last week over a 100 Teaneck residents showed up at a meeting to angrily denounce the DMV as haven for child molesters.
This is not true.
Tom - I was making a lame joke...
Re the Brett Park controversy:
I admit to being one of the Teaneck citizens who made noise about the proposed parking lot. The reason I feel justified is simple: zoning. Isn't the idea of zoning to create some logic about how we use our land? Isn't a park by definition zoned in such a way as to not be used as a facility for a private for profit business? Why can't the business use a business area to accomodate itself? Also, according to the Bergen Record, there is a state review process invoked by trying to develop a park near a river as a business. Isn't that a clue that it is a sensitve area? Furthermore, the business in question is not even in our town, so they are in essence co-opting our very hard to replace public property for their own use. How are we to be compensated for the loss of our parkland. I beleive that in addition to protecting our finances by trying to reduce the tax burden, the town council has a duty to protect non-replaceable resources such as parks.
How can the argument that we are increasing rateables even work in the situation where the business in question operates in another town? Is the business going to pay full taxes to Teaneck and New Milford?
swurgle -
Sorry! It did seem totally out of character.
Post a Comment
<< Home