Teaneck Blog

Casting a wary eye on Teaneck politics and municipal affairs

Thursday, October 26, 2006

An unlikely savior

There is no mistaking that a certain portion of the Teaneck electorate is energized by the new Council's zeal for seeking ways to reduce the homeowner tax burden. A steady stream of letters to the Suburbanite has acclaimed the vision of the Council and its performance over the past few months. A few residents have sought to contrast the outlook of the current leadership with that exhibited during the tenure of former Mayor Kates, claiming that the past few years represented a lost opportunity to tackle long festering problems and expressing relief that things appear to be changing.

While not caught up in the whirlwind of excitement, I can acknowledge that things are looking up in Teaneck. Change is in the air, and the dynamism of the young Council is certainly a welcome change from the plodding ways of its lame duck predecessor. For all the zeal and eager anticipation of great things to come, however, it is worth remembering that the most important deliberations on Teaneck's financial future are taking place not in the Municipal Building, but in Trenton.

To that end, the proposals emerging from the special joint legislative committees on property taxes may mean far more to Teaneck taxpayers in the long run than a mixed use development here or a parking deck there, even if the Council succeeds in moving these ideas from concept to reality. That's not to say that sensible development to boost ratables is a waste of time. It should be pursued aggressively, but with a complete understanding of its limited benefits given the constraints on Teaneck. The real savings can only come from the expenditure side.

That's why I'm saving my excitement (and eventual disappointment, probably) for the potentially transformational proposals under consideration by the Committee on Government Consolidation and Shared Services, as reported on today in the Star-Ledger.

Take, for example, the proposed consolidation of school district bureaucracy and infrastructure. The potential savings for Teaneck are tremendous. As a very rough indication, if Teaneck's per pupil spending on administration were just cut to the current state average, we'd have the equivalent of a ratable worth about $1 million per year. Cut per pupil spending on school maintenance to only 25% above the statewide average (instead of 36% above) and there's another $600k ratable right there. Let's see the development planner come up with equivalents of those in short order.

These goals would be quite attainable if they were mandated by Trenton. They are nearly impossible if left to an enthusiastic but largely powerless Council and an unmotivated Board of Education. It's strange to say it, but the best hope for Teaneck is our less than distinguished state government.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Is there a spin doctor in the house?

What else will it take to prod the Teaneck's Board of Education into displaying a commitment to curb spending? With confidence in the BoE's fiscal responsibility already dented by a slew of comparative measures that show Teaneck to be among the freest-spending of school districts in the region, the Record reports on a study released by New Jersey's Department of Education suggesting that Teaneck's school expenditures are far in excess of what would be required in order to provide students with a "thorough and efficient education." The time for taking measures to demonstrate to the public that the BOE is looking for ways to curb costs is now.

While the general conclusion of the report was that schools statewide are underfunded by at least $190 million, Teaneck's schools were adjudged to be overfunded by a staggering $9.4 million, or 17.6%. While these numbers may not shock many of those who have looked at Teaneck's elevated per pupil spending figures, they do provide more evidence for the view that the BOE could be running a tighter ship. Up to now, some defenders of the status quo have contended that Teaneck is somehow different, rendering straightforward statistical comparisons invalid. While the results of this report are preliminary and the methodology that produced them is opaque, the presence of an additional datapoint makes it harder to insist that the numbers are irrelevant.

Reaction from the BOE is not yet forthcoming. The Record was only able to elicit this comment from BOE President Judith McKay:
"The state has never clearly defined what they mean by a 'thorough and efficient' education," said Judith McKay, Teaneck Board of Education president. "So it's very difficult to comment on are we going above and beyond."
In any case, it is not elaborate explanations but deeds that are needed here. Having resisted the Council's invitation to subject its spending to the review of the Financial Advisory Board, the BOE passed up an opportunity to portray itself as a body that embraces additional oversight and welcomes new ideas on how to save taxpayers money. While it was well within its rights to do that, it may have been a short-sighted step.

The reasons why Teaneck residents are increasingly focused on the bottom line, especially when it comes to school spending, have been well documented. With the fiscal situation unlikely to improve on its own and a district that is shrinking in size, now seems like the perfect time to begin the process of making moderate cuts in expenditures to avoid an unwelcome shock to the system in the future. Hopefully that will be enough to stem the risk of the most unwelcome shock of all- the kind that may be delivered at the ballot box by an electorate that is fed up and mobilized to make a point without regard to the long-term damage it might cause. The BOE owes itself, and all of us who care about public education, protection from that fate.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

The depressing truth about taxes & Teaneck

What is the ultimate source of frustration when it comes to taxes and spending in Teaneck politics? Yes, local taxes are almost exclusively the responsibility of residents, whether they are shouldering 85%, 86%, or 88% of the municipal burden. Taken alone, however, the proportion of revenues collected from a particular group says little about the sustainability of the current situation. To take an extreme example, if the municipal and school budgets were 50% smaller than they are today, the fact that almost all of the funding for those budgets comes from residential property taxes would hardly be troubling.

Clearly it is the combination of the size of the budgets and the source of the funds that causes the difficulties. This self-evident fact provides little help in finding a solution. Some residents cringe at the prospect of reducing the size of municipal and school budgets, fearing the loss of programs they hold hold dear or the abandonment of policies they ardently support. Others are more than willing to see expenditures cut, whether due to their belief in the inherent inefficiency and wastefulness of government, their perception that they do not personally benefit from much public spending, or their preference to hold onto the money demanded of them. Still others observe the situation and ask: why is a nice suburban town with many relatively well-off residents like Teaneck forced to take such tough decisions? Why isn't there more than enough money to go around without the residents feeling put upon? Why does Teaneck, with so much going for it, appear to be struggling just as much, if not more, than other municipalities with less to recommend them?

It might be objected that Teaneck is not really struggling any more than any other heavily taxed, resource constrained community. For every Secaucus, expanding already generous services without asking for greater tax contributions in return, there are dozens of New Jersey towns forced to choose between offering less or asking taxpayers for more, when neither option is at all attractive. A recent forum hosted by State Senator Loretta Weinberg, Assemblyman Gordon Johnson, and Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (covered in this week's Suburbanite) bears this out. Teaneck just has more than its share of vocal complainers, for whatever reason.

While there may be a grain of truth to this, a set of figures often cited by challengers for Congressional seats in New Jersey argues that Teaneck is particularly poorly positioned when it comes to taxes.

As Republican Senate hopeful Tom Kean Jr.'s campaign website says, "New Jersey gets the worst return on its federal taxes of any state in the country." The site claims that only 57 cents of every dollar New Jerseyans send to Washington comes back to the state in federal spending, the lowest figure in the country. The Tax Foundation, a "nonpartisan educational organization," recently put the figure at 55 cents of every dollar. Whatever the precise percentage, it seems that New Jerseyans, with their relatively high incomes, pay a lot in federal taxes and do not see as many direct benefits from those taxes as others do. And even as New Jerseyans may earn more than others in nominal terms, they do not have proportionately more disposable income than others due to progressive taxation and the elevated cost of living in this region (which includes the higher state and local tax burdens that are part a consequence of less money coming back from Washington). Congressional candidates would like you to believe that this depressing situation could be remedied through more effective representation at the federal level, though it seems to be a feature of the system rather than a reflection on New Jersey's current Congressional delegation.

Extending this type of analysis to the state level, it is worth noting that Bergen County boasts some of the highest incomes in New Jersey, meaning the same situation may be playing out for Teaneck and neighboring towns on the state level. Within Bergen County, the most recent figures widely available show that Teaneck's median household income lies above the median for the county as a whole, potentially exacerbating the problem. Like a denuded forest, Teaneck's considerable stock of earnings is being aggressively exploited by federal and state governments that do not replenish the resources in the form of subsidies and spending. This considerable wealth transfer from Teaneck to elsewhere leaves little for Teaneck's local needs. This is how Teaneck and its public institutions can seem both asset rich and cash poor simultaneously.

Teaneck's main asset, in a strictly financial sense, is a well-educated populace with significant earning power living on valuable real estate. Still, on account of the system we live in, this asset is not convertible into the premium amenities and services we may think we deserve. We cannot have it all. We have to choose between abundant open spaces, well compensated union employees, first rate services sans significant user fees, state of the art facilities, and special protections to preserve the status quo of economic diversity. Some of the items on the wish list are going to have to fall by the wayside, if they have not already. It may be hard to stomach, but the money is not ours to spend.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Optical illusions distract from real issue

Gov. Corzine's cagey comments to a local radio station on property taxes hold out little promise of meaningful systemic changes that might help the taxpayers of Teaneck. "Hopefully we'll get it down to 3 percent or less," Corzine told New Jersey 101.5 FM, according to yesterday's Record. Why the very cautious optimism that future increases in property taxes statewide can be limited to 3 percent per year when they have been rising at 7 percent annually over the recent past? Corzine is hopeful that property tax increases will slow because, if he gets his way, local sales taxes would partially replace them as sources of municipal revenue. No, this is not a joke.

Not only is this accounting trick silly, it is actually inf
easible for many towns, Teaneck included. As discussed here previously, Teaneck could never make effective use of the power to levy a sales tax even if it were permitted to.

But Corzine, and anyone else who thinks that the problems facing New Jersey's municipalities can be solved by authorizing more varieties of taxation, is missing the point. Shifting the tax burden around can only go so far if the overall tax burden keeps rising at a rapid rate.

Teaneck is finding this out even as it tries desperately t
o attract new development and increase ratables. Where is the desperation in seeking cost savings? The fact that we leave the cost-cutting to a group of amateurs on a newly constituted Financial Advisory Board while awarding large contracts to professional corporations to promote development says a lot about Teaneck's priorities. One wonders if those priorities are misplaced.

Behold, lower property taxes!
Er, just ignore those new sales taxes...

Friday, October 13, 2006

Red hot

In a column in today's Record, Lawrence Aaron considers the dismay many feel at the fact that many well-funded area schools with large minority enrollments fail to meet performance standards, including Teaneck's own Benjamin Franklin Middle School. Aaron proposes a number of measures that might be taken to alleviate the problems that plague such schools, but the most notable item in his piece is the revelation that Teaneck's own Dr. Ardie Walser, a trustee of the Teaneck Board of Education, may be double-dipping! Yes, Aaron casually drops this bombshell near the end of the column:
Ardie Walser, a CUNY engineering dean elected to the Englewood School Board in 2005, took his own parental involvement to new heights. For a few hours every Saturday, the tutoring program in math and English he created with like-minded parents is like a beehive. More registrations are expected tomorrow.
Is this the Teaneck Board of Ed's idea of shared services?

The good Doctor
Record correction to follow

Thursday, October 12, 2006

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
Had they been able to review this list back in June, observers of the Teaneck political scene would not have been at all surprised by any of its contents. In fact, postings here and elsewhere managed to anticipate all of these developments. This Council has performed entirely in-line with expectations.

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
Are we better off with the Council we've got or the Council we could have had? Only time will tell. For now, it looks like the Teaneck voters chose wisely.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

KEEP OUT

Why don't people get the message? The people of Teaneck do not desire change. We fear change. We adore the status quo. Now leave us alone!

The Motor Vehicle Commission folks from Trenton are the latest to attempt to invade our Township. Brian Aberback reports on the negative response in today's Record.

Thankfully, Deputy Mayor Parker is under no illusions about this latest unwelcome land grab by outsiders.
"I don't think it does anything for Teaneck Road," Parker said, according to the Record.

Perhaps she is right. It is hard to imagine how a stable anchor tenant that brings a massive influx of customers from outside the area and imposes long waits upon them could possibly help surrounding businesses. Keep that space vacant!

Friday, October 06, 2006

Friends of the DPW, anyone?

Something is rotten in Teaneck. No, really. This has nothing to do with the May Council elections.

This week's Suburbanite reports on the results of an environmental study conducted at the Teaneck Public Library. As a result of moisture problems stemming from a leaky roof, various areas in the library are contaminated with mold. Remediation is planned for after the replacement of the roof, a project the Council has already approved but has not yet hired a contractor to complete. Unremarkable, except for the fact that library staff have taken their concerns that the ongoing mold problem may pose health risks to the press. Teaneck residents know all too well what comes next.

Given the popularity of the Teaneck library, often said to be the busiest in Bergen County, it is surprising that the Friends of the Teaneck Library has not been as aggressive in fundraising as, say, the TVAC. One would imagine that significant financial support would be forthcoming. It would certainly seem worthwhile to increase reliance on private donors. This would serve not only to increase the Library's flexibility in solving problems such as those that may threaten the physical health of library staff and the financial health of the Township, but also to invest those who treasure the library with more personal responsibility for supporting it while preserving it as a free service open to all. Subsequently, this model for bolstering public institutions with supplemental funding from altruistic residents might be well applied to education and other areas as well.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

For the Birdsall

Today's Record reports on the spat between Council members Kates and Rudolph over the appointment of Birdsall Engineering as planning and development consultants to Teaneck. The major disagreement is not about whether the firm is capable of doing the job correctly or whether the price is right, but rather over appearances of impropriety and favoritism in the process. Apparently, Rudolph personally accompanied representatives of Birdsall on a trip around Teaneck before the bidding process began, which might have given the company an unfair edge in formulating its proposal, according to Kates and the other two Council members who declined to vote in favor of awarding the contract to Birdsall.

It is easy to minimize these concerns. After all, the Council and many residents seem convinced that seeking professional assistance in formulating a strategy to boost ratables in town is a worthwhile step, and by all accounts, Birdsall is well-qualified to provide that help. Furthermore, at $87,400 per annum, outsourcing the work seems to be a far more economical solution than adding an individual to the Township staff. Given the fact that the preliminary tour was conducted before the bidding process began and that Rudolph's intentions were probably not to assist any individual bidder, it is not surprising that Rudolph would reject Kates' objections out of hand.

However, Kates' reservations are legitimate and Rudolph's indignant reaction (including his harsh attack on Kates' record) is unjustified in this instance. Yes, this is Northern New Jersey and far greater offenses against the principles of good government are routinely pardoned. But that does not mean we do not have to hold ourselves to the highest standards. A savvy public official knows that any and all appearances of impropriety must be avoided at all costs. Rudolph's defensiveness may be chalked up this time to inexperience and a sincere desire to avoid further delays in implementing plans for increased development in Teaneck, as the urgency mounts. That is somewhat understandable, but it is not 100% excusable. Teaneck officials must take extreme precautions to avoid even the appearance of ethical lapses that could undermine trust in our municipal government.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Disservice

The 2006 New Jersey Senatorial campaign has been disappointing, to say the least. Start with an undistinguished incumbent with a questionable past, throw in an inexperienced challenger, and have them compete for the attentions of a very distracted electorate in a race that could decide which party will control the U.S. Senate and you have a recipe for a low down dirty campaign. Unfortunately, with the mud already flying, a publicity stunt from a group one would hope to see taking the high road has helped to turn the campaign into even more of a circus and to divert the candidates even further from the serious issues that ought to be addressed throughout campaign season.

Teaneck resident Paula Rogovin and the New Jersey branch of Military Families Speak Out, a group strongly opposed to the campaign in Iraq, have called for Republican challenger Tom Kean Jr.'s withdrawal from the race on account of his alleged unwillingness to answer all of the questions posed to him at a candidates' forum. The group has made the determination that Kean's behavior renders him so unfit to serve that he ought not even remain a candidate. This group is suggesting that, on account of its dissatisfaction with Kean, the voters must not even be allowed to choose whether such a man ought to represent them.

This is a far cry from simply endorsing Sen. Menendez, who everybody already knows is the anti-war, anti-administration candidate in this race. That would have been the honorable (and completely predictable) thing for this, and any other like-minded group, to do. Making waves by issuing brazen demands that insult the intelligence of the voters is not. This group, and New Jersey as a whole, would be better off without the petulance and histrionics. There are too many important issues to be discussed to crowd the airwaves and newspapers with spectacles such as these.


Tuesday, October 03, 2006

No thanks, Assemblyman

Could there be a worse time for Assemblyman John Burzichelli's recent legislative push? With school districts across the state and the taxpayers who support them tapped out amid declining aid from Trenton, Burzichelli seeks to compel districts to absorb even more of the costs of extracurricular activities by outlawing activity fees.

Not only is this legislation poorly timed, but it is also unjustified. Burzichelli's rationale for further limiting schools' flexibility in managing their finances is presented in today's Record:

"In my mind, public education is not a thing that should have user fees attached to it," Burzichelli said. "Any time you create a law where someone may not be able to afford to participate, a child may have less of an education than the person next to them, based on ability to pay."

We're not talking about supplemental fees for English class here. One can get a solid high school education even without playing junior varsity field hockey. However, by denying schools the right to charge parents and students for extracurricular activities, Burzichelli is not leveling the playing field so much as he is closing it entirely. Activity fees are charged in order to expand schools' ability to offer certain peripheral activities for interested students. If Burzichelli is upset by the fact that certain individuals find these fees onerous, he might direct his energies toward finding private sponsors for these supplementary programs instead of telling schools and taxpayers that they must either eat all of the costs or lose the programs entirely.

No need for bake sales or carwashes, it has to be free or it has got to go