Casting a wary eye on Teaneck politics and municipal affairs
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Reach across that aisle
It seems to be an article of faith among Board of Education watchers, and even among the elected members themselves, that Teaneck is poised to benefit greatly from changes to New Jersey's school funding formula which are expected to be introduced sometime in 2007. As a district that appears to be relatively well-off based on local demographics but actually serves many students who require special services, dispensation of state aid on the basis of student need and not community profile should alleviate some of the budget pressures facing Teaneck.
One might then expect State Sen. Weinberg and our State Assembly representatives to enthusiastically vote cast their votes for the long-awaited Democrat-led initiative to shake up the system. Doing this, however, might not be the best thing for Teaneck, for residents would probably fare significantly better under an alternative Republican proposal. According to the Star Ledger, Republican Assemblyman David Wolfe and Sen. Gerald Cardinale "submitted a minority report calling for the state to pay at least 35 percent of school costs in every community, while requiring local residents to pay at least 35 percent of costs."
Currently, more than 90% of the Teaneck Public Schools' FY 2007 budget comes from the local tax levy. A 65% cap on local contributions would allow taxpayers to realize over $20 million in tax savings during this year alone! This is staggering. It would completely change the taxation landscape in Teaneck; property values would rise, attitudes towards the schools would change for the better, and the most aggressive of the development plans being bandied about could die the quick death many think they deserve. Oh happy day!
Is it realistic to expect such a plan to pass? Is it ultimately the most just arrangement? I don't really know, although I suspect the answer is no, at least to the first question. Should we be urging our elected officials to cross party lines to at least examine the feasibility of the plan being put forth by these two Republican legislators? Absolutely. There is a lot on the line.
Among the criteria used to select a facilitator for the creation of the Teaneck Community Project's Visioning Plan was whether the prospective facilitator's proposal would "overcome expected skepticism of the process and project." As residents comb through the long awaited final report, entitled "Pathway to the Future," it remains doubtful that said skepticism will have been conquered.
It is not really a question of whether the $71,080 budget for the project was well-spent, though it is easy for malcontents to harp on the costs associated with its production. They can point out nonsensical proposals like "request proclamations from Township and Board of schools in town to promote support for excellence in education" and dismiss the entire project as a waste of taxpayer funds. However, the more fundamental barrier to acceptance of this report as anything other than an exercise in self-validation is the questionable legitimacy of any "vision" for the Township. No matter how carefully balanced or impartially written, whatever consensus is represented by the producers of this report has no leg to stand on against the will of Teaneck's voters. Ultimately, of course, it is the outcome of elections and the free exercise of property owner rights that will shape the future of Teaneck, not the collected wisdom of the participants in the Visioning process. So the report resides in the realm of theory, and not practice.
That said, even the skeptics must recognize that there is some value in the process itself. For the individuals who forged connections in the community and gained new perspectives on local issues, the benefits are obvious. For those who did not take part in the project, the fact that the contents of the end product will spill over into actual debate on numerous issues that have long been neglected should at least indirectly benefit them as residents of Teaneck. So how will these ideas fare in the real world? Unfortunately, with some exceptions, it seems that the answer will be 'not too well.' This extensive wish list is long on proposed organizations, committees, and staff hires and short on practical details as to why they are needed or how such additional infrastructure will actually make life in Teaneck substantially better. I'll defer closer examination of individual proposals to future posts, but invite anyone else with a different take on the general worth of the report to help change my mind.
After taking his lumps last week for a bizarre-sounding scheme to allow a New Milford restaurant owned by members of a politically well-connected family to pave over Teaneck parkland, Mayor Eli Katz launched an information campaign of his own in an attempt to better explain the rationale between this politically risky undertaking. Describing the potential deal with Sanzari's New Bridge Inn as a "win-win," Katz went on to outline certain terms of the deal that could substantially upgrade Brett Park and make the New Bridge Landing area more visitor friendly.
Version B certainly sounded a lot better than Version A. Despite the absence of many key details, when laid out more clearly, the plan is not a non-starter. Beneath the layers of spin, there may be a well-conceived model for how Teaneck can turn a collection of largely empty slogans about finding new sources of tax revenue into a workable plan. Reasonable people may quarrel about the details of this particular plan, but the principles behind the idea are worth considering, even if they are not necessarily suitable for Brett Park.
The question is: could the initial backlash have been avoided, or better yet, are there lessons here to be learned when it comes time to introduce future initiatives? To some extent, all negotiations are sensitive and someone will always have to be kept out of the loop before things come to fruition. And nobody wants to repeat the mistake of the premature announcement (cf. Cedar Lane Starbucks).
However, there is a difference between maneuvering quietly behind the scenes in a way that discreetly involves key opinion makers and blatantly keeping the public in the dark before quickly springing a fully formed plan upon them right before it is up for vote. The former is almost always preferable to the latter.
Can we get there? I believe the citizens of Teaneck have a role to play in prodding officials to operate more openly. Next time around, residents ought to press candidates for public office more aggressively for detailed plans instead of allowing them to run successful campaigns based on nothing more than vague promises to boost ratables or broaden the tax base.
Some of the onus, of course, falls on the politicians. Had Katz presented a plan last spring to forge public-private partnerships to upgrade Teaneck's parks and raise revenue as a part of his pro-development agenda, he might have lost a few votes here and there, but he might also have won a clearer mandate to cut deals that might rearrange some parkland in exchange for other benefits to the taxpayers. By simply saying what the largest number of people wanted to hear, the Mayor maximized his vote count at the expense of weakening his hand. As a consequence of the fact that the public never had a chance to vote on his real platform, Katz and his Council allies are forced to operate in the shadows and use the brute force method to accomplish their policy goals. They may end up achieving the outcomes they seek, which may in turn end up doing good for Teaneck, but they're not building a long-term foundation of trust that will bring the institutional change necessary to have their vision for Teaneck's future implemented over the long term. The good news is that I think they are beginning to recognize that.
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.
Monday night's emotional meeting between the Township Council, Motor Vehicle Commission officials, other area politicians, and local residents may have marked a significant turning point in the current Council term. While resident anger about the DMV's relocation to Teaneck Rd. and Tryon Ave. will abate with time once it becomes clear that local businesses have benefited from the increased traffic and that the area has not become a magnet for pedophiles, the reactions of local and state representatives to the citizen dissatisfaction could go down as the beginning of the end of the Township's recent (and perhaps short-lived) development push.
If action speaks louder than words, then the recent behavior of the Mayor and other elected officials demonstrates that the current administration is scarcely more committed to development than were previous administrations. While the Council had never publicly expressed support for the DMV coming to Teaneck, the apparent willingness of elected officials to ride the bandwagon of public opposition to the move and the sudden interest in exploring legal remedies reflect a commitment to political expediency above all else.
This has little to do with whether the DMV is a good or a bad addition to the neighborhood in question and a lot to do with the message Teaneck is sending to all businesses and other non-residential tenants about their place in the Township pecking order. While we are really looking forward to taxing you, we do not really want you here, they seem to be saying. Upon such a foundation, a strong diversified tax base will never be built.
Were local officials to stand up and say that development is not actually priority number one because it is too contentious and that the Township's fiscal challenges would be addressed in other ways, they would gain a lot more credibility. This might require them to backtrack from their optimistic campaign slogans, but it would be a refreshing dose of honesty that might clear the way for real progress on other fronts, such as spending cuts. As long as they talk out of both sides of their mouth, touting development as a panacea without having the stomach to take on neighborhood groups with other priorities, all of Teaneck will remain stuck high property taxes and no viable plans to lower them.
An article in today's New York Times suggests that declining rates of public school enrollment among upper middle class families could be a regional trend. The Times tells the stories of a number of upwardly mobile parents who moved to communities reputed to have the best public school districts around, only to wind up enrolling their children in private schools after becoming disenchanted with the public schools.
Though the Times does not present much hard data, the anecdotal evidence cited suggests that more are opting for private schools, even in towns where school taxes are extremely high and the public schools are considered a major draw on account of their elevated rankings and high test scores.
What does this mean for Teaneck, which, to put it charitably, seems to be a little bit ahead of this trend? To my mind, nothing more than that the schools should stick to their knitting. If the future brings even lower public school enrollments, especially among those who pay the steepest property taxes, all we can really do is play the hand we have been dealt. The Board of Ed should actively promote transparency and efficiency to make sure the schools are being run with the best interests of all of the town's residents in mind. Then, instead of agonizing about becoming the next Lawrence, we can look forward to becoming the next Yorktown.
Today's Record reports on the fallout from a recent tax revaluation in Rutherford. As you might imagine, many residents, especially retirees, are reeling from significant increases in their property taxes on account of the new assessments they received recently. Protests and a petition drive are planned as residents believe the revaluation was "conducted arbitrarily" and helped cause a 13% jump in the municipal tax burden. While some homeowners, both in Rutherford and Teaneck, are sanguine about the process, those in Teaneck dreading the results will draw no comfort from the fact that the firm that Rutherford employed was none other than Appraisal Systems, Inc., the company that is currently completing Teaneck's revaluation.
As Rutherford residents belatedly organize to express their displeasure, a group of Teaneck residents has taken a lesson from recent experiences in Rutherford, Bergenfield, and elsewhere and begun a proactive effort to make sure that taxpayer interests are protected during this period. A gentleman named Harry Reiser has been recruiting members through Internet postings to a new Yahoo! group dedicated to informing citizens about Teaneck property taxes and serving as a watchdog over the process. Not a bad idea at all.
The letter, but not the spirit, of nonpartisanship
On the eve of Election Day, there is word that three Teaneck Council members are actively campaigning for a particular party, having written letters to many Teaneck households endorsing the Democratic slate for County Executive, Surrogate, and Board of Freeholders. I have obtained a letter mailed out to an unknown number of Teaneck households by Mayor Elie Katz and Council members Gussen and Rudolph urging their constituents to cast votes for Dennis McNerney and his fellow Democratic candidates. The letter refers to McNerney as one of the "great people" the three have met in the course of public life and lauds McNerney as a "friend of all the communities of Teaneck" who has offered "continuous support for our town."
Whatever the background to this letter, it seems to represent an extraordinary lapse in judgment on the part of the three Council members. They have foolishly politicized their offices and undermined the spirit of nonpartisan trust that has always set Teaneck apart form neighboring communities whose local affairs are permeated by the stench of Bergen County partisan politics. Katz, beloved in so many quarters of the community, has chosen to spend his considerable political capital for the benefit of outsiders. And Gussen and Rudolph, already under suspicion of being involved with the much reviled Democratic Party machine for the benefits they allegedly received from what was presumed to be Ferriero-sponsored campaign literature late in the Council campaign, have now left little doubt as to where their allegiance lies. Sure they refrained from making any mention of the Democratic Party in the letter, but they endorsed every single member of the ticket, including the Freeholder candidates that are widely viewed as tools of the party machine. What were they thinking?
Recently, around 20,000 area addresses received the inaugural issue of a new monthly publication called The Bergen Insider. Identifying itself as "a new voice in our communities," the Teaneck-based Insider claims to have been "created by a group of leading business and community leaders interested in a publication that is knowledgeable and supportive of the towns it serves." The unmistakeable suggestion is, of course, that current media offerings are neither knowledgeable nor supportive enough for the founders. It is unlikely that the Insider seeks to differentiate itself from the little read Bergen Press-Journal. Rather, it appears that the opening salvo has been fired in a new tabloid war between this young upstart and the old Teaneck Suburbanite.
Though the Insider is circulated to Englewood, Bergenfield, and New Milford in addition to Teaneck, the first issue's focuses squarely on Teaneck news and issues. Most of the column inches are dedicated to articles about the DMV move to Teaneck Rd., the potential multi-use development on American Legion Drive, former Councilman Yitz Stern's thoughts on current affairs, and recent consultations between Teaneck municipal officials and state legislators. Additionally, five out of six news briefs are about Teaneck. When one also considers the fact that the editor of the Insider is none other than former Suburbanite editor Beverly O'Shea, it becomes even clearer that the Insider is out to eat the Teaneck Suburbanite's lunch.
While I am no fan of the Suburbanite, I am skeptical of the Insider if it aims to set itself apart from the Suburbanite by being "supportive." Though Suburbanite articles are often sloppily edited or unbalanced, and the publication certainly deserved the sharp criticism it received for inappropriate use of religious labels to group Council members, the problem with the Suburbanite is not that it is not supportive enough of Teaneck. The problem is that it is only one voice, and the interests and agendas of its writers and editors as reflected in its articles shape the views held by many Teaneck residents who are never exposed to any other perspectives on local affairs. Bravo to the Insider for seeking to change that with an attractive, professional looking first issue. Let's hope the Insider will contribute to Teaneck not by shying away from controversy but by courting it when necessary to advance the public debate.
With no municipal elections in Teaneck next week, most Teaneck residents will be heading to polling stations to choose between Menendez and Kean (or as the Menendez campaign would have it, Menendez and Bush). While there, however, they will also be asked to cast a vote for Bergen County Executive. The incumbent, Dennis McNerney, the only Democrat ever elected to the post, points to a number of modest achievements in the area of cost control through shared services, open space preservation, and programs for seniors as the reasons he should be re-elected. The challenger, Todd Caliguire, promises major ethics reforms at the county level and significant cuts in spending by compelling the state to pay for services it mandates the county to provide.
Stop a dozen Teaneck voters on the street and I would bet at least nine wouldn't be able to furnish even the basic information contained in the brief and incomplete summaries of the candidates' platforms above. Despite the fact that Bergen County spends several hundred million dollars of taxpayer funds every year, its position in the forgotten middle renders it transparent to most citizens. Too far from home to garner the attention that municipal government receives and too small and insignificant to command the media attention that state government gets, county government is largely ignored.
According to McNerney, Bergen County is using its budget and influence responsibly to dispense necessary services in the community. According to Caliguire, county government has become the piggy bank and plaything of a small number of insiders who use personal contacts and campaign contributions to win no-bid contracts and enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers.
Few of us in Teaneck have the perspective to opine on the candidates' very different perspectives on the management of county government. The brief glimpses we have gotten of McNerney on our own local scene suggest that perhaps he is steeped in the culture of political machinations, as his opponents allege. His attempted intervention in a local zoning matter last spring raised the hackles of many who want to keep Teaneck free of the sickness that afflicts much of the New Jersey political scene. But is suspicion of McNerney enough to support the opposition?
Caliguire's claims that he will push a large number of county expenditures back onto state government may strike many as far-fetched, if not altogether ridiculous, given the state's fiscal position. However, his promises to reduce conflicts of interest by focusing on government controls seem to be not only practicable, but rather desirable, precisely because of the nature of county government.
While Caliguire may think county government can be largely eliminated, it is, for now at least, a necessary evil. That is all the more reason a substantial investment ought to be made in cleaning it up. McNerney's progress on shared services, while certainly welcome, seems to be doing little to check spending and appears to be accompanied by significant perks for contributors, an unacceptable outcome even if only for the appearance of impropriety it creates. County government, already hidden from view, should do all it can to operate honestly and efficiently. It does not appear to be doing so just yet. It may be worth casting a vote for change.
