Another rationale for development?
Politicians and residents alike have always discussed increased development for Teaneck in the context of boosting ratables and broadening the tax base. For a variety of reasons, many of which have been enumerated on this blog, there is good reason to question both the wisdom and practicality of large scale development plans. Moderate development and improvement in and around existing business districts alongside the odd new project, perhaps with an eye toward upgrading mass transit infrastructure, appear to hold out more promise, but can only form part of any eventual solution to Teaneck's long term fiscal problems. Cost-cutting must be the major component of any serious effort to reduce the homeowner tax burden.
That said, might there be other compelling reasons to make a development push now? Leafing through the pages of this week's Suburbanite, one gets the sense there might be other changes afoot that argue for taking a good hard look at ways to upgrade Teaneck's neighborhoods and business districts. One article reports the increased incidence of gang-related graffiti in and around Teaneck. Another covers the recent armed robbery at the Dunkin' Donuts at 1406 Teaneck Road. Suddenly, as contentious as it may be, "gentrification" does not seem like such a dirty word after all. What's scarier, a slightly taller building in your sight line or being held up at gunpoint?
To be sure, this is not exactly the debate going on right now. The question is not so much whether existing commercial areas ought to be improved so much as it is whether new types of development ought to be allowed within those and other areas. However, it is clear that as things stand now, Teaneck is not fostering a climate of economic vitality and renewal, probably in part because the kind of transformative development necessary to do so is simply not within the scope of current plans and regulations. Perhaps it should be.
Some will bristle at the suggestion that Teaneck ought to push upmarket. In a sense, this is the battle that is fought every time the rent control ordinance comes up for renewal. Opponents of deregulating the housing market claim we would be betraying Teaneck's history of inclusiveness and accessibility by allowing landlords to charge market rates for their properties, forcing out a socioeconomic class that contributes to the town's rich diversity. The same claim would be made here. If we allow developers and business owners the latitude to remake various parts of Teaneck into newer, brighter, more valuable areas, the Township will no longer be within the reach of less wealthy families who have called it home for generations. I can understand where the concern comes from, but the more that police blotter fills up, and the more defaced traffic signs I pass, the less sympathetic I and many others will be to that argument.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 12:07 PM
21 Comments:
AIM HIGH, LET THE MARKET SET THE LEVEL. OUT THE WINDOW WITH THIS PHONEY INCLUESIVENESS HISTORY.SHOW ME WHERE IT WORKED IN THE PAST.
As far as cutting expenditure goes, the second budget meeting Thursday night finally led to a frank demand from the council to the manager that she provide a number of alternatives to the 8.5% increase in her proposed budget. With the Mayor leading the way by pointing out that many families would find themselves going up in taxes because their properties are being reassessed at higher than the average, it was not acceptable this year, of all years, to raise expenditure another 8.5%. He called this "the year without choice" since tax rate is one of the two cost factors families deal with in choosing homes.It was clear to everyone that services will need to be cut with a budget that does not rise 8.5%.An immediate freeze for now on promotions was agreed to. Also hanging over this and every municipal government in the state is the strong probability of a 4% cap being mandated by the legislature and governor.Honorable mention must be offered to Adam Gussen for an aggressive approach to the budget specifics in the budget as so far presented. He and Councilman Feit had done their homework in examining the budget details.
So let me be clear about this - allowing Holuba to build 60' buildings along Herrick Park with a density of 28 units to the acre will gentrify my single family middle/upper-middle class neighborhood and prevent further hold-ups at the Dunkin' Donuts. I don't think that my neighbors and I realized that our beautiful neighborhood of well-kept homes on tree-lined streets needed to pushed upmarket. Thanks for letting us know.
That's a bit of a leap from the content of the post, don't you think?
It's this kind of irrational response to any suggestion that some change might be warranted that has helped poison the atmosphere in which an important issue is being debated.
The anonymous poster's response was neither irrational or poisonous
Both guns and too-tall buildings in Teaneck are scary, but for different reasons. To suggest that big development will help us cure our ills and solve Teaneck's problems seems far too simplistic.
Gentrification is a loaded word. Use it with caution.
Is this blog for real, density as a cure all for crime! You should have said that that density is a crime.
Gentrification is where you take a neighborhood which was downtrodden, low value and poverty-stricken, then have people with more money buy up the property. These richer individuals, members of the "gentry" spruce up the buildings, drive out the rest of the poor and raised the propery values. The neighborhood is then upscale and "gentrified".
Most people would not associate this process with the addition of high density buildings in an already suburban area. It's mostly like what you had in the Upper West Side of Manhattan in the 1980's. Who now thinks or Verdi Square at 72 and B'way as "Needle Park"?
Rather than development which may or may not drive out the "less wealthy families who have called it home for generations," couldn't we just sky rocket taxes to drive them out?
TomAbbott said...
Rather than development which may or may not drive out the "less wealthy families who have called it home for generations," couldn't we just sky rocket taxes to drive them out?
The Board of Ed is already doing a good job at that. Let's not give Council any ideas.
I read and re-read the post several times, waiting to see if this was just a cleverly worded parody on Teaneck's ills, suggesting a means of solving both our tax and crime problems with one stone. Surely this was but an updated version of Jonathan Swift's 1729 work "A Modest Proposal", which suggested that the then-prevalent problems of extreme hunger and poverty in Ireland could be solved by having them eat their young, noting that "a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled." The disappointment that this was not witty satire finally became readily apparent.
The traditional economic dilemma is worded as "guns vs. butter". not "guns vs. high-rises". It may be true that gentrification might reduce crime. At a minimum, it might help shift our crime from gang-related violence and holdups to the type of white collar crime that occurs in some of the more well-to-do parts of town, and may better contribute to our economic base.
There are many suggestions in Birdsall's proposal, but almost all revolve around bringing in commercial development and leaving our residential neighborhoods alone. I can't imagine what the uproar would have been if the document had shifted its focus from civil engineering to social engineering.
Please tell me that I missed the joke. Or at least tell us the income threshold that will determine which residents will be shown the door.
Alan Sohn
Considering the Board's tax rate was 4.9% last year and the Council's was 7.7%, I believe the previous comment deserves some reconsideration.
Howzabout waiting for something that has to do with budgets before butting in everywhere else with this budget stuff. Its important but try to stay to the topic!!!
How about if whoever controls this blog focused on budgets?
Thank you to all the various anonymous and not so anonymous posters for proving my point. I said nothing about plunking down high rises in residential neighborhoods or large scale deportation of civilian populations and yet the alarm bells are ringing in anti-development land.
After a tepid endorsement of limited loosening of the restrictive regulations that have help to keep Teaneck's local economy stagnant and appear to be contributing to some frightening fraying of the social fabric, it is more than reasonable to ask whether our sensitivities and biases are causing us to look the other way while our town deteriorates.
But no, the fanciful imaginations of too many neurotic residents that see every issue in black and white will not allow that...
Anonymous said...
Considering the Board's tax rate was 4.9% last year and the Council's was 7.7%, I believe the previous comment deserves some reconsideration.
You're right. The Board of Ed is already doing a good job at that. Let's not give Council any MORE ideas.
"I said nothing about plunking down high rises in residential neighborhoods or large scale deportation of civilian populations and yet the alarm bells are ringing in anti-development land."
It's so easy to call people "anti", especially when a master plan document is being drafted that is being influenced by outside developers. There is need for concern and those concerns by in large result in what could be a significant change in the social well being of this town, therefore there is need for questioning and public input. Two meetings in February where the public can speak is hardly democratic.
... proving my point.
What was your point?
After a tepid endorsement of limited loosening of the restrictive regulations that have help to keep Teaneck's local economy stagnant and appear to be contributing to some frightening fraying of the social fabric, it is more than reasonable to ask whether our sensitivities and biases are causing us to look the other way while our town deteriorates.
Rather than loosening regulation, why not enforce the ordinances that exist on the books? Currently ordinances restrict grafitti, dumping on private property and other things that make neighboorhoods appear rundown. The fact is that many commercial property owners, and that includes landlords, purposefully run down their property in order to have a "loosening of regulations". You don't have to drive far from the business districts to see what I'm talking about. So, when this blogger accuses posters as being "anti development" maybe the blogger should consider all the existing options currently available as a rationale for development.
The fact is that many commercial property owners, and that includes landlords, purposefully run down their property in order to have a "loosening of regulations".
I was not in possession of this fact, which you can surely document, at the time I wrote what I did. Looking forward to your presentation of the evidence...
Excellent meeting at the Puffin Sunday. Audio tracks are available at:http://www.teaneckccp.org
I can understand where the concern comes from, but the more that police blotter fills up, and the more defaced traffic signs I pass, the less sympathetic I and many others will be to that argument.
It's my understanding that the police department has established an anti gang task force as well defaced signs should be reported to the town manager.
Post a Comment
<< Home