Fright night
There was no space to move. The line to get in snaked all the way out the door. Was this an appearance by a Hollywood celebrity? The latest video game system release? No, it was just the first public discussion by the Council of the Birdsall report on development opportunities in Teaneck, which took place last night in the Council chambers.So much for Teaneck residents being generally apathetic. Dozens of residents turned out on a weeknight to catch a few snippets of the Council members' non-binding takes on a consultant's report. That sounds like a high degree civic engagement, n'est-ce pas? Few of the recommendations in the report are likely to be implemented and fewer still are likely to become realities in the next couple of years, so why else would there be a packed house for the preliminary discussion of a mostly dry and theoretical report?
There seem to be two alternative explanations for this, one more positive than the other. The first (and less plausible) reason why so many may have turned out for this is that the path taken now in response to the plans laid out in the Birdsall report could influence the outcome of the new Master Plan and with it, the course of Teaneck's future development. Residents, having read and carefully considered the contents of the report, were doing the wise thing and coming to hear for themselves and register their input as early as possible in the process.
The second explanation is that mass communications highlighting the more threatening aspects of the report may have unnecessarily sown panic among an ill-informed populace in order to make a show of force, leading to a heavy turnout of residents unjustifiably worried about the future of Teaneck as a quiet suburb.
If this is the case, the favorable end of a more involved public would not justify the means. Scare tactics and misinformation campaigns breed the sort of mistrust and animosity that seems to be on display more and more often when it comes to local affairs. One need look no further than the comments section of this blog to see examples of the kind of harsh invective directed not at actions, ideas, or proposals but at individuals such as elected officials. There is no doubt that the feelings of resentment that lead to such personal attacks are due not to actual interactions with these individuals or deep familiarity with the issues but rather to impressions gleaned from others or half-truths offered by those with a bone to pick with the current leadership.
Make no mistake, I do not wish Teaneck politics to remain the preserve of a select group of insiders. Every resident should be involved in Teaneck affairs. But with a vote and a voice comes a responsibility not to march as a foot soldier in somebody else's army, but to arm oneself with the information necessary to enter the fray free of other people's prejudices.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 10:05 AM
25 Comments:
Let's see, a report that mentions eminent domain, draws a blue line along the river as a re-development zone, suggests the municipal green become a quasi multi-use commercial property... Read it.
Not only that, but the report is prepared by a company that has significant political connections with Bergen County "pay to play" Democratic Party and was given a special tour by one of the most inexperienced council members this town has ever seen. This is clearly reason for concern and not a "half truth", but fact.
It is hard to believe that the very same company taken on a tour of Teaneck to "educate" a councilman was the company selected to conduct the analysis. And then the councilman receives a job from the county. Ethics, what ethics. Draw a red line around the town green: ETHICS REDEVELOPMENT ZONE.
Teaneck has a long history of dishonest and malicious documents being slipped under doors. That was the case last night. River Road homeowners were manipulated.
Jackie Kates continued her sniping attack on Mayor Katz who calmly attempts to educate the citizens on the realities of life in Teaneck. Either, he pointed out, there is to be development or there will be higher taxes or cut services. Kates' attack on development of any kind came on the heels of her performance last Thursday night. She complained at the budget hearing that night about questions from Adam Gussen into a presentation of Helene Fall's new budget with an 8 and a half per cent increase! In the past, according to Ms. Kates, the whole budget was wrapped up in two hours. What she was indicating, of course, was that during her time as Mayor there was absolutely no oversight of the budget.
The citizens of Teaneck want their taxes capped now. Development takes time and great care. Strict oversight of the budget needs to be undertaken immediately. The council needs to demand of the manager that she produce a new budget without any increases.
Teanecks dishonest history of "slipping things under the door" is nothing compared to what could be slipped under the door by this council and the planning board with the Birdsall report. If River Road residents did not show up the result of last nights meeting would have been totally different. Pompous town leaders would say that the reason there's a Holiday Inn being built on upper Brett park was because "no one cares". How convenient.
You state that residents were "unjustifiably worried about the future of Teaneck as a quiet suburb." Many of us carefully read the report and were justifiably worried.
You state that residents were "unjustifiably worried about the future of Teaneck as a quiet suburb." Many of us carefully read the report and were justifiably worried.
I do not doubt that some perfectly well-intentioned and otherwise neutral residents turned out at the meeting with some very serious reservations about the content of the Birdsall report. It was not my intention to dispute that; I share many of those doubts and disagree with many of the proposals myself. But the huge turnout and strong emotions of Monday evening reflected the work of other forces, too. A little less hysteria and a little more recognition that everyone wants what is best for Teaneck would go a long way toward changing the atmosphere for the better.
Again, the job of the consultant was to prepare a comprehensive list of potential development opportunities accompanied by some pieces of practical advice, not to make policy decisions. The latter task, obviously, falls upon the shoulders of the Township Council. So the document boils down to a preliminary menu full of numerous medium and long term recommendations, some feasible and some not. Does this justify or even account for the sense of panic and dread that accompanied so many of the residents who packed into the Municipal Building last night? I don't think so.
I concur that the brashness of youth, carelessness, naivete, or insensitivity to appearances of impropriety on the part of certain officials has fed into the climate of mistrust, but it is premature to panic or express rage and indignation and certainly not the time to be rallying the neighbors against the menacing threat in the Municipal Building. Just a few months ago, there was near universal agreement that Teaneck property taxes were too high. These people want to explore ways to change that for the benefit of all residents. Respectfully agree or disagree with the methods they are investigating for doing it, but don't round up a posse of angry residents to lynch them for trying to help solve a festering problem.
I fully support any effort that specifically brings hotels to Teaneck (but in an appropriate area such as a commercial zone, not a park, historic cemetary, or your house).
Not only do hotels bring in revenue like any other business, but you can collect additional occupancy taxes. A 300-room hotel with 70% occupancy and a $3/night tax could bring in close to $250,000 a year. Not chump change.
A long-term effort to have large-scale multi story commercial/office/residential buildings in existing commercial areas like Cedar Lane, The Plaza, and North Teaneck Road also makes sense to me. There are several mid-rises in many of these areas already, so it is not out of scale. This design would bring hundreds, maybe thousands of new residents in town who would depend on the nearby stores for food, entertainment, and conveniences. I would think this style of apartments/condos would bring much needed housing to underserved populations without the same impact on services such as the public schools compared to the same number of people moving into single family households.
I don't like the controversial politics surrounding this situation one bit. But I see no viable alternative.
The only alternative I see are electing folks who support no redevelopment, who would rather chime in on US senate debates than confront very real town-specific issues, and worst of all, would representjust another branch of a well known national political party.
Furthermore, I don't want Teaneck represented by candidates who express concern that efforts to upgrade rental properties or lure an upscale cafe or two to town will lead to too much gentrification, when I think the town is at some risk of maintaining its current economic and socioeconomic base.
Given the choices visible, I would choose the path we are on.
If anyone sees another choice, I would be happy to hear what it is.
Most reports have prefaces by the CEO to set context and state purpose, as well as intent. This report did not. A prefaces by Birdsall is not what the public wants to read. We elected a council to represent us and to point us in the right direction and after the documented ethics issues the crowd at the meeting is more than justified.
Wake Up Teaneck. If we were not so stuck in the past, the Glenpoint area would be the ratable generator we so badly need. Here we are home to the biggest intersection in the COUNTRY and what do we have to show for it.80/95 should being paying to run the whole town and it could if we play catch up....
Pretty soon recomendations from 3rd party construction companies with connections to Italian sounding names from Ohio with links to McDonalds and other fast food chains will be spreading fliers in residential neighboorhoods about how they can "reduce taxes". Thanks a lot but no thanks.
I think the point of view in the original post by TeaneckBlog is on point, and I appreciate the notes of caution that were sounded. I do think the Council was unwise to release this report in total before reviewing it themselves, as it (as was previously pointed out) doesn't contain an abbreviated overview and it contains quite a few points of misinformation on areas for development, rezoning, etc. I also agree wholeheartedly with the post which indicated that we could do more with the intersection of two very busy highways -- where is the proposal for a Park & Ride that Elie Katz kept talking about in the last election campaign? If designed around a retail complex, well now there would be a real moneymaker!
Teaneck needs to let go of this silly outdated idea of a route 4 greenbelt. Thats the most logical area to develop.
Let's see, a report that mentions eminent domain, draws a blue line along the river as a re-development zone, suggests the municipal green become a quasi multi-use commercial property... Read it.
Overlooked this one earlier...
Let's not be overdramatic, the Birdsall report "mentions eminent domain" in the context of recommending that the Township refrain from using it.
"Let's not be overdramatic, the Birdsall report "mentions eminent domain" in the context of recommending that the Township refrain from using it."
Negative.
Page 21.
d. The second, which is a short-term project that could be completed within six months, is to authorize the Planning Board to develop a Needs Determination Study in order to ascertain whether certain areas of The Plaza District can be identified as Areas in Need of Redevelopment or Rehabilitation. That does not mean we are suggesting Eminent Domain, but it allows the Township the authority to do so if necessary.
The report reccomends that the town can through a study has the authority to use eminent domain. Let's get real, it's there.
"Let's not be overdramatic, the Birdsall report "mentions eminent domain" in the context of recommending that the Township refrain from using it."
Negative.
Page 21.
d. The second, which is a short-term project that could be completed within six months, is to authorize the Planning Board to develop a Needs Determination Study in order to ascertain whether certain areas of The Plaza District can be identified as Areas in Need of Redevelopment or Rehabilitation. That does not mean we are suggesting Eminent Domain, but it allows the Township the authority to do so if necessary.
The report says "it allows the Township the authority to do so if necessary". Lip service by a council is lip service, written words are written words. The council had an opportunity to add a preface to the report, an executive report or something to that effect, but didn't. Instead, they waited to see public reaction then had to back track... What's the big deal? C'mon we didn't mean it.
I repeat, there is no recommendation that the Township invoke eminent domain anywhere in the document, and certainly no hint of a suggestion that any residential property will be appropriated that way.
As for this missing preface that would supposedly have defused the situation, this is a convenient but unconvincing pretext for alarm and anger. Does anybody really believe that if the Council had written the following, things would be very different today?
"The following report is the work of an independent corporation hired to provide the Council with a list of potential development opportunities within the boundaries of the Township of Teaneck. All proposals and recommendation contained herein reflect the views of the consultants, and not those of the Council. None of the recommendations in the report will be adopted without further public discussion at the appropriate time."
Common sense dictates that this should have been understood already, and I bet it was understood by most. Only complete ignorance or excessive demonization of the Council could persuade people that all of these long term plans would suddenly be jammed down their throats tomorrow.
Mayor Katz made it crystal clear in his introductory remarks that the current council would never use eminent domain, period. How likely is it that anyone in favor of that procedure would ever get elected in Teaneck? There is much mischief afoot on the part of those opposed to any development at all ever anywhere in town. That is why they lie and create havoc and fear.
"Common sense dictates"
False.
This is worded in such a way to enable a council to do what it wants. In a court of law stand up and say "common sense dictates". If this goes through, as worded, it threatens the largest investment most people have in their life. I don't see anything, concrete, written, that would suggest that this council is above just "common sense".
If this goes through, as worded, it threatens the largest investment most people have in their life.
Perhaps this is where the confusion lies. We're talking about a consultant's report, a grab bag of various ideas and non-binding recommendations that could be pursued in the future. It is not a piece of legislation to be adopted as a package by the Council. It cannot "go through as worded." Even if the Council were to somehow pledge that it would seriously consider every item in the report in the future, which of course it did not, there would be no acute threat to any home or neighborhood at this point.
"Here we are home to the biggest intersection in the COUNTRY and what do we have to show for it."
This is the mentality of some of the real estate folks that swarm around Teaneck nipping at it's edges. The same folks that unfortunately get the ear of impressionable youngsters who want to make it big someday. It's really sad to think that someone thinks that the Meadowlands is not worth it, or wetlands only are worth their price in transfat.
From the sound of it, this report is a waste of our $87,000. What was it produced for? if not to promote it's ideas. If the Mayor is now saying that some of these ideas are not for Teaneck, if a councilman's show of ripping out pages from the report show us anything other than drama, then Birdsall failed the council and the taxpayers of this town and should be fired. I guess they are only good at contributing money. Again, we have an ill fated attempt from our elected officals. Who is advising these KIDS? IT's one sham after another. Three strikes and your out. These kids talk about vision and they can't see the forest through the trees.
From the sound of it, this report is a waste of our $87,000. What was it produced for? if not to promote it's ideas. If the Mayor is now saying that some of these ideas are not for Teaneck, if a councilman's show of ripping out pages from the report show us anything other than drama, then Birdsall failed the council and the taxpayers of this town and should be fired. I guess they are only good at contributing money. Again, we have an ill fated attempt from our elected officals. Who is advising these KIDS? IT's one sham after another. Three strikes and your out. These kids talk about vision and they can't see the forest through the trees.
Ha Mentality Boy don't forget to punsh your time card .Enjoy your new lunchbox.
I understand our blogmeister's fears. Unfortunately, there truly are many Teaneck residents who will read inflammatory emails and mass communications aimed at exhorting individuals to blind action on behalf of their masters, and will take action as directed.
I saw this happen last May, when hundreds of my neighbors responded to exactly such cynical manipulation and went obediently to their polling places, voting for the candidates they were told to vote for. My neighbors had clear justifications and well-formed prejudices to explain their votes. "This group will tear down the eruv", "that candidate helps fund terrorism", "their supporters are anti-Semites." Hardly any of these voters had read any candidate's campaign literature, and few knew any of the names on the ballot other than the ones they were told to support. Not a single person told me that they had voted "for" an individual because of that candidate's unique stance on development.
That's not what I saw Monday night. Sure, many came in response to emails about the meeting. Several even told me that they had come in response to my electronic exhortations sent to such insidious email groups as Mayor Katz's Teaneck411 group and the TeaneckShuls group moderated by Councilmember Feit (among others). A substantial majority of residents came to the meeting on Monday night with copies of the Birdsall document in hand, and many of them had dog-eared their copies, underlining and highlighting particular phrases and sections of concern. The limited number of foot soldiers who spoke at this Workshop session were well-armed with specific, relevant issues and concerns drawn directly from their own careful reading of the Birdsall Development Opportunities Analysis.
And as the catchphrase of this blog states -- "Casting a wary eye on Teaneck politics and municipal affairs" -- those attending the Birdsall meeting have ample justification in being a bit leery of the prospect of Teaneck diving headfirst into the development game. Maybe, very leery.
While new development ought to be one of the cornerstones of our three-pronged approach at alleviating our tax burden, Teaneck has a tragically poor track record of dealing with major construction projects. Whether it's a Stop & Shop that wasted 3.8 acres of prime real estate and turns its back on Cedar Lane or a Police Headquarters that will cost millions above the stated price to turn into a usable space, or a Cedar Lane Streetscape that cost over $2.5 million and whose greatest accomplishment seems to be the oft-stated mantra that it really, really hasn't reduced the total number of available parking spots, after all. We've spent millions and wasted many opportunities, and have very little new revenue to show for it, certainly not that corresponds to the size of the investment or the scope of the opportunities.
Teaneck needs development. Despite the damage done in the past few months, there still seems to be a Township-wide consensus that residents will support new development. But any project that might make a meaningful dent in our tax bills will take years to implement -- Mayor Katz cited a 25-year lead time in Englewood from conception to delivery -- and may cause major hardship before any of the promised manna starts falling from heaven and into the Township's coffers.
Teaneck residents need to feel assured that every development project has been carefully considered, is designed in a manner that is respectful of community concerns, and will genuinely bring in more revenue to the Township above and beyond the added infrastructure and operating costs that will be incurred.
The hundred-plus people who showed up at the meeting, and the hundreds more who couldn't or didn't make it in seem to have a pretty firm and well-informed grasp on what they liked -- and what they disliked -- in the report. If the Council listens to residents at the suggested "road show", a heavily-revised plan reflecting these concerns will go a long way to helping build the widespread community consensus we need as to what Teaneck should be developing.
Alan Sohn
Mr. Blogger,
Was you post based on personal observation at the Monday council meeting or the observations of others?
As long as members of the planning board are willing to close the door on dialog and ideas, dismiss concerns as NIMBY and go on the "advise" and "analysis" of third party planners acting in the best interest of developers, there is serious need for worry.
Post a Comment
<< Home