Should we play ball?

Are we in Teaneck doing something wrong? Is it our fault that we have not yet opened the spigot to the thousands in potential subsidies from state government that other towns are grabbing to offset their expenses and keep taxes manageable? Have we been overlooking one of the keys to fiscal survival in the dog-eat-dog State of New Jersey?

While much evidence can be marshaled that large sums of money distributed through state aid programs are landing in municipalities other than ours, it's not so clear that we are particularly bad at securing what is rightfully coming to us. But suppose it could be proven that we are lagging behind where we should be, and that this is the fault of our local officials or our representatives at the state level. Would we be willing or able to do what it takes to bring home the bacon? Could we conceivably do it without selling out to some truly unsavory characters?

A disturbing report in today's Star Ledger gives readers a glimpse of how things get done in Trenton. It seems that many potentially helpful property tax reforms slated for enactment were killed at the last minute by the heavy duty lobbying of some powerful special interests. Large campaign contributions to Assembly Democrats were reportedly made just before important votes that could have imperiled certain costly state worker benefits or incentivized municipalities to save money by merging or share services. Predictably, many of these reforms were subsequently abandoned by the Legislature.

If this is business as usual, it doesn't look like a simple appeal for fairness will sway state legislators to send more money our way. How about mobilizing at the polls? Will the threat of losing a few votes from the most politically aware segment of Teaneck do much to move state representatives or party leaders? It seems doubtful. Those votes can easily be recouped elsewhere with a little extra campaign money from major contributors such as labor unions. Besides, there has to be a viable challenger for a few hundred votes to make a difference anyway.

That's not to say that we should not keep the heat on our legislators and demand better. But our primary demand shouldn't be a bigger piece of the pie. The most valuable thing Trenton can do for us is to radically reform the way things are done, not to write us a one time check.

Big win?

Much may be made of the Planning Board's decision to slow the process of finalizing the latest Master Plan revision. Some may view it as another blow to Mayor Katz's agenda, not unlike the retraction of the proposal to pave over a portion of Brett Park. However, before awarding a victory to those who hammered away at the Planning Board for its haste and a perceived lack of responsiveness to community input, it is worth considering what exactly they have won.

It's clear that the Teaneck Coalition for Community Preservation and like minded individuals demonstrated that the residents still have a voice. Keep the pressure on elected and appointed officials, turn out in force to meetings, and write letters to the Suburbanite, and the powers that be are forced to take heed. The assumption that the implicit support of a silent majority gives current government officials a powerful enough mandate to do as they please has been disproven. Score one point for the protesters.

However, when you take a look at the "redlined" version of the Master Plan posted on the TCCP website, you see that for all the teeth gnashing, hand wringing, and late night antics on both sides, there is not really a whole lot at stake. The professionals might see the dire implications of failing to include a "low-density" here or an "appropriate" there, but let's be honest: the sum total of the disagreement between the Planning Board majority and its opponents is a few minor edits and some wordsmithing.

It's no wonder that Planning Board Chairman Joseph Bodner was willing to allow time for some more public debate. Even the leading opponents are tactitly admitting that the substance of the Master Plan really was not all that controversial; apparently the issue was that they had not been asked to pronounce that verdict themselves. Now they will get that chance. If having an extensive debate about wording and phraseology can sweep away some of the anger, then let's all take out our red pens together.

What does he have against the Teaneck Public Library?

The Suburbanite's Howard Prosnitz takes a decidedly partial tone in this week's cover story on the library budget. Judging from past writings, library management probably isn't the intended target of Prosnitz's opening dig, but the reporter still ends up firing a shot in that direction.

"Despite its widely publicized policy of fiscal restraint," he writes, "the council has apparently rubber stamped the library's proposed budget." But has Prosnitz really laid bare the hypocrisy of the Council, or has he instead suggested that the library has proposed a fiscally irresponsible budget? Later in the article, when Prosnitz actually lays out the facts instead of his own opinions about the goings on, it becomes apparent that the Council approved a 3.6% increase in the library's budget, within the guideline that Mayor Katz is quoted as recommending, i.e. 0 to 4% year on year increases.

True, the Council did not in the end compel the library director to remove some of the budget lines that Council members had challenged such as $3,610 for "seminars and meetings," but the increase that was approved was small in absolute dollars and fell within the suggested range. So is Prosnitz saying that it is not really that the Council failed to live up to its goal of fiscal restraint, but rather that the management of the library has gotten away with an unjustifiably lavish set of expenditures? This is how it reads.

I am all in favor of cutting expenditures to the bone. In the short to medium term, this is one of the few realistic ways local officials can slow the rate of property tax increases. Still, even the most frugal among us would have a tough time arguing that the library's limited budget increase presents a real problem.

Doing the "right thing"

A fascinating and somewhat rare public debate over a personnel issue took place at last night's Council meeting. Residents were treated to a glance behind the scenes of a process that is mostly opaque to them, that of the promotion of police officers. What they saw should be very encouraging. In the course of the deliberations, Council member Jacqueline Kates stood out by enduring external pressure and casting what turned out to the deciding vote to settle this question correctly.

The details of the case were never laid out completely, but it appears that a decision previously taken to limit the number of Teaneck Police Department sergeants promoted to lieutenant this year upset a number of community members because it caused an up-and-coming African-American sergeant to miss the cut narrowly. The grounds for not funding an additional lieutenant, according to the Manager, were purely professional. At the current time, the Teaneck Police Department does not have enough work for another lieutenant to take on. Nonetheless, certain community members felt it important enough that the Township spend more on an additional lieutenant position, despite the fact that the extra lieutenant would continue to bear the responsibilities of a sergeant, in order that there be an African-American promoted to this rank.

Deputy Mayor Lizette Parker moved to reopen the issue for a public vote in the Council chambers, which meant that Council members would be forced to publicly take a position on a thorny issue. When that motion carried, a number of Council members were called on to comment on the merits of the case after a number of residents vigorously argued that the Council had to "do the right thing" in this instance and uphold the cause of racial diversity in the police command structure above that of fiscal responsibility, the sanctity of the process, and fairness to all.

Despite the urgings of the public and of Deputy Mayor Parker, Council member Kates stood by her earlier recommendation that the process remain sacred. While voicing her own support for diversity in the police force, Kates insisted that the Council refrain from going against the recommendation of the professionals, asserting that making an exception to established procedure on account of the identity of the individual who would benefit from it would be unfair. Other speakers correctly noted that taking such a step also risked inviting harmful litigation against Teaneck, but Kates focused more on the principle involved, demonstrating that changing the rules for one special case, even if it might have a certain desirable consequence, would be unfair.

While the just and principled stand Council member Kates took last night may not silence her detractors (who seem to have intensified their attacks upon her on the Internet and in print), it should reassure the more rational among us that she remains a worthy representative of the people of Teaneck who considers issues on their own merits and follows the guidance of her own moral compass. Other Council members would do well to follow that example.

What's wrong with the Applebome article

It seems like no big deal. A short piece in the Sunday New York Times sketching out the current state of affairs in a suburban New Jersey town. To most of us in Teaneck, especially those of us interested enough in local affairs to keep abreast of the latest developments by attending public meetings, reading the local papers, and opining upon them in the blogosphere, there was nothing new whatsoever in that piece. We may disagree with certain characterizations or believe certain things should have been phrased differently, but for the most part, we recognize the sentiments expressed in that article as a fair reflection of the way people think. So why is it that the publication of this piece will probably shake up the Teaneck landscape more than any controversy in the Council chambers or debate before the Planning Board?

The simplest explanation is that an article in the New York Times escalates everything to a whole new level. Now our friends, relatives, and co-workers from elsewhere in the area are privy to our internal debates. While one might let an unfavorable mention in the local news section of the Record go unanswered, a flood of angry and/or supportive letters is sure to follow a Times article as residents battle over how the paper of record should present our town to our neighbors in the region. One such letter, attributed to Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of the Orthodox synagogue Congregation Bnai Yeshurun on West Englewood Ave., has already been circulated through the blogosphere. Many more are sure to follow, on the Internet and in print.

What is it that is likely to arouse the most indignation? Quite simply, it is the author's conflation of the debate over development with the rise in the Orthodox Jewish population of Teaneck and the recent electoral success of a number of candidates from that community. While Mayor Katz and Sen. Weinberg were quoted disputing the linkage between the two, the majority of the article pointed in the direction of the conclusion that the changing socio-religious demographics explain the current tensions over development in town.

There is, of course, an obvious explanation as to why this conclusion appeals enormously to the staff of the New York Times. Having already covered on a number of occasions the fallout from the transformation of the Lawrence (Long Island) school district after a number of board seats were won by Orthodox Jewish candidates and having also written about a similar story involving a growing population of Orthodox Jews in Lakewood, NJ, they must feel that they have identified a trend. If the current climate in Teaneck can be viewed through the same lens, then they would really be onto something. That is not to suggest that there is anything sinister or suspect about the Times' approach; we all have a tendency to seek confirming evidence for our views, and a corresponding tendency to ignore or overlook that which contradicts them.

Unfortunately, in this case, the Times has got it wrong. While fights over school funding elsewhere (and perhaps here, too) certainly do have a religious dimension to them, as religious
communities do not use the public schools for primarily religious reasons, the difference of opinion over development in and around Teaneck's business districts is not the same thing. I have argued elsewhere that one could view the struggle in generational terms, but one need not view it that way either. While the major personalities involved seem to fall more neatly into those categories than they do into religious ones, and it is logical to think that younger families with greater financial obligations and less nostalgia for Teaneck's past history may be more interested in reducing taxes than they are in aesthetics, that view is not obligatory either. In fact, there is no need to try to classify this current disagreement over the direction of our business districts as anything but a political one that involves only a small part of the town's population on either side of it.

Has the impact of the Orthodox Jewish community's growth in numbers and influence been felt in Teaneck? Yes, it certainly has. Do some longtime residents feel somewhat discomfited by the changing face of Teaneck? Yes, they certainly do. Are these topics themselves worthy of an article in the New York Times? No, they're not, but if you can find a way to link current events to those feelings that surely brew under the surface of many suburban towns, then you've got an angle for an article. In this case, the author is guilty of trying too hard, and now we in Teaneck will have to deal with the consequences of that.

Saying the right things

An interview in today's Record with Teaneck High School's new principal, Angela R. Davis, brings some reassurance that the school is in good hands. This is no run-of-the-mill, business-as-usual, I'm-so-happy-to-be-here interview. Instead, Davis reveals a bold objective: to mold THS into one of Bergen County's "most prestigious academic institutions." Given some of the excellent competition in our area, this is ambitious, perhaps too ambitious for the three to five year time frame she has set. Nonetheless, it is a worthy goal, and stating publicly that this is a high priority should do a lot to raise the stock of Teaneck High School.

Why? Hasn't Davis just stated the obvious? Don't all schools strive for academic excellence? The answer is no. Some schools, especially those beset by the perception that a significant portion of the student body is struggling, set their sights lower. In fact, some posters on this site have suggested that the Teaneck schools ought to narrow their focus to basic skills and leave higher academic achievement to other school districts.

Davis appears to be saying that her tenure will not be about catering to the lowest common denominator, but about pulling everyone up by "role-modeling" and promoting "high expectations." Instead of letting the problems endemic to a subset of the school population dictate the agenda for everyone, Davis will continue to improve course offerings with the introduction of additional foreign language classes and a business program, while attacking one of the root causes for underachievement by making students see "that it's OK to be on the honor roll, it's OK get into college early."

This is the kind of positive thinking that could help restore the image of Teaneck High School, once one of New Jersey's most highly regarded secondary schools, in the eyes of the community and the rest of the state. Here's to Principal Davis translating her well-chosen words into deeds.

Parking therapy

In a letter published in this week's Suburbanite, Teaneck CCP leader Bill Moring laments the breakdown in communication that he feels is responsible for the poor state of relations between certain community activists and town officials. Comparing the situation to a troubled marriage, Moring calmly explains the TCCP's side of the story, appealing for understanding and confidence building measures to restore mutual trust.

Help may be on the way in the form of an initiative that everyone can get behind. In the past few days, Internet postings from a group calling itself the Teaneck Commuter Coalition (TCC? Too similar!) have appeared to encourage residents to join them in voicing their concerns at an upcoming Council meeting. They are to urge the Council to take action to alleviate the difficulties faced by commuters who have no place to legally park near the major city-bound bus stops.

Luckily, so long as the proposed remedy for this is not eliminating parking restrictions on residential blocks that currently have them, pretty much everybody can support taking measures to remedy the situation. Increasing accessibility of public transportation is environmentally responsible, good for local quality of life, and helpful to real estate values. It might even spur economic development in and around any designated commuter parking area or provide the Township with a bit of extra revenue through the collection of parking permit fees.

According to the February edition of the Bergen Insider (please disregard the fact that all the features are about establishments or individuals who bought advertising space in that issue, that's mere coincidence), members of Council have already held talks with representative of Fairleigh Dickinson University about putting a commuter parking area somewhere on the campus in conjunction with securing direct NJ Transit bus service from there to Manhattan. In another sign that Council members are anticipating some movement on this issue soon, a resident survey included in Mayor Katz's periodic newsletter, Teaneck Tidbits, includes "commuter parking" as one of the choices for the most significant issue facing Teaneck.

So the next time a group stages a pre-arranged storming of the Council chambers to dominate the Good & Welfare section, it may not cause the tension level in the room to rise. When it comes to commuter parking, we can check the bitterness and suspicion at the door. Can't we?

Holding down the Fort

Today's Teaneck headlines are dominated by Michael Gallucci. Two Michael Galluccis, actually. While the story of former Councilman Gallucci's lawsuit against NJ.com is likely to draw more interest for its gossip value, another Michael Gallucci, that of Bergen Developers LLC, is making the real news with the withdrawal of his proposal for a 14-unit condo complex on Fort Lee Road.

The developer was still in need of a number of variances from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to proceed. It now appears that the cumulative weight of complaints from neighbors, unresolved questions about overbuilding and taxing the area's infrastructure, and the fallout from a controversial bit of interference on behalf of the project from County Executive Dennis McNerney have combined to scuttle the project.

Is this a resounding reaffirmation of the sanctity of Teaneck's residential neighborhoods? A feather in the cap of the Teaneck CCP that lobbied against the proposed project? Will this serve as a warning to other would-be builders of large scale residential projects that Teaneck is not interested in that kind of development?

Perhaps not. It is quite likely that the residents of Fort Lee Road who would have been harmed by this project have the faltering housing market to thank for putting the final nail in the coffin of this project. While it might have seemed like a grand slam back when it was first conceived a few years ago, in today's market, it probably looks a lot less favorable from an economic perspective.

The timing of this shift in sentiment might be a good thing for Teaneck. To have our own development push coincide with a weaker residential market and a relatively more robust market for commercial real estate might help steer developers toward projects that do not bring more children into the schools or bring added congestion our local roads. Those are the type of ratables Teaneck needs.

Information overload

Those with a keen interest in the fallout from the recent revaluation of Teaneck properties should not miss the Record's coverage today (and don't miss the clickable maps either). Brian Aberback sums up the conclusions from the newspaper's comprehensive analysis of the revaluation results and the results may be surprising to some. While the reassessment will indeed redistribute the tax burden, it will, on average, do so by increasing the burden on owners of lower-end homes to the benefit of owners of higher-end homes and commercial properties.

Now that's a fine how-do-you-do. While this may represent a more equitable outcome under the system as currently constituted, you can be sure that it will not sit well with some. With the numbers crunched and the statistical information now widely available, will a new demographic, that of the financially overburdened and now incensed owner of a lower-end home, emerge to support increased development in Teaneck?

With a generational division already at play in the struggle over development, will a class division come into the picture as well, as less well-off homeowners struggle against those who are ready, willing, and able to pay a bit more in taxes to silence the construction equipment and preserve their unobstructed views?

With the Master Plan revision already opening new rifts in Teaneck, the likelihood of an even more cantankerous situation going forward seems to be growing.

Council opponents on the couch

The Master Plan revision recommends a series of moves to loosen restrictions on building in Teaneck's business districts, in the hopes that current property owners and developers will choose to invest in the types of improvements that would bolster Teaneck's tax base and spread the tax burden more evenly among residents and businesses. At the same time, the document firmly opposes the encroachment of new development into residential neighborhoods, and is quite clear on the desire of its authors to maintain the existing character of Teaneck's residential neighborhoods.

Neither the substance nor the tone of the recommendations contained in the plan was surprising given the many natural constraints on development in Teaneck. Nonetheless, the moderation and balance of the report seem to have done little to quiet the vocal opposition to the ongoing efforts of the Council to promote development in town. Flyers and e-mails warn residents to stand up to the Council and Planning Board before it is too late and Teaneck is damaged permanently. While a core group of bitter opponents of the Council majority and its plans is widely cited as the source of these stirrings of discontent, given that, with the possible exception of a few details, the contents of the Master Plan are basically innocuous, it seems that something else must be motivating this knee-jerk response.

Interestingly, a careful reading of this week's Suburbanite sheds some light on this question. A series of quotations and letters from some of the most visible critics of the Council majority suggests that perhaps it is not so much the content of the proposed Master Plan or the details of specific projects that troubles the anti-Council crowd so much as it is their new position on the outside looking in. A common theme emerges from the quotations cited below: an older generation of longtime Teaneck residents with a particular political bent is dismayed at the speed with which it has been swept aside and at the vigor and intensity with which the new Council majority has pursued its agenda to stimulate growth in Teaneck. One can sense the hurt contained in their remarks as they come to grips with the realization that the Council majority is determined to plow ahead, sometimes callously, without seeking the approval of some of those longtime insiders or following the same consensus building procedures used in the past.

----------

From this week's Suburbanite (actual quotations are in quotes, surrounding text is my own commentary):

"We have been kept in the dark. Our organization will have to watch out every step to see that the wishes of the community are followed." - Martin Cramer

Sandy Loft, whose motives need less explanation, as she understandably resents the way she has been treated by the Council, sounds a wistful note for how things were before and also makes explicit reference to her 37 year tenure in town stating that "many of us have worked too long and too hard for Teaneck not to fight to maintain a lifestyle we hope to enjoy for years to come," in her letter published this week.

Frequent Suburbanite contributor Seymour Rappaport questions whether Councilman Rudolph, who, for a number of reasons has become a lightning rod for much of the criticism of the Council majority, "really [knows] our land, our culture, and long time history."

"The current Council majority is saying to citizens who have a longer history in Teaneck and/or do not follow their agenda, particularly on development - you with your experience do not count anymore," writes Naomi Cramer.

"[There] are many advisory boards where infusing or expanding with 'new blood' would be welcome, without discarding people who have served this community for years and have the capacity to continue to do so," she continues.

----------

The interesting question for Teaneck is whether these folks truly speak for a broad constituency that is similarly upset at being disenfranchised, as they seem to think they do, or whether the Teaneck electorate really has moved on and reshuffled its priorities to match those of the new Council. We won't really new until an election cycle or two passes. In the meantime, might it help both the Council majority and its detractors to understand a bit better where the other side is coming from, or has mutual distrust grown so great that these relationships are irreparable?

No help on its way

If Board of Education President Judith McKay was correct back in May that the taxpayers should blame Trenton rather than their tireless advocates at 1 Merrison Street for the ever increasing burden of supporting the District's high spending, then it's time for Teaneck residents to turn up the heat on state officials. Back in May, McKay remarked to the Record that school budget problems are a funding issue rather than spending issue. "If the state had given us the aid they should be giving us, we would not be in this situation," she said.

Whether or not you think those comments betray an insensitivity to taxpayers, they are not just hollow finger pointing. As pretty much every non-Abbott district in New Jersey has consistently argued, the state school funding formula is terribly unfair. Among the many as yet unfulfilled promises emanating from the Governor and state lawmakers is a revamping of the formula by which districts receive financial assistance from Trenton. The latest news from the capitol is that those plans remain stalled. As such, the prospect of a drastic improvement in the budgetary situation of the Teaneck schools anytime soon is remote.

Will the Board of Ed seek to cushion the blow by sharpening the pencils and finding other ways to avoid slapping the taxpayers of Teaneck with another hefty increase or will be sent to the voting booths forced to make another choice between voting down the budget or acceding to another greater-than-inflation rise in our school tax obligation?

What year is it?

It is hard to believe that the blatant power grab by party bosses apparently underway in Bergen County's less-than-illustrious Democratic Party could take place in 2007. That's not to suggest that human nature has changed much since the heyday of the political machines. The desire for power and influence and all their attendant benefits, financial and otherwise, are as alive and well today as they were in Boss Tweed's day. What is so surprising about the thinly disguised efforts to concentrate control of the Democratic Party in the hands of those with the power to bestow favors on the rank and file (i.e. the Chairman and his inner circle) is that they would clearly set back the process of fixing the many problems that plague our area, and yet there is no shame or reluctance among party leaders to introduce these harmful changes.

By controlling the use of the Democratic party name and allowing only candidates who repeatedly pass their test to use it, Joseph Ferriero and his allies effectively reserve for themselves the power to recall any sitting legislators who do not meet with their approval. And forget about any new blood, unless, of course, it is handpicked by Ferriero & Co. Unfortunately, placing the Democratic Party in the hands of select few will do little to harm the general support that the party enjoys, as the area's Republican Party is weak and fractured, giving the Democratic machine free license to have its way.

What is its way? It is the way of pay to play, the way of influence peddling and protection of their own at the expense of the taxpayer. It is the way of inefficiency and waste. While this is wrong anytime, it is especially inappropriate when many residents are struggling under the weight of a rapidly increasing tax burden.

In the absence of a credible alternative, it leaves many with no choice but to support State Sen. Weinberg and her two protegés in the Assembly whom Ferriero seeks to oust, Gordon Johnson and Valerie Vainieri Huttle. While one might question whether they are ultimately the best candidates for the job, there is no doubt that it is in the best interests of District 37 voters to push back against the growing influence of the Democratic party organization, and specifically the boss at the top of it. With Ferriero already having dipped his toe into local affairs over the past year, Teaneck voters should be concerned enough to lead the charge.

UPDATE (Friday, February 2): The Records reports the narrow defeat of the proposed rule change. While county residents may breathe a sigh of relief, it should be a shallow one, as continued vigilance is required to protect the common interest from those seeking to profit from the system.

This is my kind of plan!
- William M. Tweed