Information overload
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.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 9:33 AM
36 Comments:
I wouldn't want to be at Town Council tonight...
The one major inaccuracy in an otherwise thorough article in today's RECORD is that the new legislation passed last week requires both municipal and school budgets to come in no higher than 4%. Quoting last year's increase of 6.5% is disingenuous. The Board of Ed's budget has already been pared down to 4% as of last Wednesday, as has already been noted.
As a certified wonk, all I can say is WOW!
In terms of the implications for the brewing sh*tstorm, all I can say is that it's going to stoke levels of paranoia to new heights.
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?
One can just imagine how angry "those who are ready, willing, and able to pay a bit more in taxes" are now that it has become abundantly clear that they have been carrying an added burden of taxes and have subsidized those "less well-off homeowners".
The fix was certainly in all these years for one neighborhood over another.
As the person who previously doubted this outcome (on Teaneck Blog's November 10 entry thread), well -- I was wrong. Nevertheless:
The fix was certainly in all these years for one neighborhood over another.
Certainly no fix was in at the time of the last reval, just as no fix will be in if, as I supect, these lower end houses will either appreciate less markedly going forward or depreciate more markedly in this post-boom real estate market.
You may see calls for a more timely future reval, but it it would be wrong (not to mention inflammatory) to suggest that the lengthy period between this and the last reval is because anyone had it in for a certain neighborhood. The only call I ever heard for a reval came from someone who I'm sure did not expect its outcome to fall in greater measure on lower-end houses. I don't think most people really anticipated this result, and I'm sure our town officials were more disinclined because of the considerable expense involved and the uproar it might cause -- even if they may have expected it to come from other quarters.
It's the rising tide that has upped the lower-valued houses relative to the middle-valued ones. It's the market, stupid, not some conspiracy for one group to force another to carry the burden for them.
Let's all get together and create those new rateables. It's time to stop worrying about the trees.
if you want to stop worrying about trees and are serious about ratables you have to get rid of Kates and Honis. Kates still wants to beleive its the 1960's in Teaneck. These 2 are even against "reasonable" development - and we all know Honis won't break away from following Kates - how sad not to be an independent thinker.
I did a little research - HONIS DOESN'T EVEN PAY TAXES!!!!! (Call the tax dept yourself)
So why would she really care if they go up, down, sideways, backwards, etc...
Unbeleivable!
now i'm just curious, if anyone goes to tonight's council meeting - ask the members if they even pay their own taxes in town.
It is no wonder she sides with Councilperson Kates in supporting constantly increasing tax rates, never finding anything worth cutting. Why don't the two of them get on board behind Mayor Katz and the rest of the council to find new sources of income for the township?
I FEEL GOOD WHEN I PAY MY TAXES. I AM PROUD THAT ME AND MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS CAN AFFORD TO LIVE HERE IN TEANECK. THAT IS WHY I GET SO DISGUSTED LISTENING TO THESE BIG MOUTHS AT THE MEETINGS.
WE NEED SOME NEW DEVELOPMENT NOT JUST TO HELP KEEP OUR TOWNSHIP AFFORDABLE FOR US BUT ALSO TO KEEP IT FRESH AND ATTRACTIVE TO ENJOY.
NEW INVESTMENT, EVEN IF WE BREAK EVEN ON IT RATABLE VS SERVICES IS STILL A PLUS.
1;58 ... YES SHE DOES..HAIRSPRAY $4:00PLUS 7% =4.28
YES HER TAXES WENT UP LAST YEAR THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN 4.24 SEE!!!
EVERYONE PAYS MORE TAX...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Do you have any real evidence of what you call, "a generational division already at play in the struggle over development, ..." ?
It seems you are just adding to the propaganda campaign of a few anonymous posters who keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
Does Teaneck Blog realize that his/her name was just hijacked by the all caps 11:45 pm poster?
Mr. Abbot-
Zucker, Cramers,Lehrman,Wouk, Kates.
What do they all have in common?
Maybe that answers your question.
Anonymous 8:32 am,
What do you mean?
Does Teaneck Blog realize that his/her name was just hijacked by the all caps 11:45 pm poster?
I do, thank you, and the post will be removed.
ultra-greenie= old
Tom Abbott said...
It seems you are just adding to the propaganda campaign of a few anonymous posters who keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
And you, the non-anonymous poster, who does exactly the same thing. Maybe you should stick to BOE meetings with your wife. They need all the help there that they can get.
Do you have any real evidence of what you call, "a generational division already at play in the struggle over development, ..." ?
See the previous post, dated February 8th. It is my contention that the writings and public statements of a number of seasoned Teaneck veterans reflect feelings of frustration and abandonment among the older generation that are contributing to the oppositional behavior.
Astounding logic! The evidence of "generational division" comes from the post where you postulate those who disagree must be acting irrationally out of "feelings of frustration and abandonment".
You've gone from questioning whether those four letters speak for broad constituency to declaring that they represent a "generational rift".
While it is true that the older people have a little easier time freeing themselves to attend 6 hour meetings and do tend to write more, Teaneck is full of opinionated people young and old who hold a wide variety of opinions on every imaginable issue.
The idea that some are trying to foster that only 30 year residents and old people spoke at the planning board or oppose high density development is just not true.
Claims that those who oppose the proposed high density plans are opposed to any development are similarly nonsensical.
It beyond dispute that the public face of the opposition are members of the older generation. Are there some younger fellow travelers? Perhaps, but they are hardly at the forefront. The leaders of the development push are young Teaneck Council members (I believe all are under 40). Their like minded appointees appear to be on the younger side, too. It is not much of a stretch to label this a generational rift considering that several members of the opposition, in their own words, made clear that they feel that old timers are being marginalized.
Ms Honis reminds me of the button on my car console that in cold weather i hit as soon as i start the car, the seat warmer.
what a disapointment.she has not come up with any ideas or programs to date that could benefit the township. She is great Tuesday night Quarterback(monday morning)but really besides critizeing others What has she done.
Just rubber-stamping Jackie Kates road blocks to progress does not count for much.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Teaneck Blog decreed...
It beyond dispute that the public face of the opposition are members of the older generation.
Only in your fantasy world.
It's not about old vs. young. Development vs. non-development, black vs. white. christian vs. jew.
It's about shady government. The clock is ticking and our elected officals are on notice that the townspeople can see through the curtain. Any one who sides with them and says it's about taxes or development is a fool or as guilty as they are. When government operates the way it is in this town currently. Smart people take notice, question and organize to counter the injustice. The only counter defense is to call names. Truth Justice, and the American Way will prevail.
Teaneck Blog decreed...
It beyond dispute that the public face of the opposition are members of the older generation.
Only in your fantasy world.
This does not constitute a well-argued response. Is it true or false that the leadership of the TCCP, those that frequently write in to the Suburbanite to complain about the Council, and those who come to parrot the anti-development party line at public meetings are almost exclusively longtime Teaneck homeowners who are closer to 65 than 35?
In any case, you have chosen to nitpick over what was merely a casual aside in the original posting. Suppose I were to concede that there is no generational gulf in Teaneck, and that the current debates over the Master Plan revision pit young and old alike against young and old alike? What difference would that make to my assertion that a new group might now feel the increased urgency of reducing the tax burden?
It's the shadow government that meets at Puffers that looks shady to some of us. Too many leaves, too many trees.
Saying your opinion is beyond dispute was not a well argued response. It was fantasy.
What is wrong with you claim is a "casual aside" is that it gives credibility to the anonymous posters who declare that it is the "oldies" or the "30+" year residents or the "greenies" that oppose all that is good. I suspect that is your intention.
It is far easier to use disparaging remarks like, "those who came to parrot the anti-development party line" than to do research or present evidence. Labeling those who don't agree with your party line as "anti-development" is not about reason or logic it is pure propaganda.
You didn't answer the question. Am I factually incorrect in suggesting that it is generally the older generation of more established Teaneck residents that is doing battle with a group of mainly younger advocates of new approaches toward development? Or does it just trouble you because others have co-opted that observation and used it to dismiss the most vocal elements of the opposition as old whiners? If the former, say so. If the latter, too bad. That's not my problem.
As for my use of the label "anti-development," it has nothing to do with demonizing any individuals. I don't see this as an insult, but I do see dishonesty in calling the position of the hardcore opponents of the Master Plan revision anything other than that.
Teaneck Blog asked ...
You didn't answer the question. Am I factually incorrect in suggesting that it is generally the older generation of more established Teaneck residents that is doing battle with a group of mainly younger advocates of new approaches toward development?
Yes. As I have seen no new approaches toward development this question was easy. Perhaps you meant different. My answer would be tha same. Perhaps you now have the evidence that you could not provide earlier.
But than this was not the question you asked. Your question was, "Is it true or false that the leadership of the TCCP, those that frequently write in to the Suburbanite to complain about the Council, and those who come to parrot the anti-development party line at public meetings are almost exclusively longtime Teaneck homeowners who are closer to 65 than 35?"
A statement disguised as a question full of your usual nonsensical assumption and generalizations. It did not deserve an answer, but if you insist the answer would have to be false. Since the parroting of the anti-development party line is an invention of yours how could the statement be true.
Or does it just trouble you because others have co-opted that observation and used it to dismiss the most vocal elements of the opposition as old whiners? If the former, say so. If the latter, too bad. That's not my problem.
No. Again not a real question. An attempt to imply that I'm just troubled by the name calling. Ageism doesn't bother you. Calling people you disagree with Greenies or ultra-Greenies is fine.
Amazing for someone who was so outraged that the Suburbanite referred to the religion of council members.
As for my use of the label "anti-development," it has nothing to do with demonizing any individuals. I don't see this as an insult, but I do see dishonesty in calling the position of the hardcore opponents of the Master Plan revision anything other than that.
I did not say calling someone anti-development was demonizing them, but you much prefer to put words into others mouths than to let their words speak for themselves. You call them anti-development to imply that they are against all development.
The hard-core anti-development TCCP position is:
"The Teaneck Coalition for Community Preservation is composed of citizens of Teaneck, NJ, who are very concerned about the inappropriate development of our town. We’re against the proposed condominium along DeGraw Avenue, Teaneck Road, and Gifford Place as well as other multifamily projects that would destroy a neighborhood’s character by being too tall, having too many units, too few parking spaces, and building too close to property lines.
We’re not against development. Rather, we’re pro appropriate development. However, appropriate development doesn’t include rezoning by variance or building multifamily units in single-family neighborhoods. Our town's Master Plan must be adhered to and not negotiated away."
Not much different from the position of councilmembers Rudolph and Gussen in their campaign literature.
Is labelling the TCCP hard-core anti-development honest stupidity or a blatant lie?
(I can also make statements disguised as questions.)
As usual, you seem to have confused yourself and lost sight of the topic under discussion through your own sophistry. Let's backtrack a little so you can regain your bearings.
A statement disguised as a question full of your usual nonsensical assumption and generalizations. It did not deserve an answer, but if you insist the answer would have to be false. Since the parroting of the anti-development party line is an invention of yours how could the statement be true.
OK, you are once again refusing to acknowledge that a generalization I made about the longer tenure and more advanced age of certain parties, admittedly just as a casual aside, has sufficient factual basis. Fine. Again, it has little to do with the main point of the post, but it still troubles you because others have seized on it to make silly comments that offend you. So that's the background to this little spat.
Now you return to another objection, my use of the phrase "parroting the anti-development party line." This was used to distinguish the actual leadership of the opposition to the Master Plan revision to some of the rank and file. Why make such a distinction? Because it is clear from the way a number of these foot soldiers have spoken at public meetings (and from the tactics used to get them to turn out) that there are a lot of people who are incensed without being informed. I have been objecting to the scare tactics and alarmism that some of the "anti-development" elements have used to rally the members of the public to their side (yes, especially older members of the public).
Now to your contention that...
I did not say calling someone anti-development was demonizing them, but you much prefer to put words into others mouths than to let their words speak for themselves. You call them anti-development to imply that they are against all development.
Your citation of the TCCP's own description of itself as friendly to development is no proof that I am falsely ascribing to them an anti-development stance. In a town where almost every candidate for Council mentioned development or some variation thereof as a pillar of his or her campaign platform, the term loses all meaning. In this case, when a group pulls out all the stops not only to vehemently oppose, but to delegitimize a proposed Master Plan revision that would loosen restrictions on development but rather strictly confine this to existing commercial and industrial zones, their self-description as favoring development is nothing but a smokescreen.
Ageism doesn't bother you. Calling people you disagree with Greenies or ultra-Greenies is fine.
Amazing for someone who was so outraged that the Suburbanite referred to the religion of council members.
I know you don't really believe these cases are parallel. What I don't know is why you think you have somehow scored a point with this feeble argument.
A few loony tune posters on here, whom everyone else has managed to ignore, have made disparaging comments about "Greenies" or "ultra-Greenies" (hardly an insult, is it?) in an attempt to marginalize the opposition to their views. Sorry, I am not offended by this, and I certainly share some environmentalist sympathies, but my apologies to all who are offended by the anonymous posters. So let's put that aside for the more serious accusation of "ageism" and inconsistency with other comments.
In a nutshell, here's why this is different: in this case, the amount of time spent living in Teaneck and the stage in life of the person in question are germane to the question of how they feel about the issue of development (and relevant to how they feel about the way the Council has been acting, as many Teaneck veterans themselves have been saying). In the case of the Suburbanite's inappropriate reference to the personal religious practices of the four Council members who opposed a resolution against unlawful campaign practices, bringing religion in was completely gratuitous and meant to spread guilt by association, as explained in the original postings on the subject.
"Ultimately, Teaneck residents must decide the larger question -- do we want to make some sacrifices for potential tax relief or do we cling to the single-family community concept that has proven to cost us dearly?"
We really have to run a cost-benefit analysis in regards to revising the Master Plan to include multifamily developments such as the Holuba Soap Factory and the JMKC project. On the one hand we'll stray from our single-family home ideology, but on the other hand the new families will help alleviate our new tax burdens.
Why we have not moved forward with revising the Master Plan baffles me! The council should be more concerned with the majority of their constituents' tax reliefs than the 30 complaining neighbors bordering these projects.
Post a Comment
<< Home