Hollywood and Teaneck?
This week's Council agenda contains an intriguing item. While I have not seen the full text of the ordinance, it appears that the august body will consider amendingto a portion of the Township code to levy a tax on interior filming in Teaneck (or perhaps raise an existing fee) .Love them or hate them, one cannot charge this Council with a lack of creativity in its relentless pursuit of revenues, nor can one take issue with the judgment that it is better to squeeze the major film studios than the overtaxed Teaneck homeowners. But if we have already gotten up to looking to the movie industry as a remedy for the bloated property tax burden, what does that say about the prospects for finding significant relief by taxing commerical activity in town? If that's the one of the larger remaining untapped sources of cash, the chances of lower taxes without deep spending cuts (or unrealistically aggressive development) are slim indeed.
There is another question that bears asking. While it seems that the ongoing effort to stick businesses or large institutions with bills to alleviate taxes on residents enjoys broad support, one wonders whether it could have the unintended effect of harming business activity in Teaneck and exacerbating the problem it is intended to solve. A few bucks in sewer fees may not persuade an existing business to pull up stakes and go elsewhere, but a greater overall tax burden or a reputation for wanting businesses only to tax them might keep new businesses out.
Additional production costs could certainly convince a movie studio to go elsewhere for its on location shooting. While Teaneck backdrops have featured in such films as "The Family Man" (2000), "Meet Joe Black" (1998), "Cop Land" (1997), and "City Hall" (1996), one wonders whether Teaneck makes such a compelling setting that slapping a bunch of additional fees on filming would not curb demand. The same goes for pretty much any other commercial activity. The Council should be careful not to kill the geese that it hopes will lay the golden eggs.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 11:23 AM
41 Comments:
Section 20-23 of the Township Code sets fees for filming on private property of $500 per day, with an additional $1,000 per day fee for filming on public land, streets, right-of-way or public buildings.
Having heard much of the debate, the issue is that the current fee structure is perceived as having been designed for big-budget films, and that certain reality-TV and small budget productions have been deterred from choosing Teaneck due to the existing fee structure.
As I understand it, Ordinance 3997 would provide for cutting certain fees that would relate to interior shooting, such as for a home show that has been interested in filming here in Teaneck. If I recall, the ordinance would establish a range of fees and allow the Township to negotiate within that range.
The proposed ordinance, when I heard it discussed at a Workshop, seemed to me to be evidence of greater flexibility in trying to bring in a little more revenue and get a bit of favorable publicity for our Township.
Alan Sohn
Good, glad I had it wrong.
On a related topic, did anyone else think the subtext of Family Man, was that only poor hapless shnooks would live in a place like Teaneck?
FYI, a neighbor of mine actually did have there house rented for interior shooting several years ago. The movie was never released but they did get an interior paint job out of it
Whoops -- I should have spelled "there" as "their" but I don't know how to edit a post. I wouldn't want anyone to think that a public school parent would make such a mistake!
On a related topic, did anyone else think the subtext of Family Man, was that only poor hapless shnooks would live in a place like Teaneck?
Certainly it suggested that life in a place like Teaneck lacks a certain panache. How wrong they were!
The relevant discussion (about the proposed ordinance, not the subtext of "Family Man" as it may relate to the metaphysics of suburban life in Teaneck) comes from the minutes of the January 9th Council Meeting:
"Mayor Katz mentioned HGTV's interest in filming within the Township and requested authorization for the Manager to permit HGTV's access at a reduced price since all filming would be internal.
Council was in agreement to allow.
Mrs. Fall to reduce the municipal fee schedule pertaining to inside filming for this one instance and list for further discussion by Council."
The break between the second and third paragraph seems to be in error.
Alan Sohn
When will the residents of Teaneck wake up and see that our esteemed Mayor has something negative to say about every development proposal under discussion by the Planning Board except the where he is a direct beneficiary, namely in the Plaza area where he and his associates own substantial property. While mouthing pro-development sentiments the Mayor 1)wants the Holuba project substantially reduced, 2)wants Chestnut Avenue naysayers to have a veto onwhat on American Legion Drive proposals, 3)came out against the Riverfront development. He is the soul of discretion, however, when it comes to proposals for 55' structures on the Plaza. If he thinks he can get away with that he is even dumber than he seems to be. There is a 9' x 9' cell awaiting public officials who line their own pockets while fleecing everyone else's.
UH HO ELIE, based on the ip address of the last comment looks like you ticked off certain individuals that are being paid to support the haluba and american legion dr proposals
There is, of course, a more innocent explanation for the Mayor's supposed obstructionism on the Holuba and American Legion Drive projects but not on the Plaza: they former both irk a number of voters. If there is popular opposition to redevelopment or upzoning of the Plaza, I have not heard it yet. Any public official who seeks to avoid alienating a portion of the electorate would act the same way.
the mayor recused himself and left the room for all conversations pertainig to the plaze area at last nights planning board meeting
Anonymous 8.39 is either very dishonest or very mentally disturbed
No. Any public official would not act that way. At the very least the Mayor should recuse himself from voting on the Master Plan and on the enabling legislation that will follow. Saying it's politics when he is the sole beneficiary of his public acts will not remove the rotten smell that his actions have generated. Whether it will land him in the clinker remains to be seen.
This is 8:39. Please advise why my remarks about our Mayor are a) dishonest and b) evidence of mental disturbance.
"Anonymous 8.39 is either very dishonest or very mentally disturbed"
Ditto anonymous 2:27
Anon 8:39- Most everyone wants the Haluba project reduced or gone.
Why should any sane person care what "most people" want to do about the Haluba property? Land use is not a subject in which the majority rules, or should rule.
Don't forget 5:54 most people wanted to go into Iraq. Most people are against abortion rights. Most people believe in the death penalty. We'd be in fine pickle if we did what "most people" wanted.
Why should any sane person care what "most people" want to do about the Haluba property? Land use is not a subject in which the majority rules, or should rule.
I'm not totally unsympathetic to this argument. But high-minded principles have to meet political reality, and the fact is that the Master Plan is a document drawn up by residents who have been selected to represent the public by elected officials who are empowered by the voting public.
Teaneck's collective (or not so collective, depending on whom you choose to believe) views on appropriate land use are enshrined in the Master Plan, and to the extent that the document is able to withstand any legal challenges, the will of the people and not some abstract notion of right will determine permissible uses for the Holuba property and others in Teaneck.
Whether or not the Master Plan is just or even legal, every elected official will (wisely, if not necessarily admirably) line up with popular opinion when it overwhelmingly swings one way on an issue such as this one, if only to preserve some support for other more important battles. Welcome to the real world.
Whether or not the master plan is just or even legal...
I don't think there's any question that the master plan and the zoning ordinances that arise from it are legal. There could be cases where an ordinance or practice is clearly discriminatory (e.g., restrictive covenants) in which case the courts would set it aside. But in the mundane everyday, it appears that the people through their elected officials and appointed boards do have the right to regulate development.
The poster at 6:18 (and elsewhere) seems to be arguing a libertarian tenant, not a matter of law. He ought to acknowledge the distinction.
The Master Plan is not "a document drawn up by residents who have been selected to represent the public by public officials". It is a document drawn up by paid professionals and it is the province of those individuals chosen to serve on the Planning Board to amend if they so choose, and then to vote it up or vote it down.
Do you suggest that the Planning Board take a poll of the Teaneck citizenry to determine what it should it do? That's an absurd position and I am sure you do not support it.
The will of the people will emphatically not determine what will be included in the Master Plan. How will the people speak? Through the TCCP? Through Marty Cramer? Through Holuba? Though the owner of the Stop & Shop? Through the 25 people who showed up at last night's Planning Board meeting?
Remember the Teaneck Tennis Club Cases in which the will of the people ignored the rights of a landowner. The vox populi was thrown out by the courts and we are now, alas, saddled with a grossly inadequate supermarket. So much for siding withe the will of the people!
Remember, my friend, that the job of political leaders is to lead not to follow slavishly the will o' the wisp views of the public.
Sezame is incorrect. I am arguing the legal position espoused by the Jersey courts. It is not a libertarian position. I favor zoning laws that are properly conceived and not unduly restrictive of property rights. Libertarans believe that zoning is per se violative of the constitutional right to life, liberty and property. I do not.
The abuse of zoning laws by people who consider themselves liberals never ceases to amaze me. It must be the Czarist strain in the liberal mind trying to get out. These people see nothing wrong with using the power of government to institute their private views (see the majority ruling in the Kelo case, out of New London), just like the Czars and Commisars of the USSR. Of course they are appalled when the religious right tries to do the same thing to them. Chacun a son gout!
Don't they understand that landowners are people whose rights cannot be violated with impunity by temporary majorities who want to stop growth and change in their communities.
Would George Bush have the gall to approve a law where, through his bully pulpit, he saw to it that he was the sole beneficiary of that law?
Would Eliot Spitzer dare to propose legislation benefiting only his family after speaking out against all other potential beneficiaries?
Would Jon Corzine recommend a law that would, as a result of his direct actions, benefit only himself and his friends?
Will the Bergen County Prosecutor be interested in this matter? We'll see soon enough.
The Master Plan is not "a document drawn up by residents who have been selected to represent the public by public officials". It is a document drawn up by paid professionals and it is the province of those individuals chosen to serve on the Planning Board to amend if they so choose, and then to vote it up or vote it down.
Technically true, but so what? You want the Planning Board members to be more sensitive to property owner rights at a time that they are already taking their lumps for allegedly being too partial to developers at the expense of residents. Not going to happen, for obvious reasons.
Remember, my friend, that the job of political leaders is to lead not to follow slavishly the will o' the wisp views of the public.
Same story. While you see this as a litmus test for ones commitment to individual property rights, pretty much everyone else sees one landowner's pecuniary interests against an entire neighborhood of homeowners. It doesn't make any sense for the elected officials who have already stuck their necks out and come under fire for being too gung ho about development to take on a vocal group of opponents to defend a principle they may or may not adhere to. They may have the political capital to loosen restrictions and promote a broadening of the tax base in several areas of Teaneck, but they clearly have to tread lightly to do it. They have little incentive to risk their whole program so that the owners of the Holuba property can maximize its value.
Dear Teaneck Blog: I think you should retire from commenting on these types of issues. You seem incapable of thinking straight about land use matters, owing, I think, to your zeal to defend the indefensible and to protect the current crop of elected officials. For example: even if the entire neighborhood sees the Holuba issue as a matter of landlord's pecuniary interest versus homeowner wishes, the Planning Board, and particularly our Mayor, cannot see it that way. In their rush to show how much they want to protect the homeowner, they cannot ignore the landowner's rights. Not that they have to endorse his request for nearly 200 units, but to zone that area for "low density", as happened last night, is a travesty of injustice. Many of us remember what happened when Weinberg, Cramer, Kates et. al. did this this kind of injustice to the owner's of the Tennis Club. They were smashed in the face by the New Jersey courts. Take my word for it: this will happen again, and on the Holuba property! The timidity of our elected officials, led by that two faced scoundrel, Mayor Katz, will come back to haunt the neighbors.
Sounds like some dishonest ones are trying to Taint the reputation of the the Honest ones.
MAKE YOUR POINT OR SHUT UP
I made my point but you appear too dense to understand it. And I won't shut up as long as blogging allows me to try to educate dumbkupp's like you to understand the law. That's what retired lawyers like me enjoy doing anyway. We talk and talk and hope someone's listening. Ain't Blogging wonderful!
Why don't you try to write a sustained argument in your next letter instead of an attack blurb. However, if you want to blurt out your apoplexy. go ahead. It's a free country--even for dumbkopp's.
Dear Teaneck Blog: I think you should retire from commenting on these types of issues. You seem incapable of thinking straight about land use matters, owing, I think, to your zeal to defend the indefensible and to protect the current crop of elected officials.
Are you kidding me?
I have repeatedly pointed out that you are demanding that elected officials take what a large number of voters would characterize as an extreme stance in order to uphold your sense of the proper intent of land use laws, at the peril of their overall program and the risk of losing voter support. I am not zealously defending this behavior or apologizing for it so much as giving it a very simple and logical explanation that you apparently are having trouble assimilating.
No Council or Planning Board member is vulnerable to your attack- you are outside the lines of this debate. If a court challenge shoots down this particular aspect of the Master Plan, Council and Planning Board members will not be the harmed in the least. They will tell the residents that they went to bat for them and unfortunately, the courts intervened.
Whether you like it or not, it is not the job of a Teaneck Council member to interpret or stick up for the spirit of the land use laws. There are courts for that.
Teaneck Blog: You are forcing me to recall things long forgotten, but retirement allows time for reflection and recall. I dimly remember the occasion during the Tennis Club matter when the members of the Council and the Palnning Board were sued IN THEIR OWN NAMES by Tennis Club for doing precisely what you are suggesting the current members should do, namely to violate the law. I remember that liens were put om all their houses and other assets, and it seemed to many of us that had the Town not settled Tennis Club would have won in the courts
and taken their houses and their assets lock stock and barrel. You are urging these politcians to break the law in the name of politics. You and they will rue the day they heed your advice.
I will be happy to lend my legal support, pro bono, to anyone who wishes to sue these pussilanimous cowards after the Master Plan is voted up or voted down. That will be the beginning of the issue, not the end of it.
By the way, you can call me Ragger.
You're making quite a leap by comparing the two situations, not to mention making yourself sound off the wall by alleging some grand conspiracy to cheat some property owners and enrich others. Why don't you enumerate what law is being broken in the process of revising the Master Plan in such a way that would in fact loosen existing restrictions on the use of the Holuba property, but would not give the owners completely free reign to do as they please?
That's not a proper response to my argument. The two situations are remarkably similar in that, in both instances, public officials abrogated the rights of a property holder to enact zoning restrictions desired by their constituents. Public Officials take an oath to support the Constitution. That oath trumps all else, including their zeal for currying political favor.
Second, I am not alleging a grand conspiracy. I am stating forthrightly that our Mayor is acting most unwisely, and in my view, in a way that is legally improper, in attacking every development proposal save his own, so that he alone will capture the market in the next few years.
He should think twice, even three times(if he thinks at all) about the penalites for self dealing by public officials.
Third, the law that is being broken is the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.
Fourth, it is not for me to say what the Planning Board should do about the Holuba property. It is worth pointing out that the Mayor made a motion at Monday night's Planning Board meeting to reduce the Holuba prperty zoning to"low density".
He doesn't know it. but our Mayor is putting the handcuffs on his own wrist.
OK, we shall see...
Ragger-
Let me have your opinion on this:
While the town and its various boards and zoning cannot dictate WHO can live in any area that it decides should be residential, it can decide that WHAT is there be in keeping "with the character of the surrounding neighborhood." Perhaps a better analogy would be that if an area is zoned for retail, than the town bodies can decide how tall it can be, but cannot choose a Starbucks over a 99 cent store, even though everybody would rather have the Starbucks.
Without some level of control that we and every other town have through our zoning ordinances, there would be utter chaos, no?
Perhaps the problem is that the current Master Plan draft lists specific parcels of land and suggests what should be done with them. Would that plan be more legally sound if it did NOT mention specific parcels, but focused more on creating more of whatever type of zoning in a particular neighborhood?
You ask trenchant questions. I'll try to answer them.
1) The Holuba property is in a light industrial zone. Can the Planning Board rezone that property? Yes it can. Can it rezone it to accommodate only single family homes? I don't think so. The Herrick Park neighborhood, where the Holuba property is located, is certainly characterized by single family homes. Yet, I do not think it would be constitutionally permissible to rezone the Holuba property only for single family homes. There are limits, therefore, in how far a Planning Board can act in contravention of economic reality in order to maintain neighborhood character.
The economic reality I am referring to, of course, is the value of Holuba's property, which is much greater than the value he would achieve if the property were zoned for single family homes. And much greater than could be realzed by the "low density" zoning adopted on Monday night.
2)Not everyone would prefer to see a Starbucks over a 99 cent store. I, for one, hate Starbuck's coffee and resent paying $3 for something that costs 10 cents to make. I would much rather see Cedar Lane filled with stores that sold goods rather than food. We have enough food stores in Town!
Don't assume you know what people what. You don't.
3) We should use our zoning power to prevent haphazard growth, but only if we don't act to trample on other people's rights in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner.
If the Town wants to effectively take someones property by zoning it so that it has little economic value, the Town should be compelled to purchase the property. That would put an end to the misuse of the zoning power and give honest municipalites a clear opportunity to control growth.
4) The Master Plan does not deal with individual properties, but with zones. Rezoning specific sites, called "spot zoning" in land use parlance, is not permitted under the NJ MUnicipal Land Use Law.
The agreed wording of the master plan with respect to the Holuba property is something very close to:
"It is recommended that consideration be given to amending the zoning for this property to eliminate industrial uses as a permitted use and to allow low-density for residential development in the context of the existing residential scale of the adjoining east of site fronting on Palisade Avenue, on all streets
across Palisade Avenue to the east, and to the south into Bogota."
This does not change the zoning it onlly suggests consideration of a zoning change. I believe an actual zoning change would require actiion by the town council.
Also, the mayor did not make a "motion" to include the words "low densty" in the above. He did support the inclusion of those words despite discussion as to the ambiguous nature of the definition of "low density" and the belief that it was already covered by the "in the context of the existing residential scale..." His reasoning being that the residents clearly favored this language.
The actual motion to change the language to the above was made by another Board member. It passed with one dissenting vote.
in my opinion the person directly responsible for the original master plan mess was our "rude" chair. HE NEEDS TO GO
I heard that durring the break the chair was talking the Haluba representatives
who are the Haluba representatives???
Stan Steinreich was at the meeting and is the spokesperson for Holuba, according to Tuesday's Bergen Record. Mr. Steinreich was sitting next to Yitz Stern at the meeting.
What was Stern doing there?
Anonymous 11:48, you raise a very good question, indeed. Mssrs. Steinreich and Stern left after they Holuba item was declared closed. However, the topic was picked up again after it was pointed out that people who had been recognized to speak on Holuba had not gotten the chance to do so. It was after that conversation that a motion was made to change the language.
Post a Comment
<< Home