Pummeling the straw man
As both sides stand down and the furor over the Master Plan abates, I am struck again by the absurdity of the whole controversy. While Teaneck's chattering classes were abuzz over the perceived injustice of the process by which the Master Plan revision was almost adopted, if not the actual content of the document itself, they managed to infect a certain portion of the population with a measure of hysteria and mistrust that boggles the mind.
How else to explain the ongoing barrage of kooky letters to the Suburbanite alleging that the Planning Board seeks to "destroy our lifestyle" or worrying that the corner of Voorhees and Van Cortland Streets could soon have high rise buildings looming over it and dominating the skyline? When a respected elected official pens a letter suggesting parallels between the efforts to seek a "reduction of taxes through development" and the United States' decision to go to war in Iraq, you know that a minor spat over the amount of public input solicited by the Planning Board has been blown totally out of proportion, probably for political reasons. The more silly letters appear caricaturing the pro-development position as seeking to alter the character of existing residential neighborhoods, the more I am convinced that people are either willfully ignorant or deluded and manipulated by opponents of the Mayor and his supporters.
I know all the ways that the Council majority has blundered when it comes to public relations. I am aware of the perils of taking rash decisions when it comes to development. I, too, have a strong preference for trees and grass over office parks and strip malls. And perhaps unlike the most outspoken advocates of greater development, I don't expect to see any significant reduction in my property tax bill on account of a ratables increase anytime soon. Nonetheless, I am mystified as to how anyone could possibly believe there is a conspiracy afoot to eliminate the suburban character of our community and deliver it all into the hands of greedy, conniving developers. I cannot see how anyone would believe such tripe, let alone stand up to rail against it without examining the proposed Master Plan first. I would actually prefer to believe that the most sensational of these protests were mere political grandstanding. I don't want to think too hard about what it means for the level of discourse in Teaneck if they were not.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 10:06 PM
33 Comments:
A fine piece! I hope the TCCP crowd reads it and weeps. These people, and the old pols like Marty Cramer, who are dreging up these ridiculous charges hope to use the issue to regain the political power they lost through their own incompetence. Let's stop them now!
Hmmm. Any interest in the "air rights" over the railroad tracks?
Seems to me that a pro development official would be less suspect if the property considered for development were not in his or her portfolio.
Bill "not Smart Alex from nj.com" Brennan
PS that is a reference to a township employee that continues to harass after all that $ went down the drain. Anyone investigating? Anyone care? I hold up my end of a bargain, when it gets very one sided I'll drop that end right on your foot.
DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT GUY!
I had written something I had planned to speak about at Wednesday's Planning Board open house, but never got around to presenting. To summarize (before you read all about it on TeaneckProgress), the Planning Board has not yet laid out a case, telling the story of why the particular set of proposals in this Master Plan are the right choices for Teaneck.
I have a gut feeling that development will be beneficial for Teaneck. And I'm sure that many members of the Planning Board share this perception.
But we still need to hear a concise summary of what the specific changes will be, when we can expect to see things start and just how much in savings the average taxpayer will see in the bottom line on their property taxes. For $2,000, I'll sell my soul to the highest bidder; If it's $20, I'm happy with the status quo. I assume the numbers are somewhere in between, and a reasonably detailed few pages should be able to tell the essential story that might well change some minds, or at least get the oft-mentioned "silent majority" of development proponents to show up and voice their support in public.
The answer is not to tell people that they need to read a 140-page document or to reiterate that "development is good". We need to see a handful of pages of documentation explaining why this Master Plan is what Teaneck needs to help address some of our financial issues.
There is a middle ground. The best way to reach that point and to start to allay some of the unjustified "hysteria and mistrust" is to provide residents with the facts they need to make an informed judgment on our Master Plan.
Alan Sohn
The year 2027-- Teaneck will (like the rest of the metropolitan area) be very different. Let's keep the focus on the future (when the old greenies will be out of the picture). Stop blocking the Big Ideas to clear the way to the future.
Nothing wrong with being green, in fact it is the right thing to do.
Dense residential development is not, has never been and never will be a solution to suburban problems.
Having said that, the Plaza is ripe for revitalization and the "air rights" over the tracks are a unique opportunity to get outside forces as a catalyst for improvement. That space is a blank canvas that can be green designed, increase the size of Votee, provide an underground DPW (which would free up river front property for parks) and absorb mixed use development.
Nah, let's fight over control of the town while all of it's infrastructure decays.
It seems this blog is about statements rather than discussion.
All these discussions about purchase of air rights over the rail tracks implies that land values (and demand) in Teaneck are at Manhattan levels. Until we develop our plain vanilla soft sites near Cedar Lane, in the Plaza and possibly at Alfred Avenue, no developer is going to be able to make the numbers work if they have to bear the cost of building a platform over railroad tracks in addition to routine development costs.
Let's focus on what's real and feasible rather than what's a fantasy.
The answer is not to tell people that they need to read a 140-page document or to reiterate that "development is good". We need to see a handful of pages of documentation explaining why this Master Plan is what Teaneck needs to help address some of our financial issues.
Yes, yes, yes. Your entire post is on the mark. But the crazy thing is that this, the major point of vulnerability for the Planning Board, was not the major point of contention! Instead, the opponents of the Master Plan revision focused on a silly straw man argument about endangering the character of Teaneck when the Master Plan was quite clear about the fact that residential neighborhoods were to be protected. The actual content of the Master Plan and the details of the vision it puts forward then escaped much of the scrutiny.
If anyone really believes that their property tax woes are going to be gone once a new master plan is in place, I have a bridge to sell them. Teaneck has always had some of the highest property taxes in the area and likely always will. Didn't anybody pay attention to that when they purchased houses here? Maybe they just hoped they'd be able to fix the town's problems once they lived here.
If the master plan has a vision, can you tell me what it is?
People moved here in many cases for reasons having nothing to do with those reasons that motivate greenies. And the likelihood is that the next few years will bring more such folks who will in fact be willing to accept serious development if it leads to containing their property taxes. Suburban life does not mean country life and Staten Island development, if it brings Staten Island level property taxes, will be very acceptable. Many many Teaneck dwellers would as easily live in Riverdale. I know many people who were disappointed by the cowardly removal of the riverfront from future development. What is politically expedient in 2007 will be far less so a few years down the road. The ridiculous absence of taxpaying businesses along the greenbelt should not and will not survive into future decades.
We seem to have become a Town full of children who care only that tomorrow be no different from today.
Teaneck was a Jersey farming community 80 years ago. Then it became an exurban retreat. Then it became a post GW Bridge inner suburb. Then many, many apartment developments came into Town. Then a large hotel and office complex came into existance along the 80/95 corridor.
In the future Teaneck will become a river community with shops and restaurants set amidst mid rise and high rise condominiums built along side stone and concrete embankments, with walkways and bicycle paths and beautiful lighting, etc. A mini Battery Park City is surely in our future with so much river front and so little use made of it.
The people who now object to this will either be dead or haved moved out of Town. So it will happen, probably over their dead bodies.
Anonymous at 1:10 said:
Suburban life does not mean country life and Staten Island development, if it brings Staten Island level property taxes, will be very acceptable. Many many Teaneck dwellers would as easily live in Riverdale.
Staten Island and Riverdale do not have lower taxes because of their higher density. The City's tax revenue comes largely from the New York City income tax, which allows the city to lower its real estate tax assessment. It is certainly a more progressive form of taxation. Until the whole New Jersey tax system is reconfigured so that municipalities depend less on local property taxes and more on state revenue to fund education, the actions of any individual municipality will not have a major effect on its tax burden.
Until the whole New Jersey tax system is reconfigured so that municipalities depend less on local property taxes and more on state revenue to fund education, the actions of any individual municipality will not have a major effect on its tax burden.
Your blanket statement is not exactly true. Look at Secaucus, for example. There is an example of a municipality that developed its way to a very manageable homeowner tax burden and an admirable fiscal position. However, the opportunities for doing that in a densely populated residential suburb such as Teaneck are obviously much more limited.
"However, the opportunities for doing that in a densely populated residential suburb such as Teaneck"
Another thing some of us regret was taken off the table is eminent domain. That would solve the dilemma alluded to above. It will happen down the road when the silent majority gets less silent and more of the greenies have gone on to their future.
Yeah, right. Keep dreaming.
...when the Master Plan was quite clear about the fact that residential neighborhoods were to be protected. The actual content of the Master Plan and the details of the vision it puts forward then escaped much of the scrutiny.
The usual total crap from the blogger. Only someone without a clue as to what a Master Plan is could think the original version with could protect the town.
"Let's focus on what's real and feasible rather than what's a fantasy."
You are the arbiter of reality? I think not.
How much money is going toward a new DPW yard?
How much money would the Township receive in Green Acres funding for green space over the railroad?
How much money would the federal transportaion fund contribute to underground train yards and or stations?
How much money would 20 acres of undeveloped property (6 miles from Manhattan) in Bergen County, NJ be worth?
Maybe less time should be spent reading daily fire reports and more time spent investigating additional funding for innovative solutions.
Careful, Mr. Sohn, about urging rezoning the Plaza and nothing else. I wouldn't put it past our devious officials to get their own property rezoned and let Herrick Park, the Riverfront area, and ALD swing in the wind. I can assure you that if that is the case there will be a hue and cry so loud it will make reporting on corruption in Hudson County seem like mere child's play. If the fix is in, the ins will get nailed! You can bet the ranch on that. Corruption and self dealing have an ancient history in this area. Furtunately, those who indulge in it usually end up in jail.
Anonymous at 1:10 made a ridiculous comparison between Riverdale and Teaneck. There is no comparison. The Fieldston section of Riverdale is probably the finest residential neighborhood in the Tri-state area. Virtually every street is as elegant as Winthrop Road in Teaneck, and there are 50 such streets in Riverdale to one in Teaneck. The people who own these homes don't fulminate aginst development of other housing types one block from Fieldston's borders. Live and let live, their implicit credo, is surely a more civilized response to differnces than the "my way or the highway" attitude that seems to animate so many Teaneck residents.
Mr. Sohn: Your request for more guidance with respect to the specific choices recommended by the Birdsall Report looks innocent but their is a snake inside that request wanting to come out. I attended every one of the hearings at which Birdsall discussed the reasoning behind each of their choices. Obviously, you were not in attendance or you would have known that. Planning Boards are not in the business of justifying their actions except prior to a vote. This Board will do precisely that on April 12th. What you seem to favor is some process that will result in an endless set of disacussions without final action. If the U.S. Government can pass a dense bill, and all the other bills that are required to be passedeach year, surely a municipality such as Teaneck cam pass a new Master Plan within a year from the get go.
I may be wrong about this but I think you would prefer a get slow to a get go, or even a get no, if that were possible. In that regard you have two significant allies on the Planning Board, Ned Goldman and Howard Rose, who want to talk the issue to death instead of voting on it.
Cushman and Wakefield
Ned Goldman works for them. Expect him to plan for the big outfit rather than the public he serves.
Building over the railroad???
That is an interesting idea. Anyone else have any thought or ideas on this!
Ned Goldman works for Cushman & Wakefield? You'd better check your facts.
Which "hearings" did the anonymous poster 8:38 attend? I'm guessing anonymous is a planning board member.
anonymous 747
like half the town, you make the same mistake- the birdsall report has nothing to do with the planning board- that poster is referring to the development report prepared and discussed for the council
I meant what I wrote about Birdsall hearings, and will repeat: which hearings did the anonymous poster attend?
Anonymous at 9:06
I think you missed something that wasn't very well publicized. In addition to preparing the development report, Birdsall was named planner for the planning board and prepared the draft of the new master plan.
When was Birdsall named planner for the Planning Board?
I believe sometime in November.
Facts checked.
The last finacial disclosure form I read from Ned Goldman stated "Cushman and Wakefield" as his employer.
That was a few years back, he was on planning or zoning or something and had to file one.
Building over tracks:
The state is about to do just that right where Route 4 crosses them.
A new ambulance building up there would cut response time for a significant portion of the town.
If the building were situated over the highway there'd be no need to use eminant domain, it's already public property.
If TVAC got a fair trade on the "property" a positive tax ratable could pop up where TVAC is now.
The value of TVAC's property is greater than the cost of constructing the taj mahal of ambulance facilities even with with full luxury amenities.
Keep in mind that the State is building a "foundation" anyway.
The cost is the building and the emergency vehicle ramps (to both directions on 4, Queen Anne and Belle).
After that you get a permanent revenue stream from an office/commercial ratable that improves the neighborhood's quality of life and saves lives.
Office Space is quieter and cleaner than TVAC's diesels coming and going day and night so property values improve.
Anonymous 1:21 -- facts need re-checking.
Why don't you just state the facts rather than assert that I have presented false information.
I have a copy of Goldman's Finanial disclosure upon which he wrote "Cushman and Wakefield" in the space where his employer's name belongs.
Did he quit? Is he with another Real Estate conglomerate now? What's false?
I am sure if you offered TVAC a new building, they would take it.
Post a Comment
<< Home