Defending the indefensible

Count this voter as unhappy to see one of Teaneck's representatives in the State Assembly, Valerie Vainieri Huttle, making excuses for wasteful spending on pork barrel projects. In an article in today's Record, Huttle is dismissive of the U.S. Attorney's investigation into the Democrat-controlled State Legislature, implying that whatever transgressions are being committed are just business as usual and that her Republican counterparts did the very same when they were in the majority.

"I don't think the Christmas tree was planted in 2004," she told the Record. Given the fiscal condition of the State of New Jersey and its all too numerous municipalities, I draw very little comfort from the fact that the Democratic majority's irresponsible use of our tax dollars has a strong precedent. Playing the partisan blame game when you yourself seem to recognize that there is a real mess to clean up is unconscionable, especially when you are a member of the majority who has the power to make changes.

Let's hope this quotation was plucked out of context and Huttle had a bit more to say, perhaps along the lines of, "I don't think the Christmas tree was planted in 2004, but that said, we Democrats bear a responsibility to protect the interests of the taxpayers against those among us who would exploit their position for personal gain. If re-elected, I pledge to act as the conscience of this legislature and stand up against any improper use of public funds."

Spoiling for a fight

The next chapter of the Holuba Soap Factory saga is about to be written. Back in January, the property's owners seemed to have lost a key supporter when Council member Elnatan Rudolph bent to public pressure and released a statement declaring his opposition to the proposed residential development adjacent to Herrick Park. In the text of his statement, Rudolph suggested that "the owners of the property go back to the drawing board." Well, that they did, and neither residents nor local officials are going to like what they came up with.

Former Teaneck public information officer Stan Steinreich, who ended his working relationship with the town late last year somewhat acrimoniously, introduced the owners' latest idea for the property in his role as their public spokesman. Rather than a somewhat dense condominium development that would have required rezoning of their land, the owners plan a major industrial expansion on the site.

If you did not like our last idea, wait until you see what we're going to put in your backyard as an alternative, the Holubas seem to be saying. You think a few apartments and a bit of passenger car traffic would ruin the quality of life in your quiet suburb? How would you like to live and play beside a large chemical plant and a constant stream of tractor-trailers carrying hazardous materials coming and going all day?

Prediction: this rather transparent bullying attempt, a high stakes bluff if I have ever seen one, will backfire. The endgame in this ongoing public battle over the property was always going to be a face-saving compromise in which the owners would be able to build a slightly less profitable project than they had originally envisioned. The segment of the population (and municipal government) that is friendly to development was quietly supportive of the rights of the owners to build a reasonable development that would permit them to extract a good portion of the value from their property. Once the initial furor of the vocal neighborhood protest died down, the issue would have been quietly resolved in a mutually agreeable way that would be framed as a 'win-win' by Mayor Katz.

Now that the owners have forced the issue by resorting to threats, this outcome is far less certain. Telling the residents of an environmentally conscious, prosperous suburb with a lot of young families that you intend to place a large "chemical-industrial site" in their midst if you do not get your way is a good way to forfeit all of your public support, property rights be damned. The town will now face even greater pressure from residents to pull out all the stops in contesting the plans for the site. The Holubas appear to have guaranteed themselves a lengthy and expensive court battle by choosing the path of confrontation. Perhaps they should head "back to the drawing board" again.

Don't drown in debt

It is doubtful that many residents pay close attention to the way that Teaneck actually finances its ongoing spending. Sure, most of us have a pretty good idea of our own annual tax liability, and now some of us even have a pretty good grasp of property assessments in the wake of the recent revaluation, but keeping track of the real nuts and bolts of monies in and monies out is not something for which the average concerned citizen has the time or the attention span. Do we need to start paying attention?

An alarming, though altogether unsurprising, report from Moody's Investors Service cited in today's Star-Ledger ranks New Jersey as the fourth largest debtor state in the Union (for reference, the state ranks ninth in population). On a per capita basis, the debt load is $3,317 per resident, triple the national average, and growing. Whether this is merely a reflection of the State's many financial problems or another cause of them is beside the point. The bottom line is that for New Jerseyans, the already heavy tax burden and all the intractable problems it causes or compounds are here to stay.

While this in and of itself is a sobering message for Teaneck taxpayers and officials who hold out hope that better lobbying in Trenton will defray the rising cost of maintaining local services, the story doesn't end with a heavy state debt burden. Teaneck, too, has a significant amount of debt outstanding for both municipal and school district purposes. A recent disclosure filing put that burden at $388 per capita. While this is far below the State mandated ceiling of 3.5% of equalized valuation, it is not insignificant. Furthermore, it may rise again soon, as the Council is slated to consider two ordinances to raise funds through bond issues tonight (see Ordinances #4003 and #4004 on the agenda).

The question facing Teaneck is not whether we really need to own a packer truck or even whether bond issues ever ought to be relied upon to finance current spending. There are certainly compelling reasons for both. What we do need to weigh is whether we are living above our means in the present and digging ourselves a hole for the future. It is always best to defer the tough decisions on belt tightening to a later date, hoping that State funds or increased ratables will make up the difference. Is this really a good bet for us to make?

Commuters lose round one

Back on February 20th, a number of residents came before the Council to urge it to make life easier for commuters. With a group calling itself the Teaneck Commuter Coalition boosting turnout through an e-mail campaign, numerous speakers stood up during the Good and Welfare portion of the meeting to highlight the difficulties they face in finding legal parking spots near major bus routes into Manhattan. With the Council already sending signals that tackling the commuter parking problem was among its priorities, there was every reason to believe that municipal government would take up the issue and begin to search for solutions to a nettlesome problem.

That is why it is a bit surprising that Council's first step was to enact even more onerous parking restrictions on commuters. This week's Suburbanite reports that at the April 11th meeting, the Council voted 5-2 to install meters in two Township owned parking lots off of State Street. While previously these lots accomodated commuters in need of day parking, the new two-hour parking limit narrows the options even further for residents employed in New York City.

Curiously, Mayor Katz does not see it way, claiming that the ordinance "take[s] into account the needs of both commuters and [area] apartment residents." Statements by Councilman Gussen give a clearer picture of the intent of the new measures. "The State Street parking lot is essential for residents of the apartments," he said. "This ordinance limits parking abuses and makes sure that the lot is available to residents of the area." Gussen himself resides in a nearby apartment.

While Gussen may have been voting his own self-interest and that of his neighbors, which is perfectly understandable, it is a little bit harder to discern why the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and two others voted in favor of this measure, which may improve quality of life for some but exacerbates a bigger problem that was supposedly an important issue for this Council.

Was this just a shortsighted decision, motivated by a desire to placate a certain group of residents and gather up ongoing revenues from parking meters in the municipal lots or was there something else at work here? Perhaps the Council still has its eye on the oft-discussed for-profit parking deck in the West Englewood Plaza area, which would cater to commuters. That project immediately became more lucrative once fees were assessed on nearby spaces that would have offered a free alternative. Whatever the reason, Teaneck's commuters have yet to benefit from their first organized attempt at lobbying.

Key takeaways

Engaging in painstaking post-election analysis is a popular pastime among political types, and with good reason. Results from actual balloting serve as a once per cycle reality check on all the commentary, speculation, and opinion polls that regularly fill the media. Having gotten our annual reality check from yesterday's School Board elections, it is worthwhile to ask what we can learn about public opinion and the attitudes of Teaneck's voters toward the Board of Education.

The outcome of the budget vote, an overwhelming 'YES' (60%-40%) one year after voters rejected a heftier increase by a significant margin, lends itself more easily to such interpretation. Two factors seem to have been at work in this year's passage of the budget. The first of these was a more contained tax increase than last year, due in part to greater state aid. The key number facing voters was 2.92%, which, all things considered, was not that daunting. The second factor (or rather non-factor) was the absence of a major scandal this time around motivating voters to send a message to the BoE. The shock and outrage felt by many in the aftermath of the damning report on lavish taxpayer-funded benefits for a well-paid Teaneck school administrator raised serious questions about oversight and prompted voters to "send a message," as it were.

Which of these was more important? There seems to be an inclination among those who feel that the Board of Ed runs as tight a fiscal ship as possible to believe that last year's budget defeat was in fact unrelated to dollars and cents and was simply a one-off rebuke from the electorate. Some will certainly point to the one-sided result yesterday as proof that Teaneck voters are generally not displeased with the way things are being run and that the BoE was handed a mandate to continue to place among the highest spending districts in the region. It is not clear that this read is the correct one. It is just as plausible that the Teaneck voters have expressed their approval of the fact that this year's annual increases in school levy came in at a much lower level than last year's. Given that last year saw a rash of budget defeats across the state, not just in Teaneck, and a reversal this year, it appears that voters have given a bit of positive reinforcement to the school boards they chastised last year for overdoing the hikes in taxes in spending. A bit more largesse from Trenton for non-Abbott school districts such as Teaneck probably played a role in turning back the tide of 'NO' votes. If that is the case, then the lesson is clear- find ways to keep a lid on taxes and spending and you'll retain popular support. (Note: see here for more on this)

The significance of the school board election results is a bit harder to tease out. The newly elected and re-elected school board members do not represent any clear agenda that I can discern. Was it a strong conviction that the BoE does indeed need to improve communication with the public (the only issue challenger Sebastian Rodriguez highlighted that Barbara Ostroth did not) that led voters to turn a longtime board member out of office? Doubtful. At best, one can say that the voters opted for a personnel change for the sake of change. A campaign that had little to do with substantive policy issues necessarily produces a result that sheds little light on the public's policy preferences.

The only thing one can say with certainty is that the voters resoundingly defeated newcomer Dr. Kate Zatz. Even the few districts that voted overwhelmingly against the budget and presumably are the most dissatisfied with the current BoE failed to embrace her candidacy, despite her numerous professional qualifications and her determination to paint herself as an outsider who would shake things up if elected. It is likely that her admission that she had not attended BoE meetings or shown any tangible commitment to community service within Teaneck (no educational committees, advisory boards, etc.) contributed to her failure to gain acceptance as a serious candidate this time around. There is no reason that cannot change before the next election if Zatz remains committed to impacting education in Teaneck.

Down by the riverside

A plan to construct a religious facility alongside the Hackensack River south of Cedar Lane could be the next flashpoint in the ongoing development debate. Only this time, the ranks of those urging protection and preservation of one of the few remaining privately owned open spaces along the river may be swelled on account of the particular circumstances of the proposal.

This Wednesday night, the Zoning Board of Adjustment will take up a proposal to build a Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall and a 35-space parking lot at 640 River Road. In addition to the usual neighborly objections about traffic congestion and safety, environmental conservation groups such as the Friends of the Greenway are mobilizing opposition to the project, pointing out that in the past the Township itself has sought to acquire the property in question to incorporate the vacant land into Terhune Park and the Hackensack River Greenway only to have its offers to the owner rebuffed.

There may be even more sympathy than usual for the environmental argument given that the taxpayers of Teaneck stand to gain little from a tax-exempt institution taking up on a prime piece of riverfront property. The lost recreational opportunities, potential ecological damage, and quality of life concerns become that much more significant when not counterbalanced by any real economic incentive to accede to development of the land.

The only qualm many residents may have about lining up against the proposal will be the precedent it might set for private property rights and other non-profit projects in Teaneck. But rather than creating a base of support for the proposal, such concerns may convince residents to press officials to finally formulate and enact a clearer plan for zones abutting the river so that the same battles do not have to be fought over and over.

Zatz more like it

A scant week after declaring my indifference toward the ongoing Board of Education election campaign and of my displeasure at the lack of real policy debate, I am ready to sing a different tune. A communication from Dr. Kate Zatz forwarded to me by a reader demonstrates that there may actually be something interesting and productive happening in this race, because one candidate has begun to set herself apart from the field and express some real reservations about issues other than the consensus concerns (i.e. achievement gap). The way Zatz is now framing it, Teaneck voters are faced with a choice of shaking up a tired and complacent Board of Ed by choosing her or endorsing business as usual.

How so? For starters, Zatz points to the fact that the rest of the field consists of two incumbents and two existing members of the Superintendent's Advisory Committee, making her the "only real outsider." A look at the various endorsements contained in this week's Suburbanite seems to bear this out. Incumbent Dr. Henry Pruitt counts a number of sitting members of the BoE among his endorsers in addition fellow candidate Margot Fisher, who herself has the public support of the Deputy Mayor and at least one of the current members of the BoE, and so on. If this is the way these people compete with another for election, it seems unlikely that the aftermath of the race will see an infusion of energy and intellectual ferment in a place that Zatz charges has "time-worn excuses for any criticism."

Of course, lacking endorsement from one's peers is not itself a selling point. One must also break with them in some meaningful way, and Zatz does hint at one area where she thinks differently: budgetary issues. She takes a swipe at the BoE's well-advertised 2.9% increase for the coming year, arguing that it should really be construed as a 5% year on year jump, and criticizes the glossy mailings sent to all residents as "marketing, not communication." Later in the piece, she takes aim at elevated personnel costs and pins some of the blame on the current BoE, too. Is Zatz the only candidate urging a 'No' vote on the budget? That she does not say. But what is clear is that Dr. Kate Zatz is now positioning herself as the choice of all those who feel it is time for a change at One Merrison Street. Will they turn out for her?

Now we have a race worth watching.

Call off the hounds

Looks like the Bergen County Democratic Organization's challenge to our incumbent Democratic State Senator and Assembly members will be aborted. While there will certainly be some face-saving excuse for why Wildes, Zisa, and Wilson are going to drop out of what had already become a bitterly contested race, it seems pretty clear that the slate had not gotten enough traction with voters to make it worth continuing.

While it is terrific to see the machine break in the face of a crucial test and there was never any chance that this campaign would ever be about real issues anyway, this is not an unequivocally good thing for the 37th district or Bergen County as a whole. No, only a resounding defeat at the polls in full view of the public, the kind of loss that would completely demoralize the BCDO from the leadership on down, would really shake things up enough to give real systemic reform a chance of working. This tactical retreat by the party will probably do little to dampen its growing local influence and weaken the vise grip in which it holds much of the area. With all the money saved and favors not yet called in, the BCDO lives to fight another day.

With this chapter almost closed, the biggest sighs of relief in Teaneck today may not be those of Sen. Weinberg. The most relieved people in Teaneck may be found in the Municipal Building, where certain Council members may be pleased that they will not be called upon to risk crossing constituents by bashing Weinberg & Co. in a compulsory public demonstration of loyalty to Joseph Ferriero and the BCDO. Phew!

The tangled web

The cover story of yesterday's Record focuses on a property development firm called EnCap and its many "friends" in the Bergen County establishment. The report alleges that by spreading around large sums of money in the form of fees and political contributions, this particular firm has engaged in questionable practices that seem to fail the "smell test." While there is no suggestion that EnCap's activities in Bergen County violated any existing laws, there is a suggestion that the firm and its affiliates have not kept within the spirit of openness and transparency in public affairs.

While it's hard to fault a private corporation for doing what it can to help its chances of success so long as what it does is legally permissible, it is quite legitimate to ask what steps politicians are taking to clean up the system and to distance themselves from appearances of impropriety and potential conflicts of interest. It is nice to see that incumbent State Senator Loretta Weinberg is on the forefront of an effort to restrict developers and their service providers from making campaign contributions to officials who will rule on their projects.

This begs the question, would Weinberg's Democratic opponents support such a measure? Are they willing to put aside the financial interests of the Bergen County Democratic Organization and the Bergen County Improvement Authority to safeguard the integrity of the system? Will they disrupt the status quo and take a stand against pay-to-play, or will they instead try to dance around the issue by touting the benefits they claim to be able to bring to our community? So far, we have only heard the latter.

What is this election about?

Try as I might, I just can't get into the upcoming school board election. Sure, I'll go out and cast a vote, but I find my enthusiasm for this year's campaign at a low ebb. This is not because there is any lack of important issues facing the Board of Education at the present time. On the contrary, the district faces numerous challenges, some specific to Teaneck and others common to districts throughout the region. So why have the candidates standing for office done almost nothing to distinguish themselves from the field? Why have few if any truly bold or innovative ideas been presented in this campaign? On what basis are we to choose our representatives to one of the Township's most important bodies?

There are two traditional venues in which candidates for local office communicate their visions to the voters: candidate forums and the Suburbanite's letters section. It appears that neither has provided very good insight into why one should choose one candidate over another as there seems to be a broad consensus among the candidates that nothing major needs to be done. Instead of advancing carefully considered policy prescriptions, the candidates and their supporters have spoken platitudes and focused on portraying themselves or their favored candidates as having the right mix of experience or training to serve on the Board of Education (see, for example, former mayor Paul Ostrow's letter in support of Barbara Ostroth in this week's Suburbanite). Incumbents, who presumably have something of a record to run on, make little mention of any substantive accomplishments during their terms. If we don't have personal friends among the field of candidates, how are we supposed to make an intelligent choice?

More importantly, does anybody have any kind of agenda once they are elected? What accountability will any candidate have once the race is over? Can we expect anything to improve after a race devoid of real debate?

Good call

The Bergen Insider is dead- long live the Insider!

Credit is due to the posters who correctly identified the short-lived Teaneck area publication as a product of the Democratic Party power structure. While I tried in vain to tease out evidence to corroborate the claims of some of the posters on this blog who claimed the paper was a project of the BCDO machine, it turns out all I had to do was wait a few months for The County Seat to hit my mailbox. The latest edition of this free regional publication announces the merger of the Insider with The County Seat, and makes no bones about its loyalties, featuring the Wildes, Zisa, and Wilson slate for state office on the front cover.

I wonder what other signs of creeping party influence I have been missing.

Click here for an example of one of the positive, upbeat stories recently published on The County Seat website in keeping with their self-declared mission to paint a prettier picture of local life.