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.