Teaneck Blog

Casting a wary eye on Teaneck politics and municipal affairs

Monday, April 16, 2007

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.

12 Comments:

At 10:30 AM, Blogger esther said...

A perfect test case for the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) in Teaneck. Here's a quote from the DOJ website:

"...RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that substantially burden the religious exercise of churches or other religious assemblies or institutions absent the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. This prohibition applies in any situation where: (i) the state or local government entity imposing the substantial burden receives federal funding; (ii) the substantial burden affects, or removal of the substantial burden would affect, interstate commerce; or (iii) the substantial burden arises from the state or local government's formal or informal procedures for making individualized assessments of a property's uses.

In addition, RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that: (1) treat churches or other religious assemblies or institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious institutions; (2) discriminate against any assemblies or institutions on the basis of religion or religious denomination; (3) totally exclude religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (4) unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.

The Department of Justice can investigate alleged RLUIPA violations and bring a lawsuit to enforce the statute. The Department can obtain injunctive, but not monetary, relief. Individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions can also bring a lawsuit in federal or state court to enforce RLUIPA."

 
At 11:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just what Teaneck needs, another property that pays no taxes.

 
At 11:32 AM, Blogger esther said...

...And unlike other properties in town that don't pay taxes, this is a highly valuable property that, were it to pay taxes, it would pay higher taxes than other properties in town.

This is a lose, lose, lose situation for Teaneck:

No taxes to the town
No public benefit for making the property into a park, AND
The possibility of yet another costly lawsuit.

 
At 11:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looking at the tax roles (http://tax1.co.monmouth.nj.us/cgi-bin/m4sr.cgi?&srch_type=1&ms_user=monm&district=02601)
this property has not paid any form of taxes for a few years, at least since 1993.

 
At 5:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is only one true religion--the religion of the treehuggers. Worship of trees must take priority over all other religions, the Constitution be damned.

 
At 6:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can kiss that property goodbye. Today, in a showdown between any religious institution in America and civil community interests, the civil community interests lose. This creates a compelling need to "develop" Teaneck's Hackensack Riverfront before it all disappears off the tax rolls.

 
At 9:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps the township attorney can find a way to safeguard Teaneck from another costly lawsuit.

 
At 10:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe Mayor Katz will buy it and rescue us.

 
At 11:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:36 What makes you think the town attorney can help avert "another costly lawsuit"? If you have knowledge of "costly lawsuits" that we, the taxpayers were spared because of his diligence, I'd like you to enlighten the rest of us. From what I've read in the Record & Suburbanite, he has cost us a fortune.

 
At 11:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This narrow skinny piece of land is hardly enough space for a church, let alone parking. Considering the 10 plus inches of rain we just had, and with plans for parking river front, this is a disaster waiting to happen.

How does a congregation prosper and grow on such a small dangerous piece of property?

Also, as a resident and tree lover I find it offensive that the owner of the property so aggressively destroyed a mature tree that sits and the foot of the property.

Drive by and take a peek.

 
At 6:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to see that land and our open land preserved as natural land!!! While I don't mind people that want to congregate, I don't feel that it is wise use for the land. It's time for people to stop looking at the town's empty spaces as something to build on. It is more of an asset to the town that it looks like a small community, rather than a metropolis. If people would like to build in Teaneck, they should look into the properties that are in need of refurbishing or tearing down FIRST, before there's any more of our unused land. I want Teaneck to remain a TOWN and not be filled with town houses and mcmansions. People have fought all these years to avoid looking like Paramus or Hackensack, and we must keep a distinct character to this town.

What would be a good thing for the town? Grants expressly for store owners that need to improve their store fronts, based on approval. Looks aren't everything, but if this town wants more revenue producing business it's time for a bigger facelift. Sidewalks aren't enough. Teaneck storefronts are antiquated, out of style, and need more elegance if it's going to become keep up with the rest of Bergen County (in regards to retail).

Also, what is to be done with that lot on cedar lane next to the bridge connection to Hackesack? I'm sick of looking at that fenced in property. What an eyesore! (Let's not even talk about the abandoned shell station.) I don't know why it continually remains undeveloped, but I would like it to remain undeveloped and the fence removed.

 
At 9:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its unbelievable the development is even being questioned. The people of Teaneck dont know whats good for them. Teaneck needs to get with the program and turn space into something good. Teaneck needs a progressive area with things to do. Maybe if we started building up the kids would have more options besides killing eachother.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home