Nice, but will it backfire?

This week's Suburbanite reports on the parallel efforts of a local citizens group and the Township Council to enact anti-pay-to-play ordinances in Teaneck. Given the contempt so many Teaneck residents have for the corrupt practices that characterize politics on the state and county level, the measures advocated by Bergen Grassroots, on the one hand, and Council member Jackie Kates, on the other, should have little trouble winning popular support.

As Bergen Grassroots official Paul Eisenman told the Suburbanite, "Teaneck is the cleanest town in Bergen County, if not the state." But given the current state of affairs elsewhere, it seems to be a safe bet that local voters would set aside any freedom of speech concerns to follow the lead of nearby towns such as Hillsdale, Hasbrouck Heights, Oradell, and Ramsey in enacting strict limits on contributions to local officials from vendors seeking municipal contracts.

The question is whether a pay-to-play ordinance like those under consideration would address the real threat to good government in Teaneck, i.e. interference in Township affairs by partisan political organizations.

While the Bergen Grassroots draft legislation contains a provision that would restrict vendor donations to political parties, how well would such a rule actually work? Given that Teaneck officials are not officially affiliated with political parties (at least in their elected and appointed roles) and yet may still be subject to manipulation by political organizations that provide them financial and logistical support during campaigns for office, the inclusion of such a clause seems necessary. However, without a similar change in the law on the county or state level, were Teaneck to exclude any vendor who has donated more than $500 to any political party from the contract bidding process, the Township might leave itself few viable options for major improvement projects or outsourced services. The net effect of the legislation could be to drive up the Township's costs without realizing a tangible benefit, given that Teaneck is already recognized as a clean and transparently managed municipality.

Appealing as it may be to send out a strong message on pay-to-play, let's be sure any ordinance enacted is not done so just to prove a point or to serve as an example to others who need it more. Our first priority is to protect the interests of Teaneck.

Weekend fun

As reported in this week's Suburbanite, several dozen realtors and residents met with Mayor Katz and Township Manager Fall last week to review issues of mutual concern. By all accounts, the dialogue was fruitful as a variety of topics were discussed candidly. As Howard Prosnitz writes in his account of the meeting, Teaneck Firefighter John Grado made a cryptic remark about a "adversarial feeling" that is evident when dealing with township officials, especially in one particular department. This week's question is: who could he possibly be referring to? Post your guesses in the comments section.

PS: Don't cheat by looking at Mayor Katz's response to the comments in the course of which he spills the beans.

I can't wait to see all the guesses! It is quite the shock to hear that a builder has had a negative experience with one of the Teaneck departments and that "a friend's wife had returned in tears" from the department in question. Could it be the Health Department? No, maybe it was that nasty Purchasing Department...

Kidding aside, it is appalling that the answer to this question is so obvious. By what right does a certain group of Township employees, paid out of taxpayers' pockets, lord its authority over residents and their contractors alike? Rudeness has no place in any municipal office, let alone one which is charged with dealing with the public and helping people to comply with Teaneck's complicated code. Let's hope Mayor Katz's claim that they are "trying to make changes" it is true and that the Township is rid of this embarrassment soon.

Safe precedent

Today's Record reports on a new policy adopted by a nearby town that is a few steps ahead of Teaneck in dealing with the commuter parking issue. Aside from the useful reminder that there is no need to reinvent the wheel as we search for workable solutions to the quality of life issues posed by Teaneck's scattershot approach to balancing the needs of commuters and neighborhood residents, the article contains other items that may prove relevant to our own community discussion at some point soon.

The Borough of Hillsdale, about 10 miles up the Parkway from Teaneck, has just instituted a $100 annual fee for resident commuter parking in a municipal lot, over the objections of some Borough Council members. The town was already charging non-residents $360 per year for a one-year parking permit. While the total fees collected in a year on a 120-space lot with prices like these probably don't come to much more than $20,000, the majority of the Borough Council thought the introduction of parking fees on resident commuters was a fair way to help offset the costs associated with improving and maintaining the lot. The article does not mention whether the Borough has ordinances in place restricting parking in surrounding areas.

While Teaneck would need to create a commuter parking area before any debate over fees can begin, a few points that arose in Hillsdale may be worth raising now. Firstly, the concern raised by Council members about out-of-towners coming to Teaneck and snatching up prime parking spots in the area around State Street and Teaneck Road would be more effectively addressed by instituting a revenue-generating program of resident and non-resident parking stickers than by implementing tighter restrictions on parking for all in existing lots. Secondly, Borough of Hillsdale Council member Andy Weinstein's opposition to charging for commuter parking on account of the "dangerous precedent" it sets by "[implying] that services should be paid for exclusively by those who utilize them" is absurd. That precedent is not dangerous nor is its supposed implication at all incorrect. Further, his contention that "the revenue gained from the parking fee [is] not worth the expense to commuters" overlooks the fact that covering the extra expense is certainly more worth it to commuters than it is to anyone else. One could just as easily (and more fairly) say that the cost of maintaining the commuter parking lot is not worth the expense to non-commuters.

Of course, Hillsdale is not our concern, Teaneck is. As it stands now in Teaneck, commuters are inconvenienced by the difficulty of reaching public transportation routes, and neighborhood residents are paying part of the price for it by being forced to put up with parked up streets and people coming and going throughout the day on their otherwise quiet residential streets. As it seems that public interest in finding a solution to the daily headaches is relatively high, now would be as good a time as any to make some progress on the issue.

Dwindling options

The planned changes to Ward Plaza, featured in this week's Suburbanite cover story, provide yet another object lesson about the intractability of so many of Teaneck's problems. In this case, one of the most logical sites for additional parking has been officially taken out of contention as a partial solution to the commuter parking issue.

Whether or not the decision to drop the 50 planned parking spaces from the project is the best one for neighbors, area residents, public safety, etc. is not the issue here, for if this were the only option taken off the table, we could just move on to explore the next possibility. But with the Council's recent actions to restrict parking in the Teaneck Road area and the existing parking restrictions on streets alongside major transit routes which are strongly supported by homeowners, the revised Ward Plaza plan severely limits the possibilities. At this point, few existing resources have the potential to alleviate the commuter parking problem.

Some might contend that this consequence is actually an intended one. Could there a plan to bring the public around to the conclusion that the only viable option is a major development that includes a parking deck in the West Englewood Plaza? Perhaps, though is unlikely that such a project would face much community opposition to begin with. It is more likely that this is just another case of an attempt at problem solving shot down by community protest. Business as usual in Teaneck, for better or for worse.

Wallflowers

One of the most frequently mentioned buzzwords in New Jersey politics is "shared services." Whether or not a program of consolidating resources and forming partnerships across town and county lines to save taxpayer money is the answer to all, or even a significant portion, of the state's fiscal problems remains to be seen. Nonetheless, most observers would allow that there are some relatively simple steps that could be taken to cut costs by joining forces with neighboring municipalities to eliminate redundant infrastructure or to secure discounts by purchasing supplies in bulk.

That said, we have heard relatively little about such initiatives in Teaneck. Given the fixation shared by Mayor Katz and the Council majority on finding ways to lower property tax bills, one would think this largely painless method of lowering expenditures would constantly be in the headlines. Instead, we have been occupied with ambitious development plans that are both contentious and, at least in the short term, unlikely to yield any real tax savings. The Mayor's suggestion to explore the use of shared services to combat the gang problem last week was one of the few times the concept has been invoked publicly over the past few months.

While we in Teaneck have battled over future direction, neighboring towns have already taken some tentative steps toward putting theory into practice. As the Record reported yesterday, "Hackensack and seven other towns -- Rochelle Park, Maywood, Elmwood Park, Saddle Brook, Garfield, Fair Lawn and Paramus -- formed the Central Bergen Consortium six months ago" to find ways to reduce costs through sharing as the Northwest Bergen Consortium of thirteen towns in our area has been doing for a while. As other towns pair off with their dance partners, we in Teaneck could be left standing alone with only our spiraling tax bills to keep us company.

Though it may not command a prominent place in the proceedings, the most important item up for discussion on tomorrow's Council agenda may be item #3 under "Old Business": Shared Services. There may be more glamor in talking up major new developments than implementing plans for joint bidding for road paving, but the only thing that really matters is the bottom line. Officials must remember that it's lower tax bills and not higher ratables or any other metric that is the ultimate objective here.

Fuzzy math

According to a report by the Record earlier this week, our wallets are lighter by $254,174 more than they need to be. That sum might not seem like a rounding error, but that's exactly what it is. Apparently, bean counters across the State of New Jersey have been exercising their legal right to shave extra digits off of the municipal tax rates and round them up to the nearest penny, and the Township of Teaneck collected over a quarter of a million extra dollars from us last year as a result. The extra revenue generated by this practice is recorded as a surplus and socked away for later.

The light shined upon this practice has, predictably, created an uproar. With sensitivity to high property taxes already heightened throughout the state, nobody is pleased to learn that they are paying in more than their share. Well, nobody but the politicians who can now embark on a crusade to fix the flaw in the system that they allowed to persist up to now. This morning, word comes that State Sen. Loretta Weinberg and others are pledging to turn their attention to the matter.

You can't blame politicians for licking their chops at this opportunity to portray themselves as tax reformers. Here you have a quirk in the system that can be eliminated with much fanfare at no cost to services, personnel, perks, etc. Free political points are there for the taking. Even those local officials who have spoken out in defense of the practice as necessary to ensure that municipalities do not run into funding shortfalls in the middle of the budget year due to incomplete collections or other unforeseen circumstance can go along with this, as they know that as the architects of their budgets they can (and will) find the money elsewhere, though they will have to be a bit more creative about it.

While any little bit of tax relief is welcome, and a hidden charge on law abiding citizens is certainly galling, this episode will not necessarily benefit the taxpayer. By allowing incumbent legislators to slip a tax reduction feather in their caps without taking a single one of the hard decisions that need to be made, it diverts time, energy, and attention from the systemic problems that plague New Jersey.

Teaneck tackles the gang issue

Back at the end of March, in the immediate aftermath of a frightening (and eye-opening) gang-related incident in town that led to ten arrests, I wrote:

Teaneck must be free of all gang activity. Public safety officials should study the problem carefully, putting egos aside and drawing on outside resources with the necessary expertise and experience when appropriate, to tell us exactly what they need to make sure we do not have to fear this anymore. And we ought to be ready to consider their requests carefully and do all we can to equip our officers to blot this out of Teaneck for good, even if it means putting other longstanding priorities aside.

Now, as Brian Aberback reports in today's Record, I have gotten my wish. Police Chief Tiernan has presented the Council with what he believes the Teaneck Police Department requires to end the scourge of gang violence in town. His proposed solution, the addition of 14 additional officers to the force, may well break the backs of the gangs in Teaneck, but in the process of doing so, it could also break the bank. With a first year projected cost of $676,000, it is not surprising that Council members, who are loathe to heap additional financial burdens on an already heavily-taxed populace, gave the proposal a lukewarm reception.

The Deputy Mayor summed up the difficult position local officials are in.

"I'm not against [hiring new officers], but I just don't know to what extent," said Deputy Mayor Lizette Parker. "On an emotional level, I'd hire 50 officers because it's a frightening situation. But it's not that easy."

This is certainly quite the bind. It is politically impossible to reject the Police Chief's request outright. With an alarming rise in gang incidents over the past year and media reporting that a second grade teacher at the Lowell School "frequently stops students in the class from flashing hand signs and finger messages that mimic gang style communications," there is no way the Township can avoid taking vigorous action.

At the same time, with a huge jump in the municipal budget this year and little prospect of any near term progress in finding ways to spread the tax burden away from homeowners, this Council would almost guarantee that it would fail to achieve one of its most important goals if it were to approve an almost 15% increase in police manpower.

If there were a broad consensus among residents that the gang issue was a top priority, the voters might forgive such an outcome. But the fact is that much of the population has been insulated from this issue, and awareness of the problem is low in neighborhoods that have not been impacted by the rise in gang activity. That's not a bad thing, per se. It shows that the problem has been contained thus far. However, it also has the potential to cause a backlash if significant increases in spending are passed to help clean up this festering problem. Hence the ambivalence among Council members.

Whether or not the Police Chief's approach is the right one or the most cost effective one, it is worth noting once the potential costs (financial, social, and otherwise) of shying away from addressing this problem head on. Will additional officers and extra funding make sure that innocent bystanders don't get in the way of stray bullets? Will they end the defacement of public and private property with graffiti? Will they make sure that no part of Teaneck ever becomes a "no go" zone? I don't know. But the potential damage those things can do to Teaneck cannot be measured in dollars alone.

The answer to Chief Tiernan's plan need not be an unqualified yes, but it also cannot be "no way." The time for debating whether a problem exists is long past. The only thing left to discuss are the details of the solution.

Turnover at the Board of Ed

The Board of Ed's reorganization meeting last week brought change, not only through the installation of newly elected members Margot Embree Fisher and Sebastian Rodriguez, but also through a new leadership slate for the body. With the help of Fisher and Rodriguez, Dr. Henry Pruitt and Dr. Ardie Walser displaced Judith McKay and Dr. David Diuguid as president and vice president, respectively. The 5-4 vote broke entirely along tenure lines, with the five newest trustees overruling the wishes of the four longtime members to maintain the status quo. Does this signal a new direction for the BoE?

While there were a few hints here and there during the campaign that certain of the candidates had made common cause with one another and that existing members clearly preferred that incumbent Barbara Ostroth win reelection, it was not readily apparent to most voters exactly what was at stake. Those who carefully examined the pattern of endorsements and the names listed in various campaign adds might have deduced something about the preferences of certain insiders. However, as there was no overt call by the victorious candidates for a refocusing of priorities or a new direction on the school board, it is as yet unclear to us outsiders whether a new faction has formed or whether the majority now held by newer members signifies much of anything for the future.

In the aftermath of a bland campaign that granted the victors no clear mandate to do much of anything, it remains to be seen whether the imprint left on the Board leadership by the newer members will translate into bold new steps on the policy side. At this point, the only thing we can be certain of is that a few different names will grace the glossy newsletters in our mailboxes.

Awesome power

Teaneck residents have a knack for courting controversy. Whether it's the periodic attempts to browbeat the Council into commenting on national political issues or the tumult surrounding the rather tame Master Plan revision, we seem to relish confrontation and debate. So it should not be surprising that despite the absence of any plans to seize private property through eminent domain, some residents have been up in arms about the issue.

While recent planning documents have downplayed eminent domain as an option for private redevelopment in Teaneck and counseled against using it in anything but the most extreme circumstances, the very mention of the practice has apparently stimulated some to urge the Council to voluntarily renounce its right to employ the method in the future.

There is certainly a lot to fear when it comes to eminent domain. The Court-protected power of a municipality to override one party's private property rights to benefit another in certain instances does in fact pose a direct threat, especially to poorer individuals who are more liable to own property in areas designated as "blighted." Rather than leaving the fate of such citizens up to the whims of future elected officials, why not lobby the Council to take a proactive step to insulate residents from the use of government power to dispossess them?

Though this may seem sensible on paper, it is basically a non-starter. The Council would be foolish, and perhaps irresponsible, to surrender its legitimate right to act in the best interests of the Township sight unseen. A Council that would toss out an option on the future without knowing what the future will bring would be doing itself, its successors, and all of Teaneck a disservice. It is not the role of the Council to circumscribe its own powers ex ante, but rather to act judiciously and with the proper sensitivity when cases arise. The public, and ultimately, the courts, serve as the check on that and should be all the protection Teaneck needs against potential abuses through unjustified appropriation of private land.

To their credit, members of the Council spoke eloquently in their roles as representatives of the Township against any effort to curtail municipal government's powers prematurely, all the while acknowledging that eminent domain should not be applied casually. Under current circumstances, it is hard to see a situation in which Teaneck would resort to this practice. Nevertheless, if it is protection against government encroachment on our property rights we seek, our best course of action is to stand up and make our voices heard in the event that an actual injustice occurs instead of whipping up hysteria now. As the next election approaches, we might also resolve to compel future candidates for office to articulate a clear statement of their own reluctance to employ this extreme method.