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.