Restored to life

An interesting feature in this past Sunday's Record covered the remarkable resurgence of the Hackensack River. There is no doubt that the return of wildlife and recreational opportunities to the river is potentially a great boon for the residents of the region. But a clean and attractive river winding its way through our town isn't only desirable for the hikers, fishermen, photographers, birdwatchers, or boaters among us. It also represents a potential source of revenue for the town that cannot be ignored. That is why it is unlikely that the relatively brief debates that have taken place in recent months over the future of Teaneck's riverfront are the last we'll have.

While the Master Plan recommends that "Township commit to maintaining all existing zoning along the waterfront," no such commitment seems to have been made. Sure, back in January, Councilman Rudolph's dramatic excision of a section of the Birdsall report urging the creation of a "Waterfront Redevelopment Area" seemed to close the book on rezoning for the time being. But what happens when a developer shows up with a proposal in hand to transform several parcels of riverfront property into a significant ratable for the town? Up to now, there were few economic considerations involved in decisions to set aside areas adjacent to the river for recreation or environmental purposes. Now that the river is on the rebound, towns such as Teaneck would have to make a conscious choice to forfeit the potential benefits of exploiting a newly restored natural resource in order to preserve the status quo. Will they do so?

Opening salvos

It is easy to dismiss the recent political posturing in Teaneck as mere filler during a summer lull in township affairs. With nothing substantive to fight about, one might simply suppose that Teaneck's factions are sparring with one another out of sheer boredom. All signs, however, point to the current clashes being the first engagements of the 2008 Council campaign season.

While the opposition may yet have a few surprises in store, the New Beginnings crowd and its fellow travelers seem to have tipped their hand as to their message well in advance of what could prove to be one of the most bitterly contested Council elections in recent memory. With a coordinated effort that involves packing public meetings and engaging in constant letter writing to local media outlets hammering away at the same themes, the main objective seems to be to undermine the credibility of Council majority first, and to raise questions about policy issues second. With perhaps as much to lose as it has to gain in the 2008 Council race, this faction has clearly opted to go negative, arguing that Mayor Katz and Councilmen Feit, Rudolph, and Gussen are themselves the problem. If they can gain traction with that idea, it is not much of a leap for them to attempt to persuade voters to avoid electing anyone who might align with the Council majority in the future.

It is a bit harder to discern how the Mayor will go to bat for whomever he backs for Council next year. A recent e-mail from Mayor Katz, however, seems to hold some clues. In a "Teaneck Tid-bits" message dated August 6, the Mayor includes a laundry list of accomplishments that he claims have produced "$3.6 million in tax savings this year alone." As a result of the steps taken, the Mayor writes, "we are on the road to tax savings and equity, without sacrifice to our ideals and way of life." Might the Mayor be laying the groundwork for a campaign in which he will present the record of his administration to the voters as the basis for an appeal to support like-minded candidates that will help him build on it?

Though it would certainly make for an interesting race, it is questionable whether it would make sense for the Mayor to involve himself very much in the next Council race. Why risk a repudiation by the voters in an election during which his term is not even up? Calling the question of whether the electorate is pleased with how he has performed makes little sense at this stage. While policy wonks may appreciate some of his accomplishments, the majority of the electorate knows only of what it hears and what it reads (including what it reads in its tax bills). It is doubtful that the Mayor, under continuous attack from a vocal group of detractors and powerless to deliver on his main issue in the near term- stemming the rising tide of property taxes- has enough political capital to spend much when his own seat on the Council is not at stake. On the other hand, he cannot sit idly by and allow his opponents to frame the debate and potentially snatch away his majority on the Council.

Instead of dismissing the current battles as political theater, Teaneck voters should recognize that the confrontation over the makeup of the next Township Council is already underway, with serious implications for the future course of our town.

Everyone is a victim

As Teaneck's tensions become fodder for an ever growing list of media outlets, it is interesting how the warring sides have each sought to claim the mantle of victimhood. The Jewish Daily Forward is the latest to cover the row over the infamous luncheon photo. Its article attempts to place the somewhat absurd controversy within the context of the relations between Orthodox Jews and others in Northern New Jersey. What emerges is a he said, she said pitting Mayor Katz against his predecessor as competitors for the title of most misunderstood and unfairly victimized.

It is, of course, perfectly natural to make such an appeal when outsiders come to inquire about what is going on in town. What is telling is the nature of the victimhood that each side claims. Both believe they are being attributed motives they claim not to harbor. According to the Forward, Mayor Katz is upset that he and his cohorts take a beating for an attitude of exclusivity and Council member Kates resents when people are labeled "anti-Orthodox" for speaking out against the current Council majority.

Whether or not the protestations of Katz and Kates are correct, they are unlikely to be believed. Mistrust is now so strong in Teaneck that the tiniest slight, real or imagined, is enough to trigger another clash in the Council chambers (or online). Whatever happened to the good old days when our elected officials were free to tick off large segments of the population without being called on it?

Vox populi

Thanks to a successful signature gathering effort, Teaneck will get to conduct a little experiment in direct democracy. As the Record reported yesterday, the Township Clerk has 20 days (now 19) to check the 2,200 signatures collected in favor of an ordinance on public contracting reform, aka a ban on pay to play. It would be rather surprising if the ordinance did not pass by a landslide.

That's not to say there are not any legitimate arguments against this type of legislation. As discussed here before, it is possible that the measure could unnecessarily handcuff local officials when they choose contractors for municipal business. Practically speaking, however, it seems rather unlikely that there is a large constituency out there ready to mobilize and get out the vote for preserving the rights of large political contributors. Whether those who might oppose such a measure would be willing to spend the time, money, and effort to mount a defense of their right to grease the palms of local government officials without penalty remains to be seen, but it seems doubtful.

There are, on the other hand, at least a few thousand voters who were willing to sign a petition in favor of rules against pay to play, and given the low turnout expected for this November's elections, that should be more than enough to carry the day. If the vote is even close, there will be a lot to discuss. Boy would that send a message ahead of the next Council elections!