Bracing for it

The Master Plan revision is out, which means that a litany of complaints and a storm of criticism should be quick to follow. Yet, having leafed through the document, I am having trouble figuring out what will lead to the panic and outrage that accompanies any proposal for change in Teaneck. What will set off the critics in this seemingly balanced and carefully written document that appears to respect the existing character of community and urge caution and restraint in development?

Help me out here, please. What awful concessions to greedy developers are being shoved down our throats? What new reason is there to fear for Teaneck's future? Is it the recommendation to allow 55' buildings in the Plaza area? The end of fast food on Teaneck Road? What am I missing? I know there will be hell to pay once more people get a chance to read this disgraceful plan, but I am just not certain why...

Reform now!

Everybody claims to support it, from the Governor on down. Other New Jersey towns have enacted it on the municipal level. So why did our own State Senator Loretta Weinberg join all but one of her Democratic colleagues in voting down a bill that would enact statewide restrictions on "pay to play" and other unsavory and wasteful practices last week?

State Sen. Weinberg (D-Teaneck)

No doubt Sen. Weinberg would offer some lame excuse or another for toeing the party line and rejecting this particular attempt at a long overdue reform. We might even give her a pass this time, as she is generally regarded as a strong proponent of good government. But the bottom line is that as the Township considers new plans for development and the politicization of local affairs increases, Teaneck needs regulations against awarding non-competitive contracts to campaign contributors now more than ever.

If our representatives in Trenton will not oblige, then a Teaneck-specific ordinance will have to come from the Council. And if the Council is reluctant to pass such an ordinance, then residents might think about copying some of the grassroots efforts conducted elsewhere in the state to persuade local officials that our town would benefit from protections against abuses that could threaten the integrity and financial well-being of Teaneck.

A little under a year ago, the Council considered an anti-pay to play ordinance at the behest of then Mayor Kates. With the Council unprepared to act at the time, Kates was tasked with researching the issue further and returning with more information. Whether due to Kates losing interest or the change in makeup of the Council shifting the focus elsewhere or some other set of circumstances intervening, Teaneck has not passed its own ordinance yet. That ought to change. Why subject the taxpayers to unnecessary risks? Why allow the residents' confidence in local government to be shaken? Why imperil the future of open and competitive local elections in our town?

The time is ripe for Teaneck to tackle this issue, even if Trenton won't.

Washing his hands of the soap factory

In a somewhat unusual public statement on a matter before the Planning Board, Council member and Planning Board member Elnatan Rudolph expressed his opposition to the proposal to construct condominiums and townhouses on the site of the former soap factory adjacent to Herrick Park today. The following was circulated this morning:

For the past several months, I have been intently listening at Planning Board and Council meetings to what residents and experts have been saying about development in Teaneck . As a result of this process, I am prepared to say that I do not support high-density development on the old soap factory site.

Residents don't want it, and while our planners maybe recommending, it is just not right for that neighborhood, or for the broader community. High-density development there will overburden our roadways and lead to congestion that is unwarranted.

I highly recommend that the owners of the property go back to the drawing board and get real about what is right for their neighborhood and Teaneck as a whole.

Despite this opinion on this one site, I remain committed to responsible development. It is what's best for our town. We must stabilize taxes. We can't go up 5 - 10% every year. We must revitalize Teaneck . It has grown stagnant on Teaneck Road , Cedar Lane the Plaza and Degraw Avenue . I also believe we should focus on the Municipal blacktop, American Legion Drive , Teaneck Road, the Plaza and Degraw Avenue . I oppose riverfront development as set forth in the Birdsall plan.

Teaneck is a progressive community. We are all proud to call it our home. Many of us think our home could use a little work. I agree and that is why I am here.

Put aside any questions about the motivations behind Rudolph's decision to directly publicize his view here. Whether he is trying to rehabilitate his battered public image or not, this is a significant moment.

Why? Because it begins to take us from the fantasy world of proposals and consultants' reports and hysterical neighbors fretting about the future of the quiet suburban town they reside in to the world of reality, in which both proponents and opponents of increased development face the realization that Teaneck is not going to change too much anytime soon and taxes are not going to come down much by boosting ratables. Time to tamp down the outrage and move on to confront some of the other significant issues facing Teaneck.

Where we're at

Back in July, I argued that newly elected Mayor Katz was sending strong signals that his term in office would be quite a bit different than that of his predecessor. Whereas Deputy Mayor Parker commented about using her office to unite the community and heal past wounds, Mayor Katz mentioned only policy goals among his objectives. Parker was following in the footsteps of former Mayor Kates who had also voiced her commitment to softer goals four years prior, but Katz appeared to be promising to avoid wading into what I termed "murky waters."

Was I wrong? More than half a year into the Mayor's term, the answer is an emphatic no. Mayor Katz has had no problem ruffling a few feathers in his relentless pursuit of his policy objectives, and he has also not hesitated to work behind the scenes to do this. Inclusiveness and consensus building have not been the watchwords of this administration.

However, at the time I also expressed my own cautious approval of a more businesslike approach to handling local affairs. Now I am rethinking that.

Whether the problem is with the concept of more assertive governance in a town that contains such a diversity of opinion or just in the way it has been executed up to now is an open question. What is clear, however, is that tensions are running high and the potential for further polarization is there. A shadow government is taking shape on Puffin Way, running its own public forums in parallel with the official ones and rallying its activists to face down the elected officials it fears are going to remake Teaneck in the image of (insert name of favorite overdeveloped urban hellhole here). It is hard to be convinced that Mayor Katz has as high a regard for the leadership of the Teaneck CCP as he professes to in this week's Suburbanite (see page 20).

It is also hard to blame those who oppose making Teaneck more friendly to development for feeling threatened and responding as they have. While we the public have debated about DMVs and carped about consultant's reports, the real action throughout the first seven months of this Council's term has indeed been taking place behind the scenes and room for meaningful public input into Council and statutory board deliberations has indeed been reduced. Sure, there have been some public meetings here and there, and public outcry supposedly played a key role in scuttling a recommended riverfront development zone and the proposal for a parking lot in Brett Park. Nonetheless, the way things are proceeding makes it abundantly clear that there is a lot that we do not know. The Mayor and his Council supporters want to do things their way surrounded by their supporters with a minimal amount of noisy public debate.

Yes, it is their prerogative to choose their own appointees and yes, it is near impossible to make good on campaign promises by subjecting every item to the input of the voters who already elected you to represent them, but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about implementing an ambitious program to improve the Township. Appearances do matter, and this lesson has not been adequately understood yet by the Mayor and the Council majority.

There is no sense avoiding the murky waters if you step into a turbulent maelstrom instead. The opposition may be guilty of alarmism and demonization, but the Mayor and his cohort have stoked these fears by closing ranks and operating outside the public eye. The motives for this are understandable, but the climate of mistrust it has created makes one wonder whether it is worth it. Once nearly universally liked for the fact that he was (and remains) a friendly and reasonable man with the best of intentions, Mayor Katz has sacrificed much goodwill for no good reason.

So that's where we're at. Mounting suspicion, mistrust, and fear on both sides of one of the more significant issues facing Teaneck right now- and almost all of it unwarranted. And what have we achieved in return?

Coming down the 'pike

Dwelling as we do alongside the New Jersey Turnpike, Teaneck residents have extra reason to be interested in the outcome of deliberations over the future of that major highway. Among the many ideas being kicked around Trenton by elected officials is a sale or lease of the Turnpike to a private owner/operator for a large upfront cash payment. Similar deals elsewhere have raised significant sums, providing quick cash for governments to apply toward other pressing obligations and freeing them of the responsibility for maintaining and improving transportation infrastructure.

Given that New Jersey faces numerous well-chronicled financial difficulties and that it happens to own one of the toll roads most coveted by private investors, the temptation to realize the value of the New Jersey Turnpike (estimated by some to be in the neighborhood of $20 billion) is hard to resist. Could the fact that private investments in toll roads have become wildly popular at the same time that state legislators have stalled in their efforts to resolve New Jersey's fiscal problems represent some extraordinarily good luck for New Jerseyans?

I'm not so sure. Put aside the fact that the first thing a private investor will do is jack up prices on New Jersey drivers. While this might create hardships for some (and is certainly at the heart of popular opposition to any move to sell or lease the Turnpike), those who use and benefit from a particular thoroughfare should indeed bear the cost for it.

The real problem with this potential fix to New Jersey's budget woes is that it would allow our Governor and state legislators to wriggle out of the promises they made to enact reforms that would fix a broken system. With $20 billion to fund property tax credits, state assistance to local schools, and other important priorities, the incentive to compel municipalities and school boards to merge or share services will diminish. The urgency with which changes to the education funding formula is being reworked will fade. The will to take unpopular but necessary belt-tightening decisions (for example, reducing benefits for state employees) will evaporate, too. Of course, there is also the question of whether a government that has failed to balance its budget for six straight years can be trusted with a large sum of unallocated money in the first place.

We can only sell the Turnpike once (at least in our lifetimes). With the astronomical sums other public assets are attracting these days, now might be a good time to do it from a financial standpoint. It is far less clear that it is the right time to do it from a policy perspective.

Another rationale for development?

Politicians and residents alike have always discussed increased development for Teaneck in the context of boosting ratables and broadening the tax base. For a variety of reasons, many of which have been enumerated on this blog, there is good reason to question both the wisdom and practicality of large scale development plans. Moderate development and improvement in and around existing business districts alongside the odd new project, perhaps with an eye toward upgrading mass transit infrastructure, appear to hold out more promise, but can only form part of any eventual solution to Teaneck's long term fiscal problems. Cost-cutting must be the major component of any serious effort to reduce the homeowner tax burden.

That said, might there be other compelling reasons to make a development push now? Leafing through the pages of this week's Suburbanite, one gets the sense there might be other changes afoot that argue for taking a good hard look at ways to upgrade Teaneck's neighborhoods and business districts. One article reports the increased incidence of gang-related graffiti in and around Teaneck. Another covers the recent armed robbery at the Dunkin' Donuts at 1406 Teaneck Road. Suddenly, as contentious as it may be, "gentrification" does not seem like such a dirty word after all. What's scarier, a slightly taller building in your sight line or being held up at gunpoint?

To be sure, this is not exactly the debate going on right now. The question is not so much whether existing commercial areas ought to be improved so much as it is whether new types of development ought to be allowed within those and other areas. However, it is clear that as things stand now, Teaneck is not fostering a climate of economic vitality and renewal, probably in part because the kind of transformative development necessary to do so is simply not within the scope of current plans and regulations. Perhaps it should be.

Some will bristle at the suggestion that Teaneck ought to push upmarket. In a sense, this is the battle that is fought every time the rent control ordinance comes up for renewal. Opponents of deregulating the housing market claim we would be betraying Teaneck's history of inclusiveness and accessibility by allowing landlords to charge market rates for their properties, forcing out a socioeconomic class that contributes to the town's rich diversity. The same claim would be made here. If we allow developers and business owners the latitude to remake various parts of Teaneck into newer, brighter, more valuable areas, the Township will no longer be within the reach of less wealthy families who have called it home for generations. I can understand where the concern comes from, but the more that police blotter fills up, and the more defaced traffic signs I pass, the less sympathetic I and many others will be to that argument.

Fright night

There was no space to move. The line to get in snaked all the way out the door. Was this an appearance by a Hollywood celebrity? The latest video game system release? No, it was just the first public discussion by the Council of the Birdsall report on development opportunities in Teaneck, which took place last night in the Council chambers.

So much for Teaneck residents being generally apathetic. Dozens of residents turned out on a weeknight to catch a few snippets of the Council members' non-binding takes on a consultant's report. That sounds like a high degree civic engagement, n'est-ce pas? Few of the recommendations in the report are likely to be implemented and fewer still are likely to become realities in the next couple of years, so why else would there be a packed house for the preliminary discussion of a mostly dry and theoretical report?

There seem to be two alternative explanations for this, one more positive than the other. The first (and less plausible) reason why so many may have turned out for this is that the path taken now in response to the plans laid out in the Birdsall report could influence the outcome of the new Master Plan and with it, the course of Teaneck's future development. Residents, having read and carefully considered the contents of the report, were doing the wise thing and coming to hear for themselves and register their input as early as possible in the process.

The second explanation is that mass communications highlighting the more threatening aspects of the report may have unnecessarily sown panic among an ill-informed populace in order to make a show of force, leading to a heavy turnout of residents unjustifiably worried about the future of Teaneck as a quiet suburb.

If this is the case, the favorable end of a more involved public would not justify the means. Scare tactics and misinformation campaigns breed the sort of mistrust and animosity that seems to be on display more and more often when it comes to local affairs. One need look no further than the comments section of this blog to see examples of the kind of harsh invective directed not at actions, ideas, or proposals but at individuals such as elected officials. There is no doubt that the feelings of resentment that lead to such personal attacks are due not to actual interactions with these individuals or deep familiarity with the issues but rather to impressions gleaned from others or half-truths offered by those with a bone to pick with the current leadership.

Make no mistake, I do not wish Teaneck politics to remain the preserve of a select group of insiders. Every resident should be involved in Teaneck affairs. But with a vote and a voice comes a responsibility not to march as a foot soldier in somebody else's army, but to arm oneself with the information necessary to enter the fray free of other people's prejudices.

Pinpoint legislation off the mark

Record columnist Mike Kelly plays Mr. Nice Guy today, recounting the heartrending story of a Bergenfield family struggling to deal with crippling disability, serious illness, and now a heavy property tax burden on account of the extensive renovations on their home courtesy of the network television show Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. While detailing the "courageous" efforts of our own state legislators Valerie V. Huttle and Loretta Weinberg to gain relief for the Llanes family through the introduction of special bills in Trenton, Kelly laments the fact that some unnamed community members oppose this.

Is it really wrong to object? I, for one, concur that special treatment in this case would be unfair. Kelly is wrong to chalk up such complaints to petty jealousy rather than an authentic disagreement with what is taking place. One may support any and all private efforts to benefit this very unique family and encourage them to take full advantage of any and all existing government entitlements they have coming to them without wishing for special exceptions to be made to tax laws on a case-by-case basis. There are no doubt many less heralded but equally deserving families struggling in the shadows who also need help. Singling one household out for extraordinary assistance while leaving the others to fend for themselves would be a disservice to all New Jersey taxpayers.

If the system is broken, fix it for everybody. An unparalleled opportunity to do this was recently squandered by Trenton lawmakers when long awaited recommendations for extensive reform of the property tax system were basically killed by inaction. Elected legislators should not be evading real debate on the issues in favor burnishing their credentials as compassionate individuals by taking on popular pet causes, even if they are as worthy as this one is. If Huttle and Weinberg really want to help their constituents, they should turn up the heat on their colleagues in Trenton's Democratic majority and pressure them to start delivering on the unfulfilled promises of radical reforms that they made to New Jersey voters. That, Mr. Kelly, would constitute real "courageous political leadership."

The dots are connected

After several months of little hints and indications that Council member Elnatan Rudolph was deeply enmeshed in the local Democratic party machine, outright confirmation has arrived by way of a Record story reporting Rudolph's appointment as deputy director of the party-controlled Bergen County Improvement Authority. In a town with a tradition of non-partisanship, this unabashed affiliation with a powerful and controversial political organization will cause many to look askance at the councilman and scrutinize his every move closely for its political significance.

In the best of all worlds, Teaneck would not have elected officials with close political ties to groups whose interests are not aligned (and in fact are sometimes opposed) to those of Teaneck residents. The last thing Teaneck wants is to have its municipal government gripped by political infighting and patronage arrangements that aggrandize individuals and political parties at the expense of the community. However, as other posters on this site have pointed out, in the event such ties do exist, the voters of Teaneck are better off knowing about them.

The information is now out there on the table. Residents can now incorporate it into their decision making process as they evaluate whether Council member Rudolph and the rest of their elected officials are serving them well. A bit of prejudice in this case may be natural, but we must also allow Rudolph the opportunity to demonstrate that he is faithful to Teaneck above other masters. While the bar may be now set a little bit higher, there is no automatic disqualification for anything Rudolph does on account of his other associations. As always, we need to evaluate each matter on an issue by issue basis.

Gargantuan miss? Maybe not

Did the Record, northern New Jersey's paper of note and usually a keen observer of the Teaneck political scene, drop the ball in its recap of the top Teaneck news stories of 2006? While its summary made mention of most of the people, personalities, and events that were the talk of the town last year, one plot line escaped the newspaper staff. How is it that the Record could devote several lines to Teaneck's climactic Council elections without even a word about the nefarious plots that frustrated the ambitions of a certain public figure who continues to do all he can to make sure Teaneck does not forget him?

Could it be that in the judgment of the Bergen Record the story of the anonymous mailings and the alleged existence of anonymous informants and vast conspiracies is in fact a minor one? Could it be that the Township has turned the page while certain individuals remain committed to protecting their pride by believing that underhanded schemes rather than a crowded field and their own positions and electability bear the responsibility for their failure at the polls? It would in no way diminish the injustice of what was done, derail law enforcement efforts and exonerate whoever it was who broke campaign laws, or even make it any harder to run again in 2008 if the efforts to deligitimize the 2006 election results in the public's eyes were dropped completely.

With the change in the calendar comes yet an other opportunity to eliminate past distractions and refocus our efforts on the most important issues facing the Township. The best advertisement for a prospective candidate happens to also be the best thing for the community: a strong record of involvement in problem solving and positive contributions to local discourse. We should all resolve to use our voices this way in the coming year.