Teaneck Blog

Casting a wary eye on Teaneck politics and municipal affairs

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Shocked out of my complacency

A disturbing report in today's Record suggests that it's time for some self-flagellation, or at least serious reflection. While we sit in front of our computers sparring over zoning plans or the best place to put a coffee shop, we are apparently overlooking a festering issue that threatens our community, our property, and even our lives far more than any ordinance in the Council chamber or change to a business district ever could.

Where have I been all this time? I admit that, stunned as I was by the incident, I wrote off the tragic shooting of Ricky Smith last year as an isolated occurrence, an unfortunate but rather improbable sequence of events not likely to be repeated. I admit that I viewed initiatives such as Teaneck Comes Together as well-intentioned but ultimately unnecessary in a solidly middle class suburb such as Teaneck. I admit that I found it a bit ridiculous to introduce anti-gang programs into schools in which the vast majority of students are college bound kids from stable homes with healthy incomes. This is not Bed-Stuy or even Hackensack, I thought, this is Teaneck.

Shameful as it is, I have to acknowledge that the turning point came this morning. The arrests
of seven gang members on Cedar Lane near Chadwick Road for possession of a loaded weapon who forced me to open my eyes- Cedar Lane near Chadwick Road! Yards from the Municipal Complex, mere feet from luxurious private homes and peaceful St. Mark's...

Now I am forced to admit what
we can no longer deny. The streets of our Township are playing host to horrifying gang violence and it is not going away on its own. Stopping it must become priority number one for Teaneck residents and officials. That's right, priority number one. Nobody ran on a platform of making Teaneck's streets safer and rooting out gangs; anyone who would have would have been laughed out of town for doing so. However, our leaders have to to stand up now and take up this issue forcefully because if law and order and public safety are compromised, everything else is meaningless.

The TPD should be commended for its excellent work in limiting the damage on Tuesday, but the job is far from done. 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.

Encouraging postscript: The Record reports that the TPD has assigned two more officers to the gang suppression effort and quotes Chief Tiernan as saying "
We're hoping to sit down with the council soon and discuss what resources we need to get a better grip on things." Mayor Katz is also quoted stating his determination not to overlook this problem. This is exactly what we needed to hear.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Giuliani's gift

While 2008 Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani's visit to Teaneck yesterday is only one step on the long road he hopes will lead to victory, we in Teaneck may already have come out winners from his stop in town.

Not only has the former New York City mayor exploded the myth that there is nothing to attract non-Orthodox Jews to Cedar Lane (!), but his fundraiser at the Marriott at Glenpointe last night probably did a lot to swell the coffers and boost the morale of a weak and divided Bergen County Republican Organizaton. Why is this good for Teaneck, a town that overwhelmingly tilts Democrat, having favored Kerry over Bush by a wide margin in 2004 and Menendez over Kean in the 2006 Senate race by an even wider margin?


In short, a stronger BCRO is in the interests of all voters in the area. Given the well-chronicled efforts by the newly dominant Bergen County Democratic Organization to strong-arm opponents of the party leadership both within the Democratic party and outside it and the dubious methods used by the BCDO to keep the money flowing into its coffers and those of its corporate playmates, having a more effective counterweight to the Democratic organization active in County affairs could provide a check on the ambitions of the machine. Whether we support them or not, we all want to see the Republicans put up viable candidates for office who are well-organized and well-financed not only so that we can make a real choice at the polls, but also to keep a leash on the other guys.


In the best of all possible worlds, the Bergen County Republicans would remake themselves in the image of their keynote speaker last night: tough on crime and corruption (think Giuliani the U.S. Attorney of the 1980's), socially liberal, and opposed to higher taxes. Even if they don't manage that, just having a bigger, stronger party on the block to fight back against the local bully could be a big help.

Monday, March 26, 2007

The real scandal?

News outlets are atwitter over the revelation that five employees with criminal records found working in New Jersey school districts had to be fired on Friday by order of state officials. Our own district employed one of the five, a man who had a drug crime in his past. It is unlikely that this year's revelation of incomplete oversight in the Teaneck school district will cause the same alarm there was last year over the report by the State Commission of Investigation detailing the salary add-ons and inflated pension payments coming out of the pockets of the Teaneck taxpayers, as in this case it appears Teaneck officials are blameless. If anything, there was a fault in the system on the state level, or so it appears from initial reports.

Nonetheless, the publicity over this case may require the Board of Education to do some explaining. Why? It is not the fact that Teaneck employed a man who pled guilty to cocaine possession in 2004 that poses a problem so much as the way he was employed (and compensated). Apparently, we may now have a new vacancy for a $53,592 per year "school messenger." Excuse me? Taxpayers may want to know why they were paying $53,592 annually for that...

Friday, March 23, 2007

What's right with the Council

Some may have missed an unexpected and rather candid speech from Council member Kates at this week's Council meeting that reflected nicely on the Council as a whole. Kates revealed that initially, she had some reservations about the process by which the Council examined the annual municipal budget this year, as it differed substantially from the way things were done under her tenure as mayor. Nonetheless, by the end of a painstaking and highly collaborative process in which members of the Council subjected every line item to careful consideration, she came to see the value in the new approach, Kates admitted. She singled out two Council members in particular, Councilmen Feit and Gussen, for their hard work and dedication in trying to ensure that the budget was as fair and efficient as could be.

Though the fact that the municipal budget itself checks in with a hefty year-over-year increase means that this brings only cold comfort to the Teaneck taxpayer, it is clear that the youthful exuberance of some of the newer Council members, off-putting as it may be to some, can also be a force for good.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

MOST-ake

The Municipal Open Space Trust Fund may not be as wrong for Teaneck as the Suburbanite's headline was this week for its cover story about it (note to the editors: $5.5k is not equal to $550,000). However, while a program that puts aside money from a special levy to preserve and maintain parks seems harmless on the face of it, three years after its approval by the voters, it is becoming clear that the MOST may require reconsideration.

By this summer, the fund will have already taken over $1 million out of the pockets of Teaneck taxpayers with little to show for it but a hefty bank balance. This is not for lack of trying, though. The Council is apparently unsure of what to do with this vast sum because there isn't really much that needs doing. Sure, there are wish lists out there- some have a vision of ambitious land purchases to augment existing nature areas and others want to upgrade sports fields, but these are surely luxuries in a year in which the municipal tax burden is slated to rise 7.6%. While Teaneck certainly has uses for an extra million bucks, this money cannot be applied to them. The embarrassment of riches locked away in the MOST is becoming exactly that- an embarrassment.

The problem begins with the terms of the program itself. In the aftermath of the revaluation, the levy is scaled incorrectly. This year, the cost to taxpayers of what was intended to be an extra little tax is doubling to something much more significant- $0.01 per $100 of assessed value means a lot more when your assessment grows by 100% or more in one shot. The consequence of this change is that money is being pumped into the MOST at a faster rate, even as previous collections sit there unused.

Defenders of the program might argue that this does not present any particular problem. After all, it is nice that our parks and recreational areas have a nest egg that will help ensure their preservation for years to come. But it is not clear that they need such protection to begin with. It is probable that the majority of the residents of a suburban town will continue to favor appropriate expenditures on parks and recreation as needed for a long time to come. There is probably not a need to compel this support through additional taxation in the interim.

More importantly, the MOST comes at great cost.
By raising additional taxes that are earmarked for particular uses, the Township saps its taxation power on non-necessities and reduces our flexibility to spend on our most pressing needs, which change from year to year. To meet our obligations to employees or solve unforeseen problems, Teaneck must tax even more or cut elsewhere to make ends meet, even as the cash in the MOST fund piles up.

The bottom line is, the MOST may be weakening our tax base unnecessarily. That is the one thing we need the LEAST.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

User fees or use for free?

Among the topics that brought residents out to last night's Council meeting was the resolution to amend Recreation Department fees. There's nothing like the fear of losing an entitlement to stimulate turnout, and people did indeed show up to try to head off an increase in user fees associated with Township programs and services. Frankly, this is insane.

The system as it stands bestows benefits unevenly among residents for no good reason. What is the compelling interest of the taxpayers in subsidizing below market rate childcare, lessons, or activities for the lucky few who manage to get in before these programs fill up? This is not about poor senior citizens or underprivileged youth needing the assistance of the community. If it were, the solution would be quite different.

It is clear that others share my discomfort. The search for a legal way to try to alter the formula so that it factors in need is on. Perhaps it's time to think bigger. A more fruitful course of action might be to either raise fees substantially so that they reflect the market price (or simply cut out this programming altogether), return money to the residents, and at the same time plan to hold an annual event to solicit private donations to provide programming for local seniors and youth in need.

In a time when the residents of this state are beginning to question whether each town even needs its very own public safety infrastructure or local school district, it seems rather absurd that Teaneck should go on operating an elaborate scheme whose direct consequence is that a handful of suburbanites can avoid having to pay full-price for Gymboree.

Monday, March 19, 2007

Read you loud and clear

In the wake of last year's budget defeat and the merely symbolic pruning of the proposed Board of Education that followed, there was a sense among many that the message sent by the voters at the polls had gone unheeded. While some of the BoE's staunch defenders attempted to play down the significance of the first 'no' vote in recent memory, there are grounds to believe that frustration at the relative ease with which taxpayer protest was brushed aside last year might have boosted turnout in the Council elections among budget hawks, contributing to the victories of the candidates most focused on alleviating the property tax burden.

This year's proposed Board of Education budget seems to recognize the shifting political landscape. Instead of the robust increases requested from the voters in recent years, the BoE has put forward a budget that would boost school taxes, the biggest portion of residents' property tax bills, by less than 3%, far below the 7.6% forecast increase in municipal taxes.

Is this not a clear demonstration of the power of the voter to shape the policy in Teaneck? Perhaps we need to see the budgets being proposed in neighboring communities this year to judge whether Superintendent John Czeterko's characterization of the budget as "lean" is accurate. Nonetheless, it is apparent that one way or the other, the voice of fiscal restraint has been heard. Whether the BoE is acknowledging the mistakes of last year, preparing to accomodate itself to a new legal landscape in which annual increases below a certain level will no longer require direct approval from the electorate, or passing along a portion of the benefit from increased state aid to the residents, it could be that the days of gigantic year-over-year jumps in school taxes are now behind us. And I, for one, am prepared to assign some of the credit for that to the voters who stood up to be counted in 2006.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Reaching out

Want proof that the internecine battle for the State Senate between Democratic incumbent Loretta Weinberg and the choice of the Bergen County Democratic Organization, Englewood mayor Michael Wildes, is heating up? Consider the steps that Senator Weinberg has recently taken to shore up support in one segment of the Teaneck community: through both words and deeds, Senator Weinberg is seeking to portray herself as an unwavering friend of Orthodox Jews.

Loyal Suburbanite readers will have noticed a conciliatory letter from the Senator in this week's issue, in which Weinberg both critiques a recent New York Times article and its portrayal of tensions with Teaneck's Orthodox population and cites her long history of involvement with Orthodox causes. This week's New Jersey Jewish Standard also reports on Weinberg's recent efforts in Trenton to advance issues likely to be of interest to the Orthodox Jewish community including mandatory accomodations for religious observances and a bill "commending New Jersey’s investment board for investing in Israel Bonds and urging the continuance of such investments."


While the timing of these initiatives certainly suggests a conscious effort to win the votes of one particular constituency, there is no reason to suppose that Weinberg is speaking or acting at all insincerely. There is, however, a strong indication that she is preparing for the fight of her political life as she prepares to take on Joe Ferriero and the Bergen County Democratic machine.

Addendum: A reader points out one other factor that may be motivating Weinberg's recent actions- a piece in the March 2007 edition of the infamous Jewish Voice and Opinion takes aim directly at Weinberg and the comments she made in the Applebome article while pointing out to readers that her rival Mayor Wildes is "a member of the Orthodox community." Lovely.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Way to go

Township Council watchers the world over (hello, Efrat!) will surely applaud the latest developments on the Township website. Many in the community, including at least one of the candidates who stood for election to the Council last year, have complained about the fact that Teaneck's approach to disseminating information through newer media has been inadequate at best. Now that detailed meeting minutes of recent vintage and archived broadcasts of Council meetings are available through the teanecknjgov.org website, municipal officials have finally made some progress toward addressing that problem. Bravo to whomever we have to thank for that!

At the risk of sounding self-congratulatory, I must say I am quite pleased at how this blog and others have been at the forefront of recent efforts to increase the availability of information and commentary and engage citizens in discussions of local affairs (now if we could only raise the level of civility, too!). It is nice to see more official outlets joining in the effort to increase awareness and educate residents about the latest goings on in town. Together we can reduce, if not eliminate, the ignorance that allows special interests to manipulate voters by playing to their fears and prejudices every time another election season rolls around.

Friday, March 09, 2007

Jackie strikes back

Apparently fed up after months of derisive and sometimes defamatory comments made about her in the print media and online, Council member Jacqueline Kates wrote a pointed letter that is published in this week's Suburbanite. The majority of the letter is directed at a particularly egregious example of an over-the-top unprovoked attack that appeared in the previous week's edition of the Suburbanite, but the points raised by the former mayor apply equally to all those who have attempted to besmirch her reputation in recent months. The message is pretty clear: put up or shut up!

Most of the time, it is best to ignore the hecklers and let their own idiocy speak for itself. At the same time, a dedicated public servant and enthusiastic volunteer who for decades has contributed numerous hours to many causes in and around Teaneck and carried out the duties of an elected official with aplomb should not need to endure so much abuse. It is unclear why there is an ongoing effort to attack Kates' character rather than her positions, but the gauntlet has now been thrown down. The former mayor has it exactly right: if the critics have something on her, they must put it out there so she can have the opportunity to clear her name. If not, they should pipe down already.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Underway with a whimper

A small and easy to overlook letter printed in this week's Suburbanite kicks off this year's Board of Education campaign. While last week's paid advertisement by incumbent Dr. Henry Pruitt provided the first sign that the elections are approaching, this week's glowing approbation for candidate Dr. Kate Zatz by a close admirer means Teaneck's attentions are once again turning toward the composition of the school board.

The letter praising Zatz seems intended to introduce the candidate to readers more than to advance any particular platform she may have. While Zatz comes off as an accomplished figure, one wonders whether her campaign has missed an early opportunity to define a policy agenda that will grab the attention of Teaneck residents. True, the field is not all that crowded and therefore the pressure to distinguish oneself not that great, but there is no shortage of issues or absence of strong opinions about how to improve the district out there. Why not begin to address them now?

Let's hope we're not headed for another bland campaign that will leave the voters cold and the victors without any clear policy mandate. Residents ought to stand up and demand that the candidates articulate clear and specific stands on the key issues now facing the Teaneck schools. Failure to press candidates for details during the Council election and a willingness to accept platitudes instead of real answers has done us no good. There is little reason to think that having a small part of the electorate usher Board of Ed candidates into office without a real reckoning will serve us any better.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Say it ain't so, Adam

Guess it is time to take off the blinders. Just as the blatantly political appointment of Councilman Rudolph to a County sinecure forced Teaneck to confront the fact that he was a cog in the Ferriero political machine, a retaliatory complaint against State Sen. Loretta Weinberg filed by Councilman Adam Gussen now unmasks him as a willing participant in down and dirty partisan politics. Sadly, this means that an impressive official whose principled and well-reasoned stands on a number of issues rightfully earned him the admiration of many, myself included, now risks tainting himself with the stink of the Bergen County Democratic Organization machine.

Many will now pipe up with their I-told-you-sos and how-could-you-think-otherwises. My response to that is that of course everybody realized that on some level, Gussen must have sold his soul to win the backing and logistical support provided him by the County organization during his campaign for office. It is well-known that quid-pro-quo is the currency through which Machiavellian partisan politics is conducted. But until confronted with irrefutable evidence that Gussen was a party operative who was taking marching orders from the organization, many were prepared to dissociate the circumstances of his election from his on-the-job performance. Now the very capable Councilman's every move will be subject to the extra scrutiny and suspicion that comes to those who imperil the non-partisan character of Teaneck politics.


A real shame.

Monday, March 05, 2007

Hollywood and Teaneck?

This week's Council agenda contains an intriguing item. While I have not seen the full text of the ordinance, it appears that the august body will consider amendingto a portion of the Township code to levy a tax on interior filming in Teaneck (or perhaps raise an existing fee) .

Love them or hate them, one cannot charge this Council with a lack of creativity in its relentless pursuit of revenues, nor can one take issue with the judgment that it is better to squeeze the major film studios than the overtaxed Teaneck homeowners. But if we have already gotten up to looking to the movie industry as a remedy for the bloated property tax burden, what does that say about the prospects for finding significant relief by taxing commerical activity in town? If that's the one of the larger remaining untapped sources of cash, the chances of lower taxes without deep spending cuts (or unrealistically aggressive development) are slim indeed.

There is another question that bears asking. While it seems that the ongoing effort to stick businesses or large institutions with bills to alleviate taxes on residents enjoys broad support, one wonders whether it could have the unintended effect of harming business activity in Teaneck and exacerbating the problem it is intended to solve. A few bucks in sewer fees may not persuade an existing business to pull up stakes and go elsewhere, but a greater overall tax burden or a reputation for wanting businesses only to tax them might keep new businesses out.

Additional production costs could certainly convince a movie studio to go elsewhere for its on location shooting. While Teaneck backdrops have featured in such films as "The Family Man" (2000), "Meet Joe Black" (1998), "Cop Land" (1997), and "City Hall" (1996), one wonders whether Teaneck makes such a compelling setting that slapping a bunch of additional fees on filming would not curb demand. The same goes for pretty much any other commercial activity. The Council should be careful not to kill the geese that it hopes will lay the golden eggs.

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Pummeling the straw man

As both sides stand down and the furor over the Master Plan abates, I am struck again by the absurdity of the whole controversy. While Teaneck's chattering classes were abuzz over the perceived injustice of the process by which the Master Plan revision was almost adopted, if not the actual content of the document itself, they managed to infect a certain portion of the population with a measure of hysteria and mistrust that boggles the mind.

How else to explain the ongoing barrage of kooky letters to the Suburbanite alleging that the Planning Board seeks to "destroy our lifestyle" or worrying that the corner of Voorhees and Van Cortland Streets could soon have high rise buildings looming over it and dominating the skyline? When a respected elected official pens a letter suggesting parallels between the efforts to seek a "reduction of taxes through development" and the United States' decision to go to war in Iraq, you know that a minor spat over the amount of public input solicited by the Planning Board has been blown totally out of proportion, probably for political reasons. The more silly letters appear caricaturing the pro-development position as seeking to alter the character of existing residential neighborhoods, the more I am convinced that people are either willfully ignorant or deluded and manipulated by opponents of the Mayor and his supporters.

I know all the ways that the Council majority has blundered when it comes to public relations. I am aware of the perils of taking rash decisions when it comes to development. I, too, have a strong preference for trees and grass over office parks and strip malls. And perhaps unlike the most outspoken advocates of greater development, I don't expect to see any significant reduction in my property tax bill on account of a ratables increase anytime soon. Nonetheless, I am mystified as to how anyone could possibly believe there is a conspiracy afoot to eliminate the suburban character of our community and deliver it all into the hands of greedy, conniving developers. I cannot see how anyone would believe such tripe, let alone stand up to rail against it without examining the proposed Master Plan first. I would actually prefer to believe that the most sensational of these protests were mere political grandstanding. I don't want to think too hard about what it means for the level of discourse in Teaneck if they were not.