Teaneck Blog

Casting a wary eye on Teaneck politics and municipal affairs

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

That picture

Scandal of all scandals- Mayor Katz, Councilman Feit, Councilman Rudolph, former Councilman Yitz Stern, and Teaneck Planning Board Chairman Joey Bodner are pictured in this week's Suburbanite while meeting with other Orthodox Jewish elected officials from throughout New Jersey. While many at tonight's Council meeting were quick to condemn this meeting as portraying some kind of disregard for other Council members or conveying the impression that religious ties somehow trump the issues, the individuals appearing in the photo are guilty of nothing more than having a tin ear for politics. Given current sensitivities in Teaneck, it is unwise for people in positions of power to play up their affiliation with the Orthodox Jewish community, unbelievable as that may seem (could anyone imagine members of the public or fellow Council members complaining if Council members Kates, Honis, and Parker joined a group of local female politicians for a meal or if Council members Honis and Parker appeared at a gathering of African-American elected officials?). Political considerations aside, did those who attended the meeting do anything wrong by going there? Absolutely not.

Mayor Katz's perfectly acceptable explanation for why he and others decided to attend the friendly luncheon meeting (as if any was needed) should close this absurd chapter forever. He and his colleagues have every right to freely associate with whomever they please. In fact, one might argue that their posing for a photo that was voluntarily released to the press by one of their number itself demonstrates that they probably were not up to anything untoward.

Though observers may fault their timing or question their political judgment, there are no apologies required here, and those who suggest otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.

Squeaky wheels

Among the talked about upgrades to the Teaneck's public transportation infrastructure is the introduction of new jitney bus routes along the town's thoroughfares. Commuter parking problems could be alleviated and quality of life for both commuters and those living along heavily trafficked bus routes would be improved, or so the theory goes.

As always, it is an open question whether theory accords with reality. While it may seem like a good idea to increase options for commuters and other users of public transportation in Teaneck, a recent article in the Record suggests that inviting jitney buses to cruise Teaneck's streets may not be the most responsible course. As the article notes, operators of the jitney buses have been cited frequently for safety violations and in some cases may not exert a great deal of oversight over whom they hire to drive their vehicles. Of course, in their defense, they claim that as largely unregulated competitors to NJ Transit, they are being singled out unfairly for extra scrutiny by local authorities for a variety of reasons unrelated to their actual safety records.

Whatever the course of action Teaneck follows, it is important that traffic and safety concerns be weighed equally alongside the potential benefits of bringing in the jitneys.

Monday, July 23, 2007

South of the border

Word comes today of the latest stunt from our colorful reactionary neighbor, Mayor Steve Lonegan. The Record reports on the Bogota Mayor's plan to enlist his own local police force in the fight against illegal immigration. Naturally, there is a bit of suspicion that the Mayor is not motivated solely by his sincere desire to extend a helping hand to the federal government. Might there be some other reason that the same man who battled McDonald's over a Spanish-language billboard advertisement would be anxious to have Bogota's police officers also serve as immigration agents? To suppose so does not seem far-fetched.

A few miles to the north, the politically engaged minority in Teaneck is gripped with suspicion and resentment. Elected and appointed officials on both sides of the town's comparatively minor political squabbles are demonized by their opponents. There is little recognition that there remains a broad consensus in Teaneck that has endured many far more trying periods in the town's past. While one faction or another lays claim to the mantle of defender of Teaneck's principles and upholder of its legacy of tolerance, it is clear that the vast majority no matter what their outward affiliation remain committed to "live and let live" above all else. It may seem trivial to us, but that's not a given down in Bogota.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Teaneck's top cop snatched by Newark

No, not that Newark... The News Journal of Wilmington reports that Teaneck police chief Paul Tiernan is moving down to Newark, Delaware to head up the police force in that town. As a result, a vacancy is opening up at the top of the Teaneck Police Department only weeks after the Chief's request to add a significant number of officers to combat gang activity was pared down by the Council.

Whether or not friction over that decision played a role in Tiernan's departure is unclear. What is clear is that the next police chief will inherit the gang problem- and the already negotiated terms of the solution. One wonders whether the issue will be reopened by the new leadership in conjunction with the Council and if a candidate's preference for adding staff versus finding less costly ways to address the gang issue will become a new litmus test for potential hires.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Open Space and openness

Today's Record reports on a plan to consolidate power over Bergen County's Open Space Trust Fund in the hands of a single official. Sadly, the fact that the current County leadership wants to be able to circumvent the vetting process when convenient and grant greater influence to the Democratic party donor currently occupying the seat of Director of Bergen County Department of Planning and Economic Development is not the least bit surprising. We've come to expect such galling actions from Bergen County government over the years. While each additional step away from the principles of good government- transparency, multiple checks and balances, and the like- is troubling, we have become so numb to the situation that there is scarcely any protest anymore.

Compare this situation to what we have going on in Teaneck. Here every step taken by municipal government seems to raise hackles. While it is terrific that vigilant citizens are keeping a close eye on the actions of their elected and appointed officials, the righteous anger so often poured out in letters to the Suburbanite or during the public comment period of Council meetings seems somewhat hollow. If the protest is truly on principled grounds, why does the appearance of impropriety in local government matter more than the same thing in Bergen County government? Put another way, might all the energy expended in pointing fingers at Teaneck officials be better spent curbing the egregious excesses of Bergen County insiders, whose power and money is allegedly the root of many of the abuses supposedly occurring in Teaneck?

Monday, July 02, 2007

Not a "worthy and essential goal"

Today's Record contains an editorial decrying a recent Supreme Court decision that banned the use of race as a factor in school admissions decisions as a "step backward." The premise underlying this view is that "racial diversity in the nation's classrooms, as in its communities, is a worthy and essential goal." It appears to me, however, that what is "backward" is the view of the Record staff.

As support for the claim that the nation's march toward integrated public schools has stalled, the paper points out that in Teaneck, a town with a proud history of taking the lead in ending segregation, "three-quarters of the district's student population is minority." This factoid is apparently intended to illustrate that Teaneck's efforts to "achieve racial balance in its schools by slightly altering school boundaries when necessary" is insufficient and that the Court should countenance more aggressive methods of guaranteeing whatever is considered the appropriate mix of skin pigmentation in a given educational institution.

One wonders, however, what it is about the color of one's skin that could possibly enhance the educational experience. Is making sure that classrooms contain a full palette of skin shades really what we should be after? What inherent difference is there among people of different coloring?

We might assume it is some kind of laziness or inadvertent oversimplification rather that leads the Record staff to express itself in this way. However, if what is meant is that we can all benefit by being exposed to people who hold viewpoints different from our own and experiences that are not the same as ours, then "racial diversity" is a strange shorthand for it. Fostering diversity of opinion, of experience, of family background to the extent possible- these may be legitimate educational goals. But these are all still possible after the Supreme Court decision, which continues to permit the use of socio-economic status and other less objectionable markers of diversity in school admissions. So what, again, was the Record's point?

As some in Teaneck seek a more vigorous dialogue over what diversity truly means, we ought to keep in mind that the filing of individuals into neat categories based on superficial characteristics is most certainly not in keeping with the spirit of respect for our fellow citizens as individuals that diversity is supposed to promote. We should take our cues from the younger generation. Those less saddled by the past and more in step with contemporary culture seem to be less cognizant of supposed racial differences. We could be well on the way toward building a colorblind society...if editorials from the Record don't screw it up.