Teaneck Blog

Values and value

2010-08-25T11:34:00.002-04:00

Embarrassing revelations of plagiarism by former Teaneck schools superintendent A. Spencer "Skip" Denham in public remarks and newsletters are casting a shadow on the back to school season. The district leadership cannot be happy with the latest publicity, nor will those who argue that Teaneck residents are not getting appropriate value for its school tax dollars will be pleased to hear that a slothful administrator was taking shortcuts to fulfill the responsibilities for which he was paid.

It is hardly necessary to comment on the moral dimensions of this case. For an educator to plagiarize the work of others is quite obviously inexcusable. At the same time, there is little need to heap any additional scorn upon Mr. Denham, who has apologized for his shameful deeds. What is worth noting is the impact of these incidents upon the public perception of the Teaneck school system and the movement to impose additional fiscal restraints upon it.

Mr. Denham may have done as much damage to the career prospects of his former administrative colleagues as he has to his own reputation.

Our non-partisan Mayor

2010-08-18T11:30:00.000-04:00

There is no question that Mayor Hameeduddin's star is rising. Local and national media have shined the spotlight on him and on Teaneck since his selection as mayor at the reorganization meeting in early July. It is, however, as yet unclear whether the Mayor's high profile will prove to be an asset for Teaneck or a harmful distraction.

Those who suspect the latter seem to have a bit more support for their conclusion after the bizarre scene that played out on PBS NewsHour with Gwen Ifill. What was intended to be a debate between New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio and Mayor Hameeduddin about President Obama's comments regarding the controversy surrounding the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan degenerated into a shouting match with Mayor Hameeduddin, who was introduced as a Democrat early in the segment, playing the role of Democratic attack dog and putting former Congressman Lazio on the defensive on a host of issues both related and unrelated to the topic at hand.

Ifill and her producers must have been surprised as most Teaneck residents will be at the nasty turn, as Mayor Hameeduddin has, quite rightfully, never played up his party affiliation and would seem to have no connection to an election campaign for statewide office in New York.

There are a number of possible reasons for why Hameeduddin behaved the way he did. The most likely explanation would be that he perceives that Lazio, who has been trailing in the polls, has exploited the Islamic center issue to boost his popular appeal at the expense of the region's Muslim community. While his indignation may be justified, Hameeduddin at the very least showed a lack of poise in lashing out at Lazio's past record on unrelated issues and perhaps even a lack of understanding of what he ought and ought not comment on when appearing on television as the Mayor of Teaneck.

Another possibility is that the Mayor's political ambitions have grown to keep up with his growing name-recognition. What better way to get noticed as a potential candidate for higher office than to demonstrate one's loyalty to the partisan cause on national television? This would be an unwelcome development. While Hameeduddin is entitled to his personal opinions and has every right to take advantage of his notoriety to realize his dreams, today's Teaneck requires strong, independent leadership with the willingness to tackle the very unglamorous problems that face the town. An individual whose focus is on burnishing his partisan credentials is less likely to fulfill those requirements.

Wrong attitude

2010-07-29T12:54:00.000-04:00

This week's Suburbanite reports on the Council's request that the Board of Education permit police vehicles to park in the lot at 1 Merrison Street, the former elementary school building that houses the BoE's administrative offices. While the headline of the story reads "BOE lot likely to become home of Teaneck police vehicles," the unenthusiastic response of BoE president Ardie Walser to the Council's request suggests that an affirmative response is far from assured.

The Suburbanite quotes Walser detailing the difficulties facing the BoE as it copes with budget cuts resulting from the loss of state aid and voters' defeat of a proposed budget that would have raised property taxes to make up the shortfall. On the surface, this has little or nothing to do with whether or not the BoE would permit this use of its parking lot by municipal vehicles. There is, presumably, no financial cost associated with the plan. But Walser's protest that the BoE is so busy with dealing with its fiscal problems that it is not focused on the Council's request for parking spaces is actually quite revealing. The comments display the BoE's lingering resentment toward the Council over this spring's budget process and suggest an unwillingness to work together with the Council even on an issue that not otherwise controversial.

Walser goes on to try to justify the postponement or even the eventual rejection of the Council's request by setting an unreasonable standard, declaring that the plan would be considered "If the council can demonstrate how allowing police vehicles to park in the BOE parking lot will benefit the children of Teaneck." Why should such an innocuous plan request that diverts no resources from the school system but simply maximizes the utility of existing resources (all of which were paid for by Teaneck's taxpayers) carry the burden of proof? This is a sorry excuse for a shameful pettiness that benefits nobody. Teaneck should be better than this.

Dawn of a new day

2010-07-13T12:17:00.001-04:00

As Governor Christie continues fulfilling his campaign promises to address the serious long-term fiscal problems plaguing the State of New Jersey, the task facing our local elected officials is changing significantly. After many years of being either unable or unwilling to control the growth of property taxes, developments in Trenton are now forcing the hand of Teaneck's Council and Board of Education members. New legislation passed yesterday limits property taxes to an average of 2% per annum, with limited exceptions.

This protection for overstretched taxpayers compels Teaneck to take a more hands-on approach to planning and budgeting. As discussed previously on this blog, the days of tallying up the total required to balance the budget and handing the bill over to the residents are over. Fiscal issues cannot be the subject of a handful of meetings and workshops in the weeks leading up to approval. With a hard cap far below the historical rate of tax increases all but etched in stone, we know exactly where we need to come in every year, and there should be no need for the annual deadline drama of protest and recrimination as somebody's cherished program or job is slated for sudden elimination.

It bears repeating: with more constants and fewer unknowns in the annual budget equation, the Township Council and the Board of Education should be working all year round to identify areas where cost increases in the following year are likely to eat up a larger portion of the pie as well as the places where offsetting savings can be found. There is no excuse for anything but a more deliberate and better considered approach under the new circumstances, and thanks to Governor Christie's initiative, we will know exactly whom to blame if we do not get that.

Super intentions

2010-07-08T16:11:00.000-04:00

High drama on Merrison Street: Assistant Superintendent Barbara Pinsak has been named Interim Superintendent. Pinsak, of course, takes the position that was to have been occupied by Constance Clark-Snead, lured from Westbury, NY to fill the vacancy left after the illness and untimely death of John Czeterko.

This story has it all: big money, betrayal, litigation, and an angry public. Clark-Snead, who was to be paid $230,000 per year plus benefits to take the top job in the Teaneck school district, abruptly backed out of her agreement only days before she was slated to begin her new job amid ongoing controversy in her old one. Teaneck's Board of Education, still smarting from the significant reduction to its proposed budget, now faces the headache of restarting the superintendent search process as well as the embarrassment of being spurned by Ms. Clark-Snead. Meanwhile, former BoE candidate and current co-president of the PTO Council Patricia King-Butler is expressing her displeasure with the hiring process, and apparently with the school board leadership as well.

“Let’s just say that the process was not as transparent as it could be,” she told the Record. “I can’t sit back and continue to do nothing while the Teaneck school system goes down the drain.”

While Teaneck BoE President Ardie Walser was "disappointed" with Ms. Clark-Snead's resignation, it is not clear that Teaneck residents should share that sentiment. Perhaps even Walser himself should be pleased that Teaneck appears to have dodged a bullet here. The Board of Education has been given a do-over, and this time it might be able to identify a more reasonably priced administrator, or at least one who intends to abide by the terms of his or her employment agreement. Walser et al should relish the opportunity to demonstrate to the public that they are better judges of character than this episode makes them out to be.

Not as bad as it may sound

2010-07-01T11:24:00.001-04:00

This week's Suburbanite reports on the impending elimination of a number of extracurricular programs in the public school, specifically five "demographic" clubs that take up issues of interest to minority groups and their student supporters. Given the presumed leanings of the author, Howard Prosnitz, the article is likely part of an effort to highlight the practical consequences of the school budget defeat and induce feelings of regret for those who supported the Council's subsequent reduction of the budget total. However, the article is just as likely to provide encouragement for those who feel the district should be able to do more with less.

Truthfully, it is not the clubs themselves that face elimination, but the stipends to their faculty advisors that must be cut due to funding constraints. According to Assistant Superintendent Barbara Pinsak, in the school just completed, $326,000 was allocated to pay faculty advisors for student clubs. In the coming year, stipends for advisors to 42 of the high school’s 51 clubs and 20 of the middle schools’ 55 clubs have been eliminated.

The Suburbanite article goes on to detail the role of the one of the clubs affected by the spending cuts, Spectrum Club, making the case that the Teaneck High School community will be worse off next year without it. But is Teaneck High School losing the Spectrum Club, or is faculty advisor Amy Moran simply losing her stipend? The answer is the latter. As Councilwoman Barbara Ley Toffler notes at the end of the article, a volunteer advisor could be brought in from the outside to keep the club going at no cost to taxpayers. Presumably, the Spectrum Club would be permitted to continue to publicize events on school grounds and to use classroom space for its meetings.

Cries to the contrary notwithstanding, this is not a case of Teaneck balancing its school budget on the backs of the students. The reduction in stipends for faculty advisors is another instance of (involuntary) shared sacrifice by teachers that need not detract from the educational experience. There is, no doubt, more to come.

Hue and cry raises questions

2010-06-16T12:52:00.000-04:00

We are still two weeks away from the Council's reorganization meeting, but a number of citizens are already protesting the presumed outcome. A series of speakers during last night's Good & Welfare lobbied for the selection of Lizette Parker as Teaneck's next mayor. Of course, under Teaneck's council-manager system of government, the mayor is selected by the majority vote of the new Council, not by popular vote. What's behind the heightened public interest in a process that has historically been conducted behind closed doors? Why are so many citizens, including a former mayor, attempting to insert themselves into the process this year?

It does not take more than a quick glance at the makeup of the incoming Council to see that the current Deputy Mayor is does not have the votes, so Parker's supporters are right to be concerned. But why do they care so strongly who the Council selects as its leader? The role of mayor is largely ceremonial. It is true that the mayor has some influence over the Council agenda as it impacts policy, but that is exactly why it makes sense for the Council to select the leader who best represents the Council rather than the individual who best represents the town as a whole.

Tuesday's proceedings could have been an orchestrated effort by friends of Parker to try to bolster her candidacy for a position she clearly wants. Or they could have represented a concerted effort by opponents of the Council members who are likely to form the majority for the next two years to put those members on the defensive even before the new term commences. Or they could have just been an expression of boredom now that election season has ended and the school budget is set. Regardless of what motivated the outcry, it ought to be ignored.

Calling Mark Twain

2010-06-08T11:59:00.003-04:00

What are Governor Christie and all those taxpayers whining about? As long as you carefully select the right data points, it can be proven that teacher compensation in the State of New Jersey is actually lagging the growth in private sector pay! A report by Laura Bruno in The Daily Record points out that since 1985, the average worker in New Jersey has enjoyed a greater increase in pay than the average New Jersey teacher.

The NJEA is more than happy to cite this as evidence that efforts to curb the growth of personnel costs in the educational system are misguided.

"Teacher pay and compensation has not gotten out of control like the governor and others insist," said Steve Baker, spokesman for the teacher's union.

If only it were so simple. One counterargument is advanced by Gov. Christie's spokesman Michael Drewniak, who points out that these numbers exclude the additional benefits (healthcare, pension, etc.) earned by teachers, the inclusion of which would drastically alter the picture.

But even if one focuses solely on the salary figures cited, the argument is a feeble one. Suppose if instead of going back twenty five years, we look back only five (perfectly reasonable given that a large proportion of property tax payers were not even in the labor force back in 1985). Suddenly, the picture is very different. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Cost Index shows that the annual rate of growth in private sector compensation slowed from 2.9% in mid-2005 to 1.6% for the first quarter of 2010. Teacher pay in New Jersey climbed 4.5% from 2009 to 2010 according to the report (and made similar gains in each of the past several years). Neither statistics nor experience support the claim that teacher compensation has not become a heavier burden for the taxpayers to bear.

Of course, the rate of historical increase is not really at issue here. It is the current and future rates of wage and inflation that pose a risk to the state and local fiscal situation and pressure on the homeowner tax burden, and it is those that Gov. Christie is seeking to address.

The NJEA's Baker has a statistic for that too. He claims that a proposed 2.5% cap on teacher pay hikes would "only put teachers out of synch with the private sector, which averaged 3.75 percent annual pay growth the past 10 years."

Once again, the opponents of fiscal restraint are guilty of extrapolating from the now irrelevant experiences of the distant past. The last time private sector wage growth approached those rates was at the end of 2004 and currently, it is far below even the proposed 2.5% cap for teachers. With high unemployment and widespread economic uncertainty, it is unlikely that private sector wages will resume growing at a rapid pace anytime soon. In the meantime, funding problems on the state and local level continue to mount.

Sign of the times

2010-06-02T15:38:00.002-04:00

Taxpayers, council members, and now apparently even members of the Teaneck BoE are expecting, or at least hoping, for some sort of giveback from teachers' unions in the reshaped budget. In the course of explaining to The Record why he is declining to publicly call for concessions, school board president Ardie Walser hints that such a development would not be unwelcome.

"I don't think that we can put any more pressure on the teachers union than has already been put on by the public," said Ardie Walser, the school board president. "It's a union decision, and a personal decision by members of that union as to what they feel they can do to help us with this issue. I'm not interested in vilifying them, because the ones that are left will have to work harder than they ever have before."

A pay freeze or additional teacher contributions toward benefits costs would certainly make the task of the BoE easier as it prepares to take some hard decisions. Might they also make sense from the perspective of the teachers? Walser seems to suggest as much, reasoning that by relieving some of the pressure on the school budget teachers would be doing themselves a favor by preserving their colleagues' jobs, thereby lightening their workload.

Though united through collective bargaining, it appears that teachers are now placed in a position where individual self-interest will carry the day. A teacher who is likely to keep his or her job and is closer to retirement and therefore less worried about what any future contract might look like is likely to take a stand for the sanctity of contracts. Others might be more willing to support concessions, distasteful as that may be.

Realistically, it appears that the battle that the teachers' unions lost in the court of public opinion is going to cost them the war too, and not just in Teaneck. Across the bridge in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg is moving to cancel scheduled pay hikes for teachers in an effort to preserve teaching positions. Politicians and voters alike have come to understand that as spiraling personnel costs have come to account for larger and larger percentages of public spending and private employees' wage growth has failed to keep pace with that of public employees, future teacher contracts cannot be as generous and that even existing arrangements deserve reconsideration. The times demand it.

Irony

2010-05-27T11:11:00.002-04:00

The bitter argument over whether the Council should have authorized $10,000 to pay for an audit of the school budget has taken an ironic turn. As it turns out, the Record reports, paying the audit firm the fee they earned for producing the controversial report would be a violation of Teaneck's pay-to-play ordinance.

Though small in magnitude, this expense was among the most controversial and headline grabbing outlays of the past few years, and support or opposition to it came to define candidates standing for election to the Council this year. Later on, the report proved a useful tool in the Council's deliberations over its recommended adjustments to the defeated school budget and was referenced repeatedly even by its detractors.

Yet throughout the entire period during which the report was in the spotlight, nobody in a position of importance seemed aware of the technicality that might have mooted the whole issue. It's somewhat amusing and also somewhat alarming.

Athens and Teaneck

2010-05-25T11:41:00.003-04:00

The streets of Teaneck have been a lot calmer than the public squares of Greece over the last few weeks, but we too could be in for an austerity plan imposed from the outside.

"New Jersey does not have a tax problem, that we don't have enough tax revenue," Governor Christie says. "We have a spending and size of government problem." Accordingly, a key component of the Governor's plan to fix New Jersey's fiscal mess is legislation that would cap the rate of government revenue growth on the local level and act to slow the growth of spending. The Governor will be in our area today to discuss a plan to limit total property tax increases to 2.5 percent per annum.

In Teaneck's case, this would mean that annual increases in tax rate would be significantly lower going forward than they have been in the past. In fact, Teaneck taxpayers have regularly swallowed increases of 4% or more in recent years. Had the proposed cap been in effect since 1997, Teaneck property tax bills would have grown approximately 34.5% over the past 13 years. In actuality, those bills have ballooned by approximately 66%, based on data presented by Alan Sohn here (and subsequent increases).

This would force a massive reconsideration of priorities as both the Township and the school board would be prevented from turning to the taxpayers to make up the difference every time their costs rose (at least past a certain point). The passage of Governor Christie's plans would force local governments to take some hard decisions on the spending side that would most definitely lead to the loss of some cherished services and drastic reductions in others.

But at this point, is the status quo any better? Neither the Teaneck BoE nor the Council has shown a great degree of aptitude for limiting the growth of the homeowner tax burden despite the increasing strain this has placed upon residents as the economic picture has darkened. Starving the beast that might otherwise consume us may be our best option for keeping our communities affordable for years to come. Teaneck taxpayers may be more inclined to dance in the streets than to riot in them.

Council speaks loudly

2010-05-18T11:25:00.002-04:00

Don't confuse the form of the Council's recommendations on the defeated school budget with their substance. The Council's suggestions to the Board of Education took the form of a resolution passed by a narrow 4-3 vote that identified $6.1 million worth of savings through a combination of headcount reductions (especially in the administration and support staff) and reduced spending on supplies like textbooks. The substance of the Council's message to the BoE was clear. Taxpayers must not be compelled to bear the brunt of the sharp decrease in state aid to local school districts.

While the final number approved by the Council majority was deemed too high by Deputy Mayor Parker and Council members Honis and Toffler, none of them pushed hard for recommending only modest cuts in expenditures for the coming school year. As Council members from across the spectrum repeatedly voiced their frustration at a process that forced them to make difficult and very specific choices with incomplete information and what they claimed was little to no assistance from the BoE leadership, it became clear during last night's marathon session that the Council intended to throw down the gauntlet before the BoE. Council members repeatedly reminded themselves and their audience that the line items they were trimming were only suggestions and that the BoE itself would be charged with the task of apportioning the overall sum authorized to the areas of greatest need, doing "more with less."

In a dramatic and somewhat surprising statement, Council member Toffler revealed what it appears the Council was really intending to convey to the BoE by weighing such significant cuts to the school budget. Professing a belief in "shared sacrifice" under difficult circumstances, Toffler suggested (no doubt with the wholehearted agreement of at least four of her Council colleagues) that the BoE ought to seek concessions from the teachers' union that would ease the pain of the state aid reduction, presumably to include a salary freeze and employee contributions toward health benefits.

Attention now turns to the BoE, where Dr. Ardie Walser et al have limited room for maneuver. The BoE is hemmed in on one side by an electorate that has voted against a signficant increase in the school tax levy, a Council that has reaffirmed that vote and recommended freezing spending at the previous year's levels, and a new administration in Trenton that is fiercely fighting to slow the growth in the homeowner tax burden. On the other side is a binding contract with teachers that locks in a significant pay hike. In the middle is a large school system with a host of complex needs and wants.

If it is truly committed to protecting the interest of students, and indeed of the many public employees who are not tenured faculty whose livelihoods hang in the balance, the BoE will now turn to the teachers' union and seek to come to an arrangement. It might also, as Council member Toffler hoped, seize the opportunity to increase sharing of services with the municipality, and perhaps even revisit an idea unreasonably discarded by the Council in its deliberations: user fees. However, neither of those areas has the same potential for vast savings and preservation of existing programs and services as the suspension of salary increases, an idea whose time has most certainly come.

Pay to play is a good thing

2010-05-17T11:05:00.000-04:00

There is no potential school budget reduction that isn't controversial in some quarters. But among the many possible savings the Council weighed as it prepared to make its recommendations on the defeated school budget is one that should enjoy broad support. This would not involve taking a painful decision to cut something that in better times one would quickly restore. The imposition of extracurricular activity fees is the right thing to do under all conditions. It is a simple matter of fairness to all students and respect for the taxpayers. Distressingly, this has already been nixed.

Teaneck would not be breaking new ground in taking such a step. Other area districts have reluctantly imposed fees for participation in school sponsored extra-curricular activities as a result of the pressure on school budgets due to the soft economy and the steep reduction in state aid to local districts. This has generally been accompanied by great regret, wailing and gnashing of teeth. In our town, speakers at some of the public meetings following the school budget defeat preemptively warned the Council against considering such a measure, describing the importance of extra-curricular activities, especially inter-scholastic sports, in their lives and asking officials not to recommend any decrease in the taxpayer subsidy for these programs.

While poignant, these pleas should have gone unheeded. One can affirm the importance of school-sponsored extra-curricular activities to the development of character and improvement of our students without concluding that these activities should be paid for by all taxpayers. There is nothing odious about asking those individuals who benefit from a particular extra-curricular program to shoulder the financial burden of paying for it. Unlike academic programs, these activities carry no participation requirements; on the contrary, many students who would like to participate are excluded. Is there a compelling reason other than existing precedent as to why we compel Teaneck taxpayers to foot the bill for exclusive teams that serve only a small subset of Teaneck's youth?

The litany of reasons typically cited for why a robust program of school-sponsored extra-curricular activities is valuable and worthwhile is not a bit diminished by asking our students or their parents to contribute to the cost of sustaining them. Yes, studies seem to show that student-athletes are significantly less likely to abuse drugs and that student-athletes on average carry higher grade point averages than students who are less engaged in extra-curriculars. There is, however, no evidence that this edge evaporates when students or their parents contribute to the cost of running the interscholastic sports program.

Some have a legitimate concern that the introduction of activity fees will limit participation to those who can afford to pay for it. This is hardly an argument that nobody should have to pay to play. Some smaller sum could be left in the budget to cover financial aid for needy students, and of course Teaneck's many teams, clubs, theater troupes and the like would be more than welcome to supplement the funds they contributed themselves toward to the support of their chosen activities through fundraising drives (as many already do).

Strangely, this option has been taken off the table before others that might actually have implications for the quality of instruction in our schools or the health and general welfare of the students. Someone should answer for why that is.

Fixing Teaneck's flawed campaigns

2010-05-10T19:11:00.004-04:00

Voters and candidates alike routinely express dismay at the level of discourse in local campaigns. Despite preemptive measures designed to curb the excessive negative campaigning that characterized past elections in Teaneck, this year's Council race has proven no exception.

As residents field last minute robocalls and prepare to go to the polls, the atmosphere has again turned toxic, perhaps most noticeably in the furor surrounding candidate Joseph Steinberg and his loud detractors. Regardless of who wins or loses Council seats this year, the electoral combat will have reopened old wounds and inflicted new ones, not only upon the candidates and a handful of involved residents, but upon Teaneck's already dysfunctional political culture.

Of course we know by now that another spiteful season of electioneering will draw to a close and we'll collectively lick our wounds while our municipal leaders return to the more mundane task of governing. Still one cannot help but wonder if we in Teaneck are doomed to repeat this cycle endlessly. The costs can be high. It seems that each successive campaign diminishes social cohesion, and there is little doubt that the tenor of our local politics dissuades many qualified individuals from volunteering or continuing to volunteer their time and talents. Perhaps equally damaging is that in the aftermath of these bitter struggles, we are left with a factionalized Council. It may not be divided along party lines, but it is just as sharply divided as any partisan municipality's governing body.

This would be far less unhealthy than it is if candidates for office were pursuing a vigorous but contentious debate on the pressing issues facing our town. But they are not. This campaign, like many of its predecessors, has been more about the company the various candidates keep or what interest group they identify with than it has been about what the candidates actually want to do once elected. While expressing near unanimous support for tax stabilization, better labor relations and disclosing no actual plans to help us get there, the candidates and their advocates have kept us focused on other questions over the past several weeks, including:

-Is Steinberg a pawn of controversial Council member Barbara Ley Toffler?

-Do Elie Katz, Adam Gussen and Yitz Stern have significant ties to disgraced political boss Joe Ferriero?

-Are Helen Schlereth and Robert O'Neill running to represent residents or public employees?

In a similar vein, Joseph Steinberg has repeatedly reminded the voters that he has a child in the public schools and Gayle Helfgott has written a cryptic (and vaguely offensive, if I understand it correctly) letter to the Suburbanite seeking to dispel the preconceived notions one might have about her communal affiliations based on certain assumptions one might make about her. To the untrained eye, these claims seem basically irrelevant in establishing one's credentials for office, but in today's Teaneck, these oblique references are key to defining one's candidacy and identifying as a suitable candidate for a particular demographic.

Naturally, we the voters have adopted some common techniques to cut through the fog. We spend several weeks every other spring studying whose lawn signs are found together in each neighborhood's lawns, parsing candidate letters to the Suburbanite in search of certain code words and catchphrases, and then devising complex voting strategies for our favored candidates that we urge upon our friends and neighbors.

It's less important to assign blame for this political farce and its harmful side effects than it is to find a way to avoid repeating it. Future candidates for public office should not forswear negative campaigning, but affirmatively promise to tackle real issues and offer substantive policy prescriptions in the course of the campaign. This year, Yitz Stern assures us he has a "real plan" to limit future tax increases, but offers no details as to what it is. Joseph Steinberg claims to possess a strong record on fiscal issues and superior business acumen, but tells us nothing about what he hopes to do as our Councilman. Even the one "issue" discussed by the candidates, i.e. the $10,000 Council approved audit of the defeated school budget is not a real issue but a red herring, another little hint as to who the candidates are and with whom they symbolically stand. When voters are left to guess about what a candidate will actually do once elected, it is not surprising that the campaign period turns into an exercise in labeling.

Voters and the media have a responsibility to enforce this discipline upon the candidates if they will not do it themselves. Candidate forums can be a great venue in which to do this, but their reach is limited to those who can and do attend, and in any case this year they disappointed. The blogosphere is well positioned to take up the slack, but is also subject to hijacking by those with an ax to grind. So, after a long hiatus, I have come back to lend a hand. Welcome back to Teaneck Blog.

The Teaneck 6

2007-09-26T11:02:00.000-04:00

There is more than enough blame to go around for the controversy and ill-feeling 
surrounding an incident in which six students from Thomas Jefferson Middle
School were briefly detained and ticketed for walking in the street after dismissal. 
After reading the Suburbanite's front page account of the hubbub, I am left 
wondering which of the aggrieved parties will show the character and maturity to 
apologize and admit their role in the escalation.

The Teaneck Police Department is one candidate. While law enforcement
officials can legitimately claim that officers were just doing their
jobs when they slapped fines on a group of young violators and returned
them to school, a department that spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on
community policing and efforts to improve its relations with residents should
know better than to frighten, intimidate, and humiliate our children in
the process of carrying out its duty to keep order and protect public
safety. How about an admission from the TPD that this could have been
handled better and that in the future, officers will use better judgment
when making an example of people, even if those people had been
previously warned to obey the law?

Another group who may want to step back from the brink is the parents
of the children who were ticketed. Sure, any parent in the same position
would loudly protest the way in which this situation was (mis)handled
and the way their child was treated. However, it seems clear that
administration of the middle school cooperated with the police and issued numerous
instructions and warnings to the students not to engage in the very behavior
their children allegedly engaged in.

"[TJ Principal Antoine Green] said he told the students, but kids will
be kids. If he had informed us that the police would be issuing
summonses, we would have instructed our children not to walk in the street,"
one parent said, according to the Suburbanite. One may express anger at
how certain parties may have acted, but excusing the children's failure
to heed warnings or obey the school principal on the grounds that the
parents were not aware of the punishment and therefore did not
explicitly tell their children to follow this specific rule suggests that the
parents may not be blameless here.

Finally, a couple of other individuals ought to retract statements made in the heat 
of the moment. One prominent resident is quoted as threatening the Township with
"the biggest demonstration you ever had in Teaneck" in response to the incident.
Given past history, that is quite a loaded comment. And though it is possible that
he is being quoted somewhat out of context, new Board of Education President Dr.
Henry Pruitt should know better than to take sides here. Snidely commenting that
"if the police want to empty their ticket books, they should spend their time on Cedar
Lane," is neither helpful nor a good example for the youth in the school system, who
should not see the elected leader of the school system expressing disdain for the
police in public.

Let's not forget that this incident began with children and our children are
watching how those they look up to go about responding to it.

Power to the people

2007-09-18T13:34:00.001-04:00

The Township Council may be on the verge of taking a wise political step through the adoption of a new zoning ordinance for Teaneck Road, but can it live with the consequences? As today's Record notes, the proposed guidelines, drafted in concert with residents' groups, enjoy popular support, but they are also at odds with the Master Plan. Given the backdrop, political expediency may outweigh other concerns, but there is no question that a precedent is being set here, and it might be one that certain Council members will find burdensome in the future.

Of course, the recently adopted Master Plan itself is far from the ambitious document originally envisioned by members of the Council Majority and their allies on the Planning Board. Public protest in the form of demands for community input into the process compelled officials to scale back some of their favored proposals and incorporate language binding them to protect the character of residential communities. So, in effect, the groundwork for more restrictive zoning ordinances that emanate not from municipal government, but from neighborhood residents themselves, was laid months ago.

But the compromises that ended the standoff over the Master Plan could be viewed as part of a government-led process that reserved the right to make planning decisions from elected officials and their appointees. This more recent episode clearly cedes that power to a vocal group of involved residents who hold no position and are not accountable to anyone but themselves. Other community members will certainly demand the very same consideration in their own backyards. Time will tell whether that will be a good thing.

Seizing the center

2007-09-04T11:50:00.001-04:00

While dueling letter writers quibble over who came out looking worse during Teaneck's summer of discontent, one individual at the center of much of the swirling controversy is quietly padding his credentials and look toward the future. While political enemies continue their attempts discredit Mayor Katz and his Council allies, the Mayor himself has begun using the media more effectively to position himself as a moderate leader and dedicated public servant. This constitutes quite an improvement from earlier efforts and may serve to reposition him as a formidable figure in Township politics just in time for the next round of Council elections.

In Sunday's Record, Katz made all the right moves in commenting on an issue of importance to him. For years, Katz has been a promoter of additional parking in some form or another, especially in the Plaza area, though his proposals and the Council's RFPs have been met with limited enthusiasm. Katz wisely took advantage of the opportunity to balance his views with a declaration of the importance of protecting residential areas. Similarly, in local coverage of recent meetings on the future of North Teaneck Rd., Katz managed to come off a sensible and concerned participant in the deliberations who was willing to advocate for the residents. And to cap it off, the latest edition of the County Seat contains a photo that will do more for Katz's political fortunes than the infamous pastrami shot, as he is shown at a lunch with Hackensack officials to discuss a shared services arrangement.

There was little doubt that after a strong performance in the 2006 elections, Katz had lost a bit of his luster once installed as mayor. Around the time of the controversy over the parking lot in Brett Park, it became clear that Katz's widespread popularity and carefully cultivated image as champion of all of Teaneck was somewhat imperiled by his method of governing. To his credit, he seems to have learned from his mistakes and it appears that his opponents' continued petulance and negativity has allowed him the opportunity to move back to the center and regain his place as a pragmatic and likable leader. He may emerge from all the political sniping as a stronger and more mature public figure.

Restored to life

2007-08-31T12:43:00.000-04:00

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

2007-08-16T16:51:00.000-04:00

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

2007-08-15T16:28:00.000-04:00

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

2007-08-02T15:46:00.000-04:00

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!

That picture

2007-07-25T22:44:00.000-04:00

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

2007-07-25T16:41:00.000-04:00

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.

South of the border

2007-07-23T19:20:00.000-04:00

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.

Teaneck's top cop snatched by Newark

2007-07-17T11:32:00.000-04:00

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.

Open Space and openness

2007-07-11T09:05:00.001-04:00

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?

Not a "worthy and essential goal"

2007-07-02T11:24:00.000-04:00

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.

Naming names

2007-06-28T10:49:00.001-04:00

Unable to get any satisfaction from Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli, who has ended his investigation of alleged transgressions of campaign laws during the 2006 Council race without bringing charges, Teaneck's disaffected opposition appears to be taking a new tack.

This week's Suburbanite contains a letter from outspoken Council critic Naomi Cramer questioning the motives behind the decision to halt the investigation, and comments by a number of individuals at Tuesday night's raucous Council meeting showed that many are still committed to keeping this issue alive.

What's new, however, is the announcement by a local political organization that it will hold a meeting during which a report that "gives names of those who allegedly had a part in the production and dissemination of the campaign literature" will be presented to the public. The agent of this vigilante justice? The Teaneck Democratic Municipal Organization, who is no doubt holding the event only because of its high regard for the rule of law and a clean and transparent political process, and not because of any affinities with the Teaneck New Beginnings slate, in keeping with the non-partisan nature of Teaneck local politics.

Whether this story still has any traction with the wider public more than a year after the defeat of the majority of the Teaneck New Beginnings slate by a sizable margin is an open question. What is clear, however, is that the hardcore support for TNB, which has also constituted the most vocal opposition to the current Council majority, is determined to attempt to delegitimize current elected officials rather than engage them in policy debate. This desperate effort to regain some influence is perhaps the clearest admission that the TNB fringe, once very much part of the establishment, is increasingly out of step with public opinion in Teaneck.

The nanny municipality

2007-06-27T15:30:00.000-04:00

Among the issues commanding the attention of the Council recently has been the question of Teaneck's response to the alarming uptick in gang activity in town. Last night's Council meeting featured an impassioned discussion about a resolution ratifying a costly proposal to add police officers to help combat the gang problem in town. Ultimately, with some apparent reluctance, a majority of the Council agreed to back the plan in response to the gang threat. As one of the voices calling for serious consideration of the issue in consultation with the Teaneck Police Department command, I am pleased to see that Township officials have taken the issue seriously, despite the unwelcome financial burdens associated with the proposed solution. Hopefully, the recommendations of our law enforcement officials will prove effective enough to put an end to gang activity in town.

What did not please me were the comments of a number of residents and officials who spoke at the meeting. It seemed that several speakers were subtly assigning blame to the Township for the gang problem. As they rattled on about the need to demonstrate to the youth of Teaneck that the community is behind them through expanded programming and handouts of public funds to local non-profit organizations, it became clear that certain individuals simply cannot pass up an opportunity to advocate for additional services, more government spending, and a greater role for public institutions in community life, all at taxpayer expense.

One might argue that the root cause of gang membership and violent criminal activity is poor parenting, low self-esteem, boredom, or whatever other excuse one might offer and that attempts to stamp out such anti-social behavior that do not address these root causes are doomed to failure. It does not then follow that it is the responsibility of every Teaneck taxpayer to furnish entertainment options for local teens. It would be terrific if we had the resources to prevent every young person in town from getting mixed up with gangs and falling into a life of criminal behavior. We do not. In fact, Teaneck does not even have the resources to pay for the additional police officers needed to contain the existing problem, though we have little choice but to do so. The best we can do at this stage is take steps to protect the innocent from the pernicious side effects of gang activity in town. There is no way we can protect the criminally inclined from themselves, too.

It's time to look away from government and towards ourselves as individuals if we want Teaneck's children to turn out better. What kind of parents, grandparents, or siblings are we? Are we volunteering our time with local organizations as mentors, coaches, tutors, or the like? Are we giving what we can afford to give financially to the causes that matter to us, or are we just putting our hands out to others, hoping to compel them to make up the difference?

The Township of Teaneck handles public safety and law enforcement, and for that reason, the Council has just agreed to saddle our community with a significant ongoing expense to protect public order. The people of Teaneck as family members, neighbors, and friends are responsible for steering our youth down the right path. It is time for us to individually assume an equal responsibility for achieving the outcomes we hope for.

Poison arrows

2007-06-26T23:28:00.000-04:00

Oh my! Pandemonium in the Council Chambers. A telling scene at approximately 11:30 pm on a Tuesday night: in the foreground, Councilman Gussen gets a tongue lashing from a resident for his public castigation of former Planning Board member Barbara Ley Toffler. In the background, Councilman Rudolph and Councilwoman Honis can be seen arguing and gesticulating after Honis took Rudolph to task publicly for what she perceived to be impolite behavior during the meeting as part of a longer tirade filled with innuendo.

Is this the end of civil discourse in Teaneck? Has the "Comments" section of the local blogosphere spilled into the real world? Stay tuned. There's probably more to come after the time out called by Mayor Katz.

Candor and its consequences

2007-06-22T10:32:00.000-04:00

Four months after its appearance in the Metro section of the New York Times, Peter Applebome's article about diversity and Teaneck is making waves on the local scene. At the time of its appearance, I surmised that the very public airing of dirty laundry in Applebome's piece had the potential to "shake up the Teaneck landscape." Surprisingly, the inital fallout from the article, which depicted growing alarm and resentment towards Orthodox Jews, "the most conspicuous and fastest-growing group in town," seemed limited. Until now.

Among those residents who spoke on the record about views of the Orthodox community was Barbara Ley Toffler, a member of the Planning Board. "People worry that there's a group that wants this to become an Orthodox community like some of the ones in Rockland County," she told the Times. "This has always been an incredibly diverse community, and from my perspective, I don't want it to become any one thing."

While this statement may be open to some interpretation (the first part suggested that it was "people," and not necessarily Toffler herself, who held that view), it upset Councilman Kevie Feit enough that he joined a majority in blocking Toffler's reappointment to the Planning Board. In widely circulated correspondance, Feit outlines some of the reasons why he felt he could not support Toffler's reappointment. Feit characterizes Toffler's statements as "insensitive, at best, and highly offensive, at worst." "Either way," he continues, "[they are] inappropriate for a member of the Planning Board to state publicly."

By Feit's own admission, his rationale for opposing Toffler is that she has conducted herself in a manner not befitting a member of the Planning Board and called her impartiality into question rather than any qualm he had with her actual performance as a member of that body. It is the quotation itself, and apparently some subsequent follow up comments that were circulated over e-mail that were at issue here. So here we do indeed have some tangible fallout from the Applebome piece. What will be the next shoe to drop?

Thanks for calling attention to it

2007-06-20T17:46:00.000-04:00

As it prepares to send the Class of 2007 out into the world, Teaneck High School has a wide range of things to be proud of, from team and individual athletic successes to an impressive array of college acceptances. The school's recent ranking among the top five percent of public high schools in the Unites States by Newsweek magazine, however, should not necessarily be a point of pride. While Teaneck Superintendent of Schools John F. Czeterko told the Suburbanite that officials are "very pleased with [their] recognition by Newsweek" and the "validation" it provides, the Newsweek ranking, when placed in context, is actually a manifestation of what many in Teaneck say is wrong with the schools.

A quick glance at the methodology employed by Newsweek demonstrates how this is so. The magazine ranks schools by the total number of Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and Cambridge exams taken by the student body each year and divides that number by the number of graduating seniors. There are, of course, many reasons why such a statistic is not a valid way of drawing conclusions about the quality of a school. In Teaneck High's case, the particular fallacy is that while the total number of exams taken in the school may exceed the number of graduating seniors and therefore place the school in elite company, those tests are being taken by a subset of the population of 11th and 12th graders, many of whom sit for multiple examinations across a number of subjects. More than three quarters of the student body takes no Advanced Placement examinations or AP level courses whatsoever. And with an average SAT score that hovers below the mean for New Jersey and a pass rate on proficiency examinations that lags the state averages as well, it is clear that a large proportion of the student body is not doing anything near college-level work. Given this mixed bag of performance indicators (none of which tells the whole story), school rankings such as these are basically worthless. Worse, in this case, by awarding the school such a high ranking on the basis of its ratio of AP exams to graduating seniors, Newsweek is actually highlighting the extreme disparities in achievement among students at Teaneck High School.

To be sure, if there is going to be a wide achievement gap in the Teaneck, it is certainly better that it arise due of the presence of a cohort of fine students taking challenging courses whose experience stands apart from that of a large portion of the student body. Still, given the emphasis placed on remedying the yawning chasm separating the best from the rest during the most recent Board of Education campaign, one would think this kind of publicity would be somewhat unwelcome- for now. Hopefully, we can look forward to a day when rankings such as these will come alongside better overall performance figures and broader participation in Teaneck High's most advanced academic offerings. That's the kind of "validation" Superintendent Czeterko and company should be seeking.

Top ranking unwelcome

2007-06-12T14:11:00.000-04:00

In the course of a report about one "bright spot in the state's otherwise sluggish commercial real estate sector," regional business news website NJBiz.com cites a troubling statistic that ought to be incorporated in any discussion over future development in Teaneck. Statewide, the vacancy rate in commercial property is approximately 18 percent versus a national vacancy rate of about 13.5 percent in the office market, according to estimates from the National Association of Realtors. The Teaneck/Ridgefield market, however, is experiencing an eye-popping 40.43% vacancy rate, the highest in the area, according to the article.

The article does not contain any analysis of the reasons behind the apparent glut of office space in our area. Any number of factors might explain the phenomenon. It could be a temporary aberration, or evidence that existing space is unsuitable for the current market and needs to be renovated or improved. But it would take a lot of spinning to conclude that the time is right to create additional capacity in our area, even if there are developers out there willing to take on the risks.

You have got to be kidding

2007-06-11T09:48:00.001-04:00

Last week, the Bergen County Board of Elections gained a new member. The body charged by tallying votes, staffing the polls, and certifying elections now counts Hackensack Police Chief Ken Zisa as one of its four members. Look him up if you are not familiar with his past exploits. Suffice it to say that this will do little to inspire confidence in the integrity of our democratic process.

The timing of the cushy appointment by Governor Corzine suggests that it came in fulfillment of a condition attached to the "amicable" resolution of the Democratic Party's primary battle that pitted State Sen. Loretta Weinberg and Assembly members Gordon Johnson and Valerie Vainieri Huttle against Party boss Joseph Ferriero's slate earlier this year. Ferriero's man is now comfortably ensconced in another publicly funded position, which should make up for whatever disappointment he may feel at being compelled to abandon a hopeless campaign for state office. Loyalty has its rewards.

At this point, it is going to take a bit more than the occasional complimentary breakfast with a county official to win the trust of this Teaneck resident. The more I see of county politics, the less I understand why we put up with it. To me, Bergen County means blue laws, political patronage, and paying an extra layer of taxes for the privilege. Not exactly a compelling value proposition. Looks like Todd Caliguire had it right after all...

Dog bites man

2007-06-07T11:47:00.000-04:00

If something takes place every week, is it still news? The Suburbanite seems to think so. Howard Prosnitz reports week in and week out about protests, vigils, and other gatherings held by Teaneck's very active anti-war movement near the Teaneck Armory. Granted, Teaneck may not have all that much going on in a given week, but the relentless focus on the activities and opinions of one local group risks blurring the line between reporting about them and promoting them.

This week's Suburbanite dishes out the anti-war news in two portions: a cover article about Teaneck Police Department ticketing of motorists for honking to show solidarity with protesters followed by another article inside the paper about a Memorial Day vigil. The first of these actually makes for an interesting story, though it may be overlooked by the many readers whose patience for the constant reports on the protests has been exhausted. Should the Teaneck Police deliberately overlook repeated violations of state statutes at the behest of a citizens group that wants to make as much noise as it can? Or alternatively, are the Teaneck Police selectively enforcing an obscure law to harass lawful protesters who are looking to rally public support?

These interesting issues might get a better hearing if the Suburbanite were a little more selective with its news coverage.

Fixing what is broken

2007-06-04T10:28:00.000-04:00

At what point do seemingly isolated incidents involving the endangerment of students in the Teaneck public school system become a cause for community concern about the system itself? With three troubling high profile stories alleging wrongdoing and negligence by adults entrusted with the care of Teaneck's youth swirling in the media in recent weeks, it may be time to stop viewing these three unfortunate episodes as misfortunes that have befallen Teaneck and start asking what is being done by officials to fix a school system that is developing a very poor reputation for protecting the welfare of youngsters.

The three events in question are, of course, the ongoing criminal proceedings against former Teaneck High School Principal Joseph White, the tragic story of the death of a local teenager on an allegedly poorly supervised THS-sponsored trip to Africa this spring, and the shocking charges that an acclaimed middle school teacher repeatedly engaged in sexual activity with a student for several years, on school grounds and elsewhere. While a presumption of innocence certainly applies, this is quite a lot for a district of only about 4,000 students to be dealing with at one time. Is it mere coincidence, or is there a systemic problem?

On Friday, Bergen County prosecutor John L. Molinelli was quoted in The Record in conjunction with a story about the various charges filed against teacher James Darden. While his ominous comments may have been directed only at the circumstances surrounding this particular case, they apply nearly as well for the others.

"I have to wonder about security in the building and how something like this can take place as frequently as it did over such a long period of time the way it did," Molinelli said at a news conference. "It concerns me, and I hope tonight it concerns some school board members in Teaneck -- at least I hope so."

Any district can be victimized by a lone sicko or a freak mishap on a trip. What does it say about those in charge when the Teaneck schools is suffering through three very public investigations into such incidents at once? Are we just extremely unlucky, or is nobody watching over the employees in the Teaneck public schools?

The apparent complacency voiced by Superintendent John Czeterko in response to the Darden case does not provide much reassurance that officials feel they have anything when it comes to ensuring student safety, or even any indication that the district may be failing in its responsibilities to students and parents alike.

"We value teachers who stay after school," Czeterko told The Record about Darden. "He was a valued and trusted employee. If he violated that trust, we're stunned."

There are many reasons underlying the dented confidence in the public school system. Some are demographic, and are almost completely beyond the control of the district. Others are financial, for which the district can bear no more than partial responsibility. Still others are created by the proliferation of incidents such as these. The question is, can anything be done to reassure the community that the schools remain a safe place for our children, and if so, will those things be done?

Update: See this piece from Tuesday's Record detailing some new measures to be put in place in response to the Darden case.

Update #2: There is more on the district's efforts to calm the community in Wednesday's Record, including an account of a meeting for middle school parents.

Nice, but will it backfire?

2007-05-31T09:47:00.000-04:00

This week's Suburbanite reports on the parallel efforts of a local citizens group and the Township Council to enact anti-pay-to-play ordinances in Teaneck. Given the contempt so many Teaneck residents have for the corrupt practices that characterize politics on the state and county level, the measures advocated by Bergen Grassroots, on the one hand, and Council member Jackie Kates, on the other, should have little trouble winning popular support.

As Bergen Grassroots official Paul Eisenman told the Suburbanite, "Teaneck is the cleanest town in Bergen County, if not the state." But given the current state of affairs elsewhere, it seems to be a safe bet that local voters would set aside any freedom of speech concerns to follow the lead of nearby towns such as Hillsdale, Hasbrouck Heights, Oradell, and Ramsey in enacting strict limits on contributions to local officials from vendors seeking municipal contracts.

The question is whether a pay-to-play ordinance like those under consideration would address the real threat to good government in Teaneck, i.e. interference in Township affairs by partisan political organizations.

While the Bergen Grassroots draft legislation contains a provision that would restrict vendor donations to political parties, how well would such a rule actually work? Given that Teaneck officials are not officially affiliated with political parties (at least in their elected and appointed roles) and yet may still be subject to manipulation by political organizations that provide them financial and logistical support during campaigns for office, the inclusion of such a clause seems necessary. However, without a similar change in the law on the county or state level, were Teaneck to exclude any vendor who has donated more than $500 to any political party from the contract bidding process, the Township might leave itself few viable options for major improvement projects or outsourced services. The net effect of the legislation could be to drive up the Township's costs without realizing a tangible benefit, given that Teaneck is already recognized as a clean and transparently managed municipality.

Appealing as it may be to send out a strong message on pay-to-play, let's be sure any ordinance enacted is not done so just to prove a point or to serve as an example to others who need it more. Our first priority is to protect the interests of Teaneck.

Weekend fun

2007-05-25T09:46:00.000-04:00

As reported in this week's Suburbanite, several dozen realtors and residents met with Mayor Katz and Township Manager Fall last week to review issues of mutual concern. By all accounts, the dialogue was fruitful as a variety of topics were discussed candidly. As Howard Prosnitz writes in his account of the meeting, Teaneck Firefighter John Grado made a cryptic remark about a "adversarial feeling" that is evident when dealing with township officials, especially in one particular department. This week's question is: who could he possibly be referring to? Post your guesses in the comments section.

PS: Don't cheat by looking at Mayor Katz's response to the comments in the course of which he spills the beans.

I can't wait to see all the guesses! It is quite the shock to hear that a builder has had a negative experience with one of the Teaneck departments and that "a friend's wife had returned in tears" from the department in question. Could it be the Health Department? No, maybe it was that nasty Purchasing Department...

Kidding aside, it is appalling that the answer to this question is so obvious. By what right does a certain group of Township employees, paid out of taxpayers' pockets, lord its authority over residents and their contractors alike? Rudeness has no place in any municipal office, let alone one which is charged with dealing with the public and helping people to comply with Teaneck's complicated code. Let's hope Mayor Katz's claim that they are "trying to make changes" it is true and that the Township is rid of this embarrassment soon.

Safe precedent

2007-05-22T11:00:00.000-04:00

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.

Dwindling options

2007-05-17T11:55:00.000-04:00

The planned changes to Ward Plaza, featured in this week's Suburbanite cover story, provide yet another object lesson about the intractability of so many of Teaneck's problems. In this case, one of the most logical sites for additional parking has been officially taken out of contention as a partial solution to the commuter parking issue.

Whether or not the decision to drop the 50 planned parking spaces from the project is the best one for neighbors, area residents, public safety, etc. is not the issue here, for if this were the only option taken off the table, we could just move on to explore the next possibility. But with the Council's recent actions to restrict parking in the Teaneck Road area and the existing parking restrictions on streets alongside major transit routes which are strongly supported by homeowners, the revised Ward Plaza plan severely limits the possibilities. At this point, few existing resources have the potential to alleviate the commuter parking problem.

Some might contend that this consequence is actually an intended one. Could there a plan to bring the public around to the conclusion that the only viable option is a major development that includes a parking deck in the West Englewood Plaza? Perhaps, though is unlikely that such a project would face much community opposition to begin with. It is more likely that this is just another case of an attempt at problem solving shot down by community protest. Business as usual in Teaneck, for better or for worse.

Wallflowers

2007-05-14T10:02:00.000-04:00

One of the most frequently mentioned buzzwords in New Jersey politics is "shared services." Whether or not a program of consolidating resources and forming partnerships across town and county lines to save taxpayer money is the answer to all, or even a significant portion, of the state's fiscal problems remains to be seen. Nonetheless, most observers would allow that there are some relatively simple steps that could be taken to cut costs by joining forces with neighboring municipalities to eliminate redundant infrastructure or to secure discounts by purchasing supplies in bulk.

That said, we have heard relatively little about such initiatives in Teaneck. Given the fixation shared by Mayor Katz and the Council majority on finding ways to lower property tax bills, one would think this largely painless method of lowering expenditures would constantly be in the headlines. Instead, we have been occupied with ambitious development plans that are both contentious and, at least in the short term, unlikely to yield any real tax savings. The Mayor's suggestion to explore the use of shared services to combat the gang problem last week was one of the few times the concept has been invoked publicly over the past few months.

While we in Teaneck have battled over future direction, neighboring towns have already taken some tentative steps toward putting theory into practice. As the Record reported yesterday, "Hackensack and seven other towns -- Rochelle Park, Maywood, Elmwood Park, Saddle Brook, Garfield, Fair Lawn and Paramus -- formed the Central Bergen Consortium six months ago" to find ways to reduce costs through sharing as the Northwest Bergen Consortium of thirteen towns in our area has been doing for a while. As other towns pair off with their dance partners, we in Teaneck could be left standing alone with only our spiraling tax bills to keep us company.

Though it may not command a prominent place in the proceedings, the most important item up for discussion on tomorrow's Council agenda may be item #3 under "Old Business": Shared Services. There may be more glamor in talking up major new developments than implementing plans for joint bidding for road paving, but the only thing that really matters is the bottom line. Officials must remember that it's lower tax bills and not higher ratables or any other metric that is the ultimate objective here.

Fuzzy math

2007-05-11T08:54:00.000-04:00

According to a report by the Record earlier this week, our wallets are lighter by $254,174 more than they need to be. That sum might not seem like a rounding error, but that's exactly what it is. Apparently, bean counters across the State of New Jersey have been exercising their legal right to shave extra digits off of the municipal tax rates and round them up to the nearest penny, and the Township of Teaneck collected over a quarter of a million extra dollars from us last year as a result. The extra revenue generated by this practice is recorded as a surplus and socked away for later.

The light shined upon this practice has, predictably, created an uproar. With sensitivity to high property taxes already heightened throughout the state, nobody is pleased to learn that they are paying in more than their share. Well, nobody but the politicians who can now embark on a crusade to fix the flaw in the system that they allowed to persist up to now. This morning, word comes that State Sen. Loretta Weinberg and others are pledging to turn their attention to the matter.

You can't blame politicians for licking their chops at this opportunity to portray themselves as tax reformers. Here you have a quirk in the system that can be eliminated with much fanfare at no cost to services, personnel, perks, etc. Free political points are there for the taking. Even those local officials who have spoken out in defense of the practice as necessary to ensure that municipalities do not run into funding shortfalls in the middle of the budget year due to incomplete collections or other unforeseen circumstance can go along with this, as they know that as the architects of their budgets they can (and will) find the money elsewhere, though they will have to be a bit more creative about it.

While any little bit of tax relief is welcome, and a hidden charge on law abiding citizens is certainly galling, this episode will not necessarily benefit the taxpayer. By allowing incumbent legislators to slip a tax reduction feather in their caps without taking a single one of the hard decisions that need to be made, it diverts time, energy, and attention from the systemic problems that plague New Jersey.

Teaneck tackles the gang issue

2007-05-10T13:53:00.000-04:00

Back at the end of March, in the immediate aftermath of a frightening (and eye-opening) gang-related incident in town that led to ten arrests, I wrote:

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.

Now, as Brian Aberback reports in today's Record, I have gotten my wish. Police Chief Tiernan has presented the Council with what he believes the Teaneck Police Department requires to end the scourge of gang violence in town. His proposed solution, the addition of 14 additional officers to the force, may well break the backs of the gangs in Teaneck, but in the process of doing so, it could also break the bank. With a first year projected cost of $676,000, it is not surprising that Council members, who are loathe to heap additional financial burdens on an already heavily-taxed populace, gave the proposal a lukewarm reception.

The Deputy Mayor summed up the difficult position local officials are in.

"I'm not against [hiring new officers], but I just don't know to what extent," said Deputy Mayor Lizette Parker. "On an emotional level, I'd hire 50 officers because it's a frightening situation. But it's not that easy."

This is certainly quite the bind. It is politically impossible to reject the Police Chief's request outright. With an alarming rise in gang incidents over the past year and media reporting that a second grade teacher at the Lowell School "frequently stops students in the class from flashing hand signs and finger messages that mimic gang style communications," there is no way the Township can avoid taking vigorous action.

At the same time, with a huge jump in the municipal budget this year and little prospect of any near term progress in finding ways to spread the tax burden away from homeowners, this Council would almost guarantee that it would fail to achieve one of its most important goals if it were to approve an almost 15% increase in police manpower.

If there were a broad consensus among residents that the gang issue was a top priority, the voters might forgive such an outcome. But the fact is that much of the population has been insulated from this issue, and awareness of the problem is low in neighborhoods that have not been impacted by the rise in gang activity. That's not a bad thing, per se. It shows that the problem has been contained thus far. However, it also has the potential to cause a backlash if significant increases in spending are passed to help clean up this festering problem. Hence the ambivalence among Council members.

Whether or not the Police Chief's approach is the right one or the most cost effective one, it is worth noting once the potential costs (financial, social, and otherwise) of shying away from addressing this problem head on. Will additional officers and extra funding make sure that innocent bystanders don't get in the way of stray bullets? Will they end the defacement of public and private property with graffiti? Will they make sure that no part of Teaneck ever becomes a "no go" zone? I don't know. But the potential damage those things can do to Teaneck cannot be measured in dollars alone.

The answer to Chief Tiernan's plan need not be an unqualified yes, but it also cannot be "no way." The time for debating whether a problem exists is long past. The only thing left to discuss are the details of the solution.

Turnover at the Board of Ed

2007-05-07T09:55:00.000-04:00

The Board of Ed's reorganization meeting last week brought change, not only through the installation of newly elected members Margot Embree Fisher and Sebastian Rodriguez, but also through a new leadership slate for the body. With the help of Fisher and Rodriguez, Dr. Henry Pruitt and Dr. Ardie Walser displaced Judith McKay and Dr. David Diuguid as president and vice president, respectively. The 5-4 vote broke entirely along tenure lines, with the five newest trustees overruling the wishes of the four longtime members to maintain the status quo. Does this signal a new direction for the BoE?

While there were a few hints here and there during the campaign that certain of the candidates had made common cause with one another and that existing members clearly preferred that incumbent Barbara Ostroth win reelection, it was not readily apparent to most voters exactly what was at stake. Those who carefully examined the pattern of endorsements and the names listed in various campaign adds might have deduced something about the preferences of certain insiders. However, as there was no overt call by the victorious candidates for a refocusing of priorities or a new direction on the school board, it is as yet unclear to us outsiders whether a new faction has formed or whether the majority now held by newer members signifies much of anything for the future.

In the aftermath of a bland campaign that granted the victors no clear mandate to do much of anything, it remains to be seen whether the imprint left on the Board leadership by the newer members will translate into bold new steps on the policy side. At this point, the only thing we can be certain of is that a few different names will grace the glossy newsletters in our mailboxes.

Awesome power

2007-05-03T20:15:00.000-04:00

Teaneck residents have a knack for courting controversy. Whether it's the periodic attempts to browbeat the Council into commenting on national political issues or the tumult surrounding the rather tame Master Plan revision, we seem to relish confrontation and debate. So it should not be surprising that despite the absence of any plans to seize private property through eminent domain, some residents have been up in arms about the issue.

While recent planning documents have downplayed eminent domain as an option for private redevelopment in Teaneck and counseled against using it in anything but the most extreme circumstances, the very mention of the practice has apparently stimulated some to urge the Council to voluntarily renounce its right to employ the method in the future.

There is certainly a lot to fear when it comes to eminent domain. The Court-protected power of a municipality to override one party's private property rights to benefit another in certain instances does in fact pose a direct threat, especially to poorer individuals who are more liable to own property in areas designated as "blighted." Rather than leaving the fate of such citizens up to the whims of future elected officials, why not lobby the Council to take a proactive step to insulate residents from the use of government power to dispossess them?

Though this may seem sensible on paper, it is basically a non-starter. The Council would be foolish, and perhaps irresponsible, to surrender its legitimate right to act in the best interests of the Township sight unseen. A Council that would toss out an option on the future without knowing what the future will bring would be doing itself, its successors, and all of Teaneck a disservice. It is not the role of the Council to circumscribe its own powers ex ante, but rather to act judiciously and with the proper sensitivity when cases arise. The public, and ultimately, the courts, serve as the check on that and should be all the protection Teaneck needs against potential abuses through unjustified appropriation of private land.

To their credit, members of the Council spoke eloquently in their roles as representatives of the Township against any effort to curtail municipal government's powers prematurely, all the while acknowledging that eminent domain should not be applied casually. Under current circumstances, it is hard to see a situation in which Teaneck would resort to this practice. Nevertheless, if it is protection against government encroachment on our property rights we seek, our best course of action is to stand up and make our voices heard in the event that an actual injustice occurs instead of whipping up hysteria now. As the next election approaches, we might also resolve to compel future candidates for office to articulate a clear statement of their own reluctance to employ this extreme method.

Defending the indefensible

2007-04-30T11:00:00.000-04:00

Count this voter as unhappy to see one of Teaneck's representatives in the State Assembly, Valerie Vainieri Huttle, making excuses for wasteful spending on pork barrel projects. In an article in today's Record, Huttle is dismissive of the U.S. Attorney's investigation into the Democrat-controlled State Legislature, implying that whatever transgressions are being committed are just business as usual and that her Republican counterparts did the very same when they were in the majority.

"I don't think the Christmas tree was planted in 2004," she told the Record. Given the fiscal condition of the State of New Jersey and its all too numerous municipalities, I draw very little comfort from the fact that the Democratic majority's irresponsible use of our tax dollars has a strong precedent. Playing the partisan blame game when you yourself seem to recognize that there is a real mess to clean up is unconscionable, especially when you are a member of the majority who has the power to make changes.

Let's hope this quotation was plucked out of context and Huttle had a bit more to say, perhaps along the lines of, "I don't think the Christmas tree was planted in 2004, but that said, we Democrats bear a responsibility to protect the interests of the taxpayers against those among us who would exploit their position for personal gain. If re-elected, I pledge to act as the conscience of this legislature and stand up against any improper use of public funds."

Spoiling for a fight

2007-04-25T13:04:00.000-04:00

The next chapter of the Holuba Soap Factory saga is about to be written. Back in January, the property's owners seemed to have lost a key supporter when Council member Elnatan Rudolph bent to public pressure and released a statement declaring his opposition to the proposed residential development adjacent to Herrick Park. In the text of his statement, Rudolph suggested that "the owners of the property go back to the drawing board." Well, that they did, and neither residents nor local officials are going to like what they came up with.

Former Teaneck public information officer Stan Steinreich, who ended his working relationship with the town late last year somewhat acrimoniously, introduced the owners' latest idea for the property in his role as their public spokesman. Rather than a somewhat dense condominium development that would have required rezoning of their land, the owners plan a major industrial expansion on the site.

If you did not like our last idea, wait until you see what we're going to put in your backyard as an alternative, the Holubas seem to be saying. You think a few apartments and a bit of passenger car traffic would ruin the quality of life in your quiet suburb? How would you like to live and play beside a large chemical plant and a constant stream of tractor-trailers carrying hazardous materials coming and going all day?

Prediction: this rather transparent bullying attempt, a high stakes bluff if I have ever seen one, will backfire. The endgame in this ongoing public battle over the property was always going to be a face-saving compromise in which the owners would be able to build a slightly less profitable project than they had originally envisioned. The segment of the population (and municipal government) that is friendly to development was quietly supportive of the rights of the owners to build a reasonable development that would permit them to extract a good portion of the value from their property. Once the initial furor of the vocal neighborhood protest died down, the issue would have been quietly resolved in a mutually agreeable way that would be framed as a 'win-win' by Mayor Katz.

Now that the owners have forced the issue by resorting to threats, this outcome is far less certain. Telling the residents of an environmentally conscious, prosperous suburb with a lot of young families that you intend to place a large "chemical-industrial site" in their midst if you do not get your way is a good way to forfeit all of your public support, property rights be damned. The town will now face even greater pressure from residents to pull out all the stops in contesting the plans for the site. The Holubas appear to have guaranteed themselves a lengthy and expensive court battle by choosing the path of confrontation. Perhaps they should head "back to the drawing board" again.

Don't drown in debt

2007-04-24T12:50:00.000-04:00

It is doubtful that many residents pay close attention to the way that Teaneck actually finances its ongoing spending. Sure, most of us have a pretty good idea of our own annual tax liability, and now some of us even have a pretty good grasp of property assessments in the wake of the recent revaluation, but keeping track of the real nuts and bolts of monies in and monies out is not something for which the average concerned citizen has the time or the attention span. Do we need to start paying attention?

An alarming, though altogether unsurprising, report from Moody's Investors Service cited in today's Star-Ledger ranks New Jersey as the fourth largest debtor state in the Union (for reference, the state ranks ninth in population). On a per capita basis, the debt load is $3,317 per resident, triple the national average, and growing. Whether this is merely a reflection of the State's many financial problems or another cause of them is beside the point. The bottom line is that for New Jerseyans, the already heavy tax burden and all the intractable problems it causes or compounds are here to stay.

While this in and of itself is a sobering message for Teaneck taxpayers and officials who hold out hope that better lobbying in Trenton will defray the rising cost of maintaining local services, the story doesn't end with a heavy state debt burden. Teaneck, too, has a significant amount of debt outstanding for both municipal and school district purposes. A recent disclosure filing put that burden at $388 per capita. While this is far below the State mandated ceiling of 3.5% of equalized valuation, it is not insignificant. Furthermore, it may rise again soon, as the Council is slated to consider two ordinances to raise funds through bond issues tonight (see Ordinances #4003 and #4004 on the agenda).

The question facing Teaneck is not whether we really need to own a packer truck or even whether bond issues ever ought to be relied upon to finance current spending. There are certainly compelling reasons for both. What we do need to weigh is whether we are living above our means in the present and digging ourselves a hole for the future. It is always best to defer the tough decisions on belt tightening to a later date, hoping that State funds or increased ratables will make up the difference. Is this really a good bet for us to make?

Commuters lose round one

2007-04-19T12:09:00.000-04:00

Back on February 20th, a number of residents came before the Council to urge it to make life easier for commuters. With a group calling itself the Teaneck Commuter Coalition boosting turnout through an e-mail campaign, numerous speakers stood up during the Good and Welfare portion of the meeting to highlight the difficulties they face in finding legal parking spots near major bus routes into Manhattan. With the Council already sending signals that tackling the commuter parking problem was among its priorities, there was every reason to believe that municipal government would take up the issue and begin to search for solutions to a nettlesome problem.

That is why it is a bit surprising that Council's first step was to enact even more onerous parking restrictions on commuters. This week's Suburbanite reports that at the April 11th meeting, the Council voted 5-2 to install meters in two Township owned parking lots off of State Street. While previously these lots accomodated commuters in need of day parking, the new two-hour parking limit narrows the options even further for residents employed in New York City.

Curiously, Mayor Katz does not see it way, claiming that the ordinance "take[s] into account the needs of both commuters and [area] apartment residents." Statements by Councilman Gussen give a clearer picture of the intent of the new measures. "The State Street parking lot is essential for residents of the apartments," he said. "This ordinance limits parking abuses and makes sure that the lot is available to residents of the area." Gussen himself resides in a nearby apartment.

While Gussen may have been voting his own self-interest and that of his neighbors, which is perfectly understandable, it is a little bit harder to discern why the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and two others voted in favor of this measure, which may improve quality of life for some but exacerbates a bigger problem that was supposedly an important issue for this Council.

Was this just a shortsighted decision, motivated by a desire to placate a certain group of residents and gather up ongoing revenues from parking meters in the municipal lots or was there something else at work here? Perhaps the Council still has its eye on the oft-discussed for-profit parking deck in the West Englewood Plaza area, which would cater to commuters. That project immediately became more lucrative once fees were assessed on nearby spaces that would have offered a free alternative. Whatever the reason, Teaneck's commuters have yet to benefit from their first organized attempt at lobbying.

Key takeaways

2007-04-18T10:34:00.000-04:00

Engaging in painstaking post-election analysis is a popular pastime among political types, and with good reason. Results from actual balloting serve as a once per cycle reality check on all the commentary, speculation, and opinion polls that regularly fill the media. Having gotten our annual reality check from yesterday's School Board elections, it is worthwhile to ask what we can learn about public opinion and the attitudes of Teaneck's voters toward the Board of Education.

The outcome of the budget vote, an overwhelming 'YES' (60%-40%) one year after voters rejected a heftier increase by a significant margin, lends itself more easily to such interpretation. Two factors seem to have been at work in this year's passage of the budget. The first of these was a more contained tax increase than last year, due in part to greater state aid. The key number facing voters was 2.92%, which, all things considered, was not that daunting. The second factor (or rather non-factor) was the absence of a major scandal this time around motivating voters to send a message to the BoE. The shock and outrage felt by many in the aftermath of the damning report on lavish taxpayer-funded benefits for a well-paid Teaneck school administrator raised serious questions about oversight and prompted voters to "send a message," as it were.

Which of these was more important? There seems to be an inclination among those who feel that the Board of Ed runs as tight a fiscal ship as possible to believe that last year's budget defeat was in fact unrelated to dollars and cents and was simply a one-off rebuke from the electorate. Some will certainly point to the one-sided result yesterday as proof that Teaneck voters are generally not displeased with the way things are being run and that the BoE was handed a mandate to continue to place among the highest spending districts in the region. It is not clear that this read is the correct one. It is just as plausible that the Teaneck voters have expressed their approval of the fact that this year's annual increases in school levy came in at a much lower level than last year's. Given that last year saw a rash of budget defeats across the state, not just in Teaneck, and a reversal this year, it appears that voters have given a bit of positive reinforcement to the school boards they chastised last year for overdoing the hikes in taxes in spending. A bit more largesse from Trenton for non-Abbott school districts such as Teaneck probably played a role in turning back the tide of 'NO' votes. If that is the case, then the lesson is clear- find ways to keep a lid on taxes and spending and you'll retain popular support. (Note: see here for more on this)

The significance of the school board election results is a bit harder to tease out. The newly elected and re-elected school board members do not represent any clear agenda that I can discern. Was it a strong conviction that the BoE does indeed need to improve communication with the public (the only issue challenger Sebastian Rodriguez highlighted that Barbara Ostroth did not) that led voters to turn a longtime board member out of office? Doubtful. At best, one can say that the voters opted for a personnel change for the sake of change. A campaign that had little to do with substantive policy issues necessarily produces a result that sheds little light on the public's policy preferences.

The only thing one can say with certainty is that the voters resoundingly defeated newcomer Dr. Kate Zatz. Even the few districts that voted overwhelmingly against the budget and presumably are the most dissatisfied with the current BoE failed to embrace her candidacy, despite her numerous professional qualifications and her determination to paint herself as an outsider who would shake things up if elected. It is likely that her admission that she had not attended BoE meetings or shown any tangible commitment to community service within Teaneck (no educational committees, advisory boards, etc.) contributed to her failure to gain acceptance as a serious candidate this time around. There is no reason that cannot change before the next election if Zatz remains committed to impacting education in Teaneck.

Down by the riverside

2007-04-16T08:41:00.000-04:00

A plan to construct a religious facility alongside the Hackensack River south of Cedar Lane could be the next flashpoint in the ongoing development debate. Only this time, the ranks of those urging protection and preservation of one of the few remaining privately owned open spaces along the river may be swelled on account of the particular circumstances of the proposal.

This Wednesday night, the Zoning Board of Adjustment will take up a proposal to build a Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall and a 35-space parking lot at 640 River Road. In addition to the usual neighborly objections about traffic congestion and safety, environmental conservation groups such as the Friends of the Greenway are mobilizing opposition to the project, pointing out that in the past the Township itself has sought to acquire the property in question to incorporate the vacant land into Terhune Park and the Hackensack River Greenway only to have its offers to the owner rebuffed.

There may be even more sympathy than usual for the environmental argument given that the taxpayers of Teaneck stand to gain little from a tax-exempt institution taking up on a prime piece of riverfront property. The lost recreational opportunities, potential ecological damage, and quality of life concerns become that much more significant when not counterbalanced by any real economic incentive to accede to development of the land.

The only qualm many residents may have about lining up against the proposal will be the precedent it might set for private property rights and other non-profit projects in Teaneck. But rather than creating a base of support for the proposal, such concerns may convince residents to press officials to finally formulate and enact a clearer plan for zones abutting the river so that the same battles do not have to be fought over and over.

Zatz more like it

2007-04-12T18:22:00.000-04:00

A scant week after declaring my indifference toward the ongoing Board of Education election campaign and of my displeasure at the lack of real policy debate, I am ready to sing a different tune. A communication from Dr. Kate Zatz forwarded to me by a reader demonstrates that there may actually be something interesting and productive happening in this race, because one candidate has begun to set herself apart from the field and express some real reservations about issues other than the consensus concerns (i.e. achievement gap). The way Zatz is now framing it, Teaneck voters are faced with a choice of shaking up a tired and complacent Board of Ed by choosing her or endorsing business as usual.

How so? For starters, Zatz points to the fact that the rest of the field consists of two incumbents and two existing members of the Superintendent's Advisory Committee, making her the "only real outsider." A look at the various endorsements contained in this week's Suburbanite seems to bear this out. Incumbent Dr. Henry Pruitt counts a number of sitting members of the BoE among his endorsers in addition fellow candidate Margot Fisher, who herself has the public support of the Deputy Mayor and at least one of the current members of the BoE, and so on. If this is the way these people compete with another for election, it seems unlikely that the aftermath of the race will see an infusion of energy and intellectual ferment in a place that Zatz charges has "time-worn excuses for any criticism."

Of course, lacking endorsement from one's peers is not itself a selling point. One must also break with them in some meaningful way, and Zatz does hint at one area where she thinks differently: budgetary issues. She takes a swipe at the BoE's well-advertised 2.9% increase for the coming year, arguing that it should really be construed as a 5% year on year jump, and criticizes the glossy mailings sent to all residents as "marketing, not communication." Later in the piece, she takes aim at elevated personnel costs and pins some of the blame on the current BoE, too. Is Zatz the only candidate urging a 'No' vote on the budget? That she does not say. But what is clear is that Dr. Kate Zatz is now positioning herself as the choice of all those who feel it is time for a change at One Merrison Street. Will they turn out for her?

Now we have a race worth watching.

Call off the hounds

2007-04-12T07:12:00.000-04:00

Looks like the Bergen County Democratic Organization's challenge to our incumbent Democratic State Senator and Assembly members will be aborted. While there will certainly be some face-saving excuse for why Wildes, Zisa, and Wilson are going to drop out of what had already become a bitterly contested race, it seems pretty clear that the slate had not gotten enough traction with voters to make it worth continuing.

While it is terrific to see the machine break in the face of a crucial test and there was never any chance that this campaign would ever be about real issues anyway, this is not an unequivocally good thing for the 37th district or Bergen County as a whole. No, only a resounding defeat at the polls in full view of the public, the kind of loss that would completely demoralize the BCDO from the leadership on down, would really shake things up enough to give real systemic reform a chance of working. This tactical retreat by the party will probably do little to dampen its growing local influence and weaken the vise grip in which it holds much of the area. With all the money saved and favors not yet called in, the BCDO lives to fight another day.

With this chapter almost closed, the biggest sighs of relief in Teaneck today may not be those of Sen. Weinberg. The most relieved people in Teaneck may be found in the Municipal Building, where certain Council members may be pleased that they will not be called upon to risk crossing constituents by bashing Weinberg & Co. in a compulsory public demonstration of loyalty to Joseph Ferriero and the BCDO. Phew!

The tangled web

2007-04-10T14:54:00.000-04:00

The cover story of yesterday's Record focuses on a property development firm called EnCap and its many "friends" in the Bergen County establishment. The report alleges that by spreading around large sums of money in the form of fees and political contributions, this particular firm has engaged in questionable practices that seem to fail the "smell test." While there is no suggestion that EnCap's activities in Bergen County violated any existing laws, there is a suggestion that the firm and its affiliates have not kept within the spirit of openness and transparency in public affairs.

While it's hard to fault a private corporation for doing what it can to help its chances of success so long as what it does is legally permissible, it is quite legitimate to ask what steps politicians are taking to clean up the system and to distance themselves from appearances of impropriety and potential conflicts of interest. It is nice to see that incumbent State Senator Loretta Weinberg is on the forefront of an effort to restrict developers and their service providers from making campaign contributions to officials who will rule on their projects.

This begs the question, would Weinberg's Democratic opponents support such a measure? Are they willing to put aside the financial interests of the Bergen County Democratic Organization and the Bergen County Improvement Authority to safeguard the integrity of the system? Will they disrupt the status quo and take a stand against pay-to-play, or will they instead try to dance around the issue by touting the benefits they claim to be able to bring to our community? So far, we have only heard the latter.

What is this election about?

2007-04-05T09:54:00.000-04:00

Try as I might, I just can't get into the upcoming school board election. Sure, I'll go out and cast a vote, but I find my enthusiasm for this year's campaign at a low ebb. This is not because there is any lack of important issues facing the Board of Education at the present time. On the contrary, the district faces numerous challenges, some specific to Teaneck and others common to districts throughout the region. So why have the candidates standing for office done almost nothing to distinguish themselves from the field? Why have few if any truly bold or innovative ideas been presented in this campaign? On what basis are we to choose our representatives to one of the Township's most important bodies?

There are two traditional venues in which candidates for local office communicate their visions to the voters: candidate forums and the Suburbanite's letters section. It appears that neither has provided very good insight into why one should choose one candidate over another as there seems to be a broad consensus among the candidates that nothing major needs to be done. Instead of advancing carefully considered policy prescriptions, the candidates and their supporters have spoken platitudes and focused on portraying themselves or their favored candidates as having the right mix of experience or training to serve on the Board of Education (see, for example, former mayor Paul Ostrow's letter in support of Barbara Ostroth in this week's Suburbanite). Incumbents, who presumably have something of a record to run on, make little mention of any substantive accomplishments during their terms. If we don't have personal friends among the field of candidates, how are we supposed to make an intelligent choice?

More importantly, does anybody have any kind of agenda once they are elected? What accountability will any candidate have once the race is over? Can we expect anything to improve after a race devoid of real debate?

Good call

2007-04-02T10:50:00.000-04:00

The Bergen Insider is dead- long live the Insider!

Credit is due to the posters who correctly identified the short-lived Teaneck area publication as a product of the Democratic Party power structure. While I tried in vain to tease out evidence to corroborate the claims of some of the posters on this blog who claimed the paper was a project of the BCDO machine, it turns out all I had to do was wait a few months for The County Seat to hit my mailbox. The latest edition of this free regional publication announces the merger of the Insider with The County Seat, and makes no bones about its loyalties, featuring the Wildes, Zisa, and Wilson slate for state office on the front cover.

I wonder what other signs of creeping party influence I have been missing.

Click here for an example of one of the positive, upbeat stories recently published on The County Seat website in keeping with their self-declared mission to paint a prettier picture of local life.

Shocked out of my complacency

2007-03-29T09:48:00.000-04:00

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.

Giuliani's gift

2007-03-28T10:00:00.000-04:00

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.

The real scandal?

2007-03-26T11:21:00.000-04:00

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...

What's right with the Council

2007-03-23T11:59:00.000-04:00

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.

MOST-ake

2007-03-22T12:58:00.000-04:00

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.

User fees or use for free?

2007-03-21T11:16:00.000-04:00

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.

Read you loud and clear

2007-03-19T07:23:00.001-04:00

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.

Reaching out

2007-03-15T12:40:00.000-04:00

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.

Way to go

2007-03-13T19:09:00.000-04:00

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.

Jackie strikes back

2007-03-09T09:43:00.000-05:00

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.

Underway with a whimper

2007-03-08T10:41:00.000-05:00

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.

Say it ain't so, Adam

2007-03-07T09:44:00.000-05:00

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.

Hollywood and Teaneck?

2007-03-05T11:23:00.000-05:00

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.

Pummeling the straw man

2007-03-01T22:06:00.000-05:00

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.

Should we play ball?

2007-02-28T14:05:00.000-05:00

Are we in Teaneck doing something wrong? Is it our fault that we have not yet opened the spigot to the thousands in potential subsidies from state government that other towns are grabbing to offset their expenses and keep taxes manageable? Have we been overlooking one of the keys to fiscal survival in the dog-eat-dog State of New Jersey?

While much evidence can be marshaled that large sums of money distributed through state aid programs are landing in municipalities other than ours, it's not so clear that we are particularly bad at securing what is rightfully coming to us. But suppose it could be proven that we are lagging behind where we should be, and that this is the fault of our local officials or our representatives at the state level. Would we be willing or able to do what it takes to bring home the bacon? Could we conceivably do it without selling out to some truly unsavory characters?

A disturbing report in today's Star Ledger gives readers a glimpse of how things get done in Trenton. It seems that many potentially helpful property tax reforms slated for enactment were killed at the last minute by the heavy duty lobbying of some powerful special interests. Large campaign contributions to Assembly Democrats were reportedly made just before important votes that could have imperiled certain costly state worker benefits or incentivized municipalities to save money by merging or share services. Predictably, many of these reforms were subsequently abandoned by the Legislature.

If this is business as usual, it doesn't look like a simple appeal for fairness will sway state legislators to send more money our way. How about mobilizing at the polls? Will the threat of losing a few votes from the most politically aware segment of Teaneck do much to move state representatives or party leaders? It seems doubtful. Those votes can easily be recouped elsewhere with a little extra campaign money from major contributors such as labor unions. Besides, there has to be a viable challenger for a few hundred votes to make a difference anyway.

That's not to say that we should not keep the heat on our legislators and demand better. But our primary demand shouldn't be a bigger piece of the pie. The most valuable thing Trenton can do for us is to radically reform the way things are done, not to write us a one time check.

Big win?

2007-02-26T11:20:00.000-05:00

Much may be made of the Planning Board's decision to slow the process of finalizing the latest Master Plan revision. Some may view it as another blow to Mayor Katz's agenda, not unlike the retraction of the proposal to pave over a portion of Brett Park. However, before awarding a victory to those who hammered away at the Planning Board for its haste and a perceived lack of responsiveness to community input, it is worth considering what exactly they have won.

It's clear that the Teaneck Coalition for Community Preservation and like minded individuals demonstrated that the residents still have a voice. Keep the pressure on elected and appointed officials, turn out in force to meetings, and write letters to the Suburbanite, and the powers that be are forced to take heed. The assumption that the implicit support of a silent majority gives current government officials a powerful enough mandate to do as they please has been disproven. Score one point for the protesters.

However, when you take a look at the "redlined" version of the Master Plan posted on the TCCP website, you see that for all the teeth gnashing, hand wringing, and late night antics on both sides, there is not really a whole lot at stake. The professionals might see the dire implications of failing to include a "low-density" here or an "appropriate" there, but let's be honest: the sum total of the disagreement between the Planning Board majority and its opponents is a few minor edits and some wordsmithing.

It's no wonder that Planning Board Chairman Joseph Bodner was willing to allow time for some more public debate. Even the leading opponents are tactitly admitting that the substance of the Master Plan really was not all that controversial; apparently the issue was that they had not been asked to pronounce that verdict themselves. Now they will get that chance. If having an extensive debate about wording and phraseology can sweep away some of the anger, then let's all take out our red pens together.

What does he have against the Teaneck Public Library?

2007-02-22T11:00:00.000-05:00

The Suburbanite's Howard Prosnitz takes a decidedly partial tone in this week's cover story on the library budget. Judging from past writings, library management probably isn't the intended target of Prosnitz's opening dig, but the reporter still ends up firing a shot in that direction.

"Despite its widely publicized policy of fiscal restraint," he writes, "the council has apparently rubber stamped the library's proposed budget." But has Prosnitz really laid bare the hypocrisy of the Council, or has he instead suggested that the library has proposed a fiscally irresponsible budget? Later in the article, when Prosnitz actually lays out the facts instead of his own opinions about the goings on, it becomes apparent that the Council approved a 3.6% increase in the library's budget, within the guideline that Mayor Katz is quoted as recommending, i.e. 0 to 4% year on year increases.

True, the Council did not in the end compel the library director to remove some of the budget lines that Council members had challenged such as $3,610 for "seminars and meetings," but the increase that was approved was small in absolute dollars and fell within the suggested range. So is Prosnitz saying that it is not really that the Council failed to live up to its goal of fiscal restraint, but rather that the management of the library has gotten away with an unjustifiably lavish set of expenditures? This is how it reads.

I am all in favor of cutting expenditures to the bone. In the short to medium term, this is one of the few realistic ways local officials can slow the rate of property tax increases. Still, even the most frugal among us would have a tough time arguing that the library's limited budget increase presents a real problem.

Doing the "right thing"

2007-02-21T09:07:00.000-05:00

A fascinating and somewhat rare public debate over a personnel issue took place at last night's Council meeting. Residents were treated to a glance behind the scenes of a process that is mostly opaque to them, that of the promotion of police officers. What they saw should be very encouraging. In the course of the deliberations, Council member Jacqueline Kates stood out by enduring external pressure and casting what turned out to the deciding vote to settle this question correctly.

The details of the case were never laid out completely, but it appears that a decision previously taken to limit the number of Teaneck Police Department sergeants promoted to lieutenant this year upset a number of community members because it caused an up-and-coming African-American sergeant to miss the cut narrowly. The grounds for not funding an additional lieutenant, according to the Manager, were purely professional. At the current time, the Teaneck Police Department does not have enough work for another lieutenant to take on. Nonetheless, certain community members felt it important enough that the Township spend more on an additional lieutenant position, despite the fact that the extra lieutenant would continue to bear the responsibilities of a sergeant, in order that there be an African-American promoted to this rank.

Deputy Mayor Lizette Parker moved to reopen the issue for a public vote in the Council chambers, which meant that Council members would be forced to publicly take a position on a thorny issue. When that motion carried, a number of Council members were called on to comment on the merits of the case after a number of residents vigorously argued that the Council had to "do the right thing" in this instance and uphold the cause of racial diversity in the police command structure above that of fiscal responsibility, the sanctity of the process, and fairness to all.

Despite the urgings of the public and of Deputy Mayor Parker, Council member Kates stood by her earlier recommendation that the process remain sacred. While voicing her own support for diversity in the police force, Kates insisted that the Council refrain from going against the recommendation of the professionals, asserting that making an exception to established procedure on account of the identity of the individual who would benefit from it would be unfair. Other speakers correctly noted that taking such a step also risked inviting harmful litigation against Teaneck, but Kates focused more on the principle involved, demonstrating that changing the rules for one special case, even if it might have a certain desirable consequence, would be unfair.

While the just and principled stand Council member Kates took last night may not silence her detractors (who seem to have intensified their attacks upon her on the Internet and in print), it should reassure the more rational among us that she remains a worthy representative of the people of Teaneck who considers issues on their own merits and follows the guidance of her own moral compass. Other Council members would do well to follow that example.

What's wrong with the Applebome article

2007-02-19T10:00:00.000-05:00

It seems like no big deal. A short piece in the Sunday New York Times sketching out the current state of affairs in a suburban New Jersey town. To most of us in Teaneck, especially those of us interested enough in local affairs to keep abreast of the latest developments by attending public meetings, reading the local papers, and opining upon them in the blogosphere, there was nothing new whatsoever in that piece. We may disagree with certain characterizations or believe certain things should have been phrased differently, but for the most part, we recognize the sentiments expressed in that article as a fair reflection of the way people think. So why is it that the publication of this piece will probably shake up the Teaneck landscape more than any controversy in the Council chambers or debate before the Planning Board?

The simplest explanation is that an article in the New York Times escalates everything to a whole new level. Now our friends, relatives, and co-workers from elsewhere in the area are privy to our internal debates. While one might let an unfavorable mention in the local news section of the Record go unanswered, a flood of angry and/or supportive letters is sure to follow a Times article as residents battle over how the paper of record should present our town to our neighbors in the region. One such letter, attributed to Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of the Orthodox synagogue Congregation Bnai Yeshurun on West Englewood Ave., has already been circulated through the blogosphere. Many more are sure to follow, on the Internet and in print.

What is it that is likely to arouse the most indignation? Quite simply, it is the author's conflation of the debate over development with the rise in the Orthodox Jewish population of Teaneck and the recent electoral success of a number of candidates from that community. While Mayor Katz and Sen. Weinberg were quoted disputing the linkage between the two, the majority of the article pointed in the direction of the conclusion that the changing socio-religious demographics explain the current tensions over development in town.

There is, of course, an obvious explanation as to why this conclusion appeals enormously to the staff of the New York Times. Having already covered on a number of occasions the fallout from the transformation of the Lawrence (Long Island) school district after a number of board seats were won by Orthodox Jewish candidates and having also written about a similar story involving a growing population of Orthodox Jews in Lakewood, NJ, they must feel that they have identified a trend. If the current climate in Teaneck can be viewed through the same lens, then they would really be onto something. That is not to suggest that there is anything sinister or suspect about the Times' approach; we all have a tendency to seek confirming evidence for our views, and a corresponding tendency to ignore or overlook that which contradicts them.

Unfortunately, in this case, the Times has got it wrong. While fights over school funding elsewhere (and perhaps here, too) certainly do have a religious dimension to them, as religious
communities do not use the public schools for primarily religious reasons, the difference of opinion over development in and around Teaneck's business districts is not the same thing. I have argued elsewhere that one could view the struggle in generational terms, but one need not view it that way either. While the major personalities involved seem to fall more neatly into those categories than they do into religious ones, and it is logical to think that younger families with greater financial obligations and less nostalgia for Teaneck's past history may be more interested in reducing taxes than they are in aesthetics, that view is not obligatory either. In fact, there is no need to try to classify this current disagreement over the direction of our business districts as anything but a political one that involves only a small part of the town's population on either side of it.

Has the impact of the Orthodox Jewish community's growth in numbers and influence been felt in Teaneck? Yes, it certainly has. Do some longtime residents feel somewhat discomfited by the changing face of Teaneck? Yes, they certainly do. Are these topics themselves worthy of an article in the New York Times? No, they're not, but if you can find a way to link current events to those feelings that surely brew under the surface of many suburban towns, then you've got an angle for an article. In this case, the author is guilty of trying too hard, and now we in Teaneck will have to deal with the consequences of that.

Saying the right things

2007-02-16T10:14:00.000-05:00

An interview in today's Record with Teaneck High School's new principal, Angela R. Davis, brings some reassurance that the school is in good hands. This is no run-of-the-mill, business-as-usual, I'm-so-happy-to-be-here interview. Instead, Davis reveals a bold objective: to mold THS into one of Bergen County's "most prestigious academic institutions." Given some of the excellent competition in our area, this is ambitious, perhaps too ambitious for the three to five year time frame she has set. Nonetheless, it is a worthy goal, and stating publicly that this is a high priority should do a lot to raise the stock of Teaneck High School.

Why? Hasn't Davis just stated the obvious? Don't all schools strive for academic excellence? The answer is no. Some schools, especially those beset by the perception that a significant portion of the student body is struggling, set their sights lower. In fact, some posters on this site have suggested that the Teaneck schools ought to narrow their focus to basic skills and leave higher academic achievement to other school districts.

Davis appears to be saying that her tenure will not be about catering to the lowest common denominator, but about pulling everyone up by "role-modeling" and promoting "high expectations." Instead of letting the problems endemic to a subset of the school population dictate the agenda for everyone, Davis will continue to improve course offerings with the introduction of additional foreign language classes and a business program, while attacking one of the root causes for underachievement by making students see "that it's OK to be on the honor roll, it's OK get into college early."

This is the kind of positive thinking that could help restore the image of Teaneck High School, once one of New Jersey's most highly regarded secondary schools, in the eyes of the community and the rest of the state. Here's to Principal Davis translating her well-chosen words into deeds.

Parking therapy

2007-02-15T14:18:00.000-05:00

In a letter published in this week's Suburbanite, Teaneck CCP leader Bill Moring laments the breakdown in communication that he feels is responsible for the poor state of relations between certain community activists and town officials. Comparing the situation to a troubled marriage, Moring calmly explains the TCCP's side of the story, appealing for understanding and confidence building measures to restore mutual trust.

Help may be on the way in the form of an initiative that everyone can get behind. In the past few days, Internet postings from a group calling itself the Teaneck Commuter Coalition (TCC? Too similar!) have appeared to encourage residents to join them in voicing their concerns at an upcoming Council meeting. They are to urge the Council to take action to alleviate the difficulties faced by commuters who have no place to legally park near the major city-bound bus stops.

Luckily, so long as the proposed remedy for this is not eliminating parking restrictions on residential blocks that currently have them, pretty much everybody can support taking measures to remedy the situation. Increasing accessibility of public transportation is environmentally responsible, good for local quality of life, and helpful to real estate values. It might even spur economic development in and around any designated commuter parking area or provide the Township with a bit of extra revenue through the collection of parking permit fees.

According to the February edition of the Bergen Insider (please disregard the fact that all the features are about establishments or individuals who bought advertising space in that issue, that's mere coincidence), members of Council have already held talks with representative of Fairleigh Dickinson University about putting a commuter parking area somewhere on the campus in conjunction with securing direct NJ Transit bus service from there to Manhattan. In another sign that Council members are anticipating some movement on this issue soon, a resident survey included in Mayor Katz's periodic newsletter, Teaneck Tidbits, includes "commuter parking" as one of the choices for the most significant issue facing Teaneck.

So the next time a group stages a pre-arranged storming of the Council chambers to dominate the Good & Welfare section, it may not cause the tension level in the room to rise. When it comes to commuter parking, we can check the bitterness and suspicion at the door. Can't we?

Holding down the Fort

2007-02-14T13:48:00.000-05:00

Today's Teaneck headlines are dominated by Michael Gallucci. Two Michael Galluccis, actually. While the story of former Councilman Gallucci's lawsuit against NJ.com is likely to draw more interest for its gossip value, another Michael Gallucci, that of Bergen Developers LLC, is making the real news with the withdrawal of his proposal for a 14-unit condo complex on Fort Lee Road.

The developer was still in need of a number of variances from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to proceed. It now appears that the cumulative weight of complaints from neighbors, unresolved questions about overbuilding and taxing the area's infrastructure, and the fallout from a controversial bit of interference on behalf of the project from County Executive Dennis McNerney have combined to scuttle the project.

Is this a resounding reaffirmation of the sanctity of Teaneck's residential neighborhoods? A feather in the cap of the Teaneck CCP that lobbied against the proposed project? Will this serve as a warning to other would-be builders of large scale residential projects that Teaneck is not interested in that kind of development?

Perhaps not. It is quite likely that the residents of Fort Lee Road who would have been harmed by this project have the faltering housing market to thank for putting the final nail in the coffin of this project. While it might have seemed like a grand slam back when it was first conceived a few years ago, in today's market, it probably looks a lot less favorable from an economic perspective.

The timing of this shift in sentiment might be a good thing for Teaneck. To have our own development push coincide with a weaker residential market and a relatively more robust market for commercial real estate might help steer developers toward projects that do not bring more children into the schools or bring added congestion our local roads. Those are the type of ratables Teaneck needs.

Information overload

2007-02-13T09:33:00.000-05:00

Those with a keen interest in the fallout from the recent revaluation of Teaneck properties should not miss the Record's coverage today (and don't miss the clickable maps either). Brian Aberback sums up the conclusions from the newspaper's comprehensive analysis of the revaluation results and the results may be surprising to some. While the reassessment will indeed redistribute the tax burden, it will, on average, do so by increasing the burden on owners of lower-end homes to the benefit of owners of higher-end homes and commercial properties.

Now that's a fine how-do-you-do. While this may represent a more equitable outcome under the system as currently constituted, you can be sure that it will not sit well with some. With the numbers crunched and the statistical information now widely available, will a new demographic, that of the financially overburdened and now incensed owner of a lower-end home, emerge to support increased development in Teaneck?

With a generational division already at play in the struggle over development, will a class division come into the picture as well, as less well-off homeowners struggle against those who are ready, willing, and able to pay a bit more in taxes to silence the construction equipment and preserve their unobstructed views?

With the Master Plan revision already opening new rifts in Teaneck, the likelihood of an even more cantankerous situation going forward seems to be growing.

Council opponents on the couch

2007-02-08T12:08:00.000-05:00

The Master Plan revision recommends a series of moves to loosen restrictions on building in Teaneck's business districts, in the hopes that current property owners and developers will choose to invest in the types of improvements that would bolster Teaneck's tax base and spread the tax burden more evenly among residents and businesses. At the same time, the document firmly opposes the encroachment of new development into residential neighborhoods, and is quite clear on the desire of its authors to maintain the existing character of Teaneck's residential neighborhoods.

Neither the substance nor the tone of the recommendations contained in the plan was surprising given the many natural constraints on development in Teaneck. Nonetheless, the moderation and balance of the report seem to have done little to quiet the vocal opposition to the ongoing efforts of the Council to promote development in town. Flyers and e-mails warn residents to stand up to the Council and Planning Board before it is too late and Teaneck is damaged permanently. While a core group of bitter opponents of the Council majority and its plans is widely cited as the source of these stirrings of discontent, given that, with the possible exception of a few details, the contents of the Master Plan are basically innocuous, it seems that something else must be motivating this knee-jerk response.

Interestingly, a careful reading of this week's Suburbanite sheds some light on this question. A series of quotations and letters from some of the most visible critics of the Council majority suggests that perhaps it is not so much the content of the proposed Master Plan or the details of specific projects that troubles the anti-Council crowd so much as it is their new position on the outside looking in. A common theme emerges from the quotations cited below: an older generation of longtime Teaneck residents with a particular political bent is dismayed at the speed with which it has been swept aside and at the vigor and intensity with which the new Council majority has pursued its agenda to stimulate growth in Teaneck. One can sense the hurt contained in their remarks as they come to grips with the realization that the Council majority is determined to plow ahead, sometimes callously, without seeking the approval of some of those longtime insiders or following the same consensus building procedures used in the past.

----------

From this week's Suburbanite (actual quotations are in quotes, surrounding text is my own commentary):

"We have been kept in the dark. Our organization will have to watch out every step to see that the wishes of the community are followed." - Martin Cramer

Sandy Loft, whose motives need less explanation, as she understandably resents the way she has been treated by the Council, sounds a wistful note for how things were before and also makes explicit reference to her 37 year tenure in town stating that "many of us have worked too long and too hard for Teaneck not to fight to maintain a lifestyle we hope to enjoy for years to come," in her letter published this week.

Frequent Suburbanite contributor Seymour Rappaport questions whether Councilman Rudolph, who, for a number of reasons has become a lightning rod for much of the criticism of the Council majority, "really [knows] our land, our culture, and long time history."

"The current Council majority is saying to citizens who have a longer history in Teaneck and/or do not follow their agenda, particularly on development - you with your experience do not count anymore," writes Naomi Cramer.

"[There] are many advisory boards where infusing or expanding with 'new blood' would be welcome, without discarding people who have served this community for years and have the capacity to continue to do so," she continues.

----------

The interesting question for Teaneck is whether these folks truly speak for a broad constituency that is similarly upset at being disenfranchised, as they seem to think they do, or whether the Teaneck electorate really has moved on and reshuffled its priorities to match those of the new Council. We won't really new until an election cycle or two passes. In the meantime, might it help both the Council majority and its detractors to understand a bit better where the other side is coming from, or has mutual distrust grown so great that these relationships are irreparable?

No help on its way

2007-02-06T10:49:00.000-05:00

If Board of Education President Judith McKay was correct back in May that the taxpayers should blame Trenton rather than their tireless advocates at 1 Merrison Street for the ever increasing burden of supporting the District's high spending, then it's time for Teaneck residents to turn up the heat on state officials. Back in May, McKay remarked to the Record that school budget problems are a funding issue rather than spending issue. "If the state had given us the aid they should be giving us, we would not be in this situation," she said.

Whether or not you think those comments betray an insensitivity to taxpayers, they are not just hollow finger pointing. As pretty much every non-Abbott district in New Jersey has consistently argued, the state school funding formula is terribly unfair. Among the many as yet unfulfilled promises emanating from the Governor and state lawmakers is a revamping of the formula by which districts receive financial assistance from Trenton. The latest news from the capitol is that those plans remain stalled. As such, the prospect of a drastic improvement in the budgetary situation of the Teaneck schools anytime soon is remote.

Will the Board of Ed seek to cushion the blow by sharpening the pencils and finding other ways to avoid slapping the taxpayers of Teaneck with another hefty increase or will be sent to the voting booths forced to make another choice between voting down the budget or acceding to another greater-than-inflation rise in our school tax obligation?

What year is it?

2007-02-01T11:44:00.000-05:00

It is hard to believe that the blatant power grab by party bosses apparently underway in Bergen County's less-than-illustrious Democratic Party could take place in 2007. That's not to suggest that human nature has changed much since the heyday of the political machines. The desire for power and influence and all their attendant benefits, financial and otherwise, are as alive and well today as they were in Boss Tweed's day. What is so surprising about the thinly disguised efforts to concentrate control of the Democratic Party in the hands of those with the power to bestow favors on the rank and file (i.e. the Chairman and his inner circle) is that they would clearly set back the process of fixing the many problems that plague our area, and yet there is no shame or reluctance among party leaders to introduce these harmful changes.

By controlling the use of the Democratic party name and allowing only candidates who repeatedly pass their test to use it, Joseph Ferriero and his allies effectively reserve for themselves the power to recall any sitting legislators who do not meet with their approval. And forget about any new blood, unless, of course, it is handpicked by Ferriero & Co. Unfortunately, placing the Democratic Party in the hands of select few will do little to harm the general support that the party enjoys, as the area's Republican Party is weak and fractured, giving the Democratic machine free license to have its way.

What is its way? It is the way of pay to play, the way of influence peddling and protection of their own at the expense of the taxpayer. It is the way of inefficiency and waste. While this is wrong anytime, it is especially inappropriate when many residents are struggling under the weight of a rapidly increasing tax burden.

In the absence of a credible alternative, it leaves many with no choice but to support State Sen. Weinberg and her two protegés in the Assembly whom Ferriero seeks to oust, Gordon Johnson and Valerie Vainieri Huttle. While one might question whether they are ultimately the best candidates for the job, there is no doubt that it is in the best interests of District 37 voters to push back against the growing influence of the Democratic party organization, and specifically the boss at the top of it. With Ferriero already having dipped his toe into local affairs over the past year, Teaneck voters should be concerned enough to lead the charge.

UPDATE (Friday, February 2): The Records reports the narrow defeat of the proposed rule change. While county residents may breathe a sigh of relief, it should be a shallow one, as continued vigilance is required to protect the common interest from those seeking to profit from the system.

This is my kind of plan!
- William M. Tweed

Bracing for it

2007-01-30T15:33:00.000-05:00

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!

2007-01-29T10:29:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-25T12:44:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-24T17:16:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-16T14:38:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-01-11T12:07:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-09T10:05:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-04T10:04:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-03T10:33:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-02T09:30:00.000-05:00

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.

Give them a round of applause

2006-12-28T09:19:00.000-05:00

Ah, the Suburbanite's Opinion section... Where else can you soak up the flavor of the Teaneck of sixty years ago, sink your teeth into secretive post-election intrigues, and follow the latest development in the playgroup saga all on one tabloid page? You have to admire an editor who can cobble together such fine content week after week. Take a bow, Suburbanite staff.

But before we lavish all the praise on the first rate professionals who bring us our local weekly, let us remember those who help make the paper not only a pleasure to read, but also an educational experience week after week. I'm referring to you, local hatemongers. No, they could not have done it without you. You, too, deserve a pat in the back, not only for deftly linking the sketchy details of some playgroup spat with Zionist transgressions in the Middle East a couple of weeks ago, but also for this week's diagnosis of a "climate of Jewish clannishness so evident in Teaneck and elsewhere" and for the superb explication of how it is that "segregation whether race (sic) or religious breeds fear and contempt." How else would the poor benighted souls of Teaneck learn that "our public school children are exposed to this with the Asian population" who "lack the will to assimilate?"

Hopefully, action will be taken against this "clannishness" and faculty at the local schools will wake up to the fact that they are failing non-Asian students thanks to these wonderful letters. Thank you to the Suburbanite for printing such worthy correspondence and thank you to the esteemed letter writers from Teaneck and River Edge for their enlightening comments.

Birdsall view: the report in context

2006-12-26T10:25:00.000-05:00

The Birdsall Engineering report on development opportunities in Teaneck did not break a lot of new ground. In pointing out in writing what laymen have concluded through common sense, the true value of the report does not lie in its content, but rather in its ability to serve as a general guideline and provide political cover for the steps needed to stir Teaneck from its economic torpor. At $80,000 plus, that may not be a bargain, but we could yet get our money's worth.

The recommendations of this report will not remake the landscape of Teaneck. Nor will they do the heavy lifting required to shift the homeowner tax burden. They do not even provide the Council a step-by-step guide to redeveloping Teaneck's commercial and industrial zones so as to maximize their value to the Township and its tax base. But anyone who had hoped that a report could do any of these was dreaming.

What Teaneck's taxpayers and their elected representatives got for their money is a reference document that ought to give them the confidence to move forward and remake Teaneck's regulations and zoning to accomodate the new realities of the local and regional economy. It's hard to believe that it takes a consulting study to make people realize it, but the days of Teaneck as the home of light industry are long past. Everybody realizes that there is plenty of unexploited potential in all of Teaneck's commercial districts, and that a little rebuilding could go a long way toward revitalizing them. We did not really need to pay someone to tell us that Teaneck Rd. could do with some pedestrian safety improvements and better code enforcement.

However, the reality is that it is a lot easier to marshal the resources necessary to make these changes with this kick in the pants from development professionals (think of them as personal trainers for an out of shape township that wants to get fit). The next steps seem clear. Teaneck's leadership ought to make the changes necessary to attract private investment into the Township in a non-threatening way. While the market to must be allowed to determine the priorities, it is quite clear that neighborhood concerns still predominate in Teaneck, and priority should be given to reinvigorating existing business zones before paving over parks.

Next stop: Penn Station?! One of the many recommendations

Rising tide lifting all boats

2006-12-21T11:26:00.000-05:00

A familiar phenomenon often recurs when supporters and detractors of public education in Teaneck debate one another in venues such as this. Whether embittered, outraged, or simply astonished that Teaneck's well-funded school system delivers decidedly ordinary test results, a detractor will slap an unflattering label on Teaneck's schools. Advocates of the schools leap to the defense, citing their own positive experiences in the schools and the misleading nature of the aggregate statistics, which penalize the Teaneck schools for their socioeconomic diversity and mask the fact that the individual groups represented in the school system fare relatively well compared to their peer groups across the state.

There is still something vaguely unsatisfying about this response, though, and education officials are well aware of it. The fact that Teaneck's somewhat rare mix of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic categories accounts for its below Bergen County average proficiency rates does not bring much comfort. Not only does this statistical quirk portray the quality of Teaneck's schools unfavorably to observers, both inside and outside, but it highlights the achievement gap that exists within the schools and reinforces unfair stereotypes in the minds of students, faculty, parents, and others. Therefore, narrowing the range of educational outcomes among various reporting groups has become a priority within the district.

New figures from the Department of Education indicate some progress on this front at Teaneck High School (focusing on the two largest and most often cited racial groupings in the school). There are, of course, multiple ways that an achievement gap can be eliminated. For example, better students can flee the school system, lowering overall performance but narrowing the spread. Alternatively, the worst performers can boost their results and cut the gap. In the best of all worlds, everyone does better, with the scores of the lowest achievers rising faster than those of the highest achievers (because they have more room to rise), leaving you with better overall performance and a smaller discrepancy.

Since the 2002-2003 school year, the proficiency rate in mathematics for black students at Teaneck High has risen from 41.1 to 64.7. Over that period, the proficiency rate for white students has remained essentially flat around 88. This has propelled the overall pass rate in math from 58.4 to 77.1 and dramatically reduced the difference in performance between white and black students. On the language arts front, the gap has not shrunk much, but overall performance picked up, with 95.6% of white students now demonstrating proficiency vs. 85.6% back in 2002-2003 and 81.9% of black students reaching that standard vs. 68.6% in 2002-2003. This has boosted overall Language Arts proficiency to 86.9% vs. 77.1%.

While merely achieving "proficiency" as defined by these standardized tests is hardly an educational endpoint worth celebrating, it does serve as a useful minimum criterion for our schools, and happily, more of our students are getting there. And while there are still some stark differences among the test results of various groupings, these are diminishing through overall improvement, another welcome development. On the education front, things are okay and apparently getting better. The same cannot be said on the budgetary side. The prime target for critics of the public school system should be cost efficiency and not educational performance.

Due date

2006-12-20T10:48:00.000-05:00

With over two months elapsed since Birdsall Engineering was put on an eight week contract to advise the Council on development strategy, it is about time for residents to examine the results of their $87,400 investment. Skeptical as many have become regarding the ability of the Township to relieve the homeowner tax burden by broadening the tax base in the near-term, one can still hold out hope that there will be something genuinely original and also practicable within the contents of the Birdsall report. The Council would still need to demonstrate an ability to implement any ambitious plans that might be contained within the report, but it might regain the sense of direction it may have lost after its awkward handling of the Brett Park issue.

Optimists who want to stay positive on the Birdsall Engineering report until it becomes available may want to ignore this recent news story regarding the firm's handling of a project right in its own backyard in Tinton Falls, NJ.

Whew. What was that all about?

2006-12-14T11:39:00.000-05:00

Now that two of the most controversial and emotional issues facing Teaneck have been given the sendoff they deserved, what do we argue about next as we prepare to enter 2007? Though the outcome of the Mandate for Peace initiative was never really in doubt, one has to hope that the most recent public repudiation of an attempt by actvists to coopt the Council's voice will persuade these groups from wasting Teaneck's time with such stunts in the future. More significantly, the awkwardly handled and most probably ill-conceived Brett Park plan has been scuttled due to overwhelming public opposition and probable legal obstacles. Where will the next battleground be?

It seems safe to surmise that with no progress yet on development front, more controversial proposals will be coming down the pike and the Council and Planning Board will be spending a lot of time fielding complaints and mollifying residents over the coming months. The DMV issue probably has a little more left in it. Judging from rumblings in some quarters, employee relations may soon come back into focus as well. And if one prominent Teaneck resident and his anonymous informant have their way, there will be plenty more fallout from the 2006 Council elections to keep the chattering classes occupied. But for all the foreboding over controversies to come, at least one uncomfortable situation is now behind us: East Oakdene Ave. is officially renamed Puffin Way. Happy holidays!

Hit the nail on the head

2006-12-13T09:07:00.000-05:00

There are plenty of reasons, both principled and practical, why the Teaneck Township Council has no business going anywhere near the Mandate for Peace initiative, regardless of how strongly certain residents may feel about the issue. But perhaps the best expression of the complete impropriety of this latest attempt to embroil municipal government in a national and international issue came from former Mayor Frank Hall during last night's stormy Council meeting (as reported by the Record today):

"I don't remember anyone's election platform being to appoint a defense secretary for Teaneck," Hall said. "None of you has the right to represent me in international matters as a council."

With all due respect to that august body, the Council ought to stick to street renaming ordinances and railroad noise complaints until otherwise instructed.

Another weapon in the NIMBYite arsenal

2006-12-12T14:30:00.000-05:00

A recent court decision further empowers New Jersey municipalities to exercise control over development through the use of eminent domain. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Mount Laurel Township's right to seize land (upon which its own planning board had approved the construction of housing units), for no other reason than the potential strain on the local school system from an influx of families with school age children.

Builders throughout the state may shudder at the increased risk their planned projects now face, even if they are completely in compliance with local zoning regulations. Neighborhood crusaders such as Teaneck's own Coalition for Community Preservation, on the other hand, should be pleased that local governments cannot claim to be powerless to halt developments that are unpopular. In granting such wide discretion to municipalities to act against private landowners, the Court has strengthened the hand of well-organized community activists at the expense of individuals. This may in fact serve to protect the public good from the self-interested behavior of individuals in some cases, but it does so by placing a lot of faith in the ability of government to make just decisions under difficult circumstances.

How does this shift the balance of power in Teaneck, if at all? A development minded Council will not be able to sit idly by and claim they can do nothing in the face of community protests against particular developments. If Teaneck officials wish to halt a particular project, they can do it, and the neighborhood activists know that. Claiming to be pro-development and in favor of boosting ratables is not all that uncontroversial anymore- it may actually require sticking one's neck out and risking the ire of the voters. What a delicious irony.

Insider redux

2006-12-11T10:58:00.000-05:00

With the sequel to the Bergen Insider's surprisingly controversial first-edition hitting mailboxes recently, I was curious to see whether anything in the new monthly would validate the claims of at least one commenter on this blog that the paper is nothing but a front for the Bergen Party Democratic machine and a mouthpiece for its favored representatives in the Township Council's majority. A careful reading of the December issue does little to confirm those suspicions.

A bland news article on the "Pathways to the Future" report seemed to serve no particular political agenda, nor did the editorial urging residents to consider the points raised in the report and get involved. A comprehensive full-page listing of Teaneck's municipal salary ranges will do little to rally support for current elected officials. The only place one might detect that the paper gave the Council a pass is in the article entitled "A Proposal to Put a Parking Lot in Brett Park" (aren't news headlines supposed to contain verbs?). Rather than acknowledge the broad opposition to the Mayor's Brett Park plan, the Insider writes only that the proposal has "evoked the opposition of local and area environmentalists like the Sierra Club." Still, the article devoted plenty of space to the opinions of various dissenters to the plan.

If the Insider is a biased publication funded by a group seeking to subtly influence public opinion, it does a very good job of obscuring that- perhaps too good, as whatever influence may be lurking beneath is too subtle to be detected. All the second issue of the Insider reflects is a more upbeat approach to Township affairs, consistent with its stated purpose. Count me as unconvinced that this publication has any agenda beyond earning advertising dollars and increasing communal awareness and involvement, until more evidence to the contrary can be produced.