SHARE:  
PUBLISHED BY TEANECK VOICES
Managing Editor, Bernard Rous
Sunday, January 23, 2022
Contents
Is Calling it Blight Replacing the Master Plan?
What Happened at Council this Week
What you Should Know about D(1) Variances and Why
Notable Women of Teaneck
  • Loretta Weinberg
Update: Stop & Shop and Township Issue Joint Statement
Mahwah - Another Cannabis Ordinance
Unanswered Questions
COVID Updates
  • Home COVID tests from the Post Office
  • Community Baptist Church in Englewood Testing Site
  • Community Wide COVID Testing at 855 Windsor Road
  • Library Services Curtailed
Upcoming Town Meetings
Events at the Library
Announcements
  • Library eCitizen Program
  • Teaneck Public Schools: Virtual Job Fair
  • Bergen County LGBTQ+ Alliance
  • TIFF 2022 Kicks off with Documentary Series
IS CALLING IT BLIGHT REPLACING THE MASTER PLAN?
In our last issue, Teaneck Voices talked about what a good development process would look like in our town.

This past week Council suddenly introduced Ordinance 33-2022 with no advance notice. This is a major ordinance, conceived behind closed doors, with potentially far-reaching consequences for the Town. (See article below WHAT HAPPENED AT COUNCIL LAST WEEK with its map ). This ordinance authorizes the first step in designating yet another area in Teaneck to be blighted. It includes both 100 State Street and 189 The Plaza.

Rather than having development guided by the Master Plan principles, the Council has has now shifted to a new development framework which bypasses the Master Plan and Teaneck's zoning regulations.

As Ordinance 33-2022 shows, Council is accelerating the number and the size of the areas it wants to designate as Areas in Need of Redevelopment (AINR).

The structures in an Area In Need of Redevelopment (AINR) have deteriorated beyond the ability to rehabilitate them by renovation or restoration. That is why an Area in Need of Redevelopment is referred to as a “blighted” area. 

The AINR approach to development

  • Begins and proceeds in most phases behind closed doors
  • Justifies itself by declaring areas of our Town to be blighted – (a sure way to devalue property values)
  • Allows Council-selected developers to participate in and to evaluate proposed developments without public participation
  • Permits developers to make deals that avoid taxation based on tax rates tied directly to property values (for example, Alfred Avenue’s special PILOT deal)
  • Tends to generate strong neighborhood opposition
  • Avoids the requirement for competitive bidding

This last point is as important as sidestepping our Master Plan. The solicitation and bidding process on redevelopment projects are not subject to NJ State Public Contracts Law which requires solicitations to be public; and the bidding process to be open to all; and that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. 

The NJ State Public Contracts Law was put in place to avoid favoritism and pay-to-play deals. In its absence, particularly with potentially high-stakes redevelopment projects in an AINR, the risk of such corrupt practices increases.

Given some of the risks noted above when Redevelopment occurs under AINR designations, Teaneck residents should be aware that such projects can change the character of the town; can distance development from constraints provided by the consensus view outlined in the Master Plan; and sideline some protections against corrupt dealing. 

We should be asking What are the benefits of this approach in each case, as well as who are the beneficiaries?

Why is Teaneck not using the regular procedures spelled out in the Municipal Land Use Law? In sharp contrast to the AINR approach, these procedures:

  • Commit to a system where a new development is openly discussed – and public dialogue about it occurs well before it is formally sent to a land use board
  • Open the focus and location of new development to ideas generated by developers as well as residents
  • Are competitive at the point where private parties seek any form of formal certification or advantage in development design and other selection
  • Secure a Council’s formal commitment to value all town neighborhoods and not declare any of them as blighted
  • Encourage every neighborhood to participate in defining local consensus about what their locale sees as its own preferred development and related investment
  • Establish criteria for the Town to entertain development incentives, such as tax breaks, that vary from the valuations used in the rest of the Town
  • Assure that hearings conducted by its land use boards for zoning changes and site plan approval, include time for public questioning of witnesses and their answers

The election of a Council majority committed to these principles laid out in our Municipal Land Use Laws would go a long way to ensuring systematic planning and positive development in our community.
WHAT HAPPENED AT COUNCIL LAST WEEK
State St Area Redevelopment Plan - Another Area in Need of Redevelopment
At the very last minute, Council added a potentially far-reaching agenda item: the State St Area redevelopment plan.

Deputy Mayors Schwartz and Katz joked with each other about the right for the Agenda Committee to add last-minute ordinances and resolutions.

Council introduced a resolution to authorize the Planning Board to initiate a preliminary investigation of some 19 lots to determine if the area can be classified as yet another blighted area in Teaneck, that is another Area in Need of Redevelopment (AINR).

The Resolution was qualified with the word "non-condemnation". That means that if these 19 lots are designated as blighted in some fashion, then none of the properties may be seized by the government under eminent domain, unless or until a new ordinance passes which removes the "non-condemnation" designation.

Screenshots of a map highlighting the properties involved, and each property’s address are shared below. The resolution was approved by Council for the Planning Board to begin their process.
WHAT HAPPENED AT COUNCIL LAST WEEK (continued)

Chicken COOP Ordinance Introduced
It permits having up to 6 chickens at a residence.
Ordinance was amended to reduce subsequent year fees then approved by Council for introduction, 4-2.

AUCC Community Center Additions  
Oakdene residents called in to voice their opinions on the impact to neighborhood from changes to be made at Center. Previously, the Board of Adjustment did not approve AUCC's request for community center changes.

AUCC has a pending suit against the township. A settlement may be near. Residents expressed the fear that Council is throwing them under the bus to settle the lawsuit and yield to AUCC.

The ordinance was in its second and final reading, and was approved.

The owners of AAUC are Muslim. Oakdene residents and others who do not live on the street said they had no objection to the plan on religious grounds. Nor did they object to the current day care center and pre-school classes offered at the Center. There is no concern with that usage. Their concern is the Center's request to increase usage of facility for sporting events. This is viewed by residents of Oakdene as potential hazard to neighborhood regarding parking, lighting, noise, air pollution, night activities, and overall traffic issues.

There were a few callers who supported the Center requested changes and saw no problem with approving.

Many voiced their discontent and took offense to insinuations made by Councilman Kaplan at an earlier Planning Board meeting that they were being racist against Muslim community.

Following public input on this Ordinance – and before the vote – Councilman Kaplan spoke at length saying he want to clarify his earlier statements to the Planning Board about whether Oakdene neighbors were discriminating. Eventually, Mayor Dunleavy interrupted Kaplan and asked him to wrap up. Kaplan babbled on until the Mayor gave him direct instructions to stop and move on to the next agenda item.

Council Planner Kenan Hughes was then invited to address residents. It appeared that his primary point was for the residents to voice their concerns when the Site Plan is released. Then they should come before the Planning Board or Board of Adjustment where public comments can made.

Holuba Development
The Planning Board and the Council originally approved a plan that segregated market rate townhouses from affordable townhouses in the same development at Holuba. Seven Teaneck residents filed a lawsuit against the Township of Teaneck, along with Fair Share Housing, and won against this discriminatory practice. 

In a follow up to the unfair housing practices lawsuit victory, there is now a developer’s agreement between the township and KRE Acquisition Corp to integrate the affordable units with the market rate units as directed by the Court. 

A resolution to approve this new agreement was passed.
NOTABLE WOMEN OF TEANECK
LORETTA WEINBERG
Newly retired State Senator and Senate majority Leader Loretta Weinberg moved to Teaneck with her husband Irwin and their two children, Francine and Daniel, in 1964. They were drawn by Teaneck's nationally recognized successful community effort to desegregate the town’s public schools. She was actively involved in political activities from her earliest years in town.

Loretta ran for a seat on the Teaneck Council in 1990, beginning a 35 year nationally acclaimed political career.

A few days into her retirement, Loretta Weinberg talked with Teaneck Voices:

“I have said, and it’s true, I learned most in the four years I was privileged to serve on the Teaneck Council from July of 1990 to July of 1994. It influenced my entire legislative career. Because I filed for office in March, the shooting of Philip Pannell took place in April, and the election was in May. It was a time of great upheaval in Teaneck. I’ve often said that I filed for office in one town, and I got elected in a different town, because that’s how it felt. 

On the night of the shooting, we had a rally on the Municipal Green. We were surrounded by police in riot gear. I found out that when the police went to get their riot gear, half of it was disintegrated. So that was Teaneck 1990.

I learned a very important lesson: That nothing you can do publicly – awards, resolutions, starting an advisory board – nothing can be considered DONE. It takes constant nurturing and constant accountability to sustain it.

All of us, including me, bought into this idea of a model integrated community that was held up nationally as a model to emulate, and it was DONE and everything was good.

So, it was a shock to many people to find out what was really going on: The disaffection of many of our youth; that the “trickle-down economy” didn’t really trickle down, so members of the middle class weren’t quite middle class anymore; the issues around our schools; our police department; and the crumbling infrastructures that we had in Teaneck. 

That was one of the biggest surprises to me – that we had a then-Manager who took great delight at returning money to the taxpayers at the end of each year while our recreation center (the Town House on the corner of Teaneck Road and Forest Ave), and the police department were falling down.

So, I took a tour of town facilities – and it was disgraceful and disgusting.

Let me concentrate for a moment on the old police building – what is now administrative offices. The locker room where the police changed into and out of their uniforms had pallets on the floor because there was always water there. I remember a member of the department who was so disillusioned at the way the police department had been neglected. Their surroundings were awful.

That 1990 Council made a concerted effort to make plans to build a new recreation center (the Rodda Center) and a new police department. 

More importantly, I learned to listen. We televised the council meetings in those days too, and people would come down to the council chambers – the lines would sometimes be out the door with people waiting to speak. And everyone came to speak – including famous people like Al Sharpton. I learned that listening to people was the most important thing I could do.

I’ve told this story many times publicly – there was a Black woman who came to speak – I knew her from various activities in town, and I thought she was just like me - socio-economically, same kind of house, had two kids close in age to mine. She said, ‘I told my sons to hold their money in their hand when they walk into a store, so they won’t be accused of shoplifting.’ I was so taken aback. This was somebody I knew well, we lived in the same community, we shopped in the same stores, and it never would have occurred to me that I would have to teach my children a defensive move so that they wouldn’t be accused of shoplifting.

So, I realized by listening to people, that we lived in the same community, and we went to integrated schools, we worked together in the Women’s Movement, the Civil Rights Movement or school integration or anti-Vietnam war, or whatever, but we really lived in two different parallel universes. And that’s what I learned in those four years – that there was a reason for the minority community to feel defensive. All these wonderful things we had done in 1964 and ’65 were not quite as alive and well in 1990.

When I chaired the Community Relations Advisory Board back in the 80’s it was an open and active group. We ran the first Diversity Day; we had a town wide event to celebrate the variety of restaurants that represented the populations that lived here. We called it a Taste of Teaneck. But we hadn’t done the really important stuff of nurturing what we were so proud of and making sure that we heard from all the residents.

And that experience, I believe, dominated everything I did for the following 30 years as a member of the state legislature.

The very first bill I worked on in the legislature was to overhaul the jury system to try to get juries to be more representative of the populations they are serving. Obviously, the Constitution rightly limits what you can do. But one of my very first bills dealt with broadening the population from which juries were drawn. It came directly out of my experience in Teaneck viewing the Pannell jury.

My work on marriage equality, school funding and taking care of infrastructure all grew out of my Teaneck experience. 

I think the majority of the councils – and so many in the public – were so invested in our being a model community, that they – we – all believed that to talk about problems would undermine our town and its reputation. I was part of letting those problems happen – not as a councilmember but just as an active citizen. I should have known that there was a lot of neglect in our town.

I’ve had differences with a lot of the council majorities over the years, but my attitude has always been: 

I don’t expect the world to be made in my image or even to be made in a way that I believe it should be operating. WHAT I DO WANT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO AFFECT THE OUTCOME, WHATEVER IT MAY BE. AND THAT’S THE GUARANTEE WE SHOULD BE GIVING TO OUR CITIZENS. 

So, the idea that we close down advisory boards to the public because somebody doesn’t like what someone says, or that we put ordinances and resolutions of great import on an agenda before the public has had a chance to look at it, or we make decisions by subcommittees rather than workshops – it prevents that equal access to influence the outcome. The public has a right to know and be educated, so they truly can have equal access to influence the outcome of decisions that affect their lives.

The Martin Luther King Center in Atlanta has a Social Justice magazine (my daughter has written for it so I’m somewhat biased). There is a big article in the inaugural issue this past year entitled “The Kids on the bus are all right.” [it was Superintendent of Schools Dr. Harvey Scribner’s message to the public after the first buses arrived safely on the first day of school desegregation]. It’s told through the eyes of Theodora Lacey, me and mostly through the eyes of Francine and a Black classmate as kindergarteners who got on the bus. This is in the Martin Luther King Center’s Social Justice magazine. I have posted it on Facebook, shared it with many people, but Council has not mentioned this once.

We do some remarkable things and then we let them go.

Teaneck has been my home since 1964. My kids live far afield but they both feel most at home when they come here. Teaneck is the community in which I lived, the community in which I worked. Though a large part of my family is in California – and I will continue to make long trips to see them – I want to spend a few more years here, a little bit more relaxed."

Thank you, Senator Weinberg, for speaking with us, and for all you have given us and done for us for the past 35 years. Thank you for choosing to stand with us here in Teaneck as we meet the challenges we who love this special town face in the future.
UPDATE:
JOINT STATEMENT BY STOP & SHOP
AND TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK
"To Our Valued Teaneck Community:

Stop & Shop, in conjunction with the Township of Teaneck, is issuing this memo in the hope of dispelling the rumors circulating in the community that Stop & Shop’s Teaneck store might close. The Township never asked or pressured Stop & Shop to close its store and Stop & Shop is not looking to close or move from its present Teaneck location on American Legion Drive.

Consistent with our longstanding policies, the Township nor Stop & Shop will comment on active litigation, but we understand that there is public confusion over why Stop & Shop brought a lawsuit in response to the Township’s efforts to redevelop the American Legion Drive area.

What we can say is that Stop & Shop has no present plans to close the store. Both Stop & Shop and the Township share a goal of having Stop & Shop thrive and continue to serve the community of Teaneck, particularly as together we continue to navigate through these challenging times.

Thank you so much for choosing to shop here in Teaneck, and we hope that the steps we’re taking will benefit everyone for years to come.

Stop & Shop
Township of Teaneck"
ANOTHER CANNABIS ORDINANCE: THE CASE IN MAHWAH
Mahwah is considering a retail marijuana shop on Route 17.

Mahwah, like 70% of New Jersey municipalities, had originally reinstated a ban on local cannabis businesses after the State legalized six categories of cannabis business.

Then, last December, the Mahwah Council introduced an ordinance that would allow retail sales of cannabis on a Route 17 property. This is a conditional use, unlike Teaneck’s, where any and all six categories of cannabis business may be permitted.

At December’s meeting, the overwhelming majority of residents who spoke (20 of 24) were against the ordinance. (Apparently, the Mayor did not try to shut down the voices of those opposed to make it appear that opinions were evenly mixed.)

This discussion led the Council to table the ordinance until more research was done. It was noted that four of Mahwah’s six schools are on Ridge Road, with the closest one (the high school) being one-half mile from the proposed retail site.

Eyeing tax benefits, the Council reintroduced the ordinance last Thursday, January 20, and approved it.

Now the Planning Board will determine whether its members think such a business conforms to Mahwah’s Master Plan. When the ordinance is returned to the council with a recommendation, there will be a public hearing prior to a possible vote, as early as next month.

Will this Public Hearing affect the eventual vote?
Will there be lessons for Teaneck to learn in following how its neighbor deals with its own cannabis ordinance?
Still Unanswered Questions
What does Planning Board Chair Bodner think is the purpose of public input to the Board? Why does he want to move Good & Welfare to the end of the meeting after votes are taken and business is concluded?

Why does the Township Council have 16 subcommittees - none of which have a quorum - about which Teaneck residents are told virtually nothing?

In how many lawsuits is the Township currently involved? How many has it settled in the past year except for the Glenpointe tax appeal? How many has it won? (We know of five recent cases the Town has lost.)

Stop & Shop and the Town have issued a joint statement (see above), but litigation is still pending the outcome of negotiations. As far as we know, Council not rescinded the designation of Stop & Shop and surrounding properties as a blighted Area in Need of Redevelopment. Why not? Will the results of the settlement discussions be made public when completed?

Did any Town official tell Englewood anything about our Alfred Avenue plans? Englewood says NO!

When will the Planning Board act on the OSRP?

Will Council hold off implementing zoning changes for Holy Name's expansion until an agreement is reached between the hospital and its resident neighbors?

When will Councilwoman Orgen make available the records from the Marijuana Subcommittee that she in August said she would readily give to Councilwoman Gervonn Rice?
COVID UPDATES
Community Baptist Church Covid Testing Site
 Every Wednesday 9:00 AM-7:00 PM 
224 First Street
  Englewood, NJ 07631
Township of Teaneck: COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing Info

UPCOMING MUNICIPAL MEETINGS
Hackensack River Greenway Advisory Board 
Monday, January 24th at 7:30pm
Public access to the meeting is at the discretion of Board Chair Marie Warnke

Pride Awareness Advisory Board 
Monday, January 24th at 8:00pm
Public access to the meeting is at the discretion of Board Chair Meghan Dunleavy

Note: At last week's council meeting, Dr. Robert Tirado was appointed as a regular member, with a term expiring June 30th, 2023

Historic Preservation Commission
Tuesday, January 25th at 7:00pm
See agenda
To join the meeting, click here and enter passcode 851294

Note: In addition to electing new officers, the Commission will consider signs commemorating the Black Lives Matter mural near the Rodda Center and marking the role that the Bryant School played in the 1964 plan to desegregate Teaneck's Public Schools.

Planning Board
Thursday, Jan 27th at 8:00pm
No agenda or access details have been posted as of yet.
Check Township website for updates.
Events at the Library: Click here
ANNOUNCEMENTS
NEW e-CITIZEN PROGRAM AT LIBRARY
We're pleased to announce our first ever Teaneck eCitizen Program for adults! This program aims to teach participants how to:

  • Evaluate information & identify misinformation
  • Communicate effectively online using tools like Google Workspace
  • Understand basic cybersecurity practices
  • Create informative graphics and posts online
  • Navigate intellectual property and copyright issues

These critical skills are valuable tools in our increasingly digital world and can enhance any job seeker’s resume in a work environment that uses computers and/or the internet or add to your own personal skill-set.

All participants will receive a certificate of completion at the end of the 6-week cohort that can be used to demonstrate their understanding of these key skills to current or potential employers.

Our first cohort will be held virtually and run from January 19 to February 23. Participants will be able to attend weekly classes on Wednesdays from 6:00 – 9:00 PM via Zoom.
~~~~~~~~~
January 19 to February 23 is now FULL. This Program will be offered again in March and April. Click here for more detailed information about this Program.
TEANECK PUBLIC SCHOOLS: VIRTUAL JOB FAIR
Tuesday January 25

BERGEN COUNTY LGBTQ+ ALLIANCE
TIFF 2022 KICKS OFF
MASTHEAD
Editorial Board
Natalee Addison
Laraine Chaberski
Toniette H. Duncan
LaVerne Lightburn
Charles W. Powers
Bernard Rous
Micki Shilan
Barbara Ley Toffler

Supporters
Denise Belcher
Juanita Brown
Margot Embree Fisher
Gail Gordon
Guy Thomas Lauture
Gloria Wilson
Contributors
Bettina Hempel
Dennis Klein
Henry Pruitt
Howard Rose

Advisors
Theodora Smiley Lacey
Loretta Weinberg