THE PROCESS OF ELIMINATION

PUBLISHED BY TEANECK VOICES

Managing Editor

Bernard Rous

Editorial Board

Natalee Addison

Laraine Chabersky

Toniette H. Duncan

Charles W. Powers

Barbara Ley Toffler

Supporters

Denise Belcher

Juanita Brown

Laraine Chaberski

Margot Embree Fisher

Gail Gordon

Guy Thomas Lauture

Laverne Lightburn

Micki Shilan

Gloria Wilson

Contributors

Bettina Hempel

Henry Pruitt

Howard Rose

Advisors

Theodora Smiley Lacey

Loretta Weinberg

Contents

The Process of Elimination, Part I

---The removal of the fire engine from Engine Company #1

---Former Fire CHief Montgomery Speaks to Council

---The Relevance to the Cannabis Ordinance

The Process of Elimination, Part II

---The Mayor's "Balancing Act"

---One of Many Unheard Comments

What are they so afraid of?

Announcement

Upcoming events

Correction

THE PROCESS OF ELIMINATION, PART I

What Has Changed at Teaneck Road Engine Company #1?

It No Longer Has a Fire Engine!

At the Council meeting on August 10 2021, Township Manager Dean Kazinci adamantly disputed the rumored closing of Engine Company #1, the branch of the Teaneck Fire Department that is located at Engine Company #1, 1231 Teaneck Road., in the North East quadrant of Teaneck. He was correct that Engine Company #1 has not closed.

But he was wrong that misinformation was being spread; no one said the station was closed or is closing.

What was shared with the community, by a letter from North East resident, Retired Fire Chief Robert Montgomery, were the facts and safety concerns. Retired Chief Montgomery wrote his letter to explain the danger of not having a fire engine in the North Eas section of Teaneck. His letter also stated that in addition to disbanding Engine Company #1, two rescue trucks were sold! The only remaining vehicles at the only firehouse in the North East are a Ladder Truck and the Fire Chief’s car.

You can listen to the audio recording of his Chief Montgomery's presentation to Council on July 13th, found below this article.

Following up Chief Montgomery’s letter, we -- Co-chair of the East Votee Neighborhood Association and President of the Voorhees Street Association -- wrote a letter to our neighbors that was emailed to homes in the North East. We stated that Engine Company #1 was being disbanded and transitioned into a Ladder Company.

What does this mean?

It means that this Engine Company no longer has a fire engine. It is now a Ladder Company with only a ladder truck. As a point of information, Fire Engine Companies are designed and assigned to control, confine and extinguish a fire. They are the trucks that connect to the fire hydrants and use the continuous flow of water to fight the fires.

Tower or Ladder Companies are designed and assigned to ventilate, provide entry and search.

Teaneck elected to eliminate Engine Company #1, the only fire-fighting truck in North East Teaneck – and they did so without any notification to the township

residents.

How will these decisions provide a means of protecting this community’s safety and the potential loss of lives and property?

Another safety concern is the serious reduction of the Fire Department’s staffing in the township, from 101 firefighters in 2009-2010 down to 92 today, with 87 firefighters actually available for duty at any given time.

While the potential loss of life exists throughout Teaneck due to understaffing, the danger is especially severe in the North East section. And the safety of Teaneck’s firefighters themselves are also at risk.

Fire Chief Zaretsky is scheduled to address this matter at a Council meeting in September. To ensure that the concerns of the North East residents are addressed, we have provided a list of 30 questions to Township Manager Kazinci and to Fire Chief Zaretsky. We hope our questions will be read and answered.

If due to time constraints this is not possible, Fire Chief Zaretsky and Township Manager Dean Kazinski have expressed their willingness to speak with residents at a community forum.

Here are a few of our questions:

Questions for Township Manager Dean Kazinci

It is our understanding that organizational changes have occurred at Engine Company. In view of those changes please address the following questions:

Why weren’t the residents of Teaneck, particularly the North East residents, notified of this decision?
Moving forward, is it your plan to inform residents of impending operational changes that affect or impact our community?
How do you plan to implement those notification procedures?

Questions for Fire Chief Zaretsky:

Why was Teaneck Road Engine Company #1, located in the North East section of the township, chosen to have a fire engine removed?
How will this decision improve this community’s safety and potential loss of lives and property?
What is the purpose of making it just a Ladder Company? Does the vehicle that is used by a Ladder Company have a tank to carry water? Does it have a hose and hookup for using fire hydrants? If no, how will fires be extinguished?

The North East is the most densely populated quadrant of Teaneck with both single family homes, new multifamily developments, and a commercial cannabis factory coming.

Were these factors taken under consideration prior to removing the fire truck from Engine Company #1
Will the Windsor Road Engine Company be the primary designated fire truck dispatched to calls from North East residents now?
What is the response time for the Windsor Road Engine Company fire truck to arrive at the homes of residents who live on Ward Plaza or Selvage Avenue or Alfred Avenue?
How does the heavy flow of traffic on Teaneck Road affect the arrival time of a fire fighting truck?

It is our understanding that there is a serious lack of fire equipment and staff at Firehouse #1 on Teaneck Road, and that this condition will negatively affect the residents in the North East section of Teaneck.

Is this accurate?
Was there a shift in manpower to be compliant with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)?
What happens if we are not compliant with NFPA?

Gail Gordon, Co-Chair, East Votee Neighborhood Association

and Toniette H. Duncan, President Voorhees Street Association

Listen to former Fire Chief Montgomery's concerns as he addressed Council on July 13, 2021:

THE CANNABIS ORDINANCE AND CONCERNS ABOUT ADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION IN TEANECK'S NORTH EAST QUADRANT

Submitted by LaVerne Lightburn

ICMA, the International City/County Management Association, advances professional local government management worldwide through leadership, management, innovation, and ethics.

They issued a report on a range of public concerns. Read the full report here: LOCAL IMPACTS OF COMMERCIAL CANNABIS. In the report, they address specific fire hazards:

"Safety Hazards

Cannabis product manufacturing/processing often involves chemical extractions, through which solvents are used to remove resin from plants and convert it into hash oil. The high-concentrate oil can then be infused into edibles, tinctures, and other products, or consumed by smoking or vaporizing. Because of the volatile solvents used, the extraction process should only take place in regulated environments using proper equipment and safety precautions—otherwise, risk of explosion is high. This is enough to dissuade some local governments from wanting to allow such activities in their communities. Increased opportunities for legal cultivation of cannabis, including at the personal scale, may tempt amateur processors to attempt these extractions in unregulated settings such as residential neighborhoods. Beyond the threats to individuals involved and to first responders, the extraction process poses the additional risk of a fire spreading to other nearby structures. The City and County of Denver experienced nine hash oil explosions between January and September 15, 2014, and the state’s primary burn center has seen a spike in extraction burn patients since 2012."

THE PROCESS OF ELIMINATION, PART II

How to Minimize Public Input

Mayor Dunleavy Intervenes in Ordinance Pub lic Hearing

Additional Input on Ordinance 29-2021:

Below you will find a written comment submitted by one of the many residents who lowered their hands at the Mayor's bidding, and subsequently had no opportunity to give voice to their questions and concerns in the open public forum.

Councilman Kaplan introduced the Ordinance by mischaracterizing the entire debate as pro- or anti-cannabis, saying that this ordinance simply reflects the will of Teaneck residents who voted overwhelmingly to legalize marijuana in the state. He then took exception to a speaker who said they voted to decriminalize marijuana, saying that no one voted to decriminalize marijuana, but to legalize it. But this is a distinction without a significant difference, since what is not prohibited, is permitted. Many voted to legalize recreational marijuana simply because they were against the mass incarceration of minorities that its criminalization and differential prosecution lead to and wanted to remove any lingering stigma from its medicinal use.

TO: Clerk

clerk@teanecknj.gov

It is not quite accurate to frame the question about this particular ordinance as for or against cannabis. It may even be disingenuous.

I am for the legalization of cannabis, as are the majority of voters in Teaneck, and I, too, voted in favor of it.

I did not vote, however, to open a commercial manufacturing and distribution cannabis center on Alfred avenue.

Maybe it is a good idea, and maybe it isn't.

But I have not seen any of the pros and cons that must have been considered by the Council's Subcommittee of Pagan, Orgen and Kaplan and then presumably provided to the Council in closed session.

So I have many questions about this ordinance. The first is whether the ordinance is itself legal.

Is it true that 45 days must elapse between the date that the Planning Board members who recommended in favor of this facility officially "memorialize" it, and the date when Council may legally vote upon it? If true, I ask whether this ordinance has been properly memorialized? And whether the 45 days have elapsed to permit tonight's vote?

I am less interested in the legal technicalities of the memorialization process, than I am in the reasons for the process itself. It is my understanding that the primary reasons are to give residents the time to understand the pros and cons of an ordinance so that there may be a public hearing with meaningful input.

To have a limited set of questions asked but not fully answered here tonight does not, in my opinion, constitute an opportunity for meaningful input.

Do you think perhaps a Teaneck-wide town hall on an ordinance with potentially significant impact on the town would be appropriate before Council votes?

I know there is in an opt-in/opt-out deadline that is fast approaching - and will arrive before the next scheduled Council meeting.

Since residents have not had a chance yet to even see the Council's cannabis Subcommittee research that presumably informed the crafting of this ordinance, (I do not believe it was ever even reported to the public, was it?), why not take the opportunity here tonight to opt Teaneck out of commercial manufacture and distribution for now, like many other neighboring towns have done?

Later, after full disclosure of the pros and cons, and after meaningful public discussion and input, could not a proper ordinance then be drawn up? This is not an ALL NOW or NOTHING EVER decision, is it?

Sincerely,

Bernard Rous, Teaneck resident

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

WHAT ARE THEY SO AFRAID OF?

A personal perspective on the town’s heavy-handed response to the One Town One Vote Initiative

by Margot Embree Fisher

For the past two months, I have been one of many eager volunteers supporting the One Town One Vote initiative. This initiative seeks a ballot referendum on whether the date of Teaneck’s municipal elections should be changed from May to November, to occur at the same time as the general elections.

The five named petitioners represent the best and the brightest of our vibrant, diverse community: Senator Loretta Weinberg, civil rights icon Theodora Lacey, youth organizer Teji Vega, Teaneck International Film Festival director Jeremy Lentz, and community organizer Reshma Khan.

In my mind, there is nothing controversial about their request. What could be more clearly aligned with the basic principles of American democracy than making it easier for people to vote? And what could be more in the interests of Teaneck taxpayers than to save the estimated $50,000 the town currently spends to run a separate municipal election in May? But most important, why should Teaneck voters not be given the opportunity to vote directly, yes or no, on this fundamental issue?

Yet, on July 29th, the Township Clerk rejected the petition and disallowed more than one half of the signatures that were submitted in support of the proposed referendum.

The council majority has been outspoken in their opposition to the One Town One Vote initiative. They have tried to frighten residents about what will happen to them if the date of the election is changed. They have taken to social media to disparage the characters of its supporters. I personally have been subject to some of those attacks, including posts from Councilman Keith Kaplan in which he has called me “slimy” and “full of cr*p.”

But One Town One Vote has not been deterred by the Town Clerk’s rejection of its first filing of the petition. One Town One Vote has decided to challenge the Clerk’s decision in court. And the petitioners decided at the same time to mount a herculean effort to gather the additional signatures that the Clerk contends are needed to meet the required threshold within a 10-day deadline.

The apparent desperation of the council majority to keep this proposed referendum off the ballot was displayed most blatantly on Tuesday August 3 in Votee Park, at Teaneck’s celebration of National Night Out. Traditionally, this is an uplifting show of solidarity and gratitude for Teaneck’s police officers and First Responders, and to recognize what they have done to foster good community relations in our diverse town.

But the positive mood was somewhat marred this year, when some police officers approached petitioners who were collecting additional signatures under the very tight deadline imposed by the Clerk’s rejection. The officers informed them that petitioning was not sanctioned at this public event.

I pointed out that none of the volunteers were harassing anyone or disrupting the event in any way, and that we were simply exercising our First Amendment rights for “the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

When I asked the officers about the authority for their request, they replied that they had been instructed by the Town Manager that the evening was intended to be a positive community experience and he did not want signatures collected at the event.

The officers were non-confrontational and quite courteous throughout our interchange. They did not want to press the issue as I was firm about the exercise of our rights.

Nonetheless, I am astonished that right here in Teaneck, officers have apparently been directed to deter petitioners in what can truly be said to serve the political agenda of some members of the town Council.

What is the lesson in all this?

First, residents should be alert to any efforts by Council members to undermine the democratic process.

Clearly, the supporters of One Town One Vote have not been intimidated by the council majority’s tactics. Indeed, these attacks may be starting to backfire.

Consider the Deputy Mayor’s fear mongering TidBits story with its now viral caricature of a fat-cat, cigar-smoking, partisan boss. The Deputy Mayor claims that changing the date of the elections will somehow corrupt the government of Teaneck.

That article is now widely derided. As new facts about campaign financing come to light - how so much money has come from outside Teaneck and, indeed, from partisan groups, to support the election of his team - more people are seeing that the TidBits story and caricature really put a spotlight on his own hypocrisy. They can see for themselves how this Council majority is already indebted to outside political and partisan interests.

Second, it is heartwarming to see how quickly and enthusiastically the people of Teaneck have united in support of the One Town One Vote initiative. I have had the pleasure of conversations with a broad swath of residents as I have been walking the town collecting petition signatures. Even among those not sure about the wisdom of changing the date of the election, many agree that the voters should have their say at the ballot box rather than leaving the decision in the hands of the people who have achieved power under the current system.

I hope the readers of Teaneck Voices will join me in whole-hearted support of One Town One Vote. This is a historic moment in Teaneck. We can secure our civil rights and enhance the diversity of our electorate by making it simpler, more convenient, and less costly for people to participate in the municipal elections. Let the voters decide!

ANNOUNCEMENT

All those wishing to support One Town One Vote's legal challenge to the petition rejection may do so by going to the website One Town One Vote and clicking on the Donate button.