SHARE:  

Route 4 Hackensack River Bridge Replacement- Did You Know?


PUBLISHED BY TEANECK VOICES

2/10/2025

Contents:

  • Route 4 Hackensack River Bridge Replacement- Did You Know?
  • Final Planning Board Approval for Master Plan
  • Council Subcommittees – déjà vu all over again?
  • Delayed Additions to the Council Agenda
  • Municipal Building Staff, is Anybody Home on Fridays
  • This Week in Teaneck - February 10, 2025 Edition


Announcements

  • Black History Month Series - 4 Thursdays in February


Contacting Teaneck Voices:

  • Email: teaneckvoices@gmail.com
  • Phone: 201-214-4937
  • USPS Mail: Teaneck Voices, PO Box 873. at 1673 Palisade Ave. 07666

Route 4 Hackensack River Bridge Replacement- Did You Know?

Final plans are set for the Route 4 Hackensack River Bridge Replacement. Every Teaneck resident will be affected when one year from now (January 2026) construction begins on the project that will not be completed for a forecast 5 years (until 2031). Right behind it will be the Route 4 bridge replacement over the CSX tracks that will involve some widening of the eastbound lanes. 


The State-managed River Bridge Replacement project hopes always to keep traffic at least partially open on Route 4 but acknowledges that “temporary ramp and lane closures, when necessary, are to be scheduled during off-peak hours. Detours will direct motorists and pedestrians to use alternate routes when needed.” 


Voices believes it is incumbent on all our readers to at least read the project summary (Click Here) but they should preferably take 17 minutes to watch/listen to a project slide presentation (Click Here). There we learn how half the new bridge will be built on the north side and then the other half built on the south side – and then the two sides will be slid together. 



In other words, the Township mobility is virtually guaranteed to be seriously delayed and residents will be maneuvering around serious construction-related delays for the next decade.

Residents with comments on the first project (River Bridge Replacement) must do so by the end of February (2/28).

Final Planning Board Approval for Master Plan

Having voted to adopt the draft Master Plan at its previous meeting, the Planning Board will memorialize its decision on Thursday night and then clean up a series of site plan and ordinance consistency issues.


Many of our readers find this Master Plan to be half a loaf. Voices in its latest look at the document finds it to be seriously missing any awareness of a key role that this Master Plan could have played in the life of the Township in the decade for which it was intended. It could have been not only a protector of resident values but also a guide as to how the Town should sequence the various projects it will approve. Good planning identifies not only what gets primacy but also when it makes sense to undertake what needs doing.


To be sure, the Master Plan does show real awareness of the fact that the Town must, before it undertakes any significant development projects, get a grip on what is needed to control its stormwater movement and flooding. It knows many of its parks are near ponds. It rightly acknowledges that its Town Engineers are just beginning to map a stormwater strategy that must be coordinated with those of contiguous neighboring municipalities. (Google Stormwater to follow this MP coverage).


But what is otherwise missing from this MP is awareness of what must be taken into account about when to move forward on the “next steps”. Missing is – the sequencing of what can be done and when. Missing is the clarification of what must be taken into account - the strategic context of what else is happening and what in Town will need to be protected as any project is implemented. Some would call this holistic thinking or planning. Holistic is a word that does not appear in the 124 MP pages. 


Let’s take an example. The State has just handed Teaneck a goal of 431 new affordable units. Teaneck has told the State it should be 381 units. Teaneck’s new planners (Topology LLC) say the Town has only half the “developable land” that the State claims it has to place those units. The State says Teaneck must know how to get to its designated total in a decade. Somehow our new Master Plan has only two lines devoted to the new state law on affordable housing. Meanwhile, the State plans major bridge replacements on Route 4 that will seriously disrupt the already hugely congested traffic pattern for that same 10-year period. Nowhere in the Master Plan is there any reference whatsoever to those bridge replacements. None. And Teaneck wants its business districts revitalized. In summary, Teaneck faces major sequencing challenges –and the Stormwater one of which is the only one the MP addresses.


The MP decision is made. But some entity has to pick up the challenge of putting together these disparate pieces to keep the Town livable and viable. And nothing the Council has thus far done would indicate that it is ready to sequence its actions under the poor guidance of a new Master Plan. 

Council Subcommittees – déjà vu all over again?

Voices has long advocated that Teaneck’s governing board dispense with subcommittees. 

Subcommittees are made up of no more than 3 Council members who meet solely to develop recommendations made to the full Council.  Some of our readers believe that because 3 members do not constitute a quorum, the real purpose of subcommittees is to discuss secretly matters that should be discussed in public.


Hence we have recommended that Council hold full-Council workshops to discuss matters that can be known publicly and that matters that by law cannot be publicly discussed (e.g., personnel issues, some decisions concerning public lands) be discussed in full Council closed sessions. 



But Teaneck Council majorities have consistently supported the use of subcommittees. In 2025 they named 7 subcommittees after a 5-person majority declined a motion supported by the 2 other Councilmembers to eliminate all subcommittees.


In the agenda for the regular Council meeting on Tuesday, February 11, 2025, there is an Information Item proposing the adoption of a Council resolution that would, in the name of greater transparency, establish a series of regulations governing the scheduling, content, public participation in, minutes taking and their release, etc. of all Council subcommittees.  That resolution is available in the Agenda for the meeting at pp. 22-23 or more immediately if you Click Here.

Delayed Additions to the Council Agenda

Unless an Emergency exists, Council policy is that all matters requiring Council action are to be published in the Township Website’s agenda by the Close of Business on Thursday before a Tuesday Council meeting. The rationale is that this would allow residents to understand or get additional information on key resolutions or ordinances. 


Sometime over the weekend of February 8-9, the Township added three action items whose emergency status we question.  Each includes the following statement at its conclusion: “-Addendum 1: Added Two Days Before Council Meeting”.  


Resolutions 88 and 89 in the revised agenda (Click Here and move the cursor to pp.108-115)  would 1) terminate the current lease between the Teaneck Swim Club and the Town at the end of season 2025 instead of the current termination date of 2037, and 2) Allow the Swim Club itself to operate the Swim Club for the 2025 season and at the same time “The Township agrees to be responsible for and pay for all operating expenses for the Premises and the operation of the swim club, including maintenance and upkeep, salaries, and utilities, during the term of this Agreement. There is no estimate of the operating cost but in addition, the Town will pay for the Club’s “wind-down costs” and pay all invoices under$10,000.  


The Council had on January 30 verbally said it had reached an agreement with the Club that has been in oft-described financial difficulty. Voices believes that before voting on these two resolutions as part of the consent agenda those involved in the negotiations leading to these resolutions owe the public a full explanation of the deal. 


Proposed Ordinance 14-2025 is a repeat of a redevelopment plan proposed for the troubled 100 State Street property. This redevelopment plan will OK a tall self-storage facility in the middle of that block.  The ordinance did NOT receive the necessary support of a majority of Council at its prior meeting. The owner of the property is not specified in the plan.  Teaneck residents should be told with whom the Town has been working on this AINR.

Municipal Building Staff, is Anybody Home on Fridays?

TGIF – “Thank God It’s Friday!” For whom is that a happy cry? Not the residents of Teaneck who frequently try to reach Municipal Building staff to conduct town business on a Friday. Many key personnel seem to be absent. What’s going on?


Note: In preparation for the weekend work on Teaneck Voices, published at 8 am on Monday mornings, the co-editors reach out to Municipal Building staff on Fridays to check accuracy, seek confirmation of information, and learn new developments. We find that many are not working on Fridays.


Teaneck Voices opines that the apparent skeleton crew on Fridays at the Municipal Building is a vestige of the ill-conceived decision in 2010 to close the Municipal Building on Fridays. What happened back then?


In 2009, the belief of a majority of council members was that municipal employees were suffering from low morale. That belief led to the hiring of a new Town Manager, and brainstorming among the council members on ways to lift employee morale. One then-council member cited research (conducted on a factory floor) that showed that absenteeism decreased and safety increased when workers were given a 4-day work week. The fact that municipal employees were service providers and not machine operators was not considered relevant.


A subcommittee of 3 council members was appointed to study the issue and make a recommendation to the full council. Full disclosure: One Teaneck Voices co-editor was a then-council member and was appointed to the subcommittee. In those days subcommittees were “ad hoc,” appointed to deal with a specific issue out of the public eye and make a recommendation to the full council. The subcommittee would vote on the recommendation and a majority of 2 determined the recommendation to Council.



The subcommittee met and by a vote of 2 to 1 recommended that all Municipal Building employees would work Mondays through Thursdays and the Municipal Building would be closed on Fridays. A survey was conducted by the Manager with announced results that 70% of the residents favored the 4-day work week. Later it was discovered that the total number of residents surveyed was 11 (eleven) – 7 pro and 4 con.


On August 17, 2010, the 4-day work week for Municipal Building employees went into effect. Union contracts were rewritten to reflect the new weekly structure and many employees found Friday jobs to supplement their income. For the Municipal Building employees, it was a satisfying outcome. For many town residents, it was an upsetting (and occasionally costly) outcome.


Following 4 years of debate between AFSCME Local 820 and some councilmembers (“I’m a public employee,” Councilmember Lizette Parker said. “I believe that public services should be offered 5 days a week.”)  and town residents (Patch, April 4, 2012), the town reopened the Municipal Building on Fridays on Monday, January 6, 2014. However, a deal was struck that allowed most Municipal Building employees staggered 4-day work weeks. So while the Municipal Building was opened 5 days a week, it was a guess who would be at work on any given day. And Fridays operated with a skeleton crew. Many employees still took Fridays off for varied reasons: 3-day weekends, changed childcare schedules, and Friday jobs. 


IS THAT WHERE WE ARE NOW? Teaneck Voices requests that the Township publish a detailed schedule of working days and hours of every Municipal Building employee, and assurance that each employee has agreed to serve at those published times. Teaneck residents deserve no less.

This Week in Teaneck – February 10 to 16, 2025

If additional information about access and agendas for this week’s public meetings becomes available, we will update our Teaneck Voices website at this post (Click Here) in RED font. 


Stigma Free Advisory Board Monday February 10, 2025, at 6:00 pm by Zoom only (Click Here and add passcode 2025) Only information available.


Municipal Open Space Trust Advisory Board (MOST) Monday, February 10, 2025, at 6:00 pm by Zoom only (Click Here and add passcode 177413). No agenda information is available.


Teaneck Council Regular Meeting – Tuesday, February 11, 2025 – public session at 8:00 pm. v In Council Chambers and hybrid by Zoom (Click Here and add passcode 5414647. For the agenda, Click Here

  • Hearings and final vote on 8 ordinances, most notably the ones the Planning Board approved on 1/30: Auxiliary Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Fence and Retaining Walls. 
  • Proposed Resolution to regulate Council Subcommittee transparency (see related article) 
  • Proposed Introduction of Redevelopment Plan for 100 State Street (Block 5004, Lot 4.01) Property now Owned by BHML Equities of NYC, Lorne Lieberman


Youth Advisory Board (YAB) – Wednesday, February 12, 2025, at 6:00 pm – by Zoom only but Zoom address and agenda are not yet available.


Cedar Lane Management Group - Wednesday, February 12, 2025, at 6:00 pm at 555 Cedar Lane, Suite 4


Historical Determinants of Mental Health in the Black Community- Black History Month Series – Thursday, February 6, 2025, at 7:000 pm in the 1st Floor Room of the Rodda Center (note change of location)  

  • 2nd in the 2025 Black History Month Series of 4 Thursday evenings
  • Presentation by Dr. Onaje Salim EDd, MA
  • See the Series flyer in the Announcement section of this Voices edition 


Planning Board (PB) – Thursday, February 13, 2025, at 7:30 pm in-person in MP-1 of the Rodda Center and (without participation) by Zoom (Click Here and add passcode 099780). For agenda, Click Here


The meeting will include the formal adoption of the Master Plan (Click Here) and memorialization of the PB’s prior approval of consistency reviews of 3 Council-introduced ordinances [including ADUs] and site plan approvals for the new Cuban Restaurant and the Alfred Avenue Cannabis facilities).

Announcements

Contacting Teaneck Voices


Co-Editors: Dr. Barbara Ley Toffler and Dr. Chuck Powers

IT Editor: Sarah Fisher

By Email: teaneckvoices@gmail.com

By Phone: 201-214-4937

By USPS Mail: Teaneck Voices, PO Box 873. at 1673 Palisade Ave. 07666

Teaneck Voices' Website is www.teaneckvoices.com


Sign Up Now
Send a Comment
Submit an Article
Editorial Policies
LinkedIn Share This Email