Teaneck residents tell stories about what drew them to this tree-lined, family-oriented residential suburban town.
When residents were asked in recent surveys why they might leave Teaneck, the top 2 answers were“ high taxes” and “overdevelopment.”
Both issues were addressed in the League of Women Voters Voter’s Guide and the questions put to candidates at its 9/30 forum for Council candidates. Incumbent Mark Schwartz put the audience on notice that they were not likely to like what he was about to say: In his opening statement, Schwartz decried the residents’ desire to discuss Teaneck’s future. He reiterated what he had written in the Voter’s Guide: “Talking projects to death will just cause the tax burden to grow on the single-family homeowner. This answer is NOT what you want to hear, but I’m not the candidate to lie and tell you what you WANT, but rather what you NEED to hear”.
What followed from Incumbent Candidate Schwartz throughout the evening was his view as to what is necessary for Teaneck to survive. According to Mark Schwartz FOR TEANECK TO BE FINANCIALLY LIVABLE IN THE FUTURE, IT MUST BECOME UNLIVABLE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE PRESENT RESIDENTS WANT. That position was implicitly supported by the two other incumbents, Karen Orgen and Michael Pagan.
The Schwartz survival theme focused on his prediction of intolerably high property taxes and what residents must endure to save their pocketbooks.
Given the 12/1 tax statement Teaneck residents received this week, Schwartz hardly needed to remind those in attendance that the Teaneck property taxes are higher this year than ever before, and he warned, “You ain’t seen nothing yet.” This year's township budget, initially, had a 6.99% increase over last year’s budget. Fearing resident sticker shock – and because it is an election year – the Council responded with this year’s revenue gimmick -- the sale of the municipally-owned cell tower-- so the budget increase was lowered to 4.99%. However, the current estimate for the 2025 increase is 15%.
Incumbent Mark Schwartz, holding this frightening, and for many, unlivable, number over the residents’ heads, offered tough love to ease the pain: Teaneck needs to bring in MORE REVENUE – he cited $1 to $2M annually. His recipe is two-fold:
- Build large, multi-unit apartment buildings in defiance of established zoning regulations (i.e. apparently expanding the use of AINRs).
- Does that mean he will advocate approving an endless annual string of 6-story rental buildings in a town that has acknowledged being “fully developed” ever since the 1979 Master Plan?
- Open a multi-function cannabis facility on Alfred Ave. which he claims is an innocuous area affecting no residents.
- It should be noted that Alfred Ave. has been a focus of residents’ anger at the AINR-designated huge apartment building (with a second to be built) across from Mrs. Margaret Baker’s single-family home. As well, the promise of the cannabis facility has become a threat to our neighbor, the city of Englewood, whose park and playground abuts Alfred Ave.
Given the reasons that most residents moved to Teaneck – to escape an urban environment, provide a safe community for their children, and escape big city problems – this “solution” will make Teaneck what residents view as uninviting if not unlivable.
SO TO SAVE THE TEANECK WE LOVE, MUST WE DESTROY THE TEANECK WE LOVE?
How did we get to this unsavory predicament? Since 2015, the Council majority made a political decision to maintain a township budget with 0% increase. The only way to do that was to increase debt and/or cut services. Despite an annual happy announcement by the Council majority that “We care about our taxpayers so we won’t increase your taxes,” there was no reality check or planning for the future. As the cost of living rose, and we suffered the impact of the pandemic it became impossible to maintain the level of services and the quality of life Teaneck residents want and expect without finding more big-time revenue somewhere.
Initially, Teaneck was able to build large multi-family facilities such as Avalon Bay 1) without placing them next to residential neighborhoods; 2) by getting developers to take their projects through the normal zoning with variances processes and, 3) by their being willing to pay their fair share of the Town’s normal property taxes that are based on the actual value of their enhanced properties.
But beginning in 2018 Council decided (without even passing an ordinance) to begin having its planners investigate areas the Council could designate as blighted: AINRs. They designated 9. Then Council could commission redevelopment plans according to a developer’s preferences unhampered by zoning restrictions resulting in (hoped-for) high-revenue-producing structures to be planned in neighborhoods where current Master Plan objectives would disallow them.
Once an AINR’s redevelopment plan is adopted, Council is allowed by statute to approve the use of Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILOTS) to entice developers to Teaneck to build these mammoth structures.
We can clearly see how this pattern of decision-making resulted in the gigantic structure that destroyed Margaret Baker’s home and neighborhood. Incumbent Schwartz’s solution appears to promote the proliferation of Mrs. Baker’s nightmare.
In the same timeframe as AINR’s were taking over the development process in 2021, the then-Council Subcommittee on Cannabis (Keith Kaplan, Karen Orgen, Michael Pagan) proposed an ordinance (adopted by Council) to Opt-In to cannabis businesses in Teaneck as another revenue-generating mechanism.
AGAIN -- TO SAVE THE TEANECK WE LOVE, MUST WE DESTROY THE TEANECK WE LOVE?
What do Teaneck residents want? This municipal election – who we elect to Council --will determine our future. Do Teaneck residents accept the premise that Council member Schwartz and his colleagues (or any councilmembers, for that matter) should be planning the future of our town on what they decide we need, irrespective of what we want? That, apparently, is how Incumbent Councilmember Schwartz thinks democracy is supposed to work.
Some additional thoughts on Council Candidates LWV Forum comments:
-
PILOTs. There was incorrect information about PILOTs offered during the forum. The fact is that when a developer pays a PILOT none of the money goes to the schools, as compared to the payment of normal property taxes where the money goes to the municipality, the schools, and the county. Incumbent Schwartz stated that the new apartment buildings were not bringing more children to the Teaneck schools -- implying that therefore there was no need for the developer to pay property taxes that would help support the schools. WRONG! His comment misses the point! The payment of property taxes has nothing to do with whether or not the property owner uses the public schools: Businesses pay property taxes, seniors whose children are long out of school pay property taxes, private school parents pay property taxes. And a part of everybody’s property taxes go to support the public schools whose quality is a measure of the town’s value. So by developers paying Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PIILOTS) instead of property taxes, the Teaneck Public Schools are being deprived of support they receive from all the rest of us. Incidentally, 6 years into the AINR experiment Teaneck is still waiting for its first PILOT dollars
-
CANNABIS. In 2020 New Jersey voted to legalize recreational cannabis. In 2021, the 565 municipalities in the state were each given the opportunity to Opt-In or Opt-Out of establishing recreational cannabis businesses. If they Opted-Out they could Opt-In at any time; if they Opted-In, they were committed to that status for 5 years. 400 municipalities Opted-Out. Teaneck was not one of them. Teaneck Opted-In. Teaneck Opted-In with the specification that recreational cannabis facilities would be located on Alfred Avenue in the Northeast section of Teaneck. So far 3 years later, Teaneck has not established any cannabis businesses. In the interim, many of the diverse communities and individual residents in Teaneck have voiced their opposition to having cannabis businesses anywhere in Teaneck. The first question of the LWV 9/30 forum asked the candidates their preference for cannabis facilities in Teaneck. Among the 7 candidates, there were two emphatic YESES and one emphatic NO. In line with the discussion above, Incumbent Mark Schwartz and Incumbent Michael Pagan spoke strongly in favor of cannabis as a revenue-producing mechanism which Teaneck needs. Council Candidate Duane Harley, an attorney, spoke vehemently against cannabis, especially as the town plans to site it in what is acknowledged to be an African-American community. As such, the siting of cannabis there, he argued, can be considered institutional racism. The other candidates insisted that each affected neighborhood’s views would shape their future decisions.
Last Monday night’s Council Candidate Forum stood out from most forums and debates in Teaneck’s political arena. It placed the future of Teaneck clearly before the voters. Teaneck’s future is in the voters’ hands. Should we elect officials who will be guided by their constituents’ wishes or should we choose candidates who say that they know what we need and will decide accordingly?
Again Mark Schwartz says
“This answer is NOT what you want to hear…
but rather what you NEED to hear”.
Not what you want; and very probably not what you need!
|