Martin Luther King Day in 2022

Neighbor Confusion about Ordinance 2-2022 (50 Oakdene Avenue)

Board of Adjustment and 54 West Englewood Ave

Letters to the Editor

Notable Women of Teaneck

Teaneck Town Newsletter to Combat "Misinformation"

Unanswered Questions

Upcoming Town Meetings

Since becoming a federal holiday, many Americans celebrate Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. birthday with pride. A day of service and renewed commitment to the fight for racial justice. Churches far and wide host events that echo the civil rights struggles that brought Dr. King to prominence despite the resistance and oftentimes hatred he faced.

Some find solace in reading his letter from a Birmingham jail that gives readers insight into his many arrests. School-aged children recite the famous August 28,1963 “I have a Dream” speech while many attend ecumenical interfaith church services. Why even during the MLK week observance, Christians are invited to attend services at synagogues and Mosques, and Jews and Muslims are invited into Christian Churches.

Many people come together and profess their faith in God and the nonviolent principles that Dr. King fought so vehemently for all to follow - those principles that undergird our democracy that All Men are Created Equal. Dr. King believed in the documents written by our founding fathers, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. And he hoped to see them realized.

His faith placed a demand on those documents that the words were not mere promises but indeed the bedrock that “every American was to fall heir”.  Dr. King spoke of the promise of freedom from Unspeakable Horrors of Police Brutality, the indignities of apartheid rule in Public Accommodations, Voter Rights expectation as full citizen rights for Black Americans. Dr. King framed this nation’s ills almost 60 years ago, rebuking the injustices he passionately spoke about on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial - these injustices are front-page news today.

In his speech, Dr. King spoke of the “fierce urgency of now"; however, 59 years later we wrestle with the passage of a Federal Voter Rights Law. He prophetically saw the danger our nation finds itself in when a defeated President peddles the Big Lie, resulting in states enacting voter suppression laws.

It is no wonder why MLK's children* have asked Americans not to commemorate their father’s birthday this year until we pass the Voter Rights Act to protect voter rights that are under assault by a myriad of state enacted laws reminiscent of the Jim Crow south; laws designed to limit, curtail, restrict access to the ballot; laws and voter suppression attempts that are blatant, and some that are subtle, like a NO vote to Question 1 on the ballot in Teaneck’s election last November, moving the election from May to November.

Clearly, giving access to and making it easier for voters to vote is a pillar of democracy. I am so glad that Teaneck Voters recognized that attempt and voted an overwhelming YES to move our municipal election from May to November, empowering more voter participation.

However, some people have managed to get it twisted, using lies of voter fraud. In fact, this week our nation remembers the violent insurrection of Jan 6, 2021, orchestrated by the former president - a failed attempt to overturn the will of the people by not certifying their votes.

Malcolm X said it best, “by any means necessary”. Yes, voter rights are just that important, and whatever it takes to pass voter rights and preserve our democracy must happen. Even it means bypassing the Filibuster (another relic from the Jim Crow era) to get it done.

So, let this not be another year where we participate in an interfaith MLK celebration that ends in a rousing rendition of We Shall Overcome. But let this be the year that we join with King's children as they display the content of their character in demanding that the John Lewis Voter Rights Law and the Freedom to Vote Act pass the United States Senate.

~~~~~~~

*Listen to Dr. Bernice King explain how she wants to commemorate her father's birthday

Teaneck residents have long requested clarification, in language they can understand, about additions to the Town Code made by way of ordinances adopted by the Town’s Council. Those resident requests have consistently been ignored.

The Agenda for Teaneck Council’s January 4, 2022 meeting called for the Introduction of a new ordinance, No. 6993, which apparently will become Ordinance 2-2022. The ordinance has a 6-line title as follows:

AMEND AND REVISE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK ARTICLE V CHAPTER 33, SECTIONS 33-23 AND 33-25 WITH RESPECT TO CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS, AND SECTION 33-24 TO ESTABLISH THE COMMUNITY CENTER OVERLAY (CCO) ZONING DISTRICT WITH RESPECT TO NON-GOVERNMENTAL USES WITH WITHIN THE P PUBLIC LAND DISTRICT

Is that clear?

Neither the agenda nor the ordinance itself gave street addresses to help residents identify the town properties addressed by this amendment. (It was only finally identified in a Public Notice on Thursday January 6th.) And no explanation was given for Why did the Town’s Public Land (P) need a Community Center Overlay for non-governmental uses? Or for Why this property is even labeled P, when it is apparently not Public Land? Or for Why existing regulations are not adequate?

Resident Susan Schultz – during Council’s public input opportunity – asked what was going on and whether this ordinance was really about loosening regulation of 50 Oakdene Avenue (the AUCC property) in her neighborhood. What she said follows as does the Attorney’s response to her request for explanation:

The ordinance’s relevant sections (11-14) would appear to be internally inconsistent: they describe the 50 Oakdene Avenue property as Public Land, but it has been Classified 15D – “Exempt Church and Charitable Property” since 2001.

Is this ordinance really what resident Schultz suggested – a camouflaged effort by the Town to address a settlement of the AUCC’s lawsuit against the Town? Why can residents never get a straight/understandable answer – particularly when the Town is proposing to change our town law – our Code?

There will be a public hearing before the vote on adoption at the January 18th Council Meeting. Answers to Ms. Schultz’s questions are needed!

Despite its 4 ½ hour meeting (with 83 zoom participants at one point), the Town’s Board of Adjustment fell farther behind on Thursday January 6. Only one of the many issues on its agenda came to a resolution.

Three complex cases, two of which involve proposals to approve site plans for additional multi-family rental facilities, were briefly heard but none finished.

One case, that of 54 W. Englewood Avenue, will be heard in a sixth hearing next February 3. In order to handle the fact that some members have missed one or more meetings on that application, the applicant will be producing transcripts of all those previous meetings which Board members must read before voting on the applications.

There were important statements made at the 1/6 meeting by application witnesses that the wider Teaneck community deserves to know about.

Of particular interest was the statement made by Joe Burgis, the veteran Planner for the applicant. He was the final witness at last Thursday’s meeting. As part of his advocacy for Board approval of the developer’s plan for a 20-unit building in a modest sized property in the R/S zone (single residential zone), he promised to explain why such a proposal (requiring a D1 variance) was fully justified and supported by the goals and objectives of the Township’s Master Plan - by both the 2007 Plan and its 2017 re-examination. In the video which follows, find Burgis’ every word about this interpretation of the Master Plan.

Does the Burgis rendition sound anything like Teaneck’s Master Plan? After listening to the 3-minute video of Burgis on the Master Plan above, take a look at pages 1-4 (the actual goals and objectives) of the 2007 Master Plan and ask yourself how faithful to that Plan was Planner Burgis’ testimony.

For example, look at Goals 2 through 8:

Why do urban city dwellers move to surrounding suburbs?

In my judgement they are seeking the following quality of life enhancements.

People who move to the suburbs know in advance that these amenities cost money and they are willing to pay higher taxes to achieve and maintain this safe and comfortable quality of life. When these amenities are threatened, the attractiveness of suburban living is diminished.

Politicians seeking election hail “lower taxes” as a desirable goal and promise they are the ones to deliver that goal. Rarely do these politicians talk about what residents will sacrifice to gain those lower taxes. There is almost no mention about quality of life – like open space, clean air, comfortable living conditions or ease of getting to work.

Many of the towns in our once suburban area have begun building high density, multi-family apartment complexes. These complexes are similar to those in Newark, Paterson, the Bronx and Brooklyn from which our suburban residents sought and seek to escape.

To add to the re-urbanization movement, New Jersey’s new law allowing the full production and sale of marijuana has encouraged some towns to establish full-scale “pot” neighborhoods ostensibly to ease the tax burden on the residents.

Rarely have municipal governments addressed the resultant strain on our aging infrastructure (sewers, pipes, electric grids, etc.), on our diminished sense of safety and security, and the over-stretched public services the urbanization of suburbia will bring.

Do we really want:

If high density housing is going to damage the quality of life in a suburban town, it might be better not to allow it and to pass the increased cost back to the residents. Why move away from an urban environment if the negative qualities of that environment are being brought to your suburban hometown?

The January 02, 2022 Teaneck Voices' article "URBANIZATION IN TEANECK" by Barbara Ley Toffler regarding the high rise multi-family development mentions "NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard)". It could instead have indicated “NICBY": Not in Councilmembers Back Yard.

How many Councilmembers live within 5 blocks of the urbanization and uglification of Teaneck's neighborhoods?

Regarding the Teaneck Master Plan, after laws and ordinances, it is Teaneck's most important municipal document. A Teaneck Councilman has minimized its importance with the statement “It is not the Bible". A correct statement. It is not the Bible of Teaneck. There aren’t 10 commandments, but there are 9 goals. The Teaneck Master Plan begins with THE STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, and on page 1 it lists goal #2:

THE STATEMENT OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES continues to describe the Master Plan and on page 5:

The clock can’t be turned back to the days prior to the George Washington Bridge and the beginning of the transformation of Teaneck from a bucolic small town to a growing suburban satellite of New York City. That would be like trying to reconstitute a hamburger into a cow.

Nevertheless, it is possible to stop the incomprehensible and devastating passion to overdevelop the town to create rateables. It’s not a radical concept to desire “better” rather than “more”. Stabilize the neighborhoods and the many amenities of Teaneck. Protect Teaneck from deterioration and then cost effectively enhance the municipal services. It requires Councilmembers that reflect the vision and needs of its constituency.

The article indicates that members of the Planning Board and Council label neighborhood speakers as “complainers”. In reality, residents are nostalgic for the environment that existed when they moved into town. They are vocal concerning their distress for a host of concerns. Speaking at meetings is not a privilege, it is a right. Mocking those who voice their opinion is insulting and goes against the tenets of civility, decorum and the ideals of a democracy.

The governance and actions of the township council and the boards are intended to serve the residents, not make them victims. Most problems can be short term, there is a council election every two years.

Her quiet strength is likely born from her immigrant experience. Deborah Veach, graduate of Barnard College, Rutgers Law School, admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, retired Municipal Prosecutor of Teaneck, wife, mother and grandmother, began her journey in a German Displaced Persons Camp.

“My mameloshen (mother tongue) is Yiddish since I grew up in a traditional Yiddish speaking family. My mother was from a family that valued education and studied at a Tarbut Gymnasium in Vilnius. Both my parents were from Belarus (then Poland) and immigrated to the United States after the Holocaust. They spent four or five years in a Displaced Persons Camp outside Munich, Germany, where I was born. We arrived in the US in March of 1950.” 

Meeting Deborah Veach and hearing about her contributions to Teaneck, reminds one of the Eleanor Roosevelt saying, “It is better to light one candle, than to curse the darkness.”

Deborah was working in the Appeals Bureau of the Office of the Manhattan District Attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau when she met her future husband James (Jim) Veach. Having little family, Deborah and Jim moved to Teaneck where her sister and family had settled. It was the beginning of a life of extraordinary volunteer community service intertwined with professional legal practice and a stay-at-home mom role.

Deborah and Jim’s son, Zachary, was born in 1988. Deborah and Jim, with Zachary in tow, began attending Board of Education meetings to learn about the public school system that would educate their son. Their focus initially was on Bryant School, the central kindergarten which Deborah describes as sounding amazing. It was.

At the first PTO meeting Deborah learned that there was no president. As the meeting proceeded, and no one volunteered for the position, Deborah - having no previous experience – raised her hand. She thought to herself, “I prosecuted homicide cases, how hard could this be?”

Her offer was accepted, and she was assigned a co-president to help her learn the ropes. It was the 1990’s, a sensitive time - and the BOE was studying Institutional Racism. Since Bryant was a central school, PTO parents came from every section of Teaneck. Deborah took as her self-mandate to concentrate on making the PTO as inclusive as possible. Unbelievably, the meetings grew to have a regular attendance of close to 100 parents – unheard of, as most PTA/PTO leaders know.

Taking good advantage of her success, Deborah set out to make the PTO more issues-oriented than was typical. Her first challenge was the drug paraphernalia that littered the Bryant school yard and adjacent field. The PTO got the DPW to do a cleanup. Deborah had the DPW deposit the paraphernalia in boxes which the PTO members brought to a BOE meeting and presented to the Board trustees. The result was that the DPW maintained a clean field, outdoor lighting was installed and the simplest of solutions brought a huge difference: A second telephone line was installed in the school office, so that parents regularly could get through – increasing their involvement in school activities.

Led by Deborah, the PTO tackled a critical issue that brought everyone together (public, private and religious school parents): Getting seat belts on school buses! As a chaperone on field trips, Deborah saw that the school bus drivers had seat belts, while the kids were rattling around the then-creaky, old buses.

Once again Deborah grabbed the BOE’s attention. This time, she organized a presentation to the trustees in the form of a trial, with exhibits and parents and students (some as young as five) “testifying” about the need for seat belts on school buses.

Eager to continue her volunteer work, be involved in her son’s life and return to practicing law, Deborah and her colleague who was Treasurer of the Bryant PTO, became law partners in what was essentially a single practitioner law firm. Way ahead of the times, they job-shared one job – one working Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and the other Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.

Once again, Deborah saw a need and her creativity and practical imagination found a solution.

She had worked so successfully with the BOE, Deborah decided to approach the Council with her idea to tackle rising concern within the Teaneck community..

Teaneck residents were expressing fear that Cedar Lane was “dying.” Following her commitment to bringing people together, Deborah’s recommendation was to establish a Farmer’s Market. Some councilmembers thought it a “Yuppie” idea. Nonetheless, Deborah set up a committee, researched South Orange and Montclair’s markets and after a year’s work established the Teaneck Farmer’s Market, still enjoyed by all today. Another success achieved by bringing people together!

In 2000, understanding the opportunities available to councilmembers to bring people together and to solve township challenges, Deborah decided to run for a council seat. She was elected and re-elected in 2004.

What followed was, literally, a whirlwind of activity and accomplishment. As a councilmember, Deborah’s achievements include:

All of these achievements were gained by lighting many candles, never cursing the darkness (although effectively making her dissatisfaction known).

Midway through her second term, the municipal prosecutor left, and Deborah decided to apply for the job. She was appointed Teaneck Municipal Prosecutor in 2006 and began 10 years in what she calls, “the Dream Job.”

Deborah served with Judge James Young. Prosecutor Veach and Judge Young, as she says, were on the same wavelength. They believed in education, re-education and second chances – not incarceration. They agreed on sentences like:

Judge Young used to kid her that she wasn’t just handling cases, she was also running a university.

Using her skill at problem solving, Deborah also helped many people who appeared in court because they couldn’t pay fines. Fines accumulated and warrants were put out for these people. Deborah Veach worked with them to get a car inspected, get a repeat teenage offender on the right track, help a twice victim of domestic violence seek an appropriate partner.

Her method often included heart-to-heart talks:

To the young teenager, “You are great young man. You don’t belong here.”

To the victim of domestic violence, “You can do better than this.”

When will the Planning Board act on the OSRP?

Township Manager Press Release [excerpted]

TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK

OFFICE OF THE TOWNSHIP MANAGER

Paul A. Volcker Municipal Green | 818 Teaneck Road | Teaneck, NJ 07666

(201) 837 – 1600 | Fax (201) 837 – 9547

admin@teanecknj.gov

Township Manager

Deputy Township Manager

December 20, 2021

Over the past weekend, Teaneck registered ninety eight (98) new COVID-19 cases, a number that’s very alarming to me and to our local health officials. Despite very favorable vaccination percentages, Teaneck and the County of Bergen remain at a high risk level (Orange) for COVID transmission. Because of the significant uptick in positive COVID-19 cases in the Teaneck community, I have made the decision to close all municipal buildings to the public effective Tuesday, December 21, 2021. This action is just one measure that will be taken to help keep our community, workforce and families safe from the spread of the virus.

Although the buildings will be closed to the public, residents can continue to conduct business and communicate with the Township during normal business hours in the following format:

...The municipal buildings will remain closed to the public through Monday, January 17, 2022. We will reopen our facilities to the public on Tuesday, January 18, 2022 contingent upon data showing COVID-19 cases have declined to a safe level, and our health officer determines it’s appropriate to do so. The January 18, 2022 reopening date allows us to safely get through the Holiday season, and the fourteen (14) day post-Holiday incubation period.

...As a reminder, everyone 16 and older should get a booster shot at any vaccine location if it has been at least two months since their one-dose Johnson & Johnson shot or at least six months after completing their two-dose Pfizer or Moderna vaccine series.

At this time, only the Pfizer vaccine is authorized and recommended for adolescents aged 16 and 17...

Eligible individuals may choose which vaccine they receive as a booster dose. Some people may have a preference for the vaccine type that they originally received and others may prefer to get a different booster. CDC's recommendations allow for this type of mix and match dosing for booster shots.

COVID-19 vaccines are working well to prevent severe illness, hospitalization, and death, even against the widely circulating Delta variant. However, studies show that vaccination may become less effective over time, especially in preventing infection or milder illness and in people over 65 years old. Booster doses provide necessary additional protection against waning immunity. All eligible individuals are encouraged to get booster shots.

As I previously reported, The NJ Department of Health and Vault Medical Services have partnered to offer a free, at-home COVID-19 saliva test kit that is available to every New Jerseyan who thinks they need a test – even if you don't have symptoms. For additional information and to order a free test kit, visit https://learn.vaulthealth.com/nj/

Although there are no numerical limits for indoor and outdoor gatherings, I ask everyone to use good judgement to help save lives and prevent the spread of COVID-19 as the new Omicron variant is highly contagious. We are experiencing many breakthrough cases with the Delta and Omicron variant.

Remember you can be an asymptomatic carrier even when fully vaccinated so taking precautions protects you, your family, and the community.

COVID-19 remains a threat, particularly at indoor gatherings with unvaccinated individuals. Follow the safety tips from the CDC and the NJ Department of Health to protect yourself and avoid putting your loved ones at risk...

Dean B. Kazinci

Township Manager

~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Please read the full Press Release here

Teaneck Library Services and Schedule have been altered due to COVID: See updated schedule

SEE THE SCHEDULE

Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 6:30pm

Public access by approval of the Chair only - contact Town Clerk.

Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:30pm

Public access by approval of the Chair only - contact Town Clerk.

Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 8:00pm

Neither the zoom link nor agenda for this meeting were available by Close Of Business on Friday 1/7/2022.

Notes:  Of the three Town Meetings this week, the public is invited only to the Planning Board. And for that meeting, neither a zoom link nor an agenda has been provided as Teaneck Voices goes to press.

Teaneck Voices believes that the Town Council should reverse course and amend its Advisory Board Ordinance (15-2020) to specify that all of the Town’s advisory board meetings should be open to the public and provide opportunity for public input at every meeting.

Teaneck Voices further believes that agendas for all public meetings should be available days before each meeting, with sufficient information to allow the public to understand what will be discussed, and where that information will be available. Currently, such information is often available less than 24 hours before the meeting – if at all.

Events at the Library: Click here