Rt. 4 upgrades coming at Decatur Ave.

In September, the Township manager sent a letter to the NJ Department of Transportation regarding the unsafe condition of the Route 4 Decatur Avenue ramps.

Manager Kazinci just received word that the NJ Department of Transportation has agreed to widen and reconstruct the ramps on Route 4 by Decatur Avenue to accommodate traffic.

Updates Schedule for Spring, 2020

The interim changes should be in place next spring.  The Township will work with the NJ DOT and provide updates as the date gets closer.

Traffic Study Sceduled

A traffic study will also be performed to ensure “the site is brought into conformance with all state and national roadway standards”.

(click below for DOT letter)

Continue reading “Rt. 4 upgrades coming at Decatur Ave.”

A Developing Story in Teaneck

I took this picture this morning at the corner of State Street and Teaneck Road.

In the foreground on the left is the pre-war apartments by Lozier Place.
On the right in the background is 1500 Teaneck Road.

Both appear very similar in height and other than the new materials, neither looks like a stark departure from what is already found in the area.

The 1500 Teaneck Road project (see schematics here) will add approximately $1,160,000 in taxes each year, with additional money going towards municipal open space.

It will also create 23 new affordable housing units (1-bedroom (4), 2-bedroom (14) and 3-bedroom (5).

It will also contain 435 parking spaces.

(additional info can be found here)

Of note is the previous condition of 1500 Teaneck Road.  Notice the numerous broken windows in the dilapidated structure that lined the neighborhood for years and years.

This is a wonderful addition to the community, will create foot traffic for our business districts and make Teaneck a more desirable place to live.

Dog-Whistle Politics? An Open Question for Teaneck’s A Team

One of the benefits to running on a slate is that you get to work on coordinating messaging.
Below are the responses from “The A Team” to questions posed by the League of Women Voters.

Question: Who is this certain “demographic” that will create an inability to meet the demands of the changing “demographic” due to the change in “demographics“?


  • Linda Burns:

3.  What impact do you anticipate the influx of new apartment development will have on the Teaneck public schools and how should the district plan for this?

The Teaneck school district commissioned a study to gauge the impact of the near-term development projects on our school system and both have found that we can currently absorb the estimated 150 or so children expected to arrive. However, although the apartment complexes are being marketed as ‘luxury’ apartments with the expectation that a certain demographic will be renting them, there are no guarantees that those in the market for luxury apartments will indeed be the ones that rent those units. Currently, one of the completed projects is having difficulty renting out their units at the amount of rent they are asking for. In addition, the Pre-K program could be a pipeline to increase overall enrollment in the district. Therefore, I think that long term planning should allow for the possibility that enrollment will increase over time.

What demographic are you referring to here, Ms. Burns?

  • Denise Sanders

2.  What do you see as benefits and/ or challenges of offering Pre-K?

Although there is controversy about whether Pre-K programs are beneficial, it doesn’t mean there is no value in a high-quality Pre-K program. In a diverse community like Teaneck, we need to seriously look at implementing programs that work to elevate the academic achievement of all students with different learning styles. While the long -term benefits of Pre-K have mixed results, we believe that by appropriately supporting students as they move through our school system, students will be the beneficiaries of a world- class education. In addition, Pre-K provides high quality childcare for young parents helping to make Teaneck become a sought-after community for new families. A significant challenge would be the inability to meet the demands of the changing demographic groups attending Teaneck schools.

What demographic changes are you referring to, Ms. Sanders?

  • Sebastian Rodriguez

3.  What impact do you anticipate the influx of new apartment development will have on the Teaneck public schools and how should the district plan for this?

Based on the reports I have read, in terms of children attending the public schools the effect seems to be minimal, about 60 children. The numbers, spread among different ages/grades will have an insignificant impact on class size. So from that aspect, I expect a positive impact. On the other hand, anytime you have a change in the demographics of any community it is important for the newcomers, as well the people who already reside there to find ways to get to know each other and work together to continue to improve the community.

What demographic changes are you referring to, Mr. Rodriguez?

Enough with the politics of division.  We need board members that will work collaboratively for everyone’s benefit.

[Video] 2019 Northeast Teaneck BPA Forum for BOE Candidates

Last night the Northeast Teaneck Block Presidents Association held a candidate forum for the Board of Education election on November 5th..

Video of the forum has been posted courtesy of Allison Davis

North East Teaneck Block Presidents’ Association Forum from Allison Davis on Vimeo.

Keith Kaplan: Please join me in support of Martin Ramirez and Yassine Elkaryani for BOE on 11/5

[Video] 2019 Voters’ Guide: Teaneck Board of Education Election Questionnaire from the League of Women Voters of Teaneck

Keith Kaplan: Please join me in support of Martin Ramirez and Yassine Elkaryani for BOE on 11/5

On November 5th, please join me in supporting incumbent Board of Education Trustee Martin Ramirez (Column 3) and Yassine Elkaryani (Column 5).

Vote for Team #RAMirez🐏 and #ELKaryani🦌 on November 5th!


As a child of a public school teacher, I’ve always been taught the importance of a strong and vibrant school system.

As a product of the NJ public schools, I am the beneficiary of those strong schools and understand the need to maintain scholastic excellence.

But perhaps most important of all, as a parent of a child in our public schools, I have the same vested interest we all should, in ensuring that our kids have the benefit of those best capable of stewarding the school system into the future.

Marty Ramirez and Yassine Elkaryani have the passion, expertise and dedication necessary to confront “#LikeWeHaveAlwaysDoneIt policy-making” and kick-start a productive conversation for long-needed changes.  Changes that will enhance our children’s experiences in the classroom, without sacrificing services.

This is an important election. It is a referendum on whether the old ways, which have proven unsuccessful for far too many of our students, should be further entrenched — or it can be an opportunity for voices of those dedicated to our students’ well-being.

Check out the platforms of Mr. Ramirez and Mr. Elkaryani and please join me in sending them to the School Board on November 5th.

Keith Kaplan

Parent, Resident, Taxpayer.

Interesting Land Use Decision in Englewood

In 431 E Palisade Avenue Real Estate, LLC, et al. v. City of Englewood, a Federal Judge just ruled that the city of Englewood is not permitted to enforce its zoning rules, because plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits at trial of showing that the City’s Zoning Ordinances violate the Fair Housing act, thereby rendering them unconstitutional.  The current zoning rules  do not permit assisted living and memory-care facilities in the regular residential zones (R-AAA), which plaintiffs claim is discriminatory. Continue reading “Interesting Land Use Decision in Englewood”

[Video] 2019 Voters’ Guide: Teaneck Board of Education Election Questionnaire from the League of Women Voters of Teaneck

Thank you to the League of Women Voters of Teaneck for taking this on and providing this information to the voters.

You can see the document online here

Video of the forum has been posted courtesy of the League of Women Voters of Teaneck


League of Women Voters of Teaneck
Voters’ Guide
Board of Education 2019

Our voters’ guide questionnaire and letter of invitation to the Candidates’ Night, sponsored by LWV Teaneck, was mailed to each of the candidates for Teaneck Board of Education at the end of August. In addition to asking them about their Teaneck residency, occupation, education, family & community involvement, we asked each candidate to answer the following questions and to limit answers to a total of 500 words or less:

  1. How can the district enhance academic rigor? (List specific recommendations)
  2. What do you see as benefits and/ or challenges of offering Pre-K?
  3. What impact do you anticipate the influx of new apartment development will have on the Teaneck public schools and how should the district plan for this?
  4. Given the budgetary constraints under which the district operates, what areas would you focus on to achieve cost savings without adversely impacting instructional goals.
    The candidates’ responses follow unedited, and are in the order received:
LWV_Voters_Guid_BOE-fall-2019

 


This Voters Guide has been prepared by the League of Women Voters of Teaneck, a nonpartisan group of local residents assuring that all eligible voters have he opportunity and the information to exercise their right to vote. Our organization provides opportunities for voter registration each year, works to improve our government; studies local, state and national issues, and strives to engage all citizens in the civic decisions that could impact their lives.

A request for help and an issue of alarm

One question that comes up often, is about the difference between a resolution and an ordinance.  The State statute spells out a technical difference (click here for NJSA 40:49-1), but one simple distinction is that ordinances are forever, while resolutions expire with the council that passes it.

The “forever” aspect of ordinances has some interesting effects when the future is very different than the era in which it was passed.

If you’ve been following these posts, you’ve already seen us send ordinances forbidding residents from wearing the dress of the opposite sex off our books.  Same for ordinances requiring visual access from the street for businesses (to prevent speakeasies during prohibition), banning pinball (to protect the children) and dozens more that were so far past their expiration that it was clear someone should finally remove them from the official code-book.

But we are far from done.

There are rules and regulations that we are subject to now that have no relationship to their original purpose.  And I’d like your help identifying them.

While I’m taking suggestions — I’m by no means offering promises.

I pledge to tackle the most far reaching and burdensome suggestions first.  I will look into the original reasons for the rule and discuss the issues with current department heads.  After I get input from the departments, the manager and my colleagues on council, I’ll put forward an ordinance to tweak or repeal the old rules, if it’s deemed appropriate.


Alarm Systems

As an example, let’s take a Teaneck Code 3A-3 Registration of Alarm Systems

According to Census data, the largest population numbers appear in the 1970’s, which had several thousand more at the peak, than we have today.

Along with the rise in population, came the advent of the residential alarm system.  Unfortunately, the systems were not very reliable.  As per sources at the time, it didn’t take much to set these alarms off.

The Record (3/23/78):

“They can set these alarms off by looking at them funny,” one officer said. “The wind sets them off.”

“There were 2,336 false burglar alarms in Teaneck in 1977, and 18 over the past weekend alone. Police say there is an average of eight false alarms – each of which requires a patrolman to rush to the scene – a day in Teaneck”

Police were being dispatched immediately, and resources were being stretched thin.  Upwards of 6 to 8 false alarms were coming in every day.

In a memorandum from Police Chief Fitzpatrick to the Township manager later that year, they described the problems alarms were posing in the township.

“Through August 31st, 1977, there were a total of 1,546 accidental / false alarms, an average of 6.36 per day”

Adding to the problem, residents were even reported to be testing police response times by intentionally setting off false alarms.

To solve the issue of false alarms, an ordinance was requested, which would create a fine for false alarms (Council decided to impose this fine only after the third false alarm).

Another issue, compounding the police resource problem was the advent of automated call systems.  When an alarm would go off, some systems would “call-in” to the police department.  As per The Sunday Record on April 2, 1978:

Some remote systems have an automatic dialer which, in the event of an alarm, sends a prerecorded message over telephone lines to anyone you choose. (Do not direct the message to police without prior approval.)

Care to guess what happened next?

So, in an effort to find out who to contact, when a machine declared in robotic cadence that they must be dispatched to a particular residence, a registration requirement, indicating a telephone number where the owner and authorized contact could be found, was also included in the ordinance.

False alarms and Registration needs in 2019

Today, both requirements are still in force, as well as a subsequent requirement that all alarms stop sounding after 20 minutes.

The need to reduce false alarms is still valid and the fine (after three false alarms) is serving its purpose of deterrence.  The 20 minute deadline to shut off the alarm is more than sufficient in an era of police response times of fewer than 5 minutes.

But, do we need a registration requirement for every alarm in town?

That’s the question I sought to answer.

I asked about the number of alarms we have registered1 (it’s just 987) and the amount of money we spend processing the requests (in terms of salaried employees dealing with pen and paper renewal forms, checks for payment, etc…).  As per the police department, we don’t track individual internal costs,

But most importantly, are there any automated calls coming in, for which we need the requirement to begin with?

As it turns out, alarm companies are now calling in alarms with live operators, while simultaneously raising owners on the second line.  Further, the requirement, to the extent a handful of people abide by it, could be prohibiting people from installation of systems, which would themselves, cause a deterrence effect in terms of break-ins and thefts.

Therefore, I’m introducing this ordinance to remove the residential registration requirement.  It may have made some sense in the era of automated calls in the pre-mobile phone days, but it seems to have outlived its usefulness.

If anything, a need to have an point of contact for every homeowner may be more worthwhile.  But I’ll let someone articulate that need before I think of creating any regulations that may seem like overkill when my kids are old enough to remove unnecessary rules made today.

The cycle continues.

Let me know where I should look next.


 

  1. I requested information from the Police Chief last year when I started looking into this.  Here are some of the stats he provided as of August, 2018:
  • Number of alarms registered in town: 987
  • Administrative Cost: Unknown
  • Employees involved: The clerks in the TPD Records Bureau process the applications/violation notices and handle payments
  • Number of violations: 30 ($1050.00 collected and $750.00 billed)