Category: Elections

Teaneck Cannabis Survey: Why Haven’t Results Been Released?

Keith Kaplan / / Development, Elections, Health, Ordinances, Teaneck

Until today, results from the survey conducted by the Cannabis Subcommittee have never been published.

  • Who created the Cannabis Survey and sent it out to residents?
  • Who created the Cannabis Forum at the Rodda Center?
  • Who directed employees to attend/work at the event?

The answers matter because the Council may only act as a body, not as individuals or even a subcommittee (a group of 1-3 members of the council formed to discuss issues)

“It is the intention of this article that the municipal council shall act in all the matters as a body, and it is contrary to the spirit of this article for any of its members to seek individually to influence the official acts of the municipal manager… The council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the manager and shall not give orders to any subordinates of the manager, either publicly or privately.”
source: NJ Rev Stat § 40:69A-91

Sebastian Castillo

On April 5, 2022, Mr. Sebastian Castillo appeared before Council to give a presentation as to why the Township should grant him a letter authorizing him to apply for a license to open a Cannabis Dispensary in Teaneck. [video]

In Resolution 106-2022, the Council granted Mr. Castillo local support for the granting of a license to his company, Galaxy Express NJ, LLC.

Mr. Castillo continued coming to council meetings through December, requesting zoning expansion (beyond Alfred Avenue) for Cannabis dispensaries.

Then, after the new Council was seated in January, Mr. Castillo wrote to the Cannabis Subcommittee indicating that he created a google form, which they could use to determine whether the residents were willing to see an expansion of Cannabis zoning for retail stores.

Through an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request, you can see he email below.  The link for the form is still active and is available on archive.org.

The Survey and the Forum

As you may be aware, the council sent out this survey earlier this year, seeking resident comments regarding cannabis zoning in Teaneck.
(Note: The original municipal page with the survey has been deleted from the Township website, but is available here via archive.org)
The survey link indicates it is no longer open or available:

“The form Township of Teaneck | Cannabis Zoning Survey | January 2023 is no longer accepting responses.”

That survey had raised many questions (see our former Mayor Dunleavy’s post here), and Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests seeking to find the derivation of the survey have thus far gone unanswered (the post will be updated if any additional responses are received).

Deputy Mayor Danielle Gee promoted the forum as well as the survey

Cannabis Survey Results (obtained via OPRA):

Should the zoning for cannabis be expanded beyond Alfred Avenue?
For Cultivation:Yes325No638
33.7%66.3%
For Manufacturer:Yes317No646
32.9%67.1%
For Wholesale:Yes315No648
32.7%67.3%
For Distribution:Yes331No632
34.4%65.6%
For Retail:Yes376No587
39.0%61.0%
For Delivery:Yes354No609
36.8%63.2%
Are you in favor of limiting the number of each type of license?Yes677No286
70.3%29.7%

So what happened to the survey?

Residents questioned the validity of the survey and forum held by the township.  Some sought information about cannabis zoning/council actions on Facebook.  In response, the husband of Deputy Mayor Danielle Gee indicated:

“Just to be clear, only Mayor Pagan, CW Goldberg, and CW Belcher along with the Manager etc were involved in planning this forum.”
(source)

This again raised several questions, namely:

  1. Who planned the forum?
  2. Did the Subcommittee take action outside of a council meeting?
  3. Who directed town personnel to hold the forum?
  4. Was the Council involved in the decision to hold the forum?

 

The clerk’s office responded:

“This was discussed at the Jan. 10, 2023 Meeting. The subcommittee report and accompanying minutes may be found here: http://teanecktownnj.iqm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx
This the record responsive to this portion of the request.”

The minutes for the first three meetings held this year did not indicate any vote for the survey, its language, or the forum (page 24 of the minutes from the 1/10 meeting indicates it was already scheduled).  So who is running the show?

An email from Councilwoman Goldberg states:

“The current cannabis subcommittee planned and executedthe successful Town Hall which tookplace on January 25th at the Rodda Center, with more than 100 attendees in person andonline, marking the first such event held by the township in several years. Thank you again toDean, Tom Rowe, Doug, Ronn Goodman, MIS, and the panelists and participants for all of thehard work that went into planning and executing the event.” (emphasis added)

also from the Goldberg email:

“Additionally, a google doc survey was created by the cannabis subcommittee and shared with residents.  Several
hundred people submitted their responses and the results are still being collected and reviewed by the subcommittee.
The feedback we have received from the town hall, the survey, comments at good and welfare, conversations andemails from residents and stakeholders, as well as consultation with experts including our planner and the explorationof retaining legal counsel will all be used to determine next steps.” (emphasis added)

and

[W]e have asked the attorney to draft an ordinance to limit publicconsumption of cannabis in public spaces.”

The subcommittee, apparently through some authority has:

  1. Planned and executed events on behalf of the municipality including the direction of township personnel
  2. Created documents sent and shared with residents
  3. Directed the town attorney to draft ordinances

 

SIX MONTHS LATER: Where are the survey results?

Teaneck Today submitted an OPRA request and received the survey results (which included some data on the individuals filling out the survey).  Using emails and IP address info, along with a review of responses, it appears that several people submitted the survey results multiple times, making any assertions from the survey’s results, problematic.

Council Minutes from August 8, 2023, indicate “Cannabis” was a closed-session discussion topic.

 

Should the zoning for cannabis be expanded beyond Alfred Avenue?
For Cultivation:Yes325No638
33.7%66.3%
For Manufacturer:Yes317No646
32.9%67.1%
For Wholesale:Yes315No648
32.7%67.3%
For Distribution:Yes331No632
34.4%65.6%
For Retail:Yes376No587
39.0%61.0%
For Delivery:Yes354No609
36.8%63.2%
Are you in favor of limiting the number of each type of license?Yes677No286
70.3%29.7%
Percentage
Total Number of Responses981
Unique Responses963
Individuals Identified40642.16%
Individuals Not Identified55557.63%
Number of ResponsesPercentage
District 163.20%0.80%
District 263.20%0.80%
District 3137.00%1.80%
District 4137.00%1.80%
District 521.10%0.30%
District 652.70%0.70%
District 7115.90%1.50%
District 8126.50%1.60%
District 91910.20%2.60%
District 10168.60%2.20%
District 11147.50%1.90%
District 12147.50%1.90%
District 1321.10%0.30%
District 1410.50%0.10%
District 1563.20%0.80%
District 1600.00%0.00%
District 1742.20%0.50%
District 18158.10%2.00%
District 1994.80%1.20%
District 2084.30%1.10%
District 2131.60%0.40%
District 2273.80%0.90%
District 2300.00%0.00%
Unknown55574.90%
Totals
Township of Teaneck Cannabis Survey Jan. 2023 Results(1)(1)_Redacted_Redacted

2023 Teaneck BOE Ballot Positions

Keith Kaplan / / Board of Education, Elections

The Bergen County Clerk has chosen Ballot Positions for the Teaneck Board of Education Race

The ballot positions will be:

  1. Gerald B. Kirshenbaum (Achieving Excellence Together)
  2. David Gruber (Achieving Excellence Together)
  3. James Wolff (Achieving Excellence Together)
  4. Nadia Hosein (Excellence Progress Equity)
  5. Seleene Raquel Wong (Excellence Progress Equity)
  6. Jose Zenon (Excellence Progress Equity)

 

Best of luck to everyone participating.

You can watch the drawing for ballot placement below

August 2023 Energy Aggregation Update

Keith Kaplan / / Elections, Ordinances, Teaneck

If you wish hard enough, you too can be an environmentalist…

The voters in Teaneck went to the polls to decide whether or not we should join the Community Energy Aggregation program.  The vote was overwhelmingly approved, and Teaneck joined the program immediately saving money but because third-party energy is a constantly changing target, pricing was affected by factors such as the war initiated by Russia, supply, and demand, as well as a plethora of other factors.

The Sustainable Essex Alliance (SEA) announced that it awarded a contract for Round 2 of the program to Energy Harbor, the low bidder, for a 17-month contract which began in April 2021 (through September 2022).

Under the new contract with Energy Harbor, the baseline product will again provide participating residents with power supply that has nearly double the renewable energy content required of PSE&G, at a price of $0.12696/kWh, which is below the current average Basic Generation Service tariff price of PSE&G.

Part of the problem unique to Teaneck is the threshold values. Continue reading “August 2023 Energy Aggregation Update”

Wayne Puppies took Hillary Goldberg to Court. What happened next might shock you…

Keith Kaplan / / Elections, Ordinances, Teaneck

UPDATE: Judge denies motion brought by [Councilwoman] Hillary Goldberg, to dismiss the action.
(note: Ms. Goldberg was sued in her individual capacity)

UPDATE 2: Counsel for Ms. Goldberg sent a response***.  It is appended below in full.

UPDATE 3: Teaneck’s Township manager sent a response****.  It is appended below in full.

UPDATE 4: Hillary Goldberg submitted an Answer, Demand for Discovery and Jury Demand on June 5th.

A request for comment was sent to all parties and the post may be updated with replies

For those unfamiliar with the saga that is Wayne Puppies, Teaneck, I will offer a brief recap:

  • 2018: Teaneck banned the sale of dogs and cats in retail stores*.
  • 2021: Wayne Puppies (which has existed in Wayne, NJ for some time) sought to create a “store” on Cedar Lane.  That store would sell dog supplies, food, etc… and would house puppies too young for sale (which would eventually go to the Wayne location when appropriate).

“All puppies will be delivered approx. at the gestational age of 8 weeks and will be thoroughly checked by a licensed veterinarian before classifying as fit for sale. If at any case the animal is not fit for sale, we will set the animal for adoption. The puppies will continue to be under veterinary supervision for weekly checkups. The only supply sold in our store will be the same pet food (wet and dry) that is used in our store to feed the puppies with.”
– email from Alexandra Hofman, owner of Wayne Puppies to Teaneck Zoning Officer dated 9/9/21

The idea was a sort of “take a look at this doggie in the window… and buy it elsewhere” type model.

  • The Township initially gave Wayne Puppies a certificate of occupancy, with the understanding of all parties that they could not sell animals in Teaneck.

Description of Work / Use:
LIVE PET STORE – PUPPIES ONLY AS PER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED THROUGH 10-20-2021.
NO SALE OF LIVE CATS OR DOGS PERMITTED
PER SEC. 6-68

  • 2022: The plaintiff alleges that the Township eventually changed positions and the company sued Teaneck and Hillary Goldberg, claiming:

“…the Township of Teaneck is not entitled to any deference in its revocation of its approval of the business plan as it was not based on an interpretation of any statute or Code, but rather based on outside forces, including political pressure placed on the Township members; especially with an election upcoming in November 2022.”
– Complaint at paragraph 39

Why Hillary Goldberg?

According to the complaint, while running for a seat on the council, [now Councilwoman] Hillary Goldberg is alleged to have created a petition on change.org which the plaintiff (Wayne Puppies) claimed was not only defamatory but done in order to raise her position as a candidate.

Hilary Goldberg Defames Wayne Puppies to Gain a Political Advantage:
(emphasis in original)

In the legal action (a copy of the docket is available here), attorneys for Ms. Goldberg sought to dismiss the case, saying that nothing Ms. Goldberg said was, in fact, defamatory or created tortious interference.

The claims made against Ms. Goldberg include:

  • Defamation
  • Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations
  • Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advance

 

Ms. Goldberg filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, contending that:

  • The mischaracterization of the Petition is in bad faith and further proves that Plaintiff’s defamation claim is meritless.
  • The fact that Plaintiff specifies that the only alleged interference was with prospective clients demonstrates that no actual contracts existed for Ms. Goldberg to interfere with and this claim must be dismissed as a matter of law.
  • Ms. Goldberg’s actions are not malicious and do not meet the necessary requirements to be deemed tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage.

The full briefing of the motion is available below.

 

The plaintiff (Wayne Puppies) states in their opposition to Goldberg’s motion to dismiss:

“Goldberg’s argument reminds me of my childhood teachers accusing “someone” of wrongdoing, staring right at them, and stating “I am not naming names, but you know who you are.” The purpose of the petition is clear, and it was not to simply argue the virtues of adoption. Instead, it was a targeted and purposeful attack on Wayne Puppies, that amounts to actionable defamation.”
– Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

In response, Goldberg states in reply:

“Folksy wisdom aside, this is what is required for a defamation claim as a matter of law, and thus, Ms. Goldberg’s Motion to Dismiss must be granted.

“Unfortunately for Plaintiff, this motion will be decided in a New Jersey Court, not in counsel’s former elementary school. Here, where the Change.org petition does not actually make the alleged defamatory statements about Wayne Puppies, this motion to dismiss must be granted.””
– Reply to Motion to Dismiss

The motion was indeed heard and decided in a New Jersey Court on May 26th.

Unfortunately for Hillary Goldberg, the motion to dismiss the complaint was denied (for the reasons stated on the record**)

A request was sent to all parties to obtain the reasons stated on the record and the post will be updated with additional information / replies / comments.

Stay tuned.

June 5, 2023: An answer was submitted by Hillary Goldberg

* At the time this law was passed, I objected to the passage because it was poorly written and could would lead to a scenario such as this one.
** I was not able to watch the proceedings (held via zoom) because they took place over a religious holiday.  I did reach out to all sides of the litigation to request the video/transcript as well as if they had any comment on the decision.  I will post any responses received, in full, under this post.

***  At 4:40pm on 5/30/2023, Counsel for Ms. Goldberg, John Coyle responded to my request for comment:

Hi there:

This is John Coyle, counsel for Ms. Goldberg.

When Wayne Puppies was not able to open up in Teaneck, it filed this frivolous lawsuit against Ms. Goldberg, the Town, and others.  Against Ms. Goldberg, the Complaint claims she defamed it by calling Wayne Puppies a “puppy mill.”
However, counsel for Wayne Puppies admitted that at no point in the Change.org petition did Hillary Goldberg actually say that Wayne Puppies was a puppy mill.  Despite this, he argued to the Court that people who read the petition would have thought she meant it about Wayne Puppies and the motion to dismiss was denied.
It is undisputed that the New Jersey Attorney General found that Wayne Puppies committed 27 violations of the Pet Purchase Protection Act for its failure to adhere to laws designed to protect consumers from purchasing unhealthy pets.
The truth is the ultimate defense in a defamation action.  We fully expect Ms. Goldberg and all defendants to be vindicated and this frivolous lawsuit to ultimately be dismissed.
John D. Coyle, Esq.
COYLE & MORRIS LLP
201 Littleton Road, Suite 210
Morris Plains, NJ 07950
T: 973.370.3519

****  At 8:50am on 5/31/2023, Township Manager Dean Kazinci responded to my request for comment:

Good morning. The Township possesses no record/transcript regarding the motion recently heard in Court on the matter involving Ms. Goldberg as a private citizen. Also, the Township does not comment on pending litigation in which we’re listed as a defendant.

Thanks,

Dean B. Kazinci, CPM CHR
Township Manager
Township of Teaneck
818 Teaneck Road
Teaneck, NJ 07666
201-837-1600 ext. 1001

Has the Teaneck Cannabis Subcommittee been operating in violation of State law?

Keith Kaplan / / Development, Elections

Who created the Cannabis Survey and sent it out to residents?
Who created the Cannabis Forum at the Rodda Center?
Who directed employees to attend / work at the event?

The answers matter, because Council may only act as a body, not as individuals or even a subcommittee (a group of 1-3 members of council formed to discuss issues)

“It is the intention of this article that the municipal council shall act in all the matters as a body, and it is contrary to the spirit of this article for any of its members to seek individually to influence the official acts of the municipal manager… The council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the manager and shall not give orders to any subordinates of the manager, either publicly or privately.”
source: NJ Rev Stat § 40:69A-91

Continue reading “Has the Teaneck Cannabis Subcommittee been operating in violation of State law?”

Election Results: November 2022

Keith Kaplan / / Elections, Teaneck

The “unofficial” results from the town are below.

Note: These do not include Early Voting or VBM, which will be added in by the County (not all numbers are yet available on their site).

But the “live” numbers (available here) seem to include the early voting totals.  Based on this data, it would appear that at least 3 of the challengers Continue reading “Election Results: November 2022”

Combatting Misinformation: Stop & Shop (American Legion Drive)

Keith Kaplan / / Development, Elections, Ordinances, Teaneck

In my previous post, I spoke about misinformation regarding bonding and how taxation works for various projects.  Today, I want to speak to the projects contemplated for Stop & Shop, American Legion Drive, and Cedar Lane.

  • Fact: Teaneck wants and has always wanted, Stop & Shop to stay and thrive (and even expand) in its current location.
  • Fact: Teaneck never asked or pressured Stop & Shop to close or move; Stop & Shop is not looking to close or move.
  • Fact: Other than concepts discussed by the parties, no plans exist for the area and no plans have been approved either by the Council or the Planning Board.
  • Fact: Any future plans for the area are still subject to many open public meetings, with legal notice
  • Fact: All plans being contemplated are voluntary to help businesses in the area.

So what’s been happening with Stop & Shop?

Of all the issues I speak to residents about, this may be one where the most misinformation is being spread.

Let’s talk about what’s been happening here.

Most people agree that we want a robust Stop & Shop that serves the needs of the town.  At that point, the rumors spread like wildfire.

On the Township Website, Stop & Shop & the Township posted a joint statement:

“Stop & Shop, in conjunction with the Township of Teaneck, is issuing this memo in the hope of dispelling the rumors circulating in the community that Stop & Shop’s Teaneck store might close.  The Township never asked or pressured Stop & Shop to close its store and Stop & Shop is not looking to close or move from its present Teaneck location on American Legion Drive.”

So what is the Town trying to do?

Continue reading “Combatting Misinformation: Stop & Shop (American Legion Drive)”

Combatting Misinformation: Bonding

Keith Kaplan / / Elections, Teaneck

One area which has a lot of people sharing misinformation is Municipal Bonding.
FACT: Teaneck’s Bonding Ratio is the lowest of neighboring municipalities (links to State numbers below).

Bonding or municipal debt is a terrific thing when used appropriately. The current council has one of the lowest bonding percentages compared with neighboring towns and comparisons to other parts of your tax bill show the benefits.

Let’s explain the basics:

For the following three projects, would you prefer the Town / BOE tax or bond the items?

  1. 5.35 miles of road repaving (cost is approx. $1M per mile)
  2. $5.35M for Renovation of Kindergarten Building & Admin Offices by Thomas Jefferson Middle School

Let’s start with some basic facts:

  • Value of all land in Teaneck (as of 10/01/2020): $5,188,972,400
  • Value of Average Residential Assessment: $387,405
    • Percentage of total land value: .007466%

(stats from “User-Friendly budget” available on Township website)

Share of each $5.35M project for the average homeowner = $399.43

The $399.43 can be paid through the tax levy (all at once) or bonded (at near-zero interest) to be paid back over decades.

Bonding a project or paying for it through direct levy is a policy and financial decision that affects YOU!

So what would you prefer? Pay it all now or $19.97 a year for 20 years?

Let’s see how it works for two theoretical homeowners (you and a neighbor)

As you can see below, by bonding for roads, we pay them over time.  If you choose to move, you only paid for the period you lived in Teaneck and used the item.  But when the Kindergarten renovations and BOE Offices were taxed directly through the local levy, you paid all of it — in 2019 dollars, despite the fact you may not have intended to live here the following 20 years.

Interest Rates Matter Continue reading “Combatting Misinformation: Bonding”

That’s Not An Election Law Violation; THIS Is An Election Law Violation

Michael Pagan / / Elections, Teaneck

It’s “Silly Season” again when people start thinking up scurrilous attacks to throw around.

First, out of the gate, this year goes to Margot Embree Fisher through the local chapter of LWV of Teaneck, where she sits in violation of the by-laws of her own organization:

[It’s a shame that an organization with such a wonderful national presence has been reduced to sniping like this on the local level, but here we are]

The LWV Teaneck chapter sent a letter (see pdf below) to the Bergen County clerk claiming that last November Councilmember Keith Kaplan “was inside and outside of the Rodda Center polling place “for much of the early voting week” and that he “was talking with voters and handing out business cards inside the 100-foot boundary set for purposes of preventing electioneering.”

Of course, he was.

Residents at the time were writing me and other council members personally and posting all over social media about — all sorts of problems — they were having with the new touchscreen voting machines.  So he and others went to see what was going on and talk to the people running the show.

Councilman Kaplan met with Howard Cramer, the representative from Dominion Voting and he gave out his card (link).  Kaplan gave him back his own.  We also met with the head of Bergen County’s Board of Elections, Richard Miller.  He too gave us his card and we gave him one of ours.  Knowing the rules, if a resident asked to speak with one of us, we told them it wasn’t the right place to talk about such things, but they could email and we could talk another time.  I gave them a business card too.

These are intimidation tactics now?

Maybe the local LWV is just so successful they routed out all nefarious conduct?

But that’s not true, you see!

Because this actually *IS* a violation of NJ Election Law, only it’s not Kaplan violating it.  It’s LWV board member, Margot Embree Fisher (who was on the ballot that day, too!

Watch Margot Embree Fisher chatting up voters on the way in to vote IN THE PROHIBITED ZONE, in the district where she was on the ballot:

But there was an allegation that someone else did the bad stuff.  Who made that allegation?

From the police report filed by Officer Apreda that day:

Officer Apreda responded to the polling place after police dispatch fielded a telephone call from a concerned resident who reported harrassment occurring within the polling location. The caller, Margaret Fisher, was not located upon Officer Apreda’s arrival.

and

Shortly thereafter, I contacted Ms. Fisher via telephone. She informed me that she did not observe any acts of harassment or electioneering. She stated that she heard of Mr. Kaplan’s presence at the Rodda Center from an unidentified third party, and contacted headquarters because she was concerned that he would engage in these acts based on her estimation of his past history. I advised Ms. Fisher, who wished to retract her involvement, that any witnesses or victims of the alleged acts could contact the police department.

Got it – so the person doing actual violations called in a report to send armed agents of the State to attack someone who campaigns against her.

I join the LWVT’s call for routing out election law scofflaws.  But you might want to look in your own ranks, first.

Like I said: It’s silly season.

Letter from LWV to Bergen County: