Charting the Goings-On in 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”
//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.
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.”
Continue reading “Combatting Misinformation: Stop & Shop (American Legion Drive)”
//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?
Let’s start with some basic facts:
(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.
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”
//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!
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.
Letter from LWV to Bergen County:
//For the first time, residents of NJ were able to vote in-person, before election day in various spots throughout the county.
Continue reading “Early Voting: A brief overview of the early data”
//PRESS RELEASE
Mayor’s Statement on Referendum Questions 1 and 2:
November 4, 2021
It is now clear that the majority of township voters who cast their ballots on November 2, 2021 chose to move our Council elections from May to November. Voters also voted in the majority to have the township pursue energy aggregation opportunities for our residents. Thus, the 2022 council elections will convert to Bergen County control in November, rather than the traditional month of May. Continue reading “Mayor’s Statement on Referendum Questions 1 and 2”
//Here’s what I know as of 7am on 11/3:
The ability of the County to add 3 numbers and provide a “Total” does not appear to be a thing.
The County has results of various sorts listed here:
As per the “Unofficial General Election Results link, the winners are currently Klein, Rodriguez and Greene.
But….
The link appears to only show two of the sets of numbers above. There are three:
Adding the election day totals and early voting totals appears to give the results that the County is currently posting on their site and that I posted last night.
When adding the Vote by Mail at the link above, the results change:
Why didn’t the County add the VBM to the results?
Were these all of the VBMs?
Are there more VBMs coming in?
These are open questions and I do not yet have the answers. But these are the links and numbers available thus far.
//By Mayor Jim Dunleavy
Teaneck Voters have started going to the Polls to vote for our Governor, Senate and Assembly Candidates, Board of Education Members, and State & municipal questions. I wanted to explain why I am opposed to both municipal questions.
Question 1 calls for the township to move our Council elections to November, joining the BoE, county, state, and federal elections, and questions on one ballot. I have heard the reasons being primarily to increase access. It is important to note that access to the polls in NJ follows the same rules for May and November Elections. Others mention the change could lead to increasing the number of votes cast in our elections. While certainly more people come to the polls in November, especially in presidential election years, the data show that the majority, unfortunately, do not vote down the ballot to local issues. I would submit that yes, they are coming to the polls, but not because they want to vote in their local elections.
I believe the move Question 1 is asking for has more political rather than altruistic motives.
Remember, BoE elections were moved to the Fall when then-Governor Christie waved the carrot of not having to get their budget approved via voter referendum, allowing the District to raise school taxes up to 2% per year without direct review of the voters. The change was not to increase voter turnout, but to control finances. I believe the move Question 1 is asking for has more political rather than altruistic motives. Some have stated what others have been thinking, that more votes will result in a different outcome for certain candidates – namely, those candidates that the group who petitioned for this referendum wish to retain. We have seen many different sets of statistics regarding this proposal, but my vision of Teaneck is not one where our residents are put in a position where local elections are an afterthought. Having attention split between our local candidates and questions amid state and federal elections does not allow the Teaneck voter to focus on what we need to decide for ourselves. This type of conflict is not necessary. We will also lose the ability to design the ballot for our township elections, a factor that has contributed to the issues with early voting on the new voting machines. A ballot that covers several pages that the voter has to scroll through is not progress. These new machines will be the ones used in future elections. It may also be worth noting that since 10 years have passed, a group has been seeking support for moving the BoE elections back to the Spring, enabling better options for budgeting for the sake of the students. Obviously, this would also let the public have greater input and control of their school priorities.
my vision of Teaneck is not one where our residents are put in a position where local elections are an afterthought
Question 2 calls for the township to pursue an energy aggregation supplier in the hopes of increasing renewable energy in Teaneck and the state. I do not know about you, but the more I read, the more confusing this system is. Some key questions every voter needs to ask themselves:
– The township and four other New Jersey towns are being targeted by Food and Water Watch, an international environmental group that is supporting the referendum efforts. Part of their activities includes soliciting dollars for their PAC, which, anecdotally, I have heard, has already started. In addition, a recent report from a fact-checking organization, Food and Water Watch – Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com) states:
“Overall, we rate Food and Water Watch left biased based on environmental positions that always favor the left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to not always adhering to the consensus of science and the use of poor sourcing techniques.”
– Our current chair and a previous chair of the environmental commission have already stated their misgivings about the program and both recommend against it at this time.
In conclusion, we have a program proposal that is confusing, does not guarantee savings and incentivizes profits which inhibit the creation of renewable energy sources in New Jersey.
This will not affect our environment here in Teaneck.
Instead, we need to fully examine whether this is right for Teaneck. Realize also that this is not the only chance to enter into an energy aggregation program.
Do not feel time pressure. We can start it at any time without a referendum when we see that it is right for Teaneck.
Like you, I want all the sources of our energy to be renewable. However, when I see PSEG pouring billions into meeting their goal of a 50% reduction in their carbon footprint by 2030, 5 years earlier than the state goal along with township initiatives such as putting in electric charging stations, I see better in-state solutions that will have more positive impacts on our environment here in Teaneck and New Jersey. Seeing our money going to out-of-state energy providers with no impact on our environment is not what we need.
//There are 2 Municipal Questions on the Ballot this year.
Question #1: Moving the date of Council Elections
Question #2: Community Choice Aggregation.
//These days, there’s a lot of misinformation and it’s very hard to know what to believe.
For Municipal Question #2, Community Choice Aggregation, here are the experts:
“I think it’s important we’re careful with our language. Community Choice Aggregation [CCA is Municipal Question #2] will not improve the environment of Teaneck. It will support renewable energy credit swaps which overall, in the long term, can help mitigate climate change. The more that we’re encouraging renewable energies um – and I think for the broader environment – absolutely makes a huge difference.
But it’s not gonna affect Teaneck’s environment, in any way um — measurable way.
Joseph Gillers
Chair, Teaneck Environmental Commission
(October 20, 2021)
“What seems like a good idea, with a very small actual impact on climate change, is structured in such a way that a small group of former utility officials stand to benefit handsomely if this legislation passes for a dubious amount of actual work. That seems wrong to me. There are far better ways to incentivize local green energy purchases than enriching people who were once the regulators and grouped NJ with the highest polluting states, all coal dependent. We need a disinterested 3rd party to analyze this and given the animosity between the Council majority and proponents on both of these measures, it is hard to see how this helps or hurts. At this point, I would vote NO, but reserve judgment on the idea itself.”
Michael Rogovin
Former Chair, Teaneck Environmental Commission
(October 22, 2021)
