Well, that didn’t take long.
We hadn’t even had the second reading on our flag ordinance policy1 yet (that took place at our September 10th meeting this evening), and we already got the first threat of a lawsuit — from an individual demanding we also raise a pro-life flag.
For those that haven’t been flowing the issue closely: Continue reading “On advice of counsel….”
In my previous post (Sidewalks – the deal you didn’t know you made), I discussed some of the origins of our sidewalk codes and explained a little bit about the deal residents made to repair them if they became a hazard.
In this post, I want to focus a little bit on how our municipal code operates and the norms that existed when certain provisions were created.
The importance of Norms
While it’s clear that residents who wanted sidewalks, agreed to fix them if they fell into disrepair, problems became apparent from the start. New residents would buy homes and discover they had to fix sidewalk slabs, coming to council for relief.
Here is how Councilman Haggerty described the problem in January of 1948: Continue reading “The code was meant to be a shield, but someone is using it as a sword”
At some point in the past, the township passed a rule to prohibit businesses from operating on the first floor of buildings. Not only could they not operate, say, in a basement — but they had to be seen from the street.
Maybe this provision made sense at some point in time. It has become pointless today.
Whether or not it made sense when the provision was last tinkered with (in 1951) is debatable, but it appears that I’m not the first person to think this is pointless and counter-productive. Teaneck also considered it pointless in 1973.
That’s the year that the Teaneck Council passed ordinance 1568, which reads in relevant part:
Continue reading “Why re-codification of the Teaneck Code is important”
Section 3. That Sec. 5-14 entitled “Buildings to be open to public view” and Sec. 5-15 entitled “Business to be conducted at street level; exception as to bowling alleys” of said Chapter 5 entitled “Amusements” be deleted in their entirety“. (emphasis added)
There’s a new kid-friendly establishment coming to Teaneck, but not if State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg has anything to say about it.
Senator Loretta Weinberg, in her capacity as our representative, has sued the Township and a business trying to open up in “her” building (full complaint available below).
The tenant, Teaneck Speedway LLC wishes to put in two amenities:
1) Slot-Car Racing tracks and 2) a Mini-Bowling area. (The latter is kind of a mix between skee-ball and bowling)
Here’s what it will look like: Continue reading “[UPDATE x2] [LAWSUIT] Senator Weinberg to Teaneck Business: Not in my backyard!”