The Value of Predictions

Keith Kaplan / / Board of Education, Development, Teaneck

In 2019, the Teaneck Board of Education hired Whitehall Associates, Inc. (a qualified demographer by the New Jersey Department of Education) to conduct an independent analysis of the effects of new development on the Teaneck Schools.  The analysis (available here) projected enrollments based on particular projects and to the overall school system through the 2023-24 school year.  Some of the numbers were purely projections (as the pre-k and K classes hadn’t been born yet), but the rest were based on trends and the scientific methodology as outlined in the report and consistent with NJDOE practices.

So how good were the predictions?

To find that out, I contacted Superintendent Dr. Christopher Irving and asked for information regarding the number of students in these locations.

Below is a list of the predictions from Table 4 of the report and the corresponding chart indicates how well those predictions have been borne out in reality.

Location# of Apartment
Units		Predicted #
of school age
children		Actual # of
school age
children		Difference
1500 Teaneck Road2264414-30
1775 Windsor Road (Avalon)2486328-35
890 Palisade Avenue740-4
1387 Hill Street720-2
764 New Bridge Road1910-1
1475 Palisade Avenue120284-24
227 Teaneck Road24711+4
Totals65114957-92

Out of the predicted 150 school-age children attending the Teaneck Schools, only 57 have moved into these developments.

Broken down by school, the numbers show an average of 1-2 kids per class, max.  In short, there is roughly zero impact on the top line item in the school budget: staff, based on the people moving into new developments.

School# of students
Bryant Elementary School6
AUCC‐ PK Location1
Theodora Smiley
Lacey School		4
Lowell Elementary School8
Whittier Elementary School10
Benjamin Franklin Middle School5
Thomas Jefferson Middle School2
Teaneck High School19
Out of District1
Charter School1
Total57

Teaneck BOE: Independent Demographic Study of Impact of New Development

Why Vote NO on Municipal Questions 1 & 2?

Keith Kaplan / / Board of Education, Elections, Ordinances, Teaneck

There are 2 Municipal Questions on the Ballot this year.

Question #1: Moving the date of Council Elections

  • Local elections deserve attention
  • Very little focus on local issues in November amid Presidential / Congressional races
  • Traditionally nonpartisan races were in May and Partisan Races were in November to remove crossover influence
  • While turnout can be higher in some November races, the votes for non-partisan (e.g. BOE races) do not increase proportionately as voters skip these important races.

 

Question #2: Community Choice Aggregation.

  • This proposal allows for the purchase of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to offset energy use
  • This does NOT change the energy content in our area
  • This proposal typical enriches the lobbyists that create the programs, creating bad incentives to actually create clean energy in our area
  • The PJM interchange (which handles our area) is the ONLY interchange without a majority of clean energy content
  • The current and former chair of the Teaneck Environmental Commission expressed reservations about this plan.

Follow the Science — Vote No on Municipal Question #2

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

Current and Former Chairs of the Environmental commission weigh in on the Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) proposal:

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)

OTOV: Order Entered, Appeal TBD

Keith Kaplan / / Ordinances, Teaneck

This morning Judge Wilson heard oral arguments on the OTOV petition and delivered a prepared decision from the Bench.

The order has been filed, allowing the question to proceed to the ballot in November.  The Township indicated it would appeal based on various issues.

The order appears below (the full decision hasn’t been entered on the docket.  The petitioners did not receive attorneys’ fees, so petitioners will bear their own costs.

Continue reading “OTOV: Order Entered, Appeal TBD”

OPRA and OPMA: Balancing important principles

Keith Kaplan / / Ordinances, Teaneck

The Open Public Meetings Act (“OPMA”)

Title X mandates that any meeting of the Municipality (Council or BOE) must be made in public, upon notice and with an opportunity provided to members of the public to speak on any matter they wish.

Whether at the council, Board of Education, Planning Board or Environmental Commission, there’s a chance to speak directly to those in power to decide issues, before those issues are voted upon.

But there’s another principle at play with the public’s right to speak: namely, the right of everyone to have business conducted by their elected representatives.

Imagine what would happen if someone didn’t like something the council was proposing and lined up enough people to speak for hours until we could no longer hold a vote?

In essence, it would be a veto by a filibuster (sometimes called the “heckler’s veto“).  Therefore, while I’ve rarely seen it employed, the ability to cut off speakers at a reasonable point exists, to ensure that the business of the public is properly capable of being conducted, while still protecting the right of the public to speak.

The Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”)

OPRA has a similar issue in terms of balancing priorities.

The law was enacted to enable public access to public records.  If you want to see Ordinance 33-2018, all you need to do is request it and the clerk’s office is obliged, under statutory authority to provide a copy to you within 7 days.  You can even get it via email.

OPRA is a wonderful law, in terms of moving forward with transparency.

But like OPMA, it has the ability to be abused.  We’ve seen this in the past.

The Government Research Council (“GRC“) has dealt with this as well.

In a decision on Complaint 2012-82, the GRC was asked to decide what to do when the request was for:

“All e-mails between Executive Director Mr. William Fellenberg to NJCU OPRA Officer Alfred Ramey”

You see, this isn’t asking for the email sent regarding X.  It’s just a request for everything.

OPRA is meant to allow access to public documents, but it’s not meant to enable snooping through files for anyone who wishes to do so. Continue reading “OPRA and OPMA: Balancing important principles”

Sources Matter: Demand Evidence and Question Everything

Keith Kaplan / / Meetings, Ordinances, Teaneck

In his post on Planning Board Application 2021-19, Bill Orr says that “the proposal was to build one residence on the left and another on the right of the historic home”.

Is that true?

I say it is not.

Orr claims to be “reporting local news” and information for residents.  He goes as far as to say I am “rarely a reliable source of information“.

So what is a member of the public supposed to do when we claim diametrically opposite views on a situation?

Ask for evidence and review it critically.

Case in point: The Brinckerhoff-Demarest House*

Continue reading “Sources Matter: Demand Evidence and Question Everything”

BOE Candidates on Vaccine Mandates for Staff and Mask mandates for students [Yoni Bak]

Yoni Bak / / Board of Education, Elections, Health, Teaneck

This is a guest post from reader and group member Yoni Bak.

Vaccine Mandates and Mask Requirements

I reached out on facebook to the candidates for BOE about their positions on vaccine mandates for staff and mask mandates for students. I asked in a neutral way to try & get their honest opinions. Presented without comment are the responses I received from Victoria Fisher, Lori Fein, Yassine S. Elkaryani & Rachel Schiffman Secemski.

 

Continue reading “BOE Candidates on Vaccine Mandates for Staff and Mask mandates for students [Yoni Bak]”