During his final two years on Council, Dr. Henry Pruitt pushed his colleagues hard to find a solution to the fact that the Township’s general appearance was being neglected and deteriorating. He suggested that a strong effort – perhaps led by a newly-created Township Compliance officer, and more vigorous investigations by the Health Department – could help home and business owners improve the basic management of their property. Dr. Pruitt’s efforts were consistently rejected – most vigorously by Deputy Mayor Katz who was concerned that such a focus on compliance would lead to excessive snitching by neighbors.
Ironically, on Thursday night (8/11) at the Planning Board’s meeting, the issue of how to assure that the Town again looks like the well-kept suburban township it has long prided itself as being, came full circle. The PB’s primary agenda consisted of hearing the report by Planner Hughes of his “investigation” into whether 23 lots in the Town Block 4905 (Teaneck Road at West Englewood Ave.) met the criteria of being an Area in Need of Redevelopment (AINR). Council had asked the PB to find out – and provided the resources to the Planner to do a lot-by-lot review of the 23 lots. Hughes found that 5 lots should be entirely left out of the new AINR but included another 5 lots that – although well maintained – were geographically so embedded in the 12 “blighted” lots that – as the state redevelopment statute allows – they could be included in an AINR. Go to the Town website to see the Planner’s report Click Here .
But as the PB meeting rolled on – and resident questioning of the Planner was followed by resident statements about this AINR (beginning at 1 hour of the meeting video – Click Here, many participants came to a startling recognition: Many of the lots judged by Hughes to meet the blighted criteria were cited for factors which, while more than simply cosmetic, were those for which the property owners had 
been, or should have been, cited for non-compliance with the Town code. Thus, these properties were clearly remediable by any responsible property owner. What made them blighted, if the code were effectively enforced, could be addressed almost immediately
As the participant questions continued they probed whether the neighbors would have any control over their neighborhood if it is designated an AINR. How would they continue to shape the neighborhood if Council decided to work with an unidentified developer as has been its AINR practice. In any event, they asked when the redevelopment process as envisaged by Council would evolve. It was acknowledged by DM Schwartz that it would at best be several years or more.
In the last moments of this resident discussion the questions that were fielded by the PB and Planner Hughes focused on “Years in the making? What’s going to happen in the meantime” And is it true that the message being sent to negligent property owners is ” You will get the best AINR benefits if you persist in neglecting your property instead of maintaining it.”
When the Planner was asked what all this would do to property values, particularly those of the owners who were actively maintaining their properties, the Planner said it was not in his expertise or task assignment.
Rather than persist in AINR’s blight labeling exercise, is it perhaps time to try some other way to get property owners engaged in keeping up Township appearances. And should we return to a Master Plan led development process where resident sentiments and values are openly discussed and tested ?
And Keeping an Eye on Another AINR
Two days before this PB meeting, Council had reviewed and passed (5-1 with Romney Rice voting “no”) approval of a so-called development plan for the Lot at 359 Alfred Avenue. It would replace with a speculative seven-story apartment building, the long-standing Ledoux & Co, a metallurgical chemical analysis firm that has been at that location since 1952 and been a consistent taxpayer and employer The development plan left many questions unanswered:
• Does Ledoux want to leave?
• How many units would be in this structure?
• Why would the parking space requirements for this facility be 1/3 less than the next-door multi-family building must have?
• Who is the developer who worked with Council and the Planner to prepare this development plan?
• Will this developer demand a special tax break at the end of the process– as have Teaneck’s only two identified AINR developers who have completed AINR site plans?
Readers of Teaneck Voices are aware that the newsletter has been increasingly concerned about the shift from normal municipal land use procedures to Council- driven procedures using the state’s redevelopment statutes. We have recorded the process whereby Council, with no town meetings to explain its policy shift, has accelerated its efforts to name and implement AINR redevelopment. Teaneck Voices has also tracked the fact that after nearly 4 years since Council’s first embrace of AINRs the only actual redevelopment activity to date has been the massive excavation-only activity at 359 Alfred Avenue.
This week Teaneck Voices also learned that Judge Farrington, who oversees the Stop & Shop Company-led litigation concerning the American Legion Drive AINR, was told on August 9 by attorneys for both the Town and the Company that the long-promised settlement of that case is not ready – and the next case conference on this suit is now not scheduled until September 9.
Teaneck Voices readers who want to review our earlier and updated research work on the genesis and procedures of AINR development can read more by staying here on the Teaneck Voices website to Click Here .
