A posting on Teaneck Progress by "is the election over yet" details specific examples of censorship by Tom Abbot. I always wondered what those removed posts were all about (ones removed within minutes).
here is the link- sorry i can't do anything fancy with it
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28495920&postID=3977512904577253609
Two of the most vocal negative people(s) in this campaign have been Alan Sohn and The Abbot Family. And I am sure they will, and have been the first to criticize negative campaigning, but their failure to hold them selves to the same standards is modern day hypocrisy.
They probably justify it as spreading the "truth", a word we are very familiar with and appreciate here at Teaneck Truth. For the most part, we know Sohn's history and root of anger, but how do you explain the Abbots. They have painted a public picture as "we stand for all good and pure and can't accept the evil head of Ferriero or whatever his name is from Bergen County". But many in Abbot's circle of friends still questioned the extent of his dedication and drive to go against "what's his face" from Bergen County. To the extent of working and frolicking with the same group of people that have tormented, abused and badgered Mrs. Abbot while she dedicated many years to the Board of Education in Teaneck. The same group that aligned themselves last year with others to successfully oust Barbara Ostroth. The same group that has been vocal and antagonistic to almost every dedicated elected official from Frank Hall, to Kielizek, to Jackie Kate's husband to the current Mayor Katz. And yes, we know what Senator many in this group coincidentally have very close ties to, though we thought it was a coincidence.
I was ready to take this at face value that the Abbot's have switched teams, made amends, buried the hatchet, water under the bridge. It happens. This is politics.
But then I read last weeks Suburbanite and I couldn't help but notice a little article about a House of Worship on Queen Anne. And the most vocal critics were, that's right, the Abbots. (as well as his posts on Teaneck Progress re this topic)
Is this coincidence or is there some kind of connection between their over the top public dislike of Mayor Katz and Team Teaneck and the project in their back yard. Have they just discovered "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Have they sold their principles and beliefs and genuinely believe that Monica Honis walk on water and the crew associated and endorsed by their former detractors are whats best for Teaneck.
I think in life when people have biases, they tend to have blinders on.
I think I know have truly seen the meaning of " Bite your nose, spite your face".
Good bye good Teaneck, the Abbots are mad.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
What is striking about the Abbott situation is how they are leaders among those bemoaning the accusation that their side is anti-Orthodox when they in fact are anti-Orthodox in their actions.
There is nothing anti orthodox about a bad neighbor! Religion is no excuse for rudeness and selfishness.
How are they anti-orthodox? If a church went up in the backyard of an Orthodox family, and they were vocal in making sure the church went through all the proper processes to ensure a safe and beneficial building situation, would anyone dare label them as biased?
There are those who seem to believe that anytime a minor "injustice" is suffered by the Orthodox community, it is a result of blatant anti-semitism or anti-orthdoxy. If those same people would realize that they have every right to treat their neighbors with the dignity and respect that they expect for themselves, there would be no problem to begin with.
Mr. Truth (and all those who believe his nonsense) - The Abbots and Alan Sohn have served this community for years. What exactly have you done? Aside from defaming good people - anonymously, no less.
Besides, judging from the comments that were on the now-suppressed blog entry on Teaneck Progress, there's a bit of Orthodox-on-Orthodox squabbling about that "house" of worship. Are the Orthodox who criticize it also "anti-Orthodox"?
I think we need to ask Alan Sohn to ask his crystal ball to ask his Boss Weinberg for her opinion. Did you see that "Homeytown Girls" piece in the Suburbanite? And what about Docktor Toffler's letter saying she's the most ethical person she knows. She must know lots of people.
I don't agree with many of the posts presumed to be written by Mr. Abbott. I feel that labeling him as anti-orthodox because he is against the prayer group/ house of worship is unfair. The property in question has provoked many people of all backgrounds.
Agreed with Adams - like it or not, there are many many people in their neighborhood of all faiths and ethnicities, including some Orthodox Jews, who are very upset with the purchase of the property at 554 Queen Anne as well as the slammed-through approval for the ugliest addition on a gorgeous home that masquerades as a glorified "family room" when it is a shul with a name and an active membership.
As for defaming the Abbotts, since they have made their views public they certainly are open to criticism, but they have a right to their opinions and if they have "changed allegiances" to another group, that's their right as well. I don't personally agree with them on this subject (I'm voting only for the independent candidates myself, and am still considering who my third vote will go to), but I respect their right to advocate for their position. I too am VERY uncomfortable with the mayor leading the campaign so pointedly for his three Team Teanck members, especially when at least two of them are very closely and publicly aligned with BCDO and Ferriero.
So now people disapprove of synagogues that DO pay taxes as well as those that don't? It sounds like a no-win situation. I for one respect religious freedom, be it expressed via church, mosque or synangogue.
Nobody disapproves of synagogues that don't pay taxes. That's a strawman.
And since when is submitting misleading applications to the building department a form of relgious expression?
So if this synagogue stops paying taxes it will be okay for it to exercise its constitutional rights?
The problem with the position of the Abbotts, at least as it appeared in the Suburbanite and at the Town Council meeting, is that the suppositions and claims are not based on fact. The "House of Prayer" is not currently in violation of any ordinances or codes. I wonder if anything would make them happy.
The few Orthodox Jews who are upset about the issue are mostly people with issues against either the rabbi personally or the notion of competition to a fledgling congregation down the street.
As for Township politics, though I disagree with the position that Ms. Toffler should be allowed anywhere near our tax dollars and question what exactly are Monica Honis and Audra Jackson doing with her and why that doesn't raise questions about them, the Abbotts are entitled to their opinions.
More legal opinions from the legal scholar who invented dual residency to justify Rudolph's voting in New York while living in Teaneck.
Well Cramer,
A lot better than your Seinfeldian legalese.
Your blog is hurting Teaneck.
Anon 12:51 AM:
First, I did not invent the defense of Mr. Rudolph. It is simple reading of the statutes.
Second, are you honestly suggesting that taking money under false pretenses is not illegal? Seriously?
It's not taking money. It's called padding the bills. Lawyers do it all the time. That's how you make partner.
A simple reading of the statutes allows people to vote twice? Hmm - Rudolph's candidacy recalls Tammany Hall in so many ways.
He only voted once. Though he already lived in Teaneck, he was not yet registered in Teaneck. But he lived there and paid taxes in New Jersey.
Anyone who thinks Toffler's "padding" is anything other than theft is himself a criminal. To promote the Brooklyn vote to the level of something significant is a malicious act.
Why not focus on the fact Rudy has accomplished much for Teaneck, whereas Toffler promises to create chaos on the Council and has already caused bad feelings needlessly by campaigning on the lie that the revaluation was done unfairly?
Anon 11:32
Hear! Hear!
Anon 11:01
As an attorney, I could lose my license and go to jail for doing such a thing. This is a second degree indictable offense which is a serious crime. Mr. Rudolph did NOT vote twice. I do not understand your logic at all. It seems as if your dislike for the person for some reason is clouding your objectivity.
Ms. Toffler is surely not "all bad". I am sure she has many fine qualities. But let us not pretend that this is a minor issue. It is worse than anything Governor Spitzer did. Ms. Toffler should step out of the election for the sake of the values and ethics which she propounds.
As an attorney, I could lose my license and go to jail for doing such a thing. This is a second degree indictable offense which is a serious crime. Mr. Rudolph did NOT vote twice.
What did Toffler do that is an indictable offense? Present a proposal that was accepted by a client? Start filing the prosecutions for every one of you two-bit ambulance chasers who runs up the tab on every client.
I like the claim that he didn't vote twice. He didn't and no one claims he did. What he did is vote in Brooklyn when he claims that he was a resident of New Jersey at the same time. A simple reading of the statutes shows that this is a no-no. If he was a resident of Brooklyn when he voted than he wasn't a resident of New Jersey for one full year when he ran for election. Pick the state, but he committed election fraud in one or both of them.
Rudolph should check himself into the Bergen County Jail for what he's done. I'm sure Boss Joe will find him a cozy cell constructed by one of their pay-to-play contractors. He could even make a few bucks on the deal.
Now you're a lawyer. A lawyer who's also an anonymous coward.
Assuming it to be true. Who are you speaking for in your posts? Are you advocating for a client in any of your posts? Is Mr. Rudolph paying for your opinions? or perhaps Mr. Ferriero?
They're sure not getting their money's worth if you have to make up such a moronicly rediculous defense of a simple mistake Rudolph made.
Now you're a lawyer. A lawyer who's also an anonymous coward.
For starters, I'm not the "anonymous coward" who was positing above. But isn't it quite ironic that you make this accusation anonymously?
Rudoplh cheated. Plain and simple. I'd have no problem if a normal joe like you or I made a mistake like that. But the context and time in which Rudolph's error took place changes the situation entirely. It was completely and totally inappropriate to vote in Brooklyn, and as such, run for office in Teaneck. No matter how many sob stories he spews, he's still a cheater. Come clean Rudy. Teaneck is waiting.
You Teaneck Divided people have been hammering at Rudy over this nonsense to create the impression of smoke that signifies fire since your opposition research people uncovered this nugget. Since you have endorsed a true criminal you simply ought to shut up and allow the citizenry to reflect on the ZERO budget, new firetruck, handicapped childrens' park and other great accomplishments Rudy has had during the past two years while you dogs yapped at his heels.
Rudolph did nothing to get the playground or the firetruck. Maybe he saved a stamp by dropping off the playground grant at the county office on his way to his crony job. Rudolph gave us an 8% tax hike last year and then came up with pushing off over $3 MILLION in bills to next year when we will get another 8% or 10% tax increase right in the middle of a recession. Brought to you by Elnatan Tax Fraud Rudolph.
You know nothing. Cindy Balsam singled Rudy out for his major contribution to the playground in her speech at the groundbreaking.
Actions are meaningful. You simply deny reality out of your fierce bias and hatred.
There is no truth to your lies about the budget. Rudy and Team Teaneck really saved the taxpayers from the increase TaxBonus Honis wanted to push through and there is no downside whatsoever to the ZERO budget.
Your friends don't give a hoot about the taxpayers and are only interested in a power grab.
There is no truth to your lies about the budget. Rudy and Team Teaneck really saved the taxpayers from the increase TaxBonus Honis wanted to push through and there is no downside whatsoever to the ZERO budget.
Sure! Elnatan and Team Teaneck have saved the taxpayers! By pushing crucial and VERY serious expenses right off the books till next year.
I'm sure you have serious bills and expenses every month. If you pay on a credit card, the money may not be coming out of your pocket at the moment, but would you ever have the audacity to claim that you don't owe that money? Elementary finance my friend. Not paying at the proper time will, if anything, cause GREATER financial loss to you. Possibilities of interest, debt, etc.
Now just imagine that personal finance issue on a municipal scale - the problems intensify exponentially. Is it not shrewd craftiness that they pushed off beyond-essential payments to manufacture a phony "zero" budget in an election year? Do the taxpayers realize that this is a temporary ploy for votes? Do they realize that they'll be hit HARD for this mistake in the near future?
Clever Elnatan. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Let's not make the mistake of electing someone who will jeopardize the financial stability of Teaneck residents for votes.
There is no credit card analogy. There are no hidden costs. The auditors approved the budget. This is more of the Teaneck Divided (and their Useful Idiot fellow travelers') nonsense to pull the wool over the taxpayers' eyes.
There is no credit card analogy. There are no hidden costs. The auditors approved the budget. This is more of the Teaneck Divided (and their Useful Idiot fellow travelers') nonsense to pull the wool over the taxpayers' eyes.
No one is saying its illegal. No one is saying it's not been done before. No one is calling Team Teaneck criminals. The auditors approved it because it is completely legal financially. Correct me if I'm wrong, but its legal to use a credit card, no? The auditors approve the legal and technical aspects of the budget. They have absolutely no say in how the budget is appropriated. The council has almost complete discretion in doing so.
Pushing off payments is legal. Not funding a self-insurance fund that WILL be tapped this year is legal. Trimming off the edges of the budget is entirely legal. Its also inappropriate and a downright stupid financial decision.
And for the record, I don't support Teaneck United. I'm just a concerend resident with no tolerance for incompetence on the Council.
Concerned Resident-
The credit card analogy would be an accurate description if we were paying interest on the deferred payments. Since no interest will be accrued, I consider this to be a prudent decision.
The credit card analogy would be an accurate description if we were paying interest on the deferred payments. Since no interest will be accrued, I consider this to be a prudent decision
Forget interest, that isn't the issue. The issue is differing payment. No need to get technical here. Lets say you had a credit card that didn't charge interest (hey, crazier things exist). If you differ payment, you sure as hell OWE that money, even though you aren't paying interest. You may be able to cut your expenses for the month, but once that bill comes around again, you owe the same amount of money. No matter which way you defer payment, its differed, and its owed, and it must be payed at some point. If you differed your mortgage payment (with no interest) till the next month, would you dare say you have a balanced budget? How could that possibly be "prudent decision"?
This year's budget showed a tax hike of over 6%. The council pushed over $3 million in expenses next year only making trivial cuts in spending to come up with a budget they could call "zero".
Next year we have all of the same expenses as this year and all of the bills pushed off from this year and all of the higher costs for energy, insurance and pensions. As this council has shown it lacks the guts to make real spending curts, we're left holding the bag.
This is not prudent spending. But next year there's no election.
The definition of DEFERRED -withheld for or until a stated time. Some definitions of BUDGET -a : a statement of the financial position of an administration for a definite period of time based on estimates of expenditures during the period and proposals for financing them b : a plan for the coordination of resources and expenditures c : the amount of money that is available for, required for, or assigned to a particular purpose.
Thus, for this fiscal year, the budget is indeed balanced. Do we still owe the money, of course, we do. I did not hear a single Councilperson say that the expense does not exist!
The old joke has a guy jumping off the Empire State Building. As he passes the 50th floor, he tells someone looking out the window, "so far, so good".
All the council accomplished with its "ZERO" budget is to push off all of this year's bills to next year to "balance" the budget. These $3.5 million in expenses sure exist, even if the council makes believe it doesn't have to deal with it this year.
Next year, will we be able to say "so far, so good" when all these bills come due?
Do we still owe the money, of course, we do. I did not hear a single Councilperson say that the expense does not exist!
If thats the case, then those councilpersons have no right to boast about the budget. Would you boast about owing money? I highly doubt anyone is bragging about next month's credit card bill. The council isn't being honest and upfront with residents. If millions are owed, then how could Team Teaneck consciously and intently use the currently "balanced" budget as a selling point?
Team Teaneck boasts the "zero" budget. Never has anyone on Team Teaneck boasted that payments were differed - its all about the buzzwords and its all about what sells. They created this budget for votes, plain and simple.
But hey, its definitely a prudent decision - they get their votes, while the taxpayers pick up the bill for years to come.
I'll agree that BUDGET means this year only and DEFERRED means pushed off to next year.
What happens with next year's BUDGET that will make this better? We have next year's bills next year AND we have pay all the bills we DEFERRED from this year. One year passes by and the mess is even bigger than this one.
Does Team Teaneck have a plan to deal with the mess that the Katz Team created this year or is it OK because it's pushed off all the way to next year. Failing to plan for next year is about as imprudent as you can be.
I disagree with the position that Ms. Toffler should be allowed anywhere near our tax dollars
The Katz Team already has its hands on our tax dollars and has shown that it has no idea what to do with them. Last year they raised taxes over 8%. This year they pushed off millions and didn't cut a penny in spending.
Robinson and Hammeduddin have no experience with the town budget. They never attended any council meetings or budget meetings ever. How can we trust Team Teaneck with our tax dollars when we already know they can't handle the bills this year?
Team Teaneck simply has shown a complete lack of regard (let alone respect) for the taxpayers and their intelligence. On the other hand, the Team Teaneck RV looks mighty fine on Cedar Lane!
Hey you people are all off thread. This post is supposed to be about attacking the Abbots.
Surely someone has some lies and half-truths to add to the Teaneck Liar's post.
A Queen Anne Road house has been expanded and according to neighbors, it is being used illegally as a synagogue. At an April 14 council meeting, several Griggs Avenue residents protested that 554 Queen Anne Road, at the southwest corner of Queen Anne and Griggs, is being used for religious services contrary to zoning regulations.
The neighbors have sent e-mails to Township Manager Helene Fall over the past several months and have circulated a petition containing more than 70 names asking for the township’s help. In the meantime construction at the house has proceeded, and a room that doubles the size of the house has been added, according to Griggs Avenue resident Thomas Abbott.
Abbott said that the owner of the house had obtained a permit from the building department to add a family room, but that the addition not only doubles the size of the existing building, but includes a kitchen and separate lavatories for men and women.
The article has changed. The printed version is different.
Didn't Abbott have a letter in the same issue protesting Teaneck United isn't anti-Orthodox? Or was it the previous issue of the paper?
Was that the same issue of the Suburbanite where Team Teaneck supporters proudly declared that Honis, Jackson and Toffler will single out Orthodox residents for poor treatment. Has Team Teaneck denied this yet?
Isn't Abbott, the anti-synagogue campaigner, a leading member of Teaneck United?
On another blog post it says the applicant certifies that “all information herewith is true and complete and accurately describes the existing AND PROPOSED uses of the subject property.” The certification also says that “if any of the above statement or information is false, misleading or omitted, I will be subject to penalty, etc.” The application said that what was being added is a family room – a 1500 square feet family room with two bathrooms and a kitchenette.
I haven't seen the application but no one has corrected the claim.
Could it be that the application filed with the building department made false statements in neglecting to mention that the applicant planned to use the space on a regular and recurring basis as the home of a synagogue with dues-paying members and a building fund? Could it be that neighbors of all religions are anti-fraud, not anti-synagogue?
Anonymous said...
Didn't Abbott have a letter in the same issue protesting Teaneck United isn't anti-Orthodox? Or was it the previous issue of the paper?
May 2, 2008 5:01 PM
Back to lies! That's more in keeping with the tenor of this blog!
I don't know what letter you are talking about. Perhaps you or Mr. Abbott could reprint it here.
Post a Comment