Meet the candidates: What they have to say about township issues

By Howard Prosnitz, Staff Writer

Teaneck Suburbanite, April 23, 2008, p. 8

Teaneck Suburbanite conducted telephone interviews with all eight candidates running for Teaneck Council.

Candidates were asked the same questions about their background and about five issues. All responses were extemporaneous: no e-mails or written replies were permitted. Every attempt has been made to keep all interviews uniform in length; however, some candidates responded more fully than others. Some editing has been done to candidates' comments mainly to reduce the length of some of the interviews. But no changes have been made to the substance of any candidates' response.

The questions:

1. If elected what would you do to stabilize taxes?
2. What is your opinion about three development projects that have been proposed for Teaneck: commercial development along the riverfront, the Holuba/soap factory site and the American Legion Drive area.
3. What is your view about the labeling of certain candidates as anti-Orthodox and published statements that those candidates would eliminate amenities that the Orthodox Jews enjoy if they are elected?
4. Would you make a statement about the illegal campaign literature and robo calls during the council campaign in 2006?
5. How can Teaneck build bridges among its various and diverse populations.

(Only the relevant candidate is shown here)

Mohammed Hameeduddin

Residence: Linden Avenue

Age: 34

Born in Bronx, NY. Has lived in Teaneck since 1981

Occupations: Owner of H. and W. Title Agency

Education: Teaneck High School graduate. Attended Rutgers University.

Family: Single

Community service: Member of Teaneck Planning Board since 2006. Serves as liaison to the site plan review advisory board. Member of coordinating committee for Unity Day. Volunteering for Center for Food Action and Muslims Against Hunger. Helped raise money for victims of Pakistan earthquake.

1. We can stabilize taxes by cutting services or by looking for alternative sources of revenue from state, county and federal government. I favor the latter alternative. We also need to explore more shared services.

2. I have not yet seen any cost benefits to the town from these sites. Until I have facts and figures about the benefits that these developments will bring in without increasing future liabilities to the town, I will not support them. I would also look very hard at developing anything along riverfront. I am fundamentally against development in that area.

3. Unfortunately, we live in a society where negative messages resonate. I don't think that there is a need for this level of discourse in Teaneck. The residents need to take a deep breath, get to know their neighbors and tone down this rhetoric.

4. I was not involved in the election of 2006 so it is not fair for me to say what happened, why it happened or who is involved. Al I can say is that this tactic is very distasteful and is indicative of the society that we are a part of, unfortunately.

5. I am part of this process. People need to communicate with each other. There is not nearly enough outreach in Teaneck, not enough communication among the various boards and not enough community building. The public's mind is already made up by hearsay, rather than by talking to each other and working out solutions. We need to sit down and begin talking. We have to find ways for people to work together, whether on altruistic activities such as the Center for Food Action, cancer awareness or the library or by volunteering for boards and committees in town.

We have a channel marketing problem where the message for community relations does not get out to the community. People don't know what is going on in town and they don't show up to events.