Dear Editor:
I feel compelled to respond to the letters your newspaper has received criticizing advocates of the Roseland Development plan. Though there have been many, I refer in particular to Anne Marie Cloutier’s submission in the September 3, 2000 issue. While the tone of Ms. Cloutie’s letter is generally forthright and conciliatory, and is even correct in some respects, it does reveal a misunderstanding concerning the character of the town’s old–time citizenry. This is particularlysurprising coming from a 32–year resident. The letter states that the only individuals who have spoken in favor of the plan are “town employees with jobs under mayoral control. First, assuming such a sweeping generalization has any truth to it, I’ll present myself as an exception to that rule. Should any conspiracy–minded FWW member search zealously for my hidden link to town hall, they’ll be disappointed to discover that I have no connection whatsoever to the town payroll.
It’s wrong to assume that people who are loyal to Mayor Turner and supportive of his efforts aremerely blind and mindless loyalists who haven’t even looked at the development plan. As an established member of our community, surely Ms. Cloutier has at least passing acquaintance which these hard–Working men and women who provide services to this town. They are intelligent folks who merely have a different viewpoint. I happen to agree with their views and I’d like to take a moment to offer my perspective on one of the issues which drives the two sides apart.
The central debate, in my opinion, concerns what type of town Weehawken really is, beyond any subjective views of individual citizens. At the risk of generalizing, I see the debate generally as between those who labor under the delusion that Weehawken should be akin to some quaint, quiet and undisturbed enclave in the Adirondack wilderness vs. those who see it, with untainted lenses, as a small town crushed between an otherwise urbanized, industrialized, overpopulated section of the Northeast; across the river from the region’s largest city and next store to Union City, with its 58,000 individuals in its 1.8 square miles. On one side are those who grew up here years ago among the pigeons, taverns and broken bottles along Park Avenue, who looked over the cliffs at the pitiful decay of our dangerous, dilapidated waterfront (I still consider the Roseland plan to be redevelopment rather than development) and suffered through corrupt administrations. On the other side are those who, for the most part, are upper-middle class newcomers from the suburbs, joined by a distinct smattering of wistful veterans from the gratuitous activism of the 1960s. Their side has a very distinct view on what Weehawken should be. Our side is happy for what it’s become. With this type of dichotomy, isn’t it inevitable that there is friction in our town?
Lest anyone think I’m stirring up class warfare, I realize that there are also long–time (and blue–collar) residents who oppose the development. My argument, conveyed several times at town meetings, is that long time residency is essential to understanding the character of Weehawken. It’s essential to maintaining a sense of honesty about where you live and enjoying the town for what is, not what some wish it was.
You need only to talk to people in areas of New York City like Brooklyn Heights, Greenwich Village, etc. They can tend their gardens, walk their dogs and have their outdoor concerts while stoically enduring the sirens, loud car radios, construction sites and other basic facts of city life. Development is all around them but they accept it, as many of us do. They also know that housing must be built when others want to share in the lifestyle and need a place to live. This is the price you pay for living among literally millions of human beings in a small area. The alternative is to move. Many of us have choices concerning where we can live. We choose to live here.
Many of us here in town ( and I’ll assume that this includes Ms. Cloutier, a 32 year resident) waited years until Weehawken took its rightful place in the urban renaissance that slowly, hopefully crept across North Hudson as the eocnomy grew through the 80s and then again in the 90s. Imagine what poor cities like Camden would give to catch the eye of developers like Roseland. I’m sure that the least of their concerns would be blockage of their view of the Delaware River. It would be a bitter irony to think that, now that our turn for improvement has come, we’d sooner squander it because of fear that we may transform North Hudson into the relatively overpopulated, environmentally imperfect industrialized area that it already is.
As for “employee loyalty,” I hope that all residents, new and old, see those folks who speak out for Mayor Turner in the proper light of reason. They are the ones who put out your fires, quell your disturbances, remove your garbage, etc. It’s unfair to portray them as annoying, blue–collar minions. They are the bedrock of this town and, like me, they are long time residents who love Weehawken for more than just the view.
Alex J. Keoskey