Tennis Everyone 1

The council’s official business began with the appointments of volunteers to the Library board and the Recreation commission, but quickly entered into the keenly debated subject of the new tennis courts. While the council had already conducted one round of voting which appeared to seal the deal, this was the last opportunity for residents from both sides to express themselves on the issue.

Previous meetings on the subject had seen enormous turnout in support of the courts, but with the mission apparently accomplished, and one last time for opponents to be heard, the sides were more evenly matched in terms of numbers. Long time residents, some having lived in Oakland for over half a century, came forward to present their arguments on the pros and cons to the council. Advocates for the tennis courts were brief, having previously appeared before the council and their victory assured, there was no reason for any lengthy presentations. Residents who opposed the measure were also succinct in what many understood to be a fait accompli, but having their opposition to the court project on the record was important.

Opponents at the meeting complained that they can no longer afford to see taxes continually increased as many see their salaries stagnate or are retired and living on a fixed income. New Jersey regularly dominates the top ten counties in the nation for the tax burden suffered by residents, and in 2007 Bergen County was listed as number four by the Tax Foundation.  The other argument by the opposition expressed the opinion that the council should be sensitive to the plight of many families living in Oakland, and the tennis court project should be scaled down in light of the economic crisis facing the nation.

It was argued that the steady number of homes in Oakland going to the sheriff for auction is indicative of the financial struggles facing many families; and some residents believed the vote to approve the most expensive option was irresponsible at this time. The tangent issue of the increased number of foreclosures in Oakland was raised by several residents as they spoke before the council. Frank Monaco, a resident who frequents many council meetings, once again advocated his message of “tough love” with regards to the council’s economic policies. He has long been asking the council to consider the economic struggles facing families as they address budgetary issues. Some members and administrators seemed uninformed of the record number of homes being lost over the last year, with one home sold at auction just last month and four more scheduled for the coming weeks.

The proponents for the project repeated the assertion that the town has repeatedly poured good money after bad with temporary fixes, and this was an opportunity to completely address all of the ongoing problems. They also asserted that the difference in cost between the most expensive option and the least expensive was minimal, and that by going with the more comprehensive choice additional grant money from the county could be used. Oakland’s CFO detailed that the average homeowner would be paying an additional 1.70$ for 2009, 2.36$ in 2010; followed by 10$ in 2011, 10$ in 2012; and then gradually decreasing again after that.

The council then proceeded to vote with all members taking previously explained stances. Council members Di Pentima and Pignatelli stood alone in opposition believing that the immediate needs of the tennis courts could be met with a less expensive option. While acknowledging that the cost of the project over ten years would only amount to a total of 82$ for the average homeowner, the council members stated that there are many other projects on the table which will also be needed.  Municipal wells, road construction, the library, a new fire truck, a new DPW garage, and the uncertainty of state aid over the next several years were all mentioned.