Outdoor Tables at Portobello in Oakland
The Oakland Town Council is accessible at every meeting, but it appears that topics such as the dueling lawsuits over the failed oversight of the library reconstruction, the wire transfer of millions of dollars from the municipal budget, and the placement of outdoor tables on private property seem to be sensitive topics for discussion. With an understaffed Council due to scheduled vacations, the Council members present continued to avoid addressing resident concerns on the controversy involving the Town being sued for payment over the library construction, or the ongoing mystery as to the allegedly unauthorized transfer of municipal funds.
There was ample discussion on the topic of outdoor seating or cafe tables as a local resident continues his campaign for what has been described as a “pet project” to allow outdoor seating for local establishments.
The end of August brought a nip in the evening air, but the agreeable weather did not penetrate the walls of the Oakland Town Council meeting as tempers flared over the apparently inconsequential topic of outdoor tables in Oakland. Although originally an isolated topic, the issue has taken on larger proportions as private sector job growth in New Jersey continues to shrink, taxes rise, and local politicians fall into the habit of blaming Trenton for everything.
Beginning by complimenting The Council on their efforts to save the Town money when possible, a local resident expressed a different view on how The Council helps promote a vibrant downtown area. Buttons seemed to be pressed when The Council was questioned over the timing of an ordinance to allow commercial businesses an opportunity to provide outdoor seating to patrons. Charles McCormick accused The Council of cowtowing to corporate coffee houses and multimillion dollar restaurants and ignoring middle-class, small businessmen. Although The Council had previously referred to the specific needs of Starbucks and Portobello in terms of addressing this issue of outdoor tables, they denied that there was any special treatment. Mr. McCormick felt if the ordinance had been written months ago, when he first raised the issue, many small businesses could have benefited from the summer weather. The Council has been considering the issue for years, but according to Council member Pignatelli it may be a few more years before any other business will be allowed the same opportunities afforded Portobello.
Outdoor Tables in Oakland's Portobello
In a heated exchange with Council member Pignatelli, Mr. McCormick admitted to having never been before a zoning commission and hoped he never had to. He expressed an irreverent attitude towards how zoning boards indiscriminately enforce non-existent laws, and invoking the phraseology of the discredited Senator Joe McCarthy, said it was “unAmerican” to invite a business into Oakland and impose laws never written.
The Council appeared fully ignorant of any situation where a business owner anticipated and expected the ability to provide outdoor seating that was not on public property, and assailed the presumptiousness of making accusations prior to proper research. Mr. McCormick stated that he had no financial stake in the situation, but said he would not come before The Council had he not spoken with businesses that feared reprisal for speaking out. He went on to say that zoning ordinances are not enforced uniformly in Oakland, and that enforcing laws that do not exist was not an option in a nation of laws. Clarifying the point afterward he explained, “We are a nation of laws, good or bad, and the America I was raised to believe in does not enforce laws that are not written, publicly disclosed laws. ”
Mr. McCormick suggested that The Council should reconsider the policy of “what is not permitted by law is prohibited” in the light of New York State’s Supreme Court throwing out a similar law. A dismissive response by Council member Pignatelli that this was New jersey and not New York was met by an equally dismissive rebuke that New Jersey is not in any position to hold itself up as a model of pragmatic governance. With a debt that comparatively makes New York appear ultra-conservative, New Jersey is on the downside in attracting new jobs with it’s increasing tax burdens and anti-business legislation.
Continuing the discussion of outdoor tables, The Council affirmed that they were not responding to the needs of corporations but had addressed the issue in plans developed two years ago. Impatience on the part of residents appears to be a problem for The Council as a similar defense was offered with regard to complaints over the lack of progress in resolving the Stream House issue. Although that situation continues to complicate itself with every passing year, it was well reported over fifteen years ago as a major point of contention within the borough as to how to proceed.
Outdoor facilities at Portobello
Mr. McCormick’s assertion that business people were fearful of retaliation from “half a dozen inspectors”, was defended vigorously by The Council. Their assertions seemed slightly disingenuous as they have broached similar accusations with regard to people being fearful of reprisals for publicly voicing opposition at Board of Ed meetings. The discussion seemed especially heated as The Council introduced the need for sewer considerations before allowing outdoor tables, while Mr. McCormick felt that a business would need to increase its revenue to astronomical amounts to produce a dramatic increase in on-premises bowel movements.
The borough attorney confirmed that The Council was within its rights to enforce laws that do not exist, and The Council felt compelled to discuss Mr. McCormick’s assertions after the public session of the meeting had ended. Council member Burns, having been a member of The Council for 19 years, was unaware of any business wanting to place tables outside their establishment despite the fact that the needs of Portobello and Starbucks had previously been discussed in public meetings. Council member Pignatelli continued to express dismay and disappointment that someone would accuse The Council of unfairness without reading their two year old report and researching the amount of sewage that passes through the town’s commercial district. Council member Pignatelli explained that procedures need to be in place to provide for public safety, but failed to explain why after two years these procedures have not been implemented.
It appears Mr. McCormick’s insinuations struck a nerve with Council members conscious of the lack of progress in promoting downtown development. Council member Pignatelli, in attempting to discredit Mr. McCormick’s assertions, made repeated reference to a report commissioned by the borough for the development of downtown Oakland. The sixty page report, released years ago to great fanfare, is mostly a compilation of suggestions readily available from numerous sources on the Internet. One suggestion, on page nine, explains the benefits of permitting outdoor seating in a downtown area. It was also one of the few suggestions that did not require the borough to spend substantial money to implement.
Readers should know that Mr. McCormick is one of the principal editors of The Oakland Journal. He does not own a retail business in Oakland, but he does own two picnic tables which, while not permitted by law, appear at this point to be safely set in his backyard when not utilized in an unlicensed lemonade stand.