This time it's Clifton.
The Herald News (that's the Record's sister newspaper in Passaic County) had this on Sunday's front page: TEMPLE PLAN IRKS SOME NEIGHBORS
Seems like the residents of a certain part of Clifton, near the Passaic border, don't want the orthodox to have a new synagogue in town.
The great excuses include this from a Mrs. Greenwald: "When they moved into this community, they knew that there was no facility here. I am not in favor of it. Number one, because it will change the tenor of the neighborhood." In other words, it means more of those darned orthodox jews moving in, and actually walking down the streets.
From a Mr. Goldberg: "It's not necessarily resident against resident. It's really nonresident against resident." That means, those orthodox jews aren't really residents. You know, they don't use our public schools, they don't attend the town concerts on Friday nights. They're not really residents. The fool should realize that since orthodox jews have to walk to their synagogues on Shabbat, it is ONLY residents of the neighborhood who want or need this shul.
Teaneck residents may feel free to substitute Barbara Toffler for Dennis Kirwan in the next paragraph:
Dennis Kirwan, Clifton's city planner, said he opposes the synagogue plan as it's proposed because if approved, the site would be used intensively in a residential zone, and because Dwasline Road lacks sidewalks.
NO SIDEWALKS! Jews would have to walk in the streets! Quick, call Peter Applebome at the New York Times so he can write an expose on how those nasty orthodox jews are ruining our town. We don't want it to become like Rockland County here!
I wonder if Kirwan is also a business ethics consultant with absolutely no ethics of his own, just like our precious Barbara.
And just like our wonderful non-observant neighbors in Tenafly, who called in a Jewish lawyer to try and block the eruv, the self-haters in Clifton have called in attorney Ira Weiner, who states: "It's a very large building that's very close to the property lines and has insufficient parking by a large margin." (Note that the plans call for 35 parking spaces).
Ah, the parking argument again. Because the jews with the black hats drive to shul on Shabbat! Parking for what? When will people finally see that making an argument about parking when it relates to a synagogue is in and of itself an anti-semitic statement, especially when you know damned well that people walk there (in the streets, because there are no sidewalks).
Here's my solution: Build it anyway. Then move the rabbi and his family into the building and call it a residence with a really big living room. Now try to fight that one, you bastards!