In a contentious session on April 22, the Teaneck Town Council approved an amendment to the township code regulating the time, place and manner of special events, passing the measure in a 5-2 vote. Although the ordinance is content-neutral and applies to all public demonstrations, it emerged in response to a series of pro-Hamas car rallies and protests that have taken place in Teaneck since Oct. 7.

The original proposal had called for stricter permitting requirements for public gatherings. However, the amended version allows for slightly more flexibility. Notable changes included reducing the required application submission period from 10 days to seven, and extending the permitted hours for events to 10 p.m., instead of the previously proposed 8 p.m. cutoff.

Mayor Mark J. Schwartz, Deputy Mayor Karen Orgen, Councilwoman Hillary Goldberg, Councilman Elie Y. Katz and Councilman Michael Pagan were the yes votes approving the ordinance. Deputy Mayor Denise Belcher and Councilwoman Danielle Gee voted no.

“I thank Deputy Mayor Orgen, the council and our attorneys for working diligently on this matter and seeing it through completion. This ordinance will protect all our residents, regardless of ethnicity, race or religion, as well as freedom of speech for anybody who wishes to protest,” said Mayor Schwartz, who also is co-publisher of The Jewish Link.

Township Attorney Scott Salmon defended the ordinance, stating it regulates only the time, place and manner of events—not their content—and therefore aligns with First Amendment protections.

Once the floor opened for public comment, many voiced concerns that the ordinance was unconstitutional and unfairly targeted specific communities. Although the Bergenfield council passed a similar ordinance unanimously in March, public opposition in Teaneck was more vocal, with critics making up more than half of those who spoke.

Some attendees expressed harsh criticism of Israel and supporters of the ordinance. Several speakers repeated accusations that “many illegal Israeli real estate corporations have hosted sales and expos of stolen Palestinian land in the West Bank … and are silencing those who speak out against it.” Others stated that “the community is justified to be outraged over the genocide being perpetuated by the fascist Zionist settler colony of Israel against Palestine.”

Several residents spoke out in defense of the ordinance and the Jewish community. “I will not stand silently in a room and hear uttered falsehoods and the use of language by others regarding a claimed or alleged genocide in Gaza,” said Teaneck resident Jeffrey Kantowitz. “Let us be really clear—there is no genocide in Gaza.” Despite his measured tone, Kantowitz was heckled by audience members.

Elliot Berman, a Teaneck resident and attorney added: “Nobody who reads the proposed ordinance can legitimately contend that the proposed ordinance regulation is not content-neutral. It does not forbid demonstrations where people want to advocate for and against anything they want. It simply restricts the time, manner and place where such demonstrations can take place. [It is] a perfectly legitimate exercise of this council’s authority under existing Supreme Court precedent.”

Another Teaneck resident, Josh Teplow said: “This is not a political movement, it’s support for a death cult. Hamas and Palestinians glorify the murder of civilians …When individuals take to the streets waving Hamas flags and showing pictures of Hitler … they are endorsing a genocidal ideology that seeks the elimination of Jews worldwide.

“We are not asking to ban speech,” Teplow added. “We are asking for reasonable safeguards. Just as we wouldn’t allow a white supremacist rally outside a Black church, we cannot allow radical Palestinian gatherings to go unchecked near Jewish spaces.”

Former council member and Teaneck resident Keith Kaplan stated: “There is not a word in this ordinance regarding Jews, synagogues or shuls—and that’s important. All our laws must be content-neutral. If people were protesting outside a mosque so loudly that worshippers couldn’t pray, and the police were called under this ordinance to restore order, would the people arguing against this law object? Of course not—because this is in line with our constitutional values.”

Councilwoman Goldberg, who initially opposed the ordinance in February, ultimately voted in favor of the amended version. Councilwoman Gee, who had supported the introduction of the ordinance just two weeks earlier, expressed hesitation during the April 22 vote.

“I sit here and I’m blown away by all the comments made,” Gee said. “I’m concerned about the unintended consequences of this ordinance—potential bias and subjectivity. It would be helpful to have a constitutional lawyer here to answer public questions. If possible, can we take more time to allow folks to digest this?”

Deputy Mayor Belcher echoed similar concerns. “I really struggle with the fact that we hire a constitutional attorney, and we can’t get that person in front of an open session … No less than two dozen people spoke about real estate sales whereas in the closed session, we were told that would not be covered in this ordinance. In other words, it would not stop protests against real estate sales.”

The change in stance from both Gee and Belcher, who had previously supported the ordinance’s introduction, surprised many.

Deputy Mayor Orgen addressed Gee and Belcher’s remarks directly. “The attorney is here to answer our questions—not the public’s. We are here to answer their questions,” Orgen said.

Gee and Belcher ultimately voted against the ordinance, raising questions about whether they were swayed by the large turnout of opponents, many of whom made inflammatory claims against Israel and Teaneck’s Jewish community and its hosting of events in support of Israel.

The morning following the vote, Deputy Mayor Orgen shared thoughts with The Jewish Link. “While I am relieved that the ‘time, place and manner’ ordinance passed last night I am disheartened that the vote wasn’t unanimous in the end.

“Council, along with our attorneys went out of its way to make sure that the ordinance was content neutral and would protect the first amendment rights of those who wish to protest and those who wish to worship while affording our residents the ability to live peacefully in their homes. I would like to believe that if attacks on any other ethnicity were the impetus for this ordinance, the full council and the Jewish community in Teaneck would have been 100 percent supportive,” Orgen said.

Rachel is the assistant editor at The Jewish Link.