Letter to the Editor: Delay Flawed Rezoning Process In New Castle

To the Editor:

An open letter to New Castle Supervisor Pool and Members of the Town Board:

We are concerned residents of New Castle, NY. Many of us are first generation immigrants and minority residents, a fast growing demographic in New Castle. Some belong to discrete and insular groups often excluded from the town's decision making processes because of cultural and language barriers. The town's leadership does not look like many of us, but we have faith that it& represents us. That's why we find our home in the idyllic New Castle that always aspires to be inclusive.

Most of us only recently learned about the Form Based Code. Frankly, the term "form based code" is novel and abstract; and it was introduced to us only in advocacy. The open letter from the Chappaqua Central School District Board of Education was timely and finally shed light on the real choices before the current residents in New Castle. We are writing to you to express support for the Board of Education's request that the Town Board delay its public engagement and decision-making process in order to provide adequate and reasonable time for the Chappaqua Board of Education and Administration to obtain and present an accurate analysis of school enrollment and other impacts of the FBC on the School District. The request should be granted, particularly when the enrollment data analyses in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) are objectively flawed, because it uses data from the Center for Urban Policy Research of Rutgers University without following the guide issued by the same center on how to use the data for places known for the quality of the local school district.

The GEIS produced by the Town Board does not seem to show confidence in its own numbers, disclaiming "[i]t is important to note that this source is over 10 years old, not specific to New Castle or Westchester County, and provides very conservative estimates" even before presenting the estimate on the additional school enrollment. GEIS (9/25/2020) 3-146. "[C]onservative estimates" is an unfortunately chosen euphemism for "significant underestimates."

The aforementioned 10-year-old data source is residential demographic multipliers produced by the Center for Urban Policy Research of Rutgers University. Id. The age of the data source is not the main problem. The distressing fact is that GEIS did not follow the quick guide provided by Rutgers University on how to correctly use their residential demographic multipliers. (Listokin, David, et al. "A QUICK GUIDE TO NEW JERSEY RESIDENTIAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS." (2006).) The quick guide even provides PrincetonTownship as an example of areas where the residential demographic multipliers should not be simplistically relied upon, because Princeton is known for the “quality of the local school district.” Id. at viii. New Castle's school district is comparable to Princeton's.

The quick guide is clear and specific on how to analyze places like New Castle:

The residential demographic multipliers contained in this document provide important statewide average benchmark data that can only go so far in accurately predicting the actual demographic impact of housing development in a specific community. For instance, a given community may attract “more” or “fewer” public school children per housing unit because of such differences as geography (e.g., housing in New Jersey’s “gold coast” along the Hudson River may attract “Manhattan-oriented” households with few children) and the “quality of the local school district” (e.g., households with more children may disproportionately self-select to live in communities with high-quality school systems). For best results, the state-level data presented here should be supplemented by local analysis, such as conducting case studies of the actual population, and especially public school children generation, of occupied housing developments comparable in character (i.e., type, size, price, and tenure) and location to the subject development(s) being considered by the analyst. For example, in quantifying the likely public school children generation from 3-bedroom townhouses priced at $300,000 per unit proposed for Princeton Township, an analyst should first consider the “Quick Guide” statewide data for the average number of public school children (0.24) in housing of this type (single-family attached),size (3-bedrooms), and price level (above median value).The analyst should then identify comparable townhouses (e.g., 3-bedroom units priced $250,000 to $350,000) that are occupied in Princeton and nearby communities and should then ascertain these developments’ actual public school children generation from public school data (e.g., busing and other information). The combination of this document’s multipliers and local analysis provides a comprehensive framework for answering “who lives in New Jersey housing.”

Id. at viii.

There are more problems. For example, according to GEIS, 64% of the housing units are expected to be one bedroom apartments. This is highly unlikely. Once the FBC is passed, we, including the town board, do not have control over the type of apartments to be built. Nobody believes the market force will drive to produce 64% one bedroom apartments. New Castle is similar to Princeton Town, and "households with more children may disproportionately self-select to live in communities with high-quality school systems." Listokin, David, et al. viii. In addition, GEIS was unable to use the actual number for the students in the zoning area in question as the base number to calculate the estimated increase in student enrollment for the same area. GEIS 3-143. This is a crucial number in the analysis, because it is a number that can undermine GEIS's methodology. GEIS 3-143. According to footnote 31, "[a]ctual number of students in the study area from fall 2019 has been requested of the school district/Town." GEIS 3-143. When crucial information is not available, it is unwise to rush the process.

The estimated new student enrollment number presented in GEIS is based on an objectively flawed methodology. If the actual number of new enrolled students is significantly more, the school district will face an impossible choice between sharply deteriorated education quality and sharply increased property tax. Many in the community believe there probably will be one new student per housing unit based on statistics from Chappaqua Crossing. That is roughly 1000 more students. Many believe property tax will eventually be raised 30% on top of the routine tax increases each year in order not to lose educational quality. The Town Board vehemently disagrees, but is unable to provide its own reliable and convincing data. For the good of our community, we plead with the Town Board to grant the request by the Board of Education to obtain and present an accurate analysis of school enrollment and other impacts of the FBC on the School District. Without agreed upon basic facts, all the hearings and comments are not particularly meaningful. It unnecessarily scars our community and creates distrust of the Town Board.

Some left the engagement sessions with an impression, maybe unfairly, the Town Board takes the position that even assuming the Town Board's estimates of the financial impact on the current residents are egregiously incorrect, the Town Board will exercise its legal authority to pass the form based code, and "the FBC is moving forward" no matter how many residents raise questions. This is particularly chilling under the current political climate. What is legal, is not necessarily reasonable. The legal authority was given "by the people," and it should be used "for the people," not despite the people. The Town Board does not legally have to heed to the request by the Board of Education, but it is the right thing to do.

Some left the engagement sessions with another impression, maybe unfairly, that, even if taxes will have to be raised dramatically more than the Town Board's estimates, the Town Board believes the current residents are obligated to accept the significantly higher taxes, because more people who cannot afford to live in New Castle will be able to, and their children will receive a better education. It is essentially an admission that a substantial tax transfer will occur for each new student. We are for and willing to contribute. However, it is not unreasonable to have an honest discussion on the level of financial commitment based on reliable data. Let taxpayers take ownership of this cause. It is their money, provide them with accurate numbers, give them an opportunity to say yes, and feel proud!

We are encouraged that Supervisor Ivy Pool promised to listen to everyone. We believe under her leadership, the board will grant the Board of Education's request to find a set of agreed upon facts for the cohesion of our community. We also hope the Town Board will reach out to communities like ours that are traditionally difficult to reach. Those also include senior residents who may feel intimidated by new terms and concepts like "Form Based Code." Significant tax increases will force some of them to leave their homes that they are trying very hard to hold onto. Form Based Code will change the character of New Castle and will have significant tax ramifications. We need to have meaningful inputs from all groups in New Castle in the decision making process.

This letter is copied to each member of the Board of Education, and will be forwarded to few local reporters. In spite of COVID, we are able to reach some of our community members. Many are willing to include their names and addresses in the letter, which is a significant thing in our culture. The names and addresses will not be disclosed to the reporters. We look forward to the Town Board's response to our open letter and to the request by the Board of Education.

Finally, we thank the Town Board for each member's voluntary work and commitment to our town. Your public service is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Larry Liu

New Castle