The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.
To the Editor,
I attended the November 18th public hearing regarding the proposed rezoning of the Municipal Gateway and North Riverside areas. Taking the opportunity to speak, I re-emphasized my concerns about traffic and infrastructure. I also highlighted the minimal discussion of potential impacts on our school district. The Mayor was quick to contradict the latter with some documentation, quoting a study from Rutgers and suggesting only 6 students would be added to the schools. He ended with a not-so-subtle jab, “that it’s common sense.”
I’ve since followed up on the Mayor’s citation and I’m being generous to say the information is underwhelming. I didn’t roll into the public meeting without doing some homework first. Unfortunately, I made the rookie mistake of looking at the “final report”, where I assumed (and hoped) to find a thorough analysis. Of course, the information isn’t there; turns out it’s a measly 2 pages buried in an environmental impact statement.
The data is obviously presented to appease critics. The environmental impact statement itself is mostly checkboxes. There are a few claims:
The Rutgers study is combined with a comparison to similar developments to suggest a paltry increase in students.
Croton’s school district is currently under-enrolled.
Westchester county birthrates are declining.
The worst-case scenario in the document is about 6 additional students for an 80 unit complex. Does that sound like common sense? Say what you will, but that’s a stretch if I ever heard one. In a world where anyone can cite studies and stats to prove just about anything, I think Croton deserves deeper analysis.
The document also claims Westchester’s birth rates are declining. Maybe so, but birthrates aren’t driving population growth; migration and immigration are. The Board has repeatedly cited “new village immigrants” as benefactors of new development, yet somehow they are neglected in this superficial analysis. It’s incongruous to cite low birth rates after having gone on and on about a housing shortage in our highly desired village, as the Board has.
“I’d like to see us deal with the problems we have now so we can accommodate further development. Unfortunately, that type of foresight hasn’t been evident thus far. We need to say no to this proposal because fiscal responsibility is always a requirement! We need to say no because traffic planning is a prerequisite, not an afterthought. Say no because if you don’t the board will continue to spend without end, and they’ll happily repeat these shenanigans again and again.”
Here’s a question. If the Board is honestly seeking affordable housing for empty nesters or any other existing residents, who will move into the vacated homes? Germane to several community concerns, this seems like an obvious question, but I see no evidence it’s been asked or answered. The likely scenario is families with school-age children will move in, and that casts further doubt on the overly optimistic estimates in the document.
Perhaps a conservative example will better make the point. Let’s assume 10 empty nesters move into a new development. Then typical 2 car / 2 kid families move into the vacated homes. That's already a net gain of 20 cars and 20 kids and that doesn’t count the impact of new immigrants.
Assuming the enrollment numbers are correct, there is neither a guarantee or an understanding of that trend. The fact is we live in a highly desirable community, proximate to the largest city in the country. Citing what might be a temporary trend while discussing demand-driven housing costs and shortages is an obvious contradiction.
I stand by what I said at the hearing. Withstanding the conspicuous attempt to placate critics, the conversation around impacts on our schools has been lacking!
Also in the meeting, the Board stressed 2 points:
The proposed changes are modest compared to what’s currently allowed.
They assured us that any future proposal would have to be approved by both the Planning Board and the Board of Trustees as a special permit.
These points aren’t what they seem. The first is a false comparison. The Board only recently admitted it, but the rezoning proposal is specifically designed to entice development by increasing the allowable density and therefore potential profitability in the affected zones. There’s an underlying admission; currently, the Katz property isn’t economically appealing to develop, and so likely never would be! When they say it’s a modest change they’re comparing something that doesn’t and probably won’t exist to something they are specifically hoping will.
The second point may be true but there’s a catch. The Board has an intrinsic interest in the sale and development of the property, but they are also responsible for approving any plan to do so. It’s also typical for developers to write approval contingencies into their purchase agreements. These are serious conflicts of interest, and in the Board’s desperation to sell the land they may be tempted to erode the very protections they’re touting.
I’ve followed this process about as closely as a busy parent can, but it seems designed to befuddle even the most diligent observer. The labyrinth of hackneyed talking points and shallow justifications lead to obvious questions many of which go unanswered. Criticism is countered with a patronizing repetition of platitudes instead of a constructive demonstration of thoroughness most citizens expect.
This tendency is so pronounced that a recent Board letter to the Gazette employed scare tactics, suggesting if we don’t develop Katz we’ll end up with a homeless problem like San Francisco. Reminiscent of “won’t someone think of the children”, another Board letter paraded out a seemingly contrived story about his elderly neighbor. And these are among the many innuendos and outright assertions that concerned citizens are nothing more than alarmist conspiracy theorists. Am I the only one that thinks this is ridiculous? It's a sad substitute for the methodical and thoughtful process I think our small village deserves.
And what about transparency? In the November 18th meeting Richard Masur (chairman of the Croton Democrats) was quick to point out the Board’s “plethora” of communications and public hearings. A curious statement, considering I personally heard him say at the June 18th workshop that we needed more time than had been allotted. I wanted to talk to Mr. Masur afterward to explain my impressions. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to catch him. However, I’d point out that much of the communications he cited including the 2 public workshops are legally mandated. Watching how they’ve been conducted, and observing the aforementioned points, I’m skeptical that they represent a transparent effort to work with the public.
Furthermore, recent admissions and documentation make clear that more familiar spending policies are the primary motive, not affordable housing and/or comprehensive planning mandates. Hot on the heels of the costly DPW fiasco, the Board intends to continue spending like a teenager with a credit card. Spending millions on a CPA project that will likely hurt our quality of life is one example. Borrowing and spending still more millions to renovate a police station most of us will never step foot in is another. Granted selling Katz is meant to soften those consequences, but we should be in a period of reflection and recovery instead of questionable deficit spending.
In principle, I’m not against development or spending, but we’re not grappling with the complex issues we face. If we’re going to maintain the character of this village, we’re going to need a lot more than offset curb cuts and height restrictions.
I’d like to see us deal with the problems we have now so we can accommodate further development. Unfortunately, that type of foresight hasn’t been evident thus far. We need to say no to this proposal because fiscal responsibility is always a requirement! We need to say no because traffic planning is a prerequisite, not an afterthought. Say no because if you don’t the board will continue to spend without end, and they’ll happily repeat these shenanigans again and again.
Steve Saporito