Croton Rezoning (Yorktown, Yorktown Heights, York: 2009, rental, townhouses)

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by dma1250

I wasn't. You said that the opposition "are actually concerned that their already overcrowded schools will become more overcrowded." My point is that no one had those concerns when the many hundreds of single family houses were built in the last decade. Funny how no one was worried about an increase in rich white kids to the school system.

Again, that's not necessarily racism at all. New housing in Croton faces tremendous property taxes (we know, we considered it). So while a new single family house might add a couple students to the school system, it also adds $20k per year to the tax base -- More than paying for the students. The danger of the apartments, is that they will add far less to the tax base, while still adding students. (I'm not sure of all the details of the proposed apartments... but it would be a reason to support 1-bedroom apartments, but oppose 3-bedroom units).

The Village of Croton currently has about 2,000 families. Adding 100 more families is a pretty large increase, all at once. (5% in one blow)

Furthermore, Croton has not been developed as quickly in recent years as you suggest. From 1980 to 2000, there was a total growth in population of 10%. 10% in 20 years... yet this proposal would add up to 5%, in one swoop. In the last 9 years since the last census, I believe growth has been about 4%.. in the 9 years total.

Again, I'm not actually supporting the opposition to the development. But I do think it's a bigger deal then you suggest.

[dma1250]

Originally Posted by havoc315

Again, that's not necessarily racism at all. New housing in Croton faces tremendous property taxes (we know, we considered it). So while a new single family house might add a couple students to the school system, it also adds $20k per year to the tax base -- More than paying for the students. The danger of the apartments, is that they will add far less to the tax base, while still adding students. (I'm not sure of all the details of the proposed apartments... but it would be a reason to support 1-bedroom apartments, but oppose 3-bedroom units).

Originally Posted by havoc315

The Village of Croton currently has about 2,000 families. Adding 100 more families is a pretty large increase, all at once. (5% in one blow).

I don't think I suggested that the only opposition could be racism--but I do think that those opponents that use the argument that it will make the town "like Peeksill or Ossining" are indeed playing on racist fears.

Your argument is the one that was used in the past to justify mass single-family development. But if there is anything we've learned in the last decade it is that the property taxes do not begin to cover the extra costs created by those developments. They may cover school tuition--though if you look at cost per student you'll see that they actually don't-- but they certainly do not cover upkeep on the roads, electric lines, sewers, fire and police protection, etc, etc, etc, that those sprawling developments require. Arrowcrest, for example, puts a huge strain on the town for services well beyond the number of kids in the school. An apartment complex like Amberlands, for example, does not cost the town as much.

Then of course there is the cost in quality of life and natural resources. Croton has lost nearly all of it's undeveloped land in the last decade to housing development, greatly reducing the town's primary commodity--it's natural beauty. And all of the new construction is of course outside of the village and therefore car-dependent, greatly increasing traffic. The new apartments, I believe, are proposed for an in-village location that would be in walking distance to amenities.

Originally Posted by havoc315

Furthermore, Croton has not been developed as quickly in recent years as you suggest. From 1980 to 2000, there was a total growth in population of 10%. 10% in 20 years... yet this proposal would add up to 5%, in one swoop. In the last 9 years since the last census, I believe growth has been about 4%.. in the 9 years total.

Again, I'm not actually supporting the opposition to the development. But I do think it's a bigger deal then you suggest.

Interesting data. I can only say that the town feels dramatically more developed today than it did when we moved here in 2001. I suppose that is because the development destroyed so much land and so dramatically changed the landscape that it had a far greater visual impact than the number of people being added to the population.

As for a 5% increase in once swoop, I'd say that a well-planned, organized, and controlled 5% increase in population is far better than simply letting developers build without any town planning.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by dma1250

I don't think I suggested that the only opposition could be racism--but I do think that those opponents that use the argument that it will make the town "like Peeksill or Ossining" are indeed playing on racist fears.

Your argument is the one that was used in the past to justify mass single-family development. But if there is anything we've learned in the last decade it is that the property taxes do not begin to cover the extra costs created by those developments. They may cover school tuition--though if you look at cost per student you'll see that they actually don't-- but they certainly do not cover upkeep on the roads, electric lines, sewers, fire and police protection, etc, etc, etc, that those sprawling developments require. Arrowcrest, for example, puts a huge strain on the town for services well beyond the number of kids in the school. An apartment complex like Amberlands, for example, does not cost the town as much.

Then of course there is the cost in quality of life and natural resources. Croton has lost nearly all of it's undeveloped land in the last decade to housing development, greatly reducing the town's primary commodity--it's natural beauty. And all of the new construction is of course outside of the village and therefore car-dependent, greatly increasing traffic. The new apartments, I believe, are proposed for an in-village location that would be in walking distance to amenities.



Interesting data. I can only say that the town feels dramatically more developed today than it did when we moved here in 2001. I suppose that is because the development destroyed so much land and so dramatically changed the landscape that it had a far greater visual impact than the number of people being added to the population.

As for a 5% increase in once swoop, I'd say that a well-planned, organized, and controlled 5% increase in population is far better than simply letting developers build without any town planning.

I certainly agree that some critics may be playing on racist fears. And I have no idea if the Moon Bay and other developments were controversial in their time or not.
But for example, you cited Arrowcrest -- A total of 30 single family, luxury homes. They are valued well over a million dollars apiece. You claim that Arrowcrest puts a huge strain on town resources, beyond the tax dollars collected. I find that hard to believe -- They pay property taxes of 30,000 to $60,000 apiece. In other words, the 30 homes as a group, contribute probably $1-2 million per year to Croton tax revenues.
The total school budget for Croton Harmon schools, is approximately $40 million per year.

Somehow, I think that the 30 homes in Arrowcrest are far less of a drag on community resources, then any other randomly selected 30 homes Croton.

If I was a resident of Croton, my support or opposition would really come down simply to the tax base -- Is the new development more likely to be an addition to the tax base, over costs... or is it more likely to cost more in services, than taxes collected.

And there is no easy answer to that question. As a resident of Chappaqua, I am bombared by both sides regarding the development at the Reader's Digest site, both sides presenting statistics about the costs and taxes, etc. It really becomes difficult to sort through all the noise.

[dma1250]

Arrowcrest created an entire mini-village that needs to be maintained by the village --roads to be plowed and repaired, sewer systems to be maintained, water lines, power lines, an added bus route, a new section of streets for fire and police to oversee. I'm no accountant, but I don't think the taxes are beginning to cover the expenses. Put those 30 families in existing homes on existing streets--let alone in an apartment building on an existing road--and the costs will be far lower.

The only Arrowcrest home I see listed is a 4,000 square foot clunker with lovely river views asking 925K, with taxes of $33,700. Those taxes, while very high, are not that much higher than your average home in Croton with an acre and that much square footage--certainly not enough to cover all of the additonal expenses that the Arrowcrest development saddled on the village. And new development homes tend not to hold their value as well as existing homes. Now that the value of that house has plummeted, the new buyers will probably grieve the taxes.

[havoc315]

I understand the point you are trying to make dma, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. On a side note, you can look up property taxes on zillow, and also of sold listings -- you will see some homes on the street have property taxes in excess of $60,000.

But looking at the types of expenses you discussed-- Many of them do not come out of town tax dollars, to my understanding. Water lines and power lines are billed by the water and power company. Yes, one more road needs to be plowed and repaired. A bus route possibly had to be added, but these expenses are easily covered by their tax contribution, far more so than many other single-family homes in Croton that pay less than half the property taxes. (A family of four essentially utilizes the same amount of town services, whether they live in a multi-million dollar home, or a modest tiny 3-bedroom ranch.)

Your list of services really demonstrates how much greater a burden of 100 apartments might be. You talk about stretching out the police and fire department. I doubt 1 extra street of million dollar homes is much of a burden on the police department-- But 100 rental apartments are far more likely to be a burden on the police department. You mention the sewer system -- Having almost purchased a home in Croton and gone through the inspection, I can tell you that the sewer system within the village is ancient, and falling apart. Putting 100 new units on that existing sewer system could possibly present tremendous and dangerous issues, and might entail massive expense to upgrade the sewer system that was never meant to handle that kind of volume, and that is essentially a 100+ year old system. Adding 100 families in a narrow downtown location can certainly contribute to far greater traffic, than 30 homes isolated outside of the main village. (Just people pulling in and out of the apartment complex will create all new traffic problems.)

I'm not an accountant or engineer. I understand your basic argument that nobody seemed to make objections to million dollar single family homes, only to multi-unit apartment buildings. But the financial argument is a real argument. Neither you nor I have the expertise to really get to the bottom of the math. It raises issues such as, are the apartments likely to contain school age children? (3 bedroom units are far more likely to have school age children, than 1 bedroom units). Issues such as the current state of the sewer system at the location. The existing traffic patterns, and where parking for the apartments will be located.

As I said, in my own head... It would simply be a matter of whether the apartments end up being a plus or minus on the towns budget, when all is said and done. (Now Walter will yell at me for referring to town, when I really mean Village and school district).

[dma1250]

I don't know enough of the details of the village's expenses, but I do know that the Arrowcrest development in Yorktown Heights--as well as other developments in town--have proven to suck more money out than they put in--even though the houses all pay taxes in the 30K to 60K range. I imagine that is true in Croton as well. The costs of maintaining the new infrastructure, plus school costs of the added students, are more than the taxes bring in. Building on existing roads with the infrastructure in place is always cheaper in the long run than creating new roads and new infrastructure.

The issue you raise about Croton's sewer is interesting, and I certainly agree that any plan for creating new apartments needs to take that into account. As I understand it, the zoning change would allow the new apartments to be added to existing buildings--so it would be important to make sure the system could handle the added use.

I don't see why new apartments in existing structures would be a greater strain to the fire department than enitre new streets of houses in a previosuly undeveloped area. Ditto the police. They are already watching and servicing those areas.

But I do agree that neither of us have the expertise to get to the bottom of the financial issues.

PS, it is always a pleasure to disagree with you.

[rubygreta]

Originally Posted by dma1250

Someone living in a "modest" single-family house can certainly feel elitist and classist about those who need assistance to afford an apartment. Historically it is the working-class and lower-middle-class that is usually the most resistant to programs to help the poor.

Like most towns in the area, Croton has a fair degree of socio-economic diversity. Homes range from very modest ones in the village to very expensive ones outside of town (especially in the Teatown and Mt. Airy sections). The median income is $97,376 (according to the NY Times), certainly not "rich" but hardly that "humble" either.



Given the broad the support for the zoning change in Croton, it would appear that most residents realize that diversity--both economic and racial--is strength and that the proposed apartments are a great way to increase population, tax base, and customers for local stores without a major impact on the physical environment. It is a national movement called "smart growth."

Tell you what, DMA. I don't know where you live. But let's rezone the properties adjacent to your property for high density apartments. Will you support that? Until you do, I don't think you should be commenting on those in Croton who oppose this proposal (PS - I do not live in Croton).

[dma1250]

Originally Posted by rubygreta

Tell you what, DMA. I don't know where you live. But let's rezone the properties adjacent to your property for high density apartments. Will you support that? Until you do, I don't think you should be commenting on those in Croton who oppose this proposal (PS - I do not live in Croton).

The Croton proposal--as I understand it--is for zoning buildings that are already zoned for apartments to allow for more apartments. That is, a 2 family house could be converted into a three-family one. It covers an area in which--if every single homeowner took advantage of the opportunity--an additional 100 apartments could be added. I don't think that anyone who buys a house in the village center, in an area already zoned for multi-family dwellings, can be that outraged that the zoning would allow for an additonal apartment in the buildings next door.

As for my neighbors here in Yorktown Heights, if the 40 acre property next to me where to be developed (beyond the current house on the property, that is) I would MUCH prefer a large, multi-unit apartment building with a small footprint than the aprox 9 to 10 single family houses that the current zoning would allow. One big structure would save the majority of the woods and pastures and would have a far smaller impact on the visual environment (not to mention being more energy efficient and cost-effective).

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by dma1250

I don't see why new apartments in existing structures would be a greater strain to the fire department than enitre new streets of houses in a previosuly undeveloped area. Ditto the police. They are already watching and servicing those areas.

Police coverage is about population -- not geographic range. Who has a bigger police force, New York City or Anchorage? (Yet, Anchorage is much bigger geographically).

I don't mean to be politically incorrect, but somehow I would think that any study would show that renters impose a greater burden on police than homeowners. (Statistically speaking, homeowners are more likely to be law abiding than renters). Not to mention, you are talking about 100 homes versus 30 homes. Police don't routinely patrol most suburban streets, they show up in response to a complaint. So ok, Arrowcrest is now one more street that might generate a handful of complaints in a typical year. The addition of a dense 100 apartment complex downtown is far more likely to lead to greater police activity. Without comparison.

And to echo what you said, I never mind our discussions. I know we can disagree respectfully with each other, and I appreciate the insight and valuable points you provide.

[rubygreta]

Originally Posted by dma1250

The Croton proposal--as I understand it--is for zoning buildings that are already zoned for apartments to allow for more apartments. That is, a 2 family house could be converted into a three-family one. It covers an area in which--if every single homeowner took advantage of the opportunity--an additional 100 apartments could be added. I don't think that anyone who buys a house in the village center, in an area already zoned for multi-family dwellings, can be that outraged that the zoning would allow for an additonal apartment in the buildings next door.

As for my neighbors here in Yorktown Heights, if the 40 acre property next to me where to be developed (beyond the current house on the property, that is) I would MUCH prefer a large, multi-unit apartment building with a small footprint than the aprox 9 to 10 single family houses that the current zoning would allow. One big structure would save the majority of the woods and pastures and would have a far smaller impact on the visual environment (not to mention being more energy efficient and cost-effective).

No you wouldn't. You would prefer 9 or 10 single-family houses that are clustered (say 1/3-acre lots), with the rest of the property remaining open space.

And if you convert 2-family houses to 3-family houses, you could be adding two cars per house. Where do you think these people park? They park on the street, which will turn the neighborhood into Queens.