Edgemont Village?

The Edgemont Village Exploratory Committee's work is done now that the group has written its white paper evaluating the various legal and economic issues of creating a village. The committee ultimately did not make a recommendation to become a village or not, in part because opinions within the committee were divided.

From today's Journal News however, it now looks as if some residents are likely to form a committee to pursue incorporation:

Resident Bob Bernstein will form a group to put forth a proposal for incorporating the community into Greenburgh's seventh village, he said yesterday.

Bernstein, a member of the now-disbanded Edgemont Village Exploratory Committee, which studied the issue for 18 months, made the announcement a day after the committee presented the results of their final report.

"At this point, we fully intend to put together a petition drive, but not before we have met the challenges that the EVEC report identifies," he said.

Should be interesting.

EVEC final report

The Edgemont Village Exploratory Committee (EVEC) will deliver its final report tonight at a meeting at 8 p.m. at the high school. I'll give a brief overview of the EVEC process before the substance of the presentation--reports from the economics committee and the governance committee.

The white paper giving EVEC's findings will be available tonight at the meeting in hard copy (for the first 250 people, anyway). It should be available in pdf form through a link from the EVEC home page. (Unfortunately, I am unable to open the pdf file on my computer; not sure why. It's working fine now.)

The committee has done admirable work both in modeling the economics of a potential Edgemont village and in answering many of the legal questions inherent in becoming a village. Kudos to those who were active on those two committees.

The EVEC white paper stops short of making a recommendation as to whether or not to proceed towards becoming a village. It does however give a solid foundation of analysis of the ecomomic and governance implications of becoming a village.

------------------
Disclosure/disclaimer: While I am an officer of EVEC, the writing and opinions on this web site are mine alone and do not represent EVEC or any other organization or person.

Observations on the Edgemont budget vote data

If we think of the Edgemont residents who voted yesterday as the universe of budget voters, we can do some interesting analysis. We now know that within that universe are 1599 yes voters and 717 no voters. What else do we know?

No voters were much more likely than yes voters to vote in the first election, last month. Fully three-quarters of no voters voted last month compared with only one-third of yes voters.

This produced some interesting phenomena. Even though yes voters outnumbered no voters by 2-¼ to 1, the first vote was virtually a dead heat with a slight edge going to the no votes. This also means that of the "new" votes in the second election (that is, votes incremental to the votes in the first election) 86% were yes votes. For every one new no vote, there were more than six new yes votes.

Why were no voters so much more motivated than their adversaries in the first vote? Here are two reasons, each of which I suspect played a part:

• Sense of urgency. No voters had more of a burning platform (definition), a compelling reason to take action, in the first vote. Frustrated with double-digit tax increases, they wanted to be heard. Yes voters, on the other hand, were complacent. Perhaps because they assumed the budget would pass, they saw no urgency to vote.
  
• Communication. In the lead-up to the first election, a vote no letter went out to the electorate; and three-quarters of no voters voted. A similar vote no letter and phone calls went out before the second election with a fairly small incremental impact on the no vote. By contrast, no similar effort was made to stir up the yes voters before the first vote, and only a third of yes voters showed up. Before the second election, vote yes letters and advertisements were widespread, and the yes vote tripled.

The above analysis assumes that voters in the first election voted the same way in the second election. Some anecdotal evidence suggests this to be true. However it is certainly plausible that some no voters, once they understood the implications of an austerity budget, switched to yes, or that some yes voters, once they calculated the impact on their pocketbooks, switched to no. I suspect, however, that switchers were not numerous.

----------------------------------------------------
The numbers

For the nerds (or elroys, for those familiar with EHS lingo of a few decades back) in the readership who want to do their own analysis, here are the numbers:

• May 17 vote (budget defeated):
• Yes: 535 (50%)
• No: 542 (50%)
• Total: 1077 (100%)
  
• June 16 vote (budget passed):
• Yes: 1599 (69%)
• No: 717 (31%)
• Total: 2316 (100%)
  
• "New" Votes (Incrementally new votes in the second election):
• Yes: 1064 (86%)
• No: 175 (14%)
• Total: 1239 (100%)
  
• Rate of increase between the two elections:
  • Yes: +199%
  • No: +32%
  • Total: +115%

Edgemont school budget passes

I have been told that the budget passed by a margin of 1599 in favor to 717 opposed (and 19 contested ballots). (My undocumented prediction had been that the budget would pass by 200 to 300 votes. So much for my prognostication talent.)

You may recall the numbers from the May 17 budget defeat: 535 in favor to 542 opposed.

With far more publicity, letters and the like this time, the no vote went up by 32% while the yes vote increased by 199%. Seems the silent majority in Edgemont were for the budget.

If the informal conversations I had are representative, many folks stayed home the first time on the assumption that the vote would pass, but went to the polls when it turned out their votes might matter.

Several take-aways:

• The school board needs to get its act together on communicating effectively with the public the first time round.
  
• The board should assume that even if nobody shows up at budget meetings to lobby for lower spending and taxes, there is an implicit and always-present community need to keep spending and taxes as low as possible, consistent with a world-class education.
  
• To be effective, residents who want to ensure fiscally responsible budgets should speak loudly and firmly during the budgeting process. This is likely to be far more effective--and constructive--than speaking out during the voting process.
  
• When it matters, Edgemont residents will vote for the schools.

-----------------------------
Update (June 16, 11 p.m.): The Edgemont web site is running the headline "Budget passes!" with unofficial numbers. The numbers on the site may contain a typo. They read 1799 yes, 717 no, 19 contested. I think the 1799 is supposed to be 1599 (which would be in accord with two sources who were at the school for the reading of the results).As of the 9:40 a.m. on June 17, the numbers on the Edgemont site jibe with mine.

Greenstein letter to Vaughan on the Edgemont school budget

Edgemont resident Arnold Greenstein recently wrote the following letter to Jack Vaughan in response to earlier communication from Vaughan. (I reprint Greenstein's letter here with permission of the author.) Greenstein has also written a letter on the Edgemont budget to The Journal News.


(Click on above images to open letter in new window.)

Here is the text of the letter:

Mr. Jack Vaughan, President
Edgemont Education Committee for Fiscal Responsibility

I am one of the “two-thirds” of the residents that does not have a child in the schools. I have not had a child in school for ten years. I used to work in finance, but currently I’m a teacher, and my wife has been a teacher in Edgemont for over twenty years. Years ago I served on the School Board’s financial advisory committee. So, even though I support education, I too was astounded when I first saw the Board’s proposed tax increase. But after some investigation and reflection, I have come to a different perspective on the budget, and I believe that it is necessary to pass the current budget.

As educators, my wife and I have difficulty keeping up with increasing taxes and spiraling costs. Although you think teacher salaries are exhorbitant, I don’t know any teachers that can afford to buy a house in Edgemont without some form of additional income.

It is, however, unfortunate that you use misleading and inaccurate “facts” to inflame sentiment against an incredibly successful and well managed school district. Your percentages are stated in a very misleading way. “Teacher salaries increased 25% in the last three years... in the face of record low inflation,” seems to intentionally imply that teachers are making 25% more than they did three years ago. You must know that this is untrue. This increase is due to adding more teachers because of increasing enrollments. If you’ve investigated this at all, you know that salary increases were 2.9% and 3.1% in the last two years compared to the 2.7% cost of living increase. And Edgemont teachers are paid at the median of districts in Westchester (less than in Scarsdale, for instance). You must know that these kinds of mis-statements are erroneous and inflamatory.

In your first letter, you state, “An average Edgemont home assessed at $25,000...” and in your second letter you say, “an average Edgemont home assessed at $30,000...” I was unaware that a re-assessment took place in the past month. The last time I checked, the average assessment was about $22,000. Where are you getting these numbers? I can’t help but think that you are making them up as you go along.

Most of your other “percentages” are either wrong or misleading. I wonder where you obtained the figure that “two thirds of our community do not have children in the schools.” I don’t think this number is verifiable and am curious as to your source. You seem to be implying, however, that we’re paying for someone else’s child’s education. Have you considered that the average taxpayer pays for less than half of their own child’s education. If you have a child in the schools for 12 years, it takes 24 years to cover one child’s education. And if you’ve had two children in the schools, it’s 48 years.

Another example is your statement that it costs “~$20,000/student to send a child to Edgemont schools.” According to Westchester Magazine last month, Edgemont’s per pupil expenditure was $16,163 last year. Your figure is off by 25%. Edgemont is the top rated school district in Westchester and one of the top rated school districts in the country. It has been for over twenty years. And yet, our per pupil cost (according to Westchester Magazine) is $2,000 per pupil less than second rated Chappaqua ($18,200 per pupil), $5,000 less than #3 Briarcliff ($21,183), and $3,700 less than #7 rated Scarsdale ($19,873). Why can’t you rely on the correct numbers? Why are you trying to be inflammatory? Many of your other numbers are equally agregious, but it would take a much longer letter to go through them all.

Your solution is to vote down the budget. You show little regard for the educational environment. You want the board to negotiate teacher contracts that would make our teachers among the lowest paid in Westchester. You want to take away sports and co-curricular activities from students. You want to increase class size. I would prefer productive, positive solutions. Edgemont residents have enjoyed an increase in home values that astronomically exceeds the increase in real estate taxes. Your reliance on percentages belies the fact that a 30% increase in taxes over 3 years may be a couple of thousand dollars while a 30% increase in property values represents hundreds of thousands of dollars. I will gladly pay an extra thousand dollars in taxes to realize a two or three hundred thousand dollar increase in my real estate value. Even if I never plan on selling my home, if necessary, I can easily go to the bank and extract some of the equity, pay my taxes and put a couple of hundred thousand dollars in my pocket. This is only possible because of the quality of our schools.

People pay exhorbitant real estate prices for homes in our community because of the schools. I am terrified that if the budget is defeated this will no longer be the case. Students are not admitted to the best colleges without sports and extra-curricular activites on their applications. Eliminating teachers will curtail many activities and increase class size. Parents will no longer pay higher real estate prices to send their kids to a school district that eliminates sports, cuts extra curricular activities and increases class size.

Edgemont is Magic. I have to applaud the Board, Administration, teachers and staff for creating and maintaining a World Class school district, and spending less doing it than very similar communites. I don’t know how they’ve done it, but I wouldn’t fool with it. There are many other school districts, in very similar communities, that are spending significantly more money, and haven’t achieved the same results. My Edgemont home is the best investment I have ever made. There are many ways of using your substantial home equity to offset your taxes. I don’t know of any other investment or institution that provides the kind of returns, for our children, our community and our pocketbooks than the Edgemont schools. You are unnecessarilly threatening our schools, our children’s futures and our real estate values.

Sincerely,

Arnold Greenstein
Moorland Drive

"Edgemont is Magic": Greenstein letter on Edgemont budget

Edgemont resident Arnold Greenstein recently wrote the following letter in support of the school budget. (I reprint Greenstein's letter here with permission of the author.) Greenstein has also written a letter to Jack Vaughan on similar issues, available here.


(Click on above image to open letter in new window.)

Here is the text of the letter:

Editor, The Journal News
letters@thejournalnews.com
June 13, 2005

Edgemont is Magic. Edgemont is a World Class school district that is run at a cost below that of many similar districts. According to last month’s Westchester Magazine, Edgemont was the #1 rated school district in Westchester and the per pupil cost was $16,163, $2,000 per pupil less than second rated Chappaqua ($18,200 per pupil), $5,000 less than #3 Briarcliff ($21,183), and $3,700 less than #7 rated Scarsdale ($19,873).

However, there is an organization in the community that would like to vote down the current school budget. They have sent two letters, full of misleading, inaccurate and inflammatory “facts.” Their statement, for instance, that “Teacher salaries increased 25% in the last three years... in the face of record low inflation,” seems to intentionally imply that teachers are making 25% more than they did three years ago. They must know that this is untrue. This increase is due to adding more teachers because of increasing enrollments. Salary increases averaged 3% in the last two years compared to the 2.7% cost of living increase. And Edgemont teachers are paid at the median of districts in Westchester (less than in Scarsdale, for instance).

Their solution to an admittedly high tax increase is to vote down the budget. They show little regard for the educational environment. They want the board to negotiate teacher contracts that would make our teachers among the lowest paid in Westchester. They want to take away sports and co-curricular activities from students. They want to increase class size. It’s too bad they don’t put their time and effort into productive, positive solutions.

Edgemont residents have enjoyed an increase in home values that astronomically exceeds the increase in real estate taxes. Is an extra thousand dollars in taxes worth a hundred thousand dollar increase in real estate value? Even if I never plan on selling my home, if necessary, I can go to the bank and extract some of its equity, pay my taxes and put a couple of hundred thousand dollars in my pocket. This is only possible because of the quality of our schools. It is not possible in many neighboring districts.

I have to applaud the Board, administration, teachers and staff for creating and maintaining a World Class school district, and spending less money doing it than any other similar community. I don’t know how they’ve done it, but I wouldn’t fool with it. My Edgemont home is the best investment I have. There are ways of using your substantial home equity to offset your taxes. I don’t know of any other investment or institution that provides the kind of returns, for our children, our community and our pocketbooks than the Edgemont schools. Please do not unnecessarily threaten our schools, our children’s futures and our real estate values.

Arnold Greenstein
Moorland Drive

EHS budget

Remember to vote yes on the Edgemont school budget on Thursday, June 16, in the EHS gym.

Edgemont school budget revote

Today's Journal News covers last Tuesday's school board meeting about the budget in an article entitled "Edgemont schools to resubmit same budget."

The re-vote on the budget will be June 16. Absentee ballot applications should be available now at the district office at Edgemont High School.