Controlling Our Growth
November 02, 2009 Filed in: Development
There is currently concern being expressed by some of
our citizens over certain language which appears in
the proposed updating of Englewood’s Master Plan.
While their concern may be exaggerated because of the
limited influence of the Master Plan on policy, we
think the issue which is the cause of their concern
is an important one. Do we in fact want to
deliberately encourage further population growth in
Englewood’s 5-square mile area? After an influx
following World War II, our population in the 2000
census was nearly unchanged from the 1960 census, at
26000+, but that number will almost certainly show a
new high in the 2010 census due to significant new
development in the current decade. Our view is that
limited population growth can be positive for the
economic and social health of the community, as long
as its attendant costs are reasonable.
The public school construction program authorized in the 2004 referendum, and nearly completed now, provided for some expansion in the number of students to be served, but there has been no effort to our knowledge to gauge how many more new housing units can be built in Englewood before we will need further school expansion. From the point of view of local taxes, this is the crucial question, since new development is generally tax-positive until it requires the building of more schools. In recent years new market-rate housing construction here has had little effect on the school population, but there is no guarantee that this will continue to be so. There is plainly a disconnect between 1) the efforts of the Board of Education to raise standards to meet the needs of more families and 2) the implicit assumption of the Planning Board that the schools can absorb limitless additional population.
Previous Master Plans have targeted the Office-Industrial zone in the southwest part of Englewood, containing largely low-rise commercial properties, for more intensive mixed-use development. The objective has been to increase property tax income from this area, preferably from office and hotel buildings which require minimal additional costs to the City government. As implemented, however, developers have pleaded an inability to profit from any construction but rental housing. They have thus been allowed to build projects which, while adding to our tax revenue, bring in significantly less than they might, and also present the possibility of greater school costs in the future.
In addition to further development in the industrial area, the draft Master Plan also addresses the downtown business area and adjacent properties. In particular it recommends residential development of the site presently occupied by the vacant Lincoln School and then says (provocatively to some) "Liberty School presents more complex planning issues but should also be partly or wholly a residential development, although a mix of uses may be possible."
At some time in the next several months, decisions are likely to be made regarding the future use of the Lincoln and Liberty School sites, which have been declared surplus by the Board of Education and are owned by the City government. Those decisions will be made by the 5-member elected City Council, and not by the unelected Planning Board. Indeed history shows that Planning Board recommendations are frequently ignored or rejected by the Council, and there is no reason to assume that the council will on this occasion allow language in the Master Plan to override its judgment.
The eventual Council decisions should take into account 1) the financial desirability of recovering all or part of the funds advanced to the Board of Education for the school properties, 2) the financial desirability of placing some or all of these now tax-exempt properties on the tax roll, 3) the possibility that there may be publicly beneficial not-for-profit uses for them which would justify the forgoing of tax revenue, 4) the desirability to the community of job providing businesses, 5) strategic timing, which would appear to suggest waiting until real estate market conditions improve before making any move with important long-term implications, and, finally, 6) as explained above, the implications to the school system of further population expansion.
The public school construction program authorized in the 2004 referendum, and nearly completed now, provided for some expansion in the number of students to be served, but there has been no effort to our knowledge to gauge how many more new housing units can be built in Englewood before we will need further school expansion. From the point of view of local taxes, this is the crucial question, since new development is generally tax-positive until it requires the building of more schools. In recent years new market-rate housing construction here has had little effect on the school population, but there is no guarantee that this will continue to be so. There is plainly a disconnect between 1) the efforts of the Board of Education to raise standards to meet the needs of more families and 2) the implicit assumption of the Planning Board that the schools can absorb limitless additional population.
Previous Master Plans have targeted the Office-Industrial zone in the southwest part of Englewood, containing largely low-rise commercial properties, for more intensive mixed-use development. The objective has been to increase property tax income from this area, preferably from office and hotel buildings which require minimal additional costs to the City government. As implemented, however, developers have pleaded an inability to profit from any construction but rental housing. They have thus been allowed to build projects which, while adding to our tax revenue, bring in significantly less than they might, and also present the possibility of greater school costs in the future.
In addition to further development in the industrial area, the draft Master Plan also addresses the downtown business area and adjacent properties. In particular it recommends residential development of the site presently occupied by the vacant Lincoln School and then says (provocatively to some) "Liberty School presents more complex planning issues but should also be partly or wholly a residential development, although a mix of uses may be possible."
At some time in the next several months, decisions are likely to be made regarding the future use of the Lincoln and Liberty School sites, which have been declared surplus by the Board of Education and are owned by the City government. Those decisions will be made by the 5-member elected City Council, and not by the unelected Planning Board. Indeed history shows that Planning Board recommendations are frequently ignored or rejected by the Council, and there is no reason to assume that the council will on this occasion allow language in the Master Plan to override its judgment.
The eventual Council decisions should take into account 1) the financial desirability of recovering all or part of the funds advanced to the Board of Education for the school properties, 2) the financial desirability of placing some or all of these now tax-exempt properties on the tax roll, 3) the possibility that there may be publicly beneficial not-for-profit uses for them which would justify the forgoing of tax revenue, 4) the desirability to the community of job providing businesses, 5) strategic timing, which would appear to suggest waiting until real estate market conditions improve before making any move with important long-term implications, and, finally, 6) as explained above, the implications to the school system of further population expansion.
