2018_01_09 J_ Abbott CommentsFrom: Jaron Abbott [mailto:jaron.abbott@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 10:47 PM
To: Christopher Bradbury; Mayor Paul S. Rosenberg; Susan R. Epstein; David M. Heiser; Jason A. Klein;
j.rednick@verizon.net
Subject: 900 King Street
Dear Honorable Mayor Rosenberg and Honorable Members of the Board of Trustees:
I am writing about the proposed project for 900 King Street and the environmental impact
analysis needed. I moved to the Arbors two years ago. I have a new family, so great schools
were very important to me. When I first found out about this project, I was open-minded, and
I’m certainly not opposed to an initiative that might help our elders. But the more I think about
this, the more concerning it becomes. I agree whole-heartedly with all concerns that have been
raised by the Arbors Board of Directors, and our lawyer David Gelfarb. Out of respect for your
time I will not repeat those here. However, I believe there are many other concerns that have not
been fully addressed or elucidated, and are also extremely important. In consideration for the
enormous impact this will have on us, please take these additional points into account.
1. First and foremost, I’m concerned about our schools. I understand that there will be new tax-
payers with this project. I also understand that they will be more likely to be on a fixed-income
and vote against high taxes to pay for great schools they don’t need. Therefore, there is a
conflict of interest for me and my family, and many others, since this is why we moved here.
My concern is that this will make it hard to break the tax cap when we inevitably need to
do so. The law requires us to have a super-majority vote just to keep up with inflation (when
inflation happens to exceed 2%). Furthermore, CPI inflation contains deflationary forces like
globalization, outsourcing, and automation, which are partly responsible for keeping the price of
our goods and services low. But unless we’re planning on having machines or overseas tech
support teaching our children, the true cost of education will have to be a bit higher than CPI. As
such, we will eventually need to break the cap. Or maybe the law will be modified by the time
we need to, I don’t know. I only know that busting the cap is extremely difficult. Ardsley
apparently did it, it passed with only nine votes, and the community vowed never to do it
again. I don't know how they rationalized the economics behind that claim. But this is why I
think our schools need more support than you might think just by looking at the most recent
budget. Sure, this passed by a wide margin. But they also had to make cuts and draw from
reserves in order to stay just under cap. This is clearly not sustainable. We need to carefully
consider whether we will still be able to safely break the tax cap when it becomes necessary.
2. I think we should question whether or not this will be beneficial to our elder population. I did
some research and found a study, published in the Elder Law Journal at University of Illinois, by
professor Mark Bauer: http://publish.illinois.edu/elderlawjournal/files/2015/02/Bauer.pdf
In this article, I learned that most 55-plus communities cater to younger and more active
retirees. Jon Pynoos, professor of Gerontology at USC, calls this “Peter Pan housing” designed
for people who are never going to age nor grow old. Turns out it’s extremely challenging to both
meet the needs of an aging population that requires a nursing home while at the same time
stabilizing (or even increasing) property values by maintaining appeal for younger
retirees. Indeed, many 55-plus communities are depreciating assets. Prof. Bauer’s parents
bought a condo in such a community, and 30yr later it sold for less than they paid. My own
grandmother had a similar experience. Longer lifespans and dwindling home equity can result in
a sort of prison from which there is no escape: they are no longer healthy enough to live on their
own, but unable to move since their equity has vanished. A community of all rentals would help
mitigate this risk. However, if the owner is cognizant of these economic forces, there might be
tremendous pressure to convert after it’s built.
The article then goes on to describe tragedies like Hurricane Wilma, which devastated many
such communities in Florida. Real estate developers lobbied against the HUD when they tried to
impose required services, and so the resulting communities were woefully unprepared. We’re
not in the hurricane belt, but there could be other kinds of tragedies in New York.
The recommended solution, which according to the AARP is what most elders are now wanting
more and more anyway, is to find a way for them to stay in their own homes as they
age. Perhaps, as we find better ways of doing that, these properties will become less popular,
and we’ll be able to better serve our elders.
If it is decided that, despite all the above risks, that this project should go ahead, we should at
least be sure that it’s not like those described in this study.
3. I’m very concerned with property values. Some of us, who bought more recently, still have
second mortgages and student loans. We’re already bracing for the full impact of the Trump tax
hike, which will likely reduce property values. If we’re also going to flood the market with so
much brand new housing, right next door, I find that absolutely terrifying. Furthermore, if it
becomes a depreciating asset, as described in the article I linked to above, that will only make
matters worse.
This proposal is, in some ways, far worse for property values than if they were developing high-
end units. Property values are driven by supply and demand. If we had brand new townhouses
right next door, these would likely go for well over $1m (think Bellefair, except 10y newer and
not right next to the airport). But people who can afford our $450-700k homes will not
automatically start buying homes that are twice as expensive, and the people who can afford
them probably would not have been in our market in the first place. So neither supply nor
demand would change much. On the other hand, if they are age-restricted, demand will be less,
since you’re restricting demand by definition. Therefore, they will sell or rent for less, and cut
into our market.
In addition, if these are going to be all rentals, we need to consider the impact of adding lower-
income residents to the community. Renters are also typically lower-income, and will not be as
invested in their/our home. This will impact property values as well. Here is a study I found
showing the negative impact of rentals to nearby
properties: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0094119091900334
The following elucidates some of the inconsistencies between
studies: https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/bitstream/handle/10217/75297/Usrey_colostate_0053
N_11509.pdf
This should all be carefully studied.
4. This is being pitched as an opportunity to increase tax revenue for the community. But would
that really happen? Of course, we’ll have more taxpayers. But as I explained above, these
particular ones will be more likely to vote against tax-increases for great schools they don’t
need. I would really like to see an analysis whereby it can be concluded that this results in a net
positive for the community. In addition, we need to take into account the lost revenue from the
Arbors, since our property values will be adversely impacted. Furthermore, if this turns into the
same kind of depreciating asset as described above, the implications are not going to be good for
tax revenue or property values. There should be an analysis whereby it can be concluded that,
despite all these negatives, it will still result in a net positive for the community.
5. I would like to see the analysis whereby it is concluded that the existing property is
untenable. Everyone seems to be assuming that this is the case, just because it is vacant. I have
three reasons to question this claim:
a) They are marketing units that are larger than any other office building in Rye Brook. Why is
that? If you’re having trouble making your business work, why not try some of what your
competitors are doing, and subdivide into smaller units?
b) At $2.25/sq ft, they are not the cheapest option. If it’s vacant, and they care to change that,
why not offer the best deal in town?
c) For a building like this, 10yr leases are not uncommon. Are they entertaining long-term stable
tenants? Or are they ignoring them, since that would only interfere with their much more
lucrative plans?
Please let us not just assume that the owner is doing their best to run an office building, just
because they say so. There are enormous financial incentives at play here, and they are not all in
the best interest of the surrounding community. Perhaps the problem is not the zoning, but that
the property is never given a chance, since it keeps getting passed to developers who are more
interesting in making as much money as possible at the expense of the community.
Everyone who lives in Rye Brook, and the Arbors in particular, are facing many risks and
potential damages as a result of this proposal. Please allow us the proper diligence so that we
can be confident in the answers to all these questions/concerns, knowing that our decision will
have the intended benefit.
Thank you,
Jaron Abbott
162 Brush Hollow Cres