Cracking the (Zoning) Code

In the case of Dobbs Ferry, the zoning regulations are hard to find within the larger Village Code and consist of chapters of information augmented with official maps and referenced to the even longer New York State Municipal Law. Reading and understanding the code is just too much to ask of a normal citizen. Moreover, inside all this complexity, it is hard to figure out what the underlying bias(es) and/or agenda(s)are that are baked into the code. 

Instead, it makes more sense for us non-experts to force a change in the zoning code from a laundry list of rules (i.e., genome) to actionable procedures – from DNA to RNA

The underlying bias in the zoning code was summed up by Louis Basha in The Rivertowns Enterprise this week when he stated, “There is nothing wrong with what the developers are doing. They spend the money on the property and they are fully entitled to do what they want.”   This laissez-faire notion that the market is efficient and that the ‘invisible hand’ will maximize utility for the community does not hold true for land usage. Today, both developers and the community suffer years of haggling and inefficiency because a morass of regulations has grown up organically over the years in an attempt to reign in the abuses of this laissez-faire creed. Because human beings are masters at ‘gaming the system’ , these regulations don’t serve the interests of any stakeholders, just a small coterie of lawyers and consultants.

It struck me that when the Waters Edge development is completed, the Village will not be able to answer three fundamental questions.

1.       Did the project increase the value of adjacent properties / land and thereby increase the long-term tax base of the Village?

2.       Will the tax roll of the project exceed the cost of Village and School District services consumed by the residents of the project?

3.       Was the project designed to be traffic neutral?

Answers to these questions would tell the citizens of Dobbs Ferry a lot more about the pros and cons of the project than the current regulatory approval process.

Applied to a wide range of projects, these tests would help the Village sort out which development to allow because it benefits the community as a whole and which development to stop. 

For example, the Gateway Park Feasibility Study Committee commissioned by former Mayor Joe Bova and chaired by Steve Centrillo found that building a park on the former Scott Chevrolet site would increase the surrounding property values to a distance of one-half mile by as much as 15%. In short, overtime, at a macro-economic level, Rochambeau Park would have had a positive effect by increasing the Village’s tax assessment significantly. 

On the other hand, the proposed Super Stop & Shop would have likely decreased the adjacent property values; we don’t know for sure because such analysis is not required by the zoning code or building permit application procedures.  By decreasing the Village’s tax assessment as a whole, on a macro-economic level, Super Stop & Shop was not in the interest of Village residents.

Applying the micro-economic  ‘tax roll versus service cost’ litmus test also helps cut through the regulatory haze and clearly see the impact of the competing projects.  The Park would have removed a parcel of land from the tax roll permanently, while increasing the work load of the Park’s Department, so on a micro-economic level the Park would have been a negative.  Super Stop & Shop would have increased the tax roll(though the amount by which would only have been determined after the project’s completion), while increasing the work load of the Police Department and the Department of Public works in terms of incremental road maintenance .  On a micro-economic level, the Super Stop & Shop project would have been positive.

Finally, in terms of traffic, Rochambeau Park is the hands down winner. 

In the final analysis, the Village Board would have been considering the cumulative impact of the competing projects on the overall Village and voted for Rochambeau Park.

 

I know that it is unrealistic to think that the ‘tried and true’ zoning regiment can be changed overnight by a little Village on the shores of the Hudson River, given the interest groups that benefit from its perpetuation. But it is worth starting a discussion on the issue and offering up a different way of looking at things that in the end would make local government much more transparent.

Just as DNA is giving way to RNA as real mover and shaker in the field of genetics, maybe we can change our perception of the zoning code from a laundry list of rules and regulations to a set of actionable and transparent procedures and tests.