Critic Says "Limousine Liberals" Bar Less Fortunate From a Quality Education

This week Scarsdale is in the news again. And the Village is not cast in a flattering light. Writing in The Atlantic, Richard D. Kahlenberg contends that restrictive zoning codes in well-to-do suburbs have deepened the divide between rich and poor and denied children from lower income communities the opportunity for the quality education offered in more affluent neighboring towns. He contrasts Scarsdale with Port Chester to analyze what underlies the inequalities.

Commenting on Kahlenberg's piece and Governor's Hochul's housing plan, State Assemblymember Amy Paulin said. “The Governor proposed a one size fits all plan that wouldn't work. That's why I opposed it then, and I oppose it now. The article unfairly demonizes Scarsdale residents for having the same opinion as most of Westchester and Long Island. It's a cheap shot, pure and simple.

We should instead be focused on finding solutions that will work. “

Below, local resident Diane Greenwald offers her view from the ‘Dale.:

Critic Lacks Nuance on Complex Issue; Scarsdale can Lead on Fair Housing Policies and Promote School Investment Statewide, without Destruction

I read Richard D. Kahlenberg’s article in the Atlantic with great interest (Liberal Suburbs Have Their Own Border Wall, The Atlantic, July 23, 2023.) I agree with many issues he raises; about how structural inequity is baked into suburban housing opportunities and undermines access to well-funded schools. It’s hard to be the example town (again), but we should face these issues with honest reflection. At the same time, Kahlenberg’s comments lack nuance. Given the historic nature of many of the zoning regulations around here, I am not sure his “gotcha” assessment of hypocrisy among “limousine liberals” is entirely fair. This is currently a welcoming community to many, if not economically diverse.

Let’s face it, Scarsdale may have a public school system, but in many senses, it’s a private town. Entry requires the ability to pay steep taxes that support our schools and keep our housing prices high for resale. Kahlenberg’s claim that this is “inflated” value does not ring true, it is actually value. We often talk about how lucky we are to live in such an enclave, and frankly, enclaves are good places to raise kids. On the flip side, entry to leafy suburbs may not be currently (or overtly) based on race or religious, but it once was, and those historic barriers remain part of our world and should be challenged, changed. Unfortunately, we as a community have seen evidence of Kahlenberg’s harsher assessments about what can be part of holding on to barriers.

A few years ago, I was disheartened by some local views expressed during discussions of Freightway, a transit-oriented development (TOD) project proposing multi-family housing along with parking, retail and services. First, a few loud voices levied accusations of (unfounded) corruption and incompetence against our Village Trustees, probably out of a misguided political agenda. Next, those nay-sayers unwittingly (I hope) unleashed a swell of fears and distrust, that dissuaded reasonable, needed dialogue. Finally, the possibility of apartments in the Garth Road area, meant to offset the replacement cost of the decrepit Freightway parking garage, unearthed anger and bias, particularly focused on “influx” in schools. It was a shameful moment for our community, tinged with racist/classist undertones that wrongly derailed viable explorations. But it does not have to be the end of our story.

Some version of development should be discussed again; it has potential to be revitalizing and revenue building for our community and could improve economic diversity. I believe most in Scarsdale are sincerely committed to expanding opportunity for others and interested in well-considered solutions. We could embrace building affordable housing, welcome middle-income families, and improve our downtown, without damaging what is truly lovable about this town, all in partnership with the school district. Couldn’t Scarsdale become the model for fair housing policies, rather than the example of NIMBY elitism?

As many know, Governor Hochul has tried to address NYS zoning laws in efforts to combat the housing crisis. Her housing proposal was not “moderate” as Kahlenberg claims; if it had been, I would have supported it. It was a blunt instrument, an inadequate policy for the complexities of change management. Hochul should not give up and should try again, seeking broad input. Meanwhile, we in Scarsdale can lead on improvements, not be the place to defeat.

In fact, “defeating” wealthy suburbs, as Kahlenberg calls, seems a misguided, cynical goal. Yes, we need more affordable housing, and ALSO, our goal could be to better fund all schools. Kahlenberg dismisses this as a liberal, NIMBY fantasy but it’s not. Everyone cannot move into a handful of towns, (more, sure, but not everyone) but schools in every neighborhood could improve, which would do good things for other communities and their housing values. Housing policy improvements ought to be a multi-pronged effort including funding underserved schools. Yes, funding.

We know from Scarsdale and other school districts like it, that resources ensure success. Yes, I have to say that obvious truth out loud! We have been living for decades with the Reagan-crafted mantra, one based on his calculated misuse of the 1984 report, A Nation at Risk. He twisted data to “prove” a ridiculous notion, that investment into inner-city and struggling schools would not improve them, even while suburb schools are well-funded and successful. That wrong idea lives under the surface of many policies and discussions about education today, and it must be stamped out, like the lantern flies we are finding in our yards. In Scarsdale, we keep class sizes small; offer unique programs that serve small clusters of students and all sorts of needs and interests; and attract top-tier teachers with high salaries. That is why our per pupil costs are $5,500 more than Port Chester, as Kahlenberg points out, and that can and should be rectified.

I get that we here in Scarsdale are an easy target for Kahlenberg. Our expressed values and our actions are not perfectly aligned, and we can do better. But also, Kahlenberg has his own hypocrisies to contend with, as reported by the New York Times. He may have some points, but he is prone to all-or-nothing views that do not yield solutions or build on favorable existing factors and this undermines his credibility.

Scarsdale residents, a majority of whom vote Democrat, still have some positive priorities to offer. Many in Scarsdale genuinely seek to change housing policies to be fairer and prioritize schools for allocating funds not only for our own, but for others too. Many believe that this privilege is a responsibility, not an entitlement and want to build bridges, not barriers. As I think of these complex issues, I consider our school motto, non sibi, not for self alone. We can look out for our own interests and also support others on their paths, including with some sacrifices. I think (hope) Scarsdale can do that, before it is done for us.