Archive for the ‘Schools’ Category

Governor Christie is trying to throw a lot of money at Trenton.  Notably he wants to build an $18M pedestrian bridge from the Capitol building to the Delaware River.  This report highlights the city’s progress (or lack thereof) in 5 basic measurements.   One has to ask whether that kind of investment will move the needle in improving any of these important measures.

It’s not enough, to say we did something, or are working on something or want something to happen.  Rather, the results are what matter.

All five of the following are “lagging” indicators, meaning they represent the past, but they are objective and widely used measurements collected in a consistent way across the state and nation.   There’s no hand-waving with these numbers.

• Crime levels as measured by the Uniform Crime Report
• Population growth as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau (in the case of Trenton, every year)
• Graduation rate as measured by the NJ Department of Education
• Median Household Income as measured by the U.S. Census, and
• Economic success as measured by our Tax Base

Crime is up and so were murders

The 2016 Uniform Crime Report represents last year’s crime

• Uniform Crime Reports for 2016 are 3313
• This is an increase from 2015 of 8.7%
• Murders were up from 17 in 2015 to 21 in 2016

Holding the rate steady would give the City a C, but since the both the murder rate and crime index increased I’m giving it a D.

Source: NJ State Police

Trenton is losing population

Trenton’s 2016 census estimate is 84,056 residents.  This is a 1% decrease from 2010’s population of 84,913.

You can’t revitalize a city by losing population.  It implies that our economy is shrinking, we’re not a desirable place to live and that our property values are going down.   New Jersey as a whole is gaining population at a 1.7% rate.

For continuing to lose population in growing state for the 4^th year in a row (since I’ve been tracking), Trenton gets an F.

Source: US Census Bureau

Graduation rates have declined

The Trenton school district’s 2016 graduation rate was 66.55%.  This is a slide backwards over 2015’s rate of 68.63% which had been a big improvement over the year before.

Just about 2/3 of Trenton kids are graduating now.  But still 1/3 don’t graduate high school which is appalling and continues to explain the high level of lawlessness in the city.

The State of NJ is spending a fortune on a new school but I’ll guess it won’t fix our problems.   We also have a new superintendent but Trenton is a bit of a revolving door in that regard.     One of these days Trentonians will do the right thing and lobby for school choice, county-wide integration or both.

Because we slid backwards, Trenton gets an D.

Source:  NJ Dept. of Education

Incomes in Trenton are down yet again

Median Household Incomes in Trenton are down again to $34.257 (2015 numbers) from $35,647 (2014).  These are the latest numbers we have but represent a disturbing trend in Trenton.  Not only are we losing people, but evidently, we’re losing higher income people.    Furthermore, 28% of people in Trenton live in poverty.

New Jersey’s median household income is more than double Trenton’s at $72,093.

For having shrinking incomes, a 4^th year in a row in a wealthy state, Trenton gets an F.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Tax Base is up a bit

Trenton doesn’t maintain a current publicly available tax list,  so I’ve to use the Dept. of Community Affairs web site.  It gives our tax base as $2,022,437,610 (just over$2B) for 2016.  This is up  from the $1,996,653,658 I reported last year.   The number includes properties with abatements and PILOTs so I think its likely indicative.

It’s tough to say whether this inconsistent reporting is really indicative of $22M in new investment.   However, I do know that $2B is enough of a tax base to support the city and we need something like four times the tax base to pay for our municipal and school budgets.   We have a long way to go and not too many projects in the pipeline.

As a comparison, Hamilton’s tax base is over $5B and tiny Princeton’s is over $6B.

For a tax base that at least isn’t shrinking but will nonetheless lead to higher taxes I give Trenton an D.

Source: Department of Community Affairs

Is the city turning around?  Not yet!

• The numbers are about the same as last year
• If you believe numbers don’t lie then we’re not really improving

If a Mayor and City Council really were interested in progress they would highlight these 5 numbers in every meeting, every State of the City and with the State.    Every dollar spent would be to improve the numbers year over year.   Instead, for the 17^th year in a row (since I’ve lived in Trenton) all I get from our government is hand waving.

Link to the 2016 Report Card

Link to the 2015 Report Card

Link to the 2014 Report Card

Mayor Jackson gave his state of the city address last night.  He highlighted quite a few things the city is doing and congratulated his staff on their hard work.   What he did NOT do, nor has any Mayor of Trenton in the last 15 years done, is to give numbers that back up successful results.

Several years ago, the Fix Trenton’s Budget Committee which I led, agreed on 5 basic measures of goodness for a city.  Since then I have been reporting on these indicators as an objective way to gauge our progress in Trenton.  It’s not enough, to say we did something, or are working on something or want something to happen.  Rather, the results are what matter.

All five of the following are “lagging” indicators, meaning they represent the past, but they are objective and widely used measurements collected in a consistent way across the state and nation.   There’s no hand-waving with these numbers.

• Crime levels as measured by the Uniform Crime Report
• Population growth as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau (in the case of Trenton, every year)
• Graduation rate as measured by the NJ Department of Education
• Median Household Income as measured by the U.S. Census, and
• Economic success as measured by our Tax Base

Crime is slightly up but murders were down

The 2015Uniform Crime Report represents 18 months of Mayor Jackson’s tenure.

• Uniform Crime Reports for 2015 are 3048
• This is an increase from 2014 of 3%
• Murders were down from 32 in 2014 to 17 in 2015

Holding the rate steady would give the City a C, but since the murder rate declined so drastically I’m giving it a B.

Source: NJ State Police

Trenton is losing population

Trenton’s 2015 census estimate is 84,225 residents.  This is a slight decline of from 2012’s estimate of 84,349.

Losing population is a crippling situation to be in.  It implies that our economy is shrinking, we’re not a desirable place to live and that our property values are going down.   Since 2010 Trenton’s population has decreased -.8% while New Jersey’s has increased 1.9%.   In a growing state, Trenton is shrinking.

For continuing to lose population in growing state, Trenton gets a D.

Source: US Census Bureau

Graduation rates have improved

The Trenton school district’s 2015 graduation rate was 68.63%.  This is an improvement over 2014’s dismal graduation rate of 52.95%

Just about 2/3 of Trenton kids are graduating now.  That sounds better but still 1/3 don’t graduate high school which is appalling and continues to explain the high level of lawlessness in the city.

It can be argued that fixing the schools isn’t a prerequisite for revitalizing the city.  The easiest target market for new residents is the millions of people without kids.  However, failing schools don’t help.

For a big jump in graduation rates though, Trenton gets an A.

Source:  NJ Dept. of Education

Incomes in Trenton are down again

Median Household Incomes in Trenton are down again to $35,647 (2014 numbers) from $36,662 (2013).  These are the latest numbers we have but represent a disturbing trend in Trenton.  Not only are we losing people, but evidently we’re losing higher income people.  This is disastrous for an economy that is largely based on retail spending.  Furthermore, 28% of people in Trenton live in poverty.

New Jersey’s median household income is more than double Trenton’s at $72,062.

For having shrinking incomes, a 3^rd year in a row in a wealthy state, Trenton gets an F.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Tax Base is down

Trenton gets an “incomplete” on this grade as it no longer bothers to publish its tax base information on the city web site.  The version published there is almost 2 years old.   So I went digging for another source and found our tax base (for 2015) published on the Dept. of Community Affairs web site.  It gives our tax base as $1,996,653,658 (just under $2B).  This would be down from the $ 2,036,287,800 I reported last year based on the January 1, 2015 City Tax list.

As we can see the numbers are inconsistent, but since they’re all that are available, I surmise that our tax base has in fact shrunk.   To fix Trenton’s budget we need to be adding roughly $100M a year in taxable properties instead we lost $40M in value.

As a comparison, Hamilton’s tax base is over $5B and tiny Princeton’s is over $6B.

For a shrinking tax base that will lead to higher taxes I give Trenton an F.

Source: Department of Community Affairs

Is the city turning around?  Nope!

• We’re in pretty much the same situation we were in last year
• There are some development projects but they aren’t paying taxes yet
• People are still moving away.

That’s not progress.

Link to the 2015 Report Card

A neighbor pointed out that Trenton has the highest effective tax rate in Mercer County and another neighbor blamed Governor Christie for it while also suggesting that Princetonians shouldn’t complain about their taxes because Trenton’s tax rate is so much higher.  Rather than tie up the neighborhood e-group I thought I’d comment further on Reinvent Trenton.

Trenton has had the highest effective tax rate in the entire State of NJ (not just Mercer County) for a long time.   Trenton’s rate is 4.753% and Princeton’s is 2.031%.
Mercer County Tax Rates by municipality

Despite any partisan claim that this is somehow the current Governor’s fault, we’ve had the highest rate since as long as I’ve been tracking it which goes back to Corzine and McGreevy.   If one wants to assign blame, we’ve had Democratic Mayors for the 24 years it took for our tax rate to climb to where it is.

And while we’re on the subject, let’s not forget what the situation would be if we weren’t an Abbott school district (that’s what you are if you’re so destitute that you can’t pay for education), our tax rate would be double than what it is now.   The State pays for our public schools.

However, The comparison to Princeton is correct.   People are generally oblivious to their tax “rate” and instead focus mistakenly on absolute value of the tax bill.   It’s our tax rate (in some cases higher than mortgage interest) that scares away new investment.

We do not have a cost problem.

Our costs are comparable to similar cities.  Politicians like to suggest to citizens that they are cutting costs but in a city like ours, that’s like cutting bone, a bad idea. Even our wasteful spending on parades and festivals is just a drop in the overall budget.

One notable exception is that Camden’s (a city with slightly lower median income than Trenton) policing costs are now much lower than Trenton’s and for what appears to be a superior level of service.  Camden’s solution was drastic and many people (mostly those in police unions) deride it.  Nonetheless regionalization (whether its union busting or not) should be considered.

While we can certainly be smarter about our spending, it’s not the big problem.

Our Big problem is revenue!

Hopefully everyone in Trenton is up to date on the drivers of our municipal and school budgets and the actual structural problems as they relate to State payments to Trenton (CMPTRA formulas, Energy Tax Receipt formulas, State PILOT payments, Transitional Aid and Abbott funding).   All of these sources measure in the millions.   Our immediate problem with the state is that the formulas are either incorrect, not being maintained or both.

Federal law prevents Municipal governments from taxing State governments.  That hasn’t prevented other state capitols in this country from being successful cities.  If one investigates some of those cities (“Fix Trenton’s Budget” did a few years ago) they find that NJ’s compensation package to Trenton is on par or better than most.  It’s what we’ve done with our limited resources that has caused the problem.

Trenton has been shortchanged on CMPTRA (includes taxes on business that the state collects on our behalf) and Energy Tax Receipts (state collects money from for energy companies on our behalf).   The previous administrations (Mack and Palmer) were asleep at the wheel on these issues.  We’ve forfeited millions of dollars (at last count over $20M as I recall).  Meanwhile the league of municipalities has spearheaded an effort to fix this.   Our current admin and council are somewhat more familiar with the subject and will hopefully lend Trenton’s weight to the effort to overhaul this payment system.

The fundamental problem revenue side of the equation.   Not one single policy has been enacted to drive investment in Trenton since I’ve lived until this week.  The “Vacant Property Registration Fee” measure is the first policy I know of in the last 14 years that seeks to stimulate an increase in our tax base.   The proposed property revaluation would be another and if we get our act together on use of the Abandoned Properties Act and Homesteading (buying City owned houses for $1) those will be 3 more.

We’ll continue to have the highest tax rate in the state until we straighten out our revenues.   Cutting costs is easy, anybody can do that and then not take blame for the results.  Fixing a city’s revenue picture takes imagination and thought.

I can’t think of any urban city in New Jersey which one would classify as truly “great”.   A great city provides the intellectual, creative and financial juice to form new companies that fuel economic growth and the resulting high quality of life.

There are large cities in America that do this like Boston, San Francisco and New York.    There are small cities that have done it as well; Raleigh and Austin come to mind.

As we wonder what it will take to make Trenton great again, we’d be foolish to think we could copy any of those cities.  After all we live in a unique state at a unique time.  But surely the ingredients for greatness are within our reach.

Much has been said about regionalization in New Jersey and how it can help.  But let’s be honest, Princeton is a poor comparable for Trenton, Passaic, Irvington and Camden.

The question is what does regionalization mean for Mercer, Essex, Passaic and Camden counties?  Does a rising tide raise all ships in those places?  Will a regionalized police force lead to lower crime rates and is that a measurably good thing for not only the urban centers but the suburbs as well?  What about schools?  What about economic development?

My suspicion is “Yes”?  Let’s seriously explore being a great county.

The analysis I have read about regionalization points to cost savings from combining operations.   This is obviously a good thing.  However, best guesses are that this amounts to around a 10% overall savings.  This is nothing to sneeze at but given the severe imbalance in property taxes vs. cost of services between a poor city like Trenton and its wealthy neighbors, it may not be worth the risk.

If, on the other hand, we saw an overall reduction in crim, county wide and not just in the urban center, then that kind of improvement would certainly grab a safety conscious suburbanite’s attention.

Schools could benefit too.   As it stands, suburbs currently fund not only their own schools but the lion’s share of the cost of urban schools.  Those urban schools produce generally poor results for a premium dollar.   But what if by integrating schools on a county level we were able to reduce the overall cost of providing a decent education?   There are thousands of examples of where this has happened in the USA.  If I lived in West Windsor, I’d much rather have a vote on how my money was spent in Trenton than not.  And as I’ve said many times, I’m the product of an integrated public urban school that I’d gladly compare to Princeton High.

But the real benefit could come from economic development.  Our suburbs struggle to attract ratables while at the same time fight the ugliness and hassle of sprawl.   But what if they benefitted from development in urban centers which typically have a surplus of developable land and welcome it?  Couldn’t that be a home run?  Imagine what would happen if county leaders could, in good conscious, focus their development efforts on cities knowing that the ratables their efforts generate would fund county-wide budgets.
This all sounds good but there is quite a bit of work to do to turn these ideas into real plans for action.  The fortunate thing in our favor is that a lot of the work has been done by State regionalization task forces and our current State administration is solidly behind those plans.

What is needed are Mayors and City Councils who are willing to lead their municipalities into a form of government that give up traditional autonomy in favor of a more balanced regional economy.   A strong leader in Trenton will need to find and sell the benefits of regionalization not only to the city but to suburbanites as well.

We’ll have to recognize that there is a good bit of well-deserved fear involved in a suburban town throwing in with a city like Trenton.  And Trentonians would have to realize that they would no longer call their own shots.

My hope is that at least one Trenton campaign in the 2014 election sets as its centerpiece, mutually beneficial county-wide regionalization.  Let’s explore sharing our library, Cadwalader park, our communication center, our schools and our developable land with our neighbors in return for becoming integrated back in to the region’s economy.

In the October 15th Trenton Times, Carmen Cusido’s article “County College has plans to expand” explains Mercer County Community College’s plans to increase its downtown Trenton presence.

For most people this sounds like good news, and in general it is. The second most important thing a city can do to revitalize is to provide job training. So MCCC’s decision to increase classes in Trenton where they can be easily accessed by Trenton residents is a great thing.

So why in the world would a guy like me who does almost nothing but lobby for smart revitalization in Trenton complain?

Because, the school is making dumb revitalization claims. MCCC argues that in addition to promoting the benefits of education to Trentonians, it is also providing an economic stimulus. They are not.

By expanding their programs, the college claims that more students will be milling around downtown presumably buying things. Here’s where MCCC logic breaks down. They are arguing that by students shifting their spending from one part of Trenton to the downtown it will have a marked effect on our economy. Somebody at MCCC needs to retake Economics 101.

The second point MCCC makes is that they will be spending money on construction on the expansion. I should remind readers that MCCC is funded with taxpayer dollars and that the proposed expansion will be tax exempt. So even though over half of Trenton’s property is tax exempt we’re going to get even more at the expense of Mercer County taxpayers.

I’ll give a couple of examples of what’s happened in downtown Trenton. Several years ago I made an offer on a building that’s since become part of the Daylight Twilight School. I was outbid by the school system. My project would have paid taxes, the school does not. The same happens with MCCC, they will outbid private investors using taxpayer money and we’ll be left with no new revenue. We’re also building an expensive new County courthouse on Market Street and county officials have the nerve to call this revitalization as well. Trentonians need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid of government spending. We need to elect officials who understand this and will be skeptical to the point of being openly hostile to the idea of anymore tax exempt development in our city.

That said, job training is a still a good thing. However the article on MCCC points to unclear thinking about what is really important in Trenton’s revitalization. We can’t afford to be vague.

In this political season it’s useful to point out what may be the most racist proposal put forth in New Jersey since city-wide school desegregation. It is the “Fair School Funding” bill and comes from Senator Mike Doherty of Hunterdon County. He probably would say he’s thinking about all New Jerseyeans. Yet, he’s proposing a policy that would push our state backwards from schools that are “separate but equal” (a poor starting point), to “separate but unequal”, where much of the South was in the 1950s.

Desegregation in our state was done on a city-wide basis, unlike in southern states which were integrated at a county level. The differences in effects are stark. Southern schools achieved racial integration because county districts limited white flight. In New Jersey, white families simply moved over a city line and created their own new racially segregated school districts, like West Amwell, Hamilton, and Ewing.

As a result, New Jersey has 590 school districts for a population of 8.7 million people while North Carolina has 115 districts for a population of 9.4 million people. This is how schools became comparatively “separate”.

This system of city-wide integration gave rise to New Jersey’s current level of segregation, which ranks the state as 12th in black-white segregation and 6th in Hispanic-white segregation according to a study at the University of Michigan based on US Census data.

The 1985 “Abbott vs. Burke” decision by the NJ Supreme Court further adjusted New Jersey’s educational landscape. It mandated that poor districts receive equal funding to rich districts. This is how schools became “equal”.

For those who aren’t students of civil rights history, the US Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that “separate but equal” wasn’t good enough. While school systems across the country and particularly in the South resisted integration, forced school busing in these new county-wide districts, in many ways saved southern cities from the white flight that drained resources from their northern counterparts. It was a blessing in disguise.

Rather than propose ways to finish the job of racial integration in New Jersey, Senator Mike Doherty of Hunterdon County proposes to gut our “separate but equal” system of educational apartheid and replace it with a “separate and unequal” system.

Senator Doherty’s plan is called Fair School Funding. It seeks to equalize school funding from the State to a formula that equates to $7,400 per student no matter what school system that student lives in. In Senator Doherty’s PowerPoint presentation, he compares West Amwell (which is mostly white) to Asbury Park (which is mostly black). In his example, West Amwell would receive an additional $6000 per student from the State while Asbury Park would lose $17,000 per student. West Amwell could then spend $20,000 but Asbury Park could afford to spend only $10,000.

In the presentation given to a West Amwell Town Hall meeting, Senator Doherty uses a particularly “high handed” statistic that says 85% of school districts will get more money. However, I suspect that 50% of students will benefit and 50% will not because the large urban districts like Newark, Trenton and Asbury Park would be the losers.

The Fair School Funding web site is very well done and happily reports how much money every school district in the State would gain or lose. Trenton would lose over $130,000,000 (about 45% of its total) and Newark would lose over $370,000,000. Meanwhile, Princeton will gain over $23,000,000.

It takes a lot for me to call a thing racist but this plan just is. It’s based on the notion that it’s good that our schools are separate and furthermore that children in New Jersey’s poor (mostly black and Hispanic) districts don’t deserve the same public education afforded those in wealthy (mostly white) districts. If it weren’t, Doherty might have a Trenton or Newark co-sponsor to explain why property taxes would have to triple in those cities to make up for the loss in funding.

I fully expect Senator Doherty to trot out New Jersey’s Home Rule laws to defend his bill, much like George Wallace used “states rights” arguments to defend racial segregation. America has moved forward, leaving New Jersey behind, and now Doherty wants to take us all the way back to 1954.

Neither a State nor a civilization should want to institute a radical plan like Doherty’s Fair School Funding as it would effectively close urban schools. This proposal is like a “final solution” to the black and Hispanic urban populations.

If nothing else, this proposal shows how messed up New Jersey really is. The fact that a State Senator is proposing this should concern us even more. Senator Doherty needs to be called out. He apparently hopes to rise in the Republican Party and seek state-wide office. This should not happen.

It’s clear though that New Jersey needs to rethink how it wants to govern its society in order to overcome the fear and loathing that has bred Mike Doherty.

It’s fine to think that Asbury Park and Trenton need to do better at running their cities, they do. But really, other forces have caused West Amwell to be like it is and Asbury Park to be like it is. None of those forces have anything to do with how those cities are currently managed.

There are better ways to deal with schools and school funding and I call on Republicans of good will to lead the charge for a better New Jersey.

I’ll offer my counter-proposals.

Integrate school systems by county. This will force county-wide funding formulas that equalize education spending while leaving control in the hands of county tax-payers. It also provides real integration which will serve to break up existing pockets of poor achievement.

Provide all education funding from the State. This is a weaker remedy but at least accomplishes the goal of shifting funding away from property tax.

Combine the two proposals. Shift most school funding to income tax and allow the state to fund twenty-one county districts.

New Jersey needs to fix its social fabric before the economic fabric of its cities and suburbs can work well together. The people of New Jersey need to reject segregationists like Doherty and embrace the goal of twenty-one modern, efficient and integrated public school systems.

References

Fair School Funding web site – http://www.fairschoolfunding.com/

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research – http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/segregation.html

  In Part 1 of “The State’s Role in Fixing Trenton” I argued that New Jersey should fund a portion of Trenton’s revenue and I presented a simple calculation for a fair funding level, $70M.  However, there are several big changes that only the state can make that will truly re-invent Trenton’s economy and potentially all of New Jersey’s urban centers.

Over the years, state and federal governments have adopted policies favoring the creation of suburbs:  most notably road building, tax advantaged mortgages for single family homes and electrification.  Technology also played an important role in making urban centers less important as telecommunications, trains, power generation and eventually container shipping spread manufacturing out of town. [1]

These policies and technologies, among others, led to urban decline over the last 50 years.  Urban renewal and the riots in the late 60s were just nails in the coffin.

These are powerful mega-trends but their influence is waning and new mega-trends are taking over: Read the rest of this entry »

The elephant in the room when it comes to revitalization is schools.  Everyone knows it but most are hesitant to talk about the real underlying problem. Read the rest of this entry »

One of the most maddening debates you can have in Trenton is about city investment in new business vs. residential living.

Almost, to a person, the political elite in Trenton will tell you that investment in business is the top priority. I’ve had this debate countless times and you can see it in the political rhetoric of our candidates. However, when pushed by the logic of residential development, they’ll eventually say, “well it’s really a chicken and egg” problem. Read the rest of this entry »

Councilman Coston referenced in his blog, an email discussion he and I had about the impact of income distribution on Trenton. Mr. Coston’s blog can be found at, SouthTrenton.com.

I’ve taken the opportunity to restate the debate here.  It’s a useful discussion for policymakers and I thank Jim Coston for being the kind of Councilman that is open to challenging his own assumptions. Read the rest of this entry »