Do you agree
with the CCA Party’s view that children are parasites?
By
Will Collette
In
the campaign leading up to June 1st’s special town financial
referendum, the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA Party) did the unexpected: they
finally came fully out of the closet with their view that children and families
with children are undesirable in Charlestown.
They’ve
implied this before, but never as boldly as when they tried to claim that
buying more open space is good for the taxpayers because it takes land out of
circulation that would, in their opinion, almost certainly be used for family
housing.
They
took a mighty leap based on a string of assumptions that any undeveloped land
that is not excluded from development will somehow always turn into
high-density housing for families and that those families will invariably have
school-age children who will forever be going to Chariho schools.
These
unwelcome rug-rats will burden the CCA Party voter base of well-to-do retirees
and non-resident property owners with higher taxes.
This
formulation doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Even though Charlestown’s population
has been dropping, especially among
school-age children, with a corresponding drop in Chariho enrollment, and our
population has been aging, we have still seen the CCA-controlled
town government raise the property tax
rate each and every year since 2008 when they took over. Even when
we’ve had excessively large budget surpluses.
Since
2008, when Charlestown’s tax rate per $1,000 of valuation was $7.16, we’ve seen
it climb to $10.11 this year. That’s a jump of 41.2% while the number of
children in Charlestown and Chariho enrollment both dropped. How does the CCA Party explain that?
A
recent Bryant
University report on the economic impact of the drop in the population of
children may explain why the CCA’s claims that children are bad for the
local economy makes no sense.
They
looked at the statewide decline in the percentage of the population aged 16 and
under to attempt to calculate how much that decline has cost the state’s
economy in general and what impact it has had on the cost of education. The
drop in the number of children between 2000 and 2013 was 35,417.
The
CCA Party and the Bryant University study both accept a basic reality that
every parent understands: it costs a lot of money to raise a child. In fact,
there is a new on-line tool from the Economic
Progress Institute that allows you to get pretty precise numbers for how much
it costs to provide for a family in Rhode Island.
While
the CCA assumes the cost of raising children is entirely negative, the Bryant
study looks at the data in a more holistic way.
They
estimate that Rhode Islanders spend $3.2 billion a year on child-rearing, “representing roughly 8% of Rhode Island’s
Gross Domestic Product.”
That
$3.2 billion in spending on children’s needs generates $4.2 billion in economic activity and is responsible for 45,793 full-time jobs in the state
economy generating $1.7 billion in
earnings. From this point of view, children are an economic driver, not a
drain.
The
Bryant paper argues that the drop in the number of children has not only cost
the state in lost economic activity and jobs but actually raised the cost per student of schooling.
Chariho
Superintendent Barry Ricci has often tried to explain that dropping enrollment
does not lead to lower costs simply because so much of the school system’s
costs are the fixed cost of infrastructure. When enrollment drops, it only
means the cost-per-pupil increases, worsened by lesser revenue received by the
system in state aid.
Brand-new
data just released by the National Education Association of RI shows that
Chariho’s drop in enrollment was 14.8%
over the past ten years, from 3,880 students in the 2004-5 school year to
3,305 this year. 575 fewer kids in school, but as the Bryant University study points
out, fewer children don’t mean lower costs, but rather lower revenue and
economic activity.
This
economic reality not only debunks the CCA Party’s taxes-and-children argument
but it is also a problem for people pushing charter schools. While charter
schools may show some slightly lower per-pupil costs, largely due to
cherry-picking students and paying lower wages and benefits to teachers, they
add to the growing cost per student at Chariho by further decreasing their
enrollment.
The
main difference between the CCA Party policy and the research findings of the
Bryant University team is that the Bryant paper looks at what spending on
children puts back into the economy, while the CCA Party skips that part.
No
one disagrees with the fact that raising children costs a lot of money. The
question is whether it is worth it.
The
CCA Party’s analysis only looks at how the cost of educating a child in the
Chariho School District affects the property tax bills of Charlestown
taxpayers, with particular concern for their political base – well-off retirees
and non-resident property owners. Even for what it is, the CCA’s arithmetic is
flawed since it is based on false assumptions about how new housing for
families will automatically translate into pupils in public schools.
The
CCA Party analysis completely overlooks the positive economic impact that
children have on the economy such as the spending that supports more than
45,000 jobs. Read the Bryant report
and see for yourself if the math and reasoning makes sense.
But
here’s an often overlooked fact that adds a measure of concern for the whole
state: our state cannot attract the kind of jobs and businesses we need to get
out of our economic slump without an adequate and trained workforce. Losing
children as we have means fewer new workers to take the place of those of us
who have retired. An old and aging workforce is not attractive to new business.
Finally,
there’s the cultural aspect of the debate over children. I understand where the
CCA Party’s aversion to children comes from. Their political base is older (the
average
age of the CCA’s Steering Committee is 76). They might have had children
once, but they are now grown and living elsewhere. Any grandkids they might
have are only around for a short time.
To
the CCA, Charlestown is a retirement community, even though two-thirds of
Charlestown’s adults still work for a living, or at least try to.
The
CCA Party also draws
60% of its campaign funding from non-residents who also have a
self-interest in lowering the town’s contribution to the Chariho School
District.
I
also understand that much of the CCA’s environmental policy is controlled by
Planning Commissar Ruth Platner and her husband, Cliff Vanover, who serves on
the Zoning Board and the CCA Party Steering Committee.
They
espouse a type of environmentalism I call “environmental nihilism” where people
are viewed as the problem. In word and deed, they have pushed the CCA to promote
radical Charlestown policies that treat human beings, and especially children,
as an invasive species.
Maybe
you’re OK with that, but I am not.