We don't know how people voted, but we do know who voted and this data gives us a lot of information.
First some general information about the Greenburgh Central School Distirct (GC). The district is large with a total population of 21,029: this is nearly half of Greenburgh's unincorporated population and a little less than 1/4 of the town's total population. GC is quite old with a median age of over 47 (the median age in Westhester County is 40.6) and is impressively diverse. The 2017 census projections tell us that GC's total population is 44% white, 26% Black, 10% Asian and 17% of any race who identify themselves as Latin. [Source: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/97000US3612720-greenburgh-central-school-district-ny]
GC has 15,427 registered voters: this is the largest voting unit within the town of Greenburgh (other than the town itself). GC's registered voters are also old, with a median age of 54, and are 57% female. These voters are 59% registered as Democrats; only 15% are Republicans who are outnumbered by voters who chose no party affiliation (21%).
It is a generalization - perhaps misleading and insinuating - but GC can conveniently be divided between Hartsdale (defined here as 10530 zip code (7825 voters) and including a handful of voters in 10523 (344 voters) and 10583 (20 voters) and Fairview (comprised of the White Plains zip codes: split between 10603 (3602 voters) and 10607 (3575 voters) with just a few in 10606 (61 voters). Hartsdale overall has 53% of GC's registered voters, and Fairview (i.e., the White Plains zip codes) has 47%.
Now let's look at the bond vote. The turnout of 3541 was large for GC's typically disengaged electorate. But while 23% is unprecedented for any GC vote in decades, it is nothing to get impressed by. For example, in the recent town supervisor race, the town wide turnout was 26%, marginally higher than the contentious, deeply debated GC bond vote. Slightly more Hartsdale residents and many more Fairview residents voted in the supervisor election than voted in last March's bond referendum.
So what do we know about the bond referendum voters? They were old: the median age of bond voters was 60, well above the district-wide registered voter median of 54, and quite a startling age for any election. How old were they? 1/3 of voters were born before 1950. Put another way, the turnout for voters in their 70s and 80s was 34% These seniors were motivated voters. In contrast, voters in their 30s and 40s - those most likely to have kids in the district - only turned out at half (17%) the rate of the seniors. Registered voters in their 30s and 40s greatly outnumber the seniors (4600 to 3200), but voted in lower numbers (1100 seniors to almost 800 of their juniors).
As further evidence that seniors were motivated to vote, we only have to look at the High Point complex. With over 630 registered voters with a median age of 72 years old, High Point has the largest concentration of voting seniors within GC. GC’s voting boundaries include pieces of 28 electoral districts (EDs) and the ED with the highest turnout % was High Point’s ED41 with 53% turnout (High Point’s five buildings comprise their own electoral district). For context, the next highest ED turnout was 37%. These 332 High Point bond voters had a median age of 74. For further perspective, High Point has just 4% of GC’s registered voters, but comprised over 9% of bond voters. Again, we do not know how High Pointers actually voted; all we know is that they were the most motivated community in GC to come out on March 19th.
Who else made the effort to vote? In ED66 – one of the smaller EDs, consisting of Poet’s Corner south of Secor and the long streets that lead north off Ridge Road (median voting age of 62) - it might be guessed that traffic concerns provoked turn out at 37%. Orchard Park (ED42) also voted in high numbers at 35%. Rounding out the other high turnout EDs exceeding 30% were Poet’s Corner between Secor and Dobbs Ferry Road (ED40 with a median voting age 62) and ED56 which includes the Stone Oaks townhouses, much of the Fieldstone complex and other coop/condos immediately adjacent to the Woodlands campus (median voting age 68!). You’ll notice that, with the exception of Orchard Park, these EDs all have the Hartsdale zip code. While 53% of GC registered voters live in the Hartsdale zips, 62% of the bond voters lived in Hartsdale. Expressed another way, turnout in Hartsdale was 26% in comparison to Fairview (White Plains zip codes) where turnout was 18%. Orchard Park (ED42) is the exception to the low White Plains zip turnout rates.
The gap between the total Hartsdale and Fairview/White Plains turnout rates leads to the next question: who didn’t vote? The first category of no-shows are apartments other than High Point. Only 4% of voters who live in apartments on Central Avenue voted. Slightly less desultory was the 10% turnout at Winding Ridge and 12% from all the East Hartsdale Ave buildings. 90/100 Manhattan Park also settled around 12% as did the Pondside/Pondcrest/Preserve units. In ED46, the largest within GC’s boundaries, which has a mix of multi-family and single family, the turnout was limited to 15%. ED46 includes Manhattan Avenue and the surrounding streets. By contrast, turnout at the recent Supervisor’s election from ED46 was 24% as one hundred more ED46 voters turned out for the supervisor election than for the GC bond referendum. The highest multi-family units other than High Point were, not surprisingly the Fieldstone and Pinewood complexes where the 20% turnout may have been spurred by perceptions about the traffic and construction impact of the capital project on these units which adjoin the Woodlands campus.
Among the single family home neighborhoods, startlingly low turnout percentages show up a few EDs. In ED45, which consists of the rectangle of avenues between Hillside Ave and Warren, only 11% of registered voters came out, which was the same percentage reached at Sky Meadows/Knolltop ED26. At Parkway Gardens’ ED63 turnout reached slightly higher at 17% just below adjacent ED78 at 18% which includes the Presidents' streets and Grenada Crescent.
These numbers don’t tell us how people or neighbors voted and I won’t hazard to guess. They do tell us, however, about the voters who were engaged enough in GC’s future to vote in the bond referendum, either positively or negatively. The prototypical bond voter was a registered Democrat (61%), 62 years old (the median age of voters), female (60%), and lived in a single family home (est. 70%) in Hartsdale (62%). It may be unfair to project the bond’s failure on this typical individual. However, when there were 1257 yes votes, and we know that 2100 Democrats voted, it is clear that a lot of Democrats voted against the bond, at a minimum 40%, and probably at least 50%. The same general conclusion applies to the age, gender and location categories. With the “no” margin was so decisive at 65%, it can be concluded that a lot individuals who might be expected to be empathetic to the bond’s purpose decided to vote against it.
None of these previous numbers, however, address the core failure of the GC bond initiative. The most important number is 8% - the percentage of GC registered voters who voted in favor of the bond. When community support for an important initiative is only 8%, there are fundamental problems with the framing of project question, as well as the campaign for its passage. The lesson is not to blame seniors, or single family owners or Hartsdale residents for the bond’s failure. Indeed, the direction toward passage of a future bond initiative lies not in resenting the 15% who voted no, but instead in engaging the 77% who didn’t think GC’s future consequential enough to even bother voting this past March. This outreach can’t be easily achieved, but there is no other choice if the ambitious plans for GC’s future are to be realized.
