The Number of School Children If This Property Were a Subdivision
The US 2010 Census information for the combined 30068 and 30062 zip codes shows 20,024 children aged 5-19 in 36,903 housing units. That works out to 0.54 school-aged kids per house. With a maximum of 97 houses on the Tritt property, that would work out to 52 kids, or about 4 children per grade K though 12 if fairly evenly distributed by age. And it could be less because some of those children could attend private school or be home-schooled.
There's no denying that many East Cobb schools are overcapacity. However, a realistic subdivision on the Tritt property would not add significantly to the overcrowding problem. Also, when the seniors move out of their homes and into the senior living CCRC, new families will move into their homes, so potentially 800 new homes will be added to the school district.
Walton High School will soon be rebuilt, so that should alleviate overcrowding there. Furthermore, there are several smaller residential developments that are planned or under construction in East Cobb, and these will also impact schools. The growing pains of our public schools are just a fact of life.
The estimated $900,000 of taxes the proposed Isakson Living CCRC would pay annually, with a percentage going to schools, could be matched by a subdivision. Furthermore, Cobb County school taxes all go into one big bucket for all of Cobb County (except for the City of Marietta), so the CCRC could be built anywhere else in the county outside of Marietta, and still provide the same tax benefits to all Cobb County schools.
So, 80 new houses, priced for East Cobb in the Walton School district at a conservative estimate of $850,000 each, would generate $791,000 tax dollars. (40% of $850,000, minus $10,000 homestead exemption, then divided by 1,000, then multiplied by 29.96 unincorporated Cobb millage rate). In return for basically little lost revenue, East Cobb residents would get 1) far less traffic, and 2) a development that does not look like a giant apartment complex.
We would still prefer this property to be purchased as a Park, but a subdivision would be better for our community than the Isakson Living development, unless they come down to a reasonable number of units.