The real figure is around 60%. So where is the great revelation in Christie’s statement? The Abbott districts are urban with a higher density of people and therefore a lower property tax per/capita. It is mathematical: They have more students per square kilometer, higher population density, overcrowding, whatever form we want to put it. They raise less money in property taxes for more students than suburbia.
Then they may have more special ed. and second language students too. May be there is more bureaucracy, political corruption, and more students repeating grades, etc
Christie makes it sound like he invented the wheel. What the court has done is to force the state to make up for that deficiency caused by higher density and the other factors above. The court is enforcing a constitutional clause.
That is why property taxes are an anachronism and should be replaced with the income tax. There would be no Abbott’s then. All districts would generally get the same amount of funding per student.