During the Pataki administration, New York City’s pleas from the business community for overall lower taxes, and from poverty advocates for more spending on the poor, have largely been ignored. Not so the whines of suburban New York about its high cost of living – high property taxes, high housing costs, and the lack of alternatives to multiple automobile ownership, all of which are pricing out the young. When our politicians talk about bringing down the high cost of living, however, their “solutions” have generally involved subsidizing the high costs with taxes collected elsewhere, rather than reducing those costs. Reducing taxes in the suburbs is difficult (but not impossible) because suburban living is expensive by design, and in some ways by choice. And unless and until suburbanites become willing to change their choices and bring the cost of living down, the high cost of suburban living will remain a phony issue.
Some of those choices are made by individuals. The average new house in the United States had 1,500 square feet and a one-car garage in 1970; in 2004 it had 2,400. Only 16 percent of all new homes had more than 2 bathrooms in 1970, but in 2004 57 percent did. Only 58 percent of all new housing units had a garage in 1970; today 90 percent of new homes have a garage, a two car garage is the standard, and a three car garage is common.
Three cars are needed because whereas 40 years ago most families had one car, most now have one per eligible driver, or more. In part, this is due to the rising number of women in the workforce. But back in the day, those with more than one adult in the workforce were more likely to carpool. In early suburban neighborhoods, as well, convenience shopping was only a bike ride away. Not so more recent developments.
High costs aren’t always an individual choice, however. Most city dwellers live in neighborhoods where it is legal to subdivide their homes into two apartments to help cover their housing costs. Suburban zoning prohibits this, in order to keep the less well off, and their burdens, out of their communities. McMansions are developed, in part, because zoning limits new development to very large lots. Builders have to build larger, more expensive houses to cover the cost of the land. Multiple dwellings are, of course, generally prohibited in suburban jurisdictions. In their zeal to price out the working poor, even those who work in their towns, many suburban towns have also priced out the next generation. But that is a choice they have made.
Larger houses and additional, larger vehicles cost more to operate. One of those costs is property taxes. Yet overall taxes are a function not of the size of houses, but of the amount of local government spending. With their high incomes, low number of needy people, and shrinking number of families with children relative to empty nesters who don’t have children in the schools, the Downstate Suburbs ought to have the lowest local taxes as a share of income anywhere. Taxes are nonetheless high because spending is higher still.
From 1990 to 2005, local government employment in the Downstate suburban counties – Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Nassau and Suffolk – rose by 37,500 or nearly 20 percent. In New York City, local government employment fell by 23,800 or 5.0%. Public employees in most categories are also better paid in the suburbs than in New York City, especially police officers and teachers. In response, suburbanites have demanded, and received, a higher share of state aid to offset their rising taxes. Per student, if you include STAR, their state aid per schoolchild is nearly was high as New York City’s. Now that the state has enacted son-of-STAR to offset even more hiring and spending, their aid per child may exceed the city’s level. Yet few dare to suggest that staffing, spending and pay be reduced in the suburbs. Only in New York City where spending is lower, it seems, are such cutbacks appropriate.
The high cost of suburban living is part and parcel of policies that require a minimum amount of housing square footage per person, keep out the less well off, provide lots of government jobs, and eliminate the need for people to cooperate and to carpool. People choose to keep their living costs high, and could choose otherwise.