Last week, there was a news splash about the city's population projection, with an overall gain but a decline in school-aged children. I read the fine print, and it appears that my former mates at City Planning did what I consider the right thing, and constrained the population forecast by land use. That is, since NYC is already developed at a high density, there are only so many housing units that can be added, and demographic trends are driven here (unlike in Texas) more by the occupancy of existing housing than by the amount of new housing. And here DCP used migration by type of person from 1980 to 2000 to see who would flee and who would move in. Therefore, the city's official population projection assumes that parents of school age children with the means to leave will continue to be driven out of NYC by bad schools and small housing units, as they were in my generation.
I know this because I know that is what the 1980 to 2000 trend was, having discussed it with the folks there many times while I was there. In fact, DCP’s population division did a Public Use Microdata Sample run for me some years ago, showing who moved in and who moved out by lifecycle status and education. (The resulting report was never published, in part due to concerns that a report showing parents with children leaving might upset other interest groups, even though no public policy prescriptions were included).
The 1990 census data showed young college-educated people moved in, and married couples with school-age children headed by college graduates moved out (there was a small back-flow of college graduates post children moving in, which may be increasing). Single parents stuck around. That was the big trend, along with NYC’s older “Archie Bunker” generation dying off and being replaced by immigrants. For the future, the reason the number of children in NYC is projected to drop, despite a population gain overall, is a forced exodus of parents with children to the suburbs.
In the news article, DCP pointed to a factor other than schools to explain the trend – housing. It is a legitimate factor. Only 1/3 of all housing units in NYC have three or more bedrooms, and many are occupied by people without children. (Given the need to stay put to benefit from public housing and rent regulations, and tax policies that favor homes over apartments, it doesn't make sense for empty nesters to downsize). In contrast, 2/3 of U.S. housing units have three or more bedrooms. The suburbs and Upstate are aging rapidly, as the initial occupants of suburban developments age. As they sell, it will open up homeownership opportunities that the city won’t have. And parents will leave, in DCP's view, to take advantage of the opportunities. Including the projected demographic trends in the suburbs, and factoring that into the city situation, was an impressive addition to the model.
Perhaps, given the state's fiscal policies, parents will need to leave. Based on where people want to live, the suburbs would have a huge decline in enrollment in their schools, yet they continue to hire — up several thousand year-over-year in November, according to recently-released data. Perhaps they were celebrating the CFE decision, given that the state can continue to promise that the more people they hire, the higher their share of school aid will be regardless of the number of students, since they will be "held harmless." They are locking it in, and more hires mean more retirement benefits to be paid someday.
The city, meanwhile, continues to cut public school employment because, as the judges in the CFE lawsuit found, it is expected to provide efficiencies. Mayor Bloomberg is seeking them as enrollment falls, as he should be doing. How is that for a set of incentives? Your savings will not be used to alleviate your shortage, only to increase other's excess. Gee, shouldn't we get to keep empty hospitals too?
So as in the 1990s, if the parents were to stay and NYC enrollment were to rise, the resources would not be distributed accordingly. Meanwhile, as a Times article in the real estate section said today, NYC is a great place to be a senior citizen. Especially since it hits those working with an income tax, while keeping property taxes low for those with tax-exempt retirement income.
Young people in NYC should be aware; the city is planning for you to leave, like it or not, when your children reach school age. That is, it is planning for past trends to continue. That is a certainty for housing, but a decision for the schools. Perhaps you should plan accordingly. Or try to do something about it.