The good, bad and ugly of a property-tax cap

Gubernatorial hopeful Andrew Cuomo, the current Democratic state attorney general, recently swung by the Jewel Quinn Senior Center in North Merrick to tout a 2 percent property-tax cap for all municipalities and school districts in New York.

Nassau County Executive Ed Mangano, a Republican, joined Cuomo at the campaign stop, which was attended by a host of media representatives.

The symbolism of holding a news conference in front of a room full of supportive seniors was obvious. They applauded and cheered each time Cuomo and Mangano spoke about how property taxes have grown out of control.

Speaking before a crowd of seniors is one thing. Whether Cuomo, if elected, could get such a cap through the state Legislature is a whole other story.

In this election cycle, you’ll probably hear a great deal about capping property taxes. Amid the current recession, property taxes in many local municipalities have continued to rise while people’s incomes have stagnated or, worse, declined. That, as far as elected leaders are concerned, is a recipe for political disaster. So you can expect one of the rallying cries in this year’s election to be property-tax containment.

But enacting a property-tax cap is easier said than done. David Paterson, the current governor, has tried in vain since 2008 to enact a 4 percent cap. Each time, the Assembly has shot down his proposals. In June Paterson proposed a cap that exempted school districts, to no avail. So don’t expect Cuomo’s more stringent 2 percent cap to go anywhere fast.

School district officials are often leery of caps. In any given year, school district expenses rise. Contractual obligations must be fulfilled. The cost of heating and lighting school buildings inevitably goes up. In recent years, we’ve seen the price of gasoline, needed to power school buses, spike. At the same time, many school districts have had their state aid cut dramatically, often by millions of dollars. If a cap were enacted and aid were cut, school districts argue that their only option would be to reduce or eliminate services, which could potentially hurt students.

But a cap would have the consequence of forcing greater fiscal discipline on school boards that are often outmatched by union negotiators.

A cap could also help energize an otherwise apathetic electorate. In many school district elections, less than 30 percent of residents show up to vote. A community could, according to the Cuomo plan, override a cap if 60 percent of voters agreed to spend more. That could encourage PTAs and other parent organizations to take a greater role in lobbying for their districts’ annual budgets.

To our mind, a cap is unrealistic while the state continues to enact unfunded mandates — that is, requirements it does not pay for. School districts have been burdened financially by the costs of conducting state tests for children from grade three up. The testing materials themselves cost a small fortune. There are also all the books and workbooks needed to prepare for the tests, as well as tutorial services. Finally, teachers are taken out of the classroom to grade tests — and substitutes are brought in, at more than $100 per day each, to take their places.

Twenty years ago, districts didn’t have to worry about such requirements. Then along came the federal No Child Left Behind Act under President George W. Bush, which requires annual state testing in most grades. New York state recently eased its testing requirements a bit, eliminating the fifth-grade social studies test. But for most districts, the new testing regimen remains a huge financial burden.

How many vital school programs might be lost if a property-tax cap became law?