If school districts oppose housing, affordability is harder

Long Islanders frequently say the same two things when discussing the region's future: housing is unaffordable and taxes are too high. Both statements are undeniably true. Yet too often, the very institutions that command the largest share of our local tax dollars are actively working against one of the most effective solutions to both problems — building more housing.

School districts across Long Island have increasingly inserted themselves into the land-use and economic development process, frequently opposing housing and commercial development proposals. Their stated concern is predictable: New development may increase student enrollment and strain school budgets.

But that argument doesn't align with reality.

Across Long Island, school enrollment has been declining for years. Many districts are educating significantly fewer students today than a decade ago. At the same time, state aid has increased and local property taxes dedicated to schools continue to rise.

School taxes now account for more than two-thirds of the average Long Island property tax bill. Despite declining enrollment and rising aid, school budgets continue to grow and are almost always approved by voters.

That raises a basic question: If enrollment is falling and resources are increasing, why are school districts so aggressively opposing development that could help address Long Island's affordability crisis?

Part of the answer is a mindset that has taken hold in many districts: the assumption that any new housing represents a financial threat. As a result, school districts have become regular participants in zoning debates, environmental reviews and public hearings, often urging municipalities to reject development proposals.

This approach is shortsighted and harmful to Long Island's long-term economic health.

Housing development is not the enemy of strong schools — in many cases it is essential to sustaining them. Much of the housing proposed today consists of apartments aimed at young professionals, downsizing empty nesters and workforce households. These developments typically generate far fewer school-age children than traditional suburban subdivisions.

Equally troubling is the growing tendency for school districts to oppose industrial development agency incentives tied to commercial or mixed-use projects. These incentives are often necessary to make development financially feasible in one of the most expensive regions in the country to build.

Capital is mobile. So when Long Island turns away housing and economic development opportunities, the investment simply goes elsewhere.

None of this diminishes the value Long Islanders place on education. Our communities take enormous pride in the quality of our schools, and residents have consistently demonstrated a willingness to pay a premium to maintain that standard.

But we should also expect a return on that investment.

Today, many students who graduate from our excellent schools leave Long Island for college and never return — not because they want to leave, but because they cannot afford to stay. Housing costs are too high and the limited supply of new homes keeps driving prices up. If that dynamic with young people continues, we risk slowly pricing out our own future.

Addressing this challenge requires a broader perspective. Housing policy cannot be separated from economic development, workforce growth, transportation planning and the long-term health of our schools. Too often, these conversations occur in silos.

Long Island's future depends on breaking down those barriers. Solving our housing shortage, creating good-paying jobs, strengthening our schools and improving transportation will require collaboration across communities, institutions and sectors. Only by working together can we build a region where the next generation has both the desire — and the opportunity — to stay.

This guest essay reflects the views of Mike Florio, the CEO of the Long Island Builders Institute in Melville.