In New Hampshire, when a subdivision is proposed in just about any town or city, there is a “hue and cry” about the fact that it will put more kids in the school system, and that because of more kids, the costs of operations for the school district will increase – thereby increasing the taxes for all of the residents. Let’s look at this to see whether or not it actually is true, somewhat true, or false. 

Invariably, when a subdivision or a new apartment complex is proposed, the first line of defense for those who oppose the project is the fact that it will fill the schools with children and thereby raise taxes. NIMBY’s (Not In My Backyarders) will raise every issue they can possibly find to try to forestall the project. Whether their points are valid or not, is always questionable – particularly because cities or towns require outside specialists to address as many of the issues as their regulations allow them to address, and these cities/towns make the applicant purchase studies and then report to the board the results of all of those studies. The required studies can range from soils to traffic, to noise and geotech, plus hundreds of other types of studies, not to mention all of the state studies that must be completed, reviewed and approved of by the state. But in general, again, often a NIMBY first and last line of defense is all the kids the housing development will bring to the schools. 

Let’s examine this a little more in detail. According to the study found on Insider.com, New Hampshire has the lowest number of children per household of all 50 states at 1.73. 

Several years ago, Professor Emeritus of Economics Richard England, Ph.D completed a study of a local school district, by surveying the residents of several new subdivisions within the school district on the number of kids per household, and the average there was 1.32. Professor England was commissioned by NHAR to study this issue. His study can be found at NHAR.org/kids, and has a wealth of information in it. It’s worth the read. 

First and foremost, enrollments have been declining across New Hampshire for the last decade. Secondarily, the apparent miscalculation of direct tax paid for education versus being the only source of funding for that child appears to skew the calculations dramatically. Only 29 of 234 communities saw any growth in enrollments. Dover, which saw the largest increase in students at 16.4 %, also saw the smallest increase in taxes over all of those districts with increased taxes. Moreover, 9 of the districts that saw an increase in taxes actually experienced a decline in student population. The study showed no correlation between housing growth and increased taxes due to new enrollments.  

As we come to the end of this examination, the final conclusion of Professor England’s study is as follows: 

“It is not possible in a brief report to thoroughly address all of those complex topics in detail. Rather, this report seeks to answer a very simple question that is nonetheless a very important one: Will the construction of new homes in a community and the enrollment of additional children in its public schools necessarily raise the property tax rate? Using three types of analysis, I believe I have shown that the answer is definitely not”

Richard W. England, Ph.D.

In conclusion, we believe that with a severe housing shortage driving costs and values to points beyond affordability over the past several years, it’s time for communities to welcome the development of new projects. They add vibrancy and new blood to a community and should be welcomed! Families contribute to the workforce, bring in business, and as a result, added tax dollars. An aging population, without the addition of young families, can have a detrimental effect on communities and their economy. 

Are attitudes changing? Saint Anselm College’s Third Annual Housing Poll suggests that they may be – we can only hope.

– Dave Garvey & Laura Stoll