screen-shot-2016-10-29-at-11-31-02-am-150x150-9957531New York’s local property tax cap has become an issue in a hotly contested Hudson Valley congressional race, where a specious anti-cap argument rejected by state courts has been revived by the Democratic candidate, Zephyr Teachout.

Responding to criticism from her Republican opponent in New York’s 19th Congressional District, former state Assembly Minority Leader John Faso, Teachout just released a new TV commercial explaining why she has opposed the tax cap.

In a voice-over to a series of photos of men and women of various ages meant to portray typical district residents, Teachout says: “This is who should have control over property taxes, not Albany.”

Then, addressing the camera directly, she adds: “It’s why my problem with any cap is that it takes away local control.”

An identical claim has been made by New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), the statewide teachers’ union, which consistently has opposed and criticized the cap enacted in 2011 at the behest of Governor Andrew Cuomo (whom Teachout, a Fordham Law School professor, unsuccessfully challenged in the 2014 Democratic gubernatorial primary).

But the union position, as now echoed by Teachout, is flatly incorrect. The tax cap—limiting annual tax levy growth to the lesser of 2 percent or the rate of inflation, subject to locally variable exclusions and allowances—was carefully designed to preserve local control by allowing for override. A tax levy exceeding the local cap can be approved by a vote of 60 percent of local government legislative bodies, or by 60 percent of school district residents voting directly on school budgets.

The NYSUT-Teachout argument was specifically rejected by state Supreme Court Justice Patrick J. McGrath in September 2014, when he dismissed the union’s attempt to invalidate the tax cap on constitutional grounds. The term “local control,” McGrath wrote in his 16-page decision, “encompasses both favorable and unfavorable consideration of a school districts’ budget, while the plaintiffs (NYSUT) appear to equate local control with budget approval.”

McGrath added:

The vote itself connotes local control. Stated differently, local control is still served if a “cap” exceeding budget is disapproved by a district’s voters. [emphasis added]

In May, McGrath’s decision was upheld in a 4-1 ruling by the Appellate Division of Supreme Court in Albany. In his majority opinion, Justice Eugene Devine said both sides in the case had acknowledged that the tax cap law, and a temporary state “tax freeze” income tax credit for residents of localities holding taxes below the cap remaining under the cap, “were designed with the legitimate goal in mind of restraining onerous property tax increases that were believed to be depressing economic activity in the State.”

Devine continued:

Plaintiffs [NYSUT, its top officers, and a couple of parents] suggest that it is irrational to achieve this legitimate aim in a manner that impairs local control of schools and deters poorer school districts that would otherwise seek a property tax increase over the tax cap to keep pace with educational needs. It suffices to say that, while [the Education Law provision including the cap] and the tax freeze legislation incentivize districts and their residents to avoid property tax increases over the tax cap, neither prevents such increases if sufficient community support exists for them.

Beyond judicial findings

If anything, the tax levy cap actually strengthened local voter control of school spending in at least two respects.

First, it replaced a prior law that allowed school districts to impose state-mandated contingency budgets, even when those plans effectively overrode the wishes of voters who rejected proposed tax hikes.

Second, for the first time in New York’s history, it gives school district voters the ability to block any tax hike. Under the law, if a proposed budget fails to gain a simple majority in two votes, the levy is automatically frozen at the previous year’s level. The limit on re-votes, and the risk of inciting a voter backlash in the form of a tax freeze, has been a huge unspoken factor in the restraint school boards have shown since the tax cap took effect.

Both of those changes encourage tax and spending restraint—which, of course, is not NYSUT’s priority.

What really hampers “local control” throughout New York are state mandates on local governments in school districts, especially civil service and Taylor Law provisions that make it difficult to control and restructure personnel budgets.  Mandate reform, including changes to the state Triborough Amendment locking in “step” pay hikes for government employees, have been strongly supported by broad, nonpartisan coalitions including associations representing school boards and local governments.

But calls for mandate reform to boost local control have been blocked or ignored, by Cuomo and the Legislature, in the face of opposition from public employee unions—the most powerful of which is NYSUT, which gave an early endorsement to Teachout’s congressional campaign.

Go here for more background on the tax cap.

About the Author

Ken Girardin

Ken Girardin is the Empire Center’s Director of Strategic Initiatives.

Read more by Ken Girardin

You may also like

NY State Public School Enrollment Falls Five Percent Since Covid

New York’s public schools lost almost 60,000 students — 2.38 percent of their total student population —in the past year alone Read More

NY was still far from jobs recovery at end of 2021

New York's pandemic recovery has trailed far behind average payroll job growth in 48 of the 49 other states since early 2020, according to latest employment statistics. As detailed below, while New York City was hardest hit by the Covid-19 outbreak and Read More

Answers needed on Governor Hochul’s health-care budget

The health-care agenda laid out by Governor Hochul in her budget proposal this week leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Here are a few of them. Read More

Climate Activists Keep Moving the Goalposts

Activists want total control over every building in the state. How much will this add to the costs of new homes and commercial properties as developers scramble to make last-minute changes? Read More

The State of the State Spending Spree

The State of the State is the prelude to Hochul’s state budget reveal. It’s a budget that represents a generational opportunity. Read More

Since downstate is the epicenter of omicron, why are upstate hospitals feeling the crunch?

A puzzling pattern has emerged from New York's latest wave of the pandemic: Downstate hospitals are dealing with the lion's share of COVID patients, but upstate hospitals are the ones running out of beds. The paradox was Read More

Climate Act Accounting Overstates Benefit to New Yorkers

The Scoping Plan prepared by the Climate Action Council claims benefits of up to $430 billion from the Climate Act. Read More

Putting Governor Hochul’s $10 billion health-care ‘investment’ in context

In her State of the State address this week, Governor Hochul prominently called for a $10 billion "multi-year investment" in the state's health care system, including $4 billion earmarked for wages and bonuses, with a goal Read More

Subscribe

Sign up to receive updates about Empire Center research, news and events in your email.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Empire Center for Public Policy
30 South Pearl St.
Suite 1210
Albany, NY 12207

Phone: 518-434-3100

General Inquiries: Info@EmpireCenter.org

Press Inquiries: Press@EmpireCenter.org

About

The Empire Center is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank located in Albany, New York. Our mission is to make New York a better place to live and work by promoting public policy reforms grounded in free-market principles, personal responsibility, and the ideals of effective and accountable government.

Empire Center Logo Enjoying our work? Sign up for email alerts on our latest news and research.
Together, we can make New York a better place to live and work!