SECTION 5: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

This section tabulates the level of state and local housing and community development spending relative to personal income, and number of state and local public employees in this category relative to population. Data is presented for in different regions of New York State, the national average, New Jersey, and other states. The 1997 census of governments is the primary source of information.

Housing and community development is discussed separately because it is an optional public service. While it accounts for a significant share of direct spending in many cities, including New York, most areas of the country spend little or nothing on housing, leaving the entire issue to the private market. The census of governments classifies the local government regulation of that market in the “protective inspection” and (for city planning) “central staff” categories, rather than in this category. Nationally, housing and community development accounted for only 1.6 percent of total state and local government expenditure. In New York City, however, it accounted for 5.6 percent of total expenditures, and is thus worth discussing on its own.

Chart 5.1: State and Local Direct Expenditures
Housing and Community Development

Sources: Census of Governments. Income: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

New York State’s housing and community development expenditures were among the highest in the United States in FY 1997, and in FY 1972.

In Fiscal 1997, New York’s state and local governments spent the equivalent of 0.64 percent of their residents’ personal income on housing and community development. That was 78 percent more than the national average (0.36), and more than in any other state except Alaska and Hawaii. California, at 0.56, was the only other state over 0.50. States vary widely in spending in this category. North Carolina and New Jersey, at 0.24, spent less that half as much as New York relative to income, and some southern and western states spent even less. In most states, however, housing and community development is primarily a local government function; state governments spend little directly, except in Alaska, Hawaii, and a few other states.

In FY 1972, New York’s housing and community development spending, at 0.62 percent of income, was slightly lower than in FY 1997, while the United States, at 0.30, was 17 percent lower. Other states dramatically increased or decreased their spending over those years. Spending increased from 0.13 to 0.56 in California, and from 0.22 to 0.40 in Washington. It decreased from 0.47 to 0.24 in North Carolina, and from 0.57 to 0.36 in Tennessee. States were even less involved in housing in 1972 than in 1997.

For a spreadsheet of this data, with data for all 50 states, click here.

Chart 5.2: Local Housing & Community Development Spending

Sources: 1997 Census of Governments. Income: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

New York City accounted for most of the housing and community development spending in New York State.

In Fiscal 1997, New York City accounted for 81 percent of New York State’s local spending on housing and community development. Its spending was equivalent to 1.06 percent of its residents’ personal income, nearly 3.5 times the national average of 0.31, and far more than in the Downstate Suburbs (0.06), the Upstate Metros (0.17), and the Rest of New York State (0.21). This spending does not include interest on the bonds used to finance public and publicly subsidized housing units. (Almost all interest expenditures are tabulated as one item in the Census of Governments).

While New York City’s operating spending was four times the national average (0.95 vs. 0.24), its capital spending was only 50 percent higher (0.12 vs. 0.08). Most of New York’s housing spending is used for Section 8 vouchers, which subsidize the rents of low income households in private housing, and to cover the difference between the operating costs of its large public housing stock and the rents paid by public housing tenants.

Housing and community development spending was concentrated in older and larger cities in Fiscal 1997. Spending was high as a percent of income in Philadelphia (1.36), Baltimore (1.79), Cook County, which includes Chicago (0.67), San Francisco (0.67), Los Angeles County (0.66), and Washington D.C. (0.63), in addition to New York City.

Most suburban areas spend little in this category, since most of the spending is intended to provide low-income households with a place to live, and most suburban communities do not want low income households living within their borders.

For a spreadsheet of this data, with data for all New York State counties, click here.

Chart 5.3: Housing and Community Development Charges

Sources: 1997 Census of Governments.

Rents and federal aid covered most of New York City’s housing expenditures in FY 1997.

In FY 1997, rents paid by tenants of New York City’s public and publicly owned housing units covered nearly 30 percent of the housing and community development spending in the city, more than in other parts of the state or the country. New York City’s housing program is considered one of the nation’s most successful.

Even so, the City’s public housing authority, and the owners of many of its low and moderate income private housing units (via Section 8 rent subsidies), rely on federal subsidies -- $2.4 billion in Fiscal 1997 – to cover the gap between rents and operating expenses. In most of the country, spending on public and publicly subsidized housing is limited to the amount that can be paid for with federal money. In fact, according to the Census of Governments, federal aid and tenants’ rents exceeded total spending excluding interest in many areas, including New York, in Fiscal 1997.

Public housing tenants have a federal guarantee that they need only spend 30 percent of their income on rent, no matter how low that income is. Reductions in federal funding to cover the operating losses of public housing, therefore, could lead to the City’s inability to keep those housing units maintained, and for demands that a rising share of the city’s own taxes to be spent on housing. In fact, there is an ongoing dispute among the federal government, New York State, and New York City about the source of funding for needed capital reinvestments in the city’s public housing. The $2.4 billion New York City received in federal housing aid was equivalent to one out of every eight dollars the City collected in local taxes in Fiscal 1997.

To return to the housing spreadsheet, click here.

Chart 5.4: Housing & Community Development Spending

Sources: 1997 Census of Governments. Income: Bureau of Economic Analysis. See introduction for details.

New York City did spend substantial local tax revenues on housing, rather than other priorities, in the late 1980s.

Excluding construction, New York State’s local government housing and community development expenditures have fluctuated between 0.50 and 0.60 percent of the income of state residents since the early 1980s. At the national level, local government non-construction expenditures have fluctuated between 0.28 percent and 0.33 percent of income. Rising state expenditures in these categories have added a few tenths over the years.

In the United States, local government housing construction expenditures, as well, have floated in a range between 0.06 and 0.08 percent of personal income. In New York State, however, housing construction expenditures were much greater in the 1970s (most of New York’s public and publicly-subsidized housing was built before 1980) and in the late 1980s than in other years. At the end of the last economic boom, in the late 1980s, New York City dramatically increased spending on subsidized construction. This increase, which was primarily financed with local New York City tax dollars, was large enough to lift the statewide average substantially.

New York City’s housing construction spending was cut back during the recession of the early-1990s, then fell relative to rising income after 1993. During recent years, the City has spent more local tax dollars on building and repairing schools, rather than building more subsidized housing. In the1980s, in contrast, relatively little was spent building and repairing New York City’s schools.

For a spreadsheet of New York State and U.S. housing and community development spending by year, click here.

Chart 5.5: 1997 Local Government: Housing & Community Development Employment

Sources: 1997 Census of Governments. Population: 2000 Census of Population, unadjusted data.

Local government housing and community development employment was very high in New York City, even when compared with expenditures.

While its housing and community development spending, as a share of its residents’ income, was 3.5 times the national average, New York City’s local government housing and community development employment, at 237 per 100,000 residents, was 5.8 times the national average. These employees are needed to maintain and operate the City’s large stock of public and publicly-owned housing. Moreover, these figures do not include employment in the city’s extensive network of private, not for profit housing builders and managers, who also rely on city funding. In the rest of the country, Section 8 housing vouchers account for a larger share of housing spending. These vouchers, typically used to subsidize rents in existing private low and moderate income housing, do not generate public or non-profit employment.

Local government employment in housing and community development was about average in the Upstate Metros and New Jersey. It was below average in the Downstate Suburbs, and in the primarily rural counties in the Rest of New York State. New York State as a whole, with 114 local government Housing and Community Development workers per 100,000 residents, was 2.8 times higher than the national average of 41.

To return to the public employment and payroll spreadsheet, click here.

Chart 5.6: March 1997 Payroll Per Employee:
Private Sector and Local Government Housing and Community
Development, vs. the National Average

Sources: Local government: 1997 Census of Governments, March 1997 payroll divided by full time equivalent employment. Private Sector: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1997 annual private earnings by place of work divided by annual average private employment. Private figures for New York City and the Downstate Suburbs are aggregated because they constitute an integrated labor market; data for finance industry workers in Manhattan are excluded.

Pay per employee in public housing and community development agencies was low, relative to the private sector and the national average, in New York City, the Downstate Suburbs, and New Jersey.

Local government housing and community development workers are not highly paid in New York City, the Downstate Suburbs, or New Jersey, relative to the private sector and the national average. This may be because in areas with a large public housing stock, such as New York City, a larger share of government housing employees are maintenance and clerical workers operating public and publicly-owned housing, while in the U.S. as a whole, a larger share are professional workers negotiating leases and development deals. Local government housing and community development workers are well paid, relative to the national average and their private-sector counterparts, in Upstate New York, but there are few of them there.

To return to the local government employment and payroll spreadsheet, click here.

Chart 5.7: Federal Aid Revenues: 1972 & 1977-97
Housing and Other Development Categories
New York State, Percent of the National Total

Sources: Census of Governments and related annual data. Income: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

New York State has received a large share of nation’s federal housing aid, but a low share of federal aid in other physical development and infrastructure categories, over the years.

New York State’s share of national federal housing aid has traditionally been much higher than its share of national population or, as this chart shows, national personal income. The share of federal taxes paid by New York State residents correlates approximately with the state’s share of national personal income. New York State’s share of federal housing and community development aid has been higher than its share of personal income in every year but one since Fiscal 1977, and in Fiscal 1972 as well. Therefore, New York State has a net profit on federal housing spending compared with the taxes its residents pay to fund it.

New York State has received proportionally less federal aid for other aspects of its built environment. For example, New York’s share of federal aid for transportation – airports, highways and transit – was below its share of national personal income in every year since Fiscal 1977, and in Fiscal 1972 as well. It will be even lower in the future. By act of Congress, federal highway and transit aid is now being distributed in proportion to federal gasoline tax payments, and gasoline tax payments are perhaps the only tax in which New York’s share of the national total is low relative to its share of population. Thus, New York’s share of national transportation spending may fall to 5.0 percent of the nation, and stay there. Moreover, bills have been introduced in Congress to reduce New York’s share of federal transportation aid even further, by redistributing transit aid to other parts of the country.

New York State has done even worse in federal aid for water, sewer, and natural resources projects, receiving virtually nothing in many years. The restoration of the Erie Canal, New York City’s Third Water Tunnel, federally-mandated filtration plants for New York City water, and federally-mandated holding tanks for New York City’s combined storm-water and sewage, are all being funded primarily or exclusively with state and local revenues.

For spreadsheet data, click here.

Section 5 Summary

Nationally, housing and community development expenditures are concentrated in older and larger cities. In New York State, local government housing and community development spending was far higher than the national average in Fiscal 1997; most of this was concentrated in New York City. The City’s housing and community development spending was 3.5 times the national average as a share of income; its housing and community development public employment was nearly six times the national average.

Most housing and community development expenditures are used to provide housing for low and moderate income households, and those with medical or social problems. Very little such expenditure takes place in suburban counties, either in New York State or elsewhere in the United States.

In most of the United States, housing and community development is funded primarily, if not exclusively, by the federal government. In the late 1980s, however, New York City embarked on a substantial locally-funded housing development program, sacrificing other priorities in order to pay for it. More recently, the City has spent less of its own local tax dollars on housing.

New York City is dependent on federal aid to cover ongoing housing costs and obligations. It received $2.4 billion in federal housing and community development aid in FY 1997. Most of the City’s housing spending goes to cover ongoing costs, such as rent subsidies for the minority of those eligible for Section 8 housing subsidies who receive them, and to cover the gap between rents and expenses in the New York City Housing Authority. The City’s spending on new housing construction, as a share of its residents’ income, was also higher than the national average, but by a modest amount.

With just 6.7 percent of the nation’s population, and 8.1 percent of its personal income, New York State received 16.3 percent of federal housing aid in fiscal 1997. New York State received far less in other types of federal infrastructure aid.

To move on to Section 6, click here.


SECTION 5: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This section tabulates the level of state and local housing and community development spending relative to personal income, and number of state and local public employees in this category relative to population. Data is presented for in different regions of New York State, the national average, New Jersey, and other states. The 1997 census of governments is the primary source of information. Housing and community development is discussed separately because it is an optional public service. While it accounts for a significant share of direct spending in many cities, including New York, most areas of the country spend little or nothing on housing, leaving the entire issue to the private market. The census of governments classifies the local government regulation of that market in the “protective inspection” and (for city planning) “central staff” categories, rather than in this category. Nationally, housing and community development accounted for only 1.6 percent of total state and local government expenditure. In New York City, however, it accounted for 5.6 percent of total expenditures, and is thus worth discussing on its own. Chart 5.1: State and Local Direct Expenditures Housing and Community Development Sources: Census of Governments. Income: Bureau of Economic Analysis. New York State’s housing and community development expenditures were among the highest in the United States in FY 1997, and in FY 1972. In Fiscal 1997, New York’s state and local governments spent the equivalent of 0.64 percent of their residents’ personal income on housing and community development. That was 78 percent more than the national average (0.36), and more than in any other state except Alaska and Hawaii. California, at 0.56, was the only other state over 0.50. States vary widely in spending in this category. North Carolina and New Jersey, at 0.24, spent less that half as much as New York relative to income, and some southern and western states spent even less. In most states, however, housing and community development is primarily a local government function; state governments spend little directly, except in Alaska, Hawaii, and a few other states. In FY 1972, New York’s housing and community development spending, at 0.62 percent of income, was slightly lower than in FY 1997, while the United States, at 0.30, was 17 percent lower. Other states dramatically increased or decreased their spending over those years. Spending increased from 0.13 to 0.56 in California, and from 0.22 to 0.40 in Washington. It decreased from 0.47 to 0.24 in North Carolina, and from 0.57 to 0.36 in Tennessee. States were even less involved in housing in 1972 than in 1997. For a spreadsheet of this data, with data for all 50 states, click here. Chart 5.2: Local Housing & Community Development Spending Sources: 1997 Census of Governments. Income: Bureau of Economic Analysis. New York City accounted for most of the housing and community development spending in New York State. In Fiscal 1997, New York City accounted for 81 percent of New York State’s local spending on housing and community development. Its spending was equivalent to 1.06 percent of its residents’ personal income, nearly 3.5 times the national average of 0.31, and far more than in the Downstate Suburbs (0.06), the Upstate Metros (0.17), and the Rest of New York State (0.21). This spending does not include interest on the bonds used to finance public and publicly subsidized housing units. (Almost all interest expenditures are tabulated as one item in the Census of Governments). While New York City’s operating spending was four times the national average (0.95 vs. 0.24), its capital spending was only 50 percent higher (0.12 vs. 0.08). Most of New York’s housing spending is used for Section 8 vouchers, which subsidize the rents of low income households in private housing, and to cover the difference between the operating costs of its large public housing stock and the rents paid by public housing tenants. Housing and community development spending was concentrated in older and larger cities in Fiscal 1997. Spending was high as a percent of income in Philadelphia (1.36), Baltimore (1.79), Cook County, which includes Chicago (0.67), San Francisco (0.67), Los Angeles County (0.66), and Washington D.C. (0.63), in addition to New York City. Most suburban areas spend little in this category, since most of the spending is intended to provide low-income households with a place to live, and most suburban communities do not want low income households living within their borders. For a spreadsheet of this data, with data for all New York State counties, click here. Chart 5.3: Housing and Community Development Charges Sources: 1997 Census of Governments. Rents and federal aid covered most of New York City’s housing expenditures in FY 1997. In FY 1997, rents paid by tenants of New York City’s public and publicly owned housing units covered nearly 30 percent of the housing and community development spending in the city, more than in other parts of the state or the country. New York City’s housing program is considered one of the nation’s most successful. Even so, the City’s public housing authority, and the owners of many of its low and moderate income private housing units (via Section 8 rent subsidies), rely on federal subsidies -- $2.4 billion in Fiscal 1997 – to cover the gap between rents and operating expenses. In most of the country, spending on public and publicly subsidized housing is limited to the amount that can be paid for with federal money. In fact, according to the Census of Governments, federal aid and tenants’ rents exceeded total spending excluding interest in many areas, including New York, in Fiscal 1997. Public housing tenants have a federal guarantee that they need only spend 30 percent of their income on rent, no matter how low that income is. Reductions in federal funding to cover the operating losses of public housing, therefore, could lead to the City’s inability to keep those housing units maintained, and for demands that a rising share of the city’s own taxes to be spent on housing. In fact, there is an ongoing dispute among the federal government, New York State, and New York City about the source of funding for needed capital reinvestments in the city’s public housing. The $2.4 billion New York City received in federal housing aid was equivalent to one out of every eight dollars the City collected in local taxes in Fiscal 1997. To return to the housing spreadsheet, click here. Chart 5.4: Housing & Community Development Spending Sources: 1997 Census of Governments. Income: Bureau of Economic Analysis. See introduction for details. New York City did spend substantial local tax revenues on housing, rather than other priorities, in the late 1980s. Excluding construction, New York State’s local government housing and community development expenditures have fluctuated between 0.50 and 0.60 percent of the income of state residents since the early 1980s. At the national level, local government non-construction expenditures have fluctuated between 0.28 percent and 0.33 percent of income. Rising state expenditures in these categories have added a few tenths over the years. In the United States, local government housing construction expenditures, as well, have floated in a range between 0.06 and 0.08 percent of personal income. In New York State, however, housing construction expenditures were much greater in the 1970s (most of New York’s public and publicly-subsidized housing was built before 1980) and in the late 1980s than in other years. At the end of the last economic boom, in the late 1980s, New York City dramatically increased spending on subsidized construction. This increase, which was primarily financed with local New York City tax dollars, was large enough to lift the statewide average substantially. New York City’s housing construction spending was cut back during the recession of the early-1990s, then fell relative to rising income after 1993. During recent years, the City has spent more local tax dollars on building and repairing schools, rather than building more subsidized housing. In the1980s, in contrast, relatively little was spent building and repairing New York City’s schools. For a spreadsheet of New York State and U.S. housing and community development spending by year, click here. Chart 5.5: 1997 Local Government: Housing & Community Development Employment Sources: 1997 Census of Governments. Population: 2000 Census of Population, unadjusted data. Local government housing and community development employment was very high in New York City, even when compared with expenditures. While its housing and community development spending, as a share of its residents’ income, was 3.5 times the national average, New York City’s local government housing and community development employment, at 237 per 100,000 residents, was 5.8 times the national average. These employees are needed to maintain and operate the City’s large stock of public and publicly-owned housing. Moreover, these figures do not include employment in the city’s extensive network of private, not for profit housing builders and managers, who also rely on city funding. In the rest of the country, Section 8 housing vouchers account for a larger share of housing spending. These vouchers, typically used to subsidize rents in existing private low and moderate income housing, do not generate public or non-profit employment. Local government employment in housing and community development was about average in the Upstate Metros and New Jersey. It was below average in the Downstate Suburbs, and in the primarily rural counties in the Rest of New York State. New York State as a whole, with 114 local government Housing and Community Development workers per 100,000 residents, was 2.8 times higher than the national average of 41. To return to the public employment and payroll spreadsheet, click here. Chart 5.6: March 1997 Payroll Per Employee: Private Sector and Local Government Housing and Community Development, vs. the National Average Sources: Local government: 1997 Census of Governments, March 1997 payroll divided by full time equivalent employment. Private Sector: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1997 annual private earnings by place of work divided by annual average private employment. Private figures for New York City and the Downstate Suburbs are aggregated because they constitute an integrated labor market; data for finance industry workers in Manhattan are excluded. Pay per employee in public housing and community development agencies was low, relative to the private sector and the national average, in New York City, the Downstate Suburbs, and New Jersey. Local government housing and community development workers are not highly paid in New York City, the Downstate Suburbs, or New Jersey, relative to the private sector and the national average. This may be because in areas with a large public housing stock, such as New York City, a larger share of government housing employees are maintenance and clerical workers operating public and publicly-owned housing, while in the U.S. as a whole, a larger share are professional workers negotiating leases and development deals. Local government housing and community development workers are well paid, relative to the national average and their private-sector counterparts, in Upstate New York, but there are few of them there. To return to the local government employment and payroll spreadsheet, click here. Chart 5.7: Federal Aid Revenues: 1972 & 1977-97 Housing and Other Development Categories New York State, Percent of the National Total Sources: Census of Governments and related annual data. Income: Bureau of Economic Analysis. New York State has received a large share of nation’s federal housing aid, but a low share of federal aid in other physical development and infrastructure categories, over the years. New York State’s share of national federal housing aid has traditionally been much higher than its share of national population or, as this chart shows, national personal income. The share of federal taxes paid by New York State residents correlates approximately with the state’s share of national personal income. New York State’s share of federal housing and community development aid has been higher than its share of personal income in every year but one since Fiscal 1977, and in Fiscal 1972 as well. Therefore, New York State has a net profit on federal housing spending compared with the taxes its residents pay to fund it. New York State has received proportionally less federal aid for other aspects of its built environment. For example, New York’s share of federal aid for transportation – airports, highways and transit – was below its share of national personal income in every year since Fiscal 1977, and in Fiscal 1972 as well. It will be even lower in the future. By act of Congress, federal highway and transit aid is now being distributed in proportion to federal gasoline tax payments, and gasoline tax payments are perhaps the only tax in which New York’s share of the national total is low relative to its share of population. Thus, New York’s share of national transportation spending may fall to 5.0 percent of the nation, and stay there. Moreover, bills have been introduced in Congress to reduce New York’s share of federal transportation aid even further, by redistributing transit aid to other parts of the country. New York State has done even worse in federal aid for water, sewer, and natural resources projects, receiving virtually nothing in many years. The restoration of the Erie Canal, New York City’s Third Water Tunnel, federally-mandated filtration plants for New York City water, and federally-mandated holding tanks for New York City’s combined storm-water and sewage, are all being funded primarily or exclusively with state and local revenues. For spreadsheet data, click here. Section 5 Summary Nationally, housing and community development expenditures are concentrated in older and larger cities. In New York State, local government housing and community development spending was far higher than the national average in Fiscal 1997; most of this was concentrated in New York City. The City’s housing and community development spending was 3.5 times the national average as a share of income; its housing and community development public employment was nearly six times the national average. Most housing and community development expenditures are used to provide housing for low and moderate income households, and those with medical or social problems. Very little such expenditure takes place in suburban counties, either in New York State or elsewhere in the United States. In most of the United States, housing and community development is funded primarily, if not exclusively, by the federal government. In the late 1980s, however, New York City embarked on a substantial locally-funded housing development program, sacrificing other priorities in order to pay for it. More recently, the City has spent less of its own local tax dollars on housing. New York City is dependent on federal aid to cover ongoing housing costs and obligations. It received $2.4 billion in federal housing and community development aid in FY 1997. Most of the City’s housing spending goes to cover ongoing costs, such as rent subsidies for the minority of those eligible for Section 8 housing subsidies who receive them, and to cover the gap between rents and expenses in the New York City Housing Authority. The City’s spending on new housing construction, as a share of its residents’ income, was also higher than the national average, but by a modest amount. With just 6.7 percent of the nation’s population, and 8.1 percent of its personal income, New York State received 16.3 percent of federal housing aid in fiscal 1997. New York State received far less in other types of federal infrastructure aid. To move on to Section 6, click here.
4 Washington Square North :: New York NY 10003 :: voice (212) 998-7500 :: fax (212) 995-3890 © 1996-2001, Taub Urban Research Center, New York University Questions? Comments? Email the Taub webmaster at urban.feedback@nyu.edu