« Babs Still Bullish on Brooklyn The Rezoning of Windsor Terrace »

November 19, 2008

Life During Recession Time: Schools

chair-1108.jpgWhat will be the impact of the economic turmoil on Brooklyn schools? Will private schools like Packer, Berkeley Carroll, Friends, Saint Ann's and Poly Prep see high rates of attrition? (We heard that close to 50 families have given notice to Trinity in Manhattan that their kids won't be back next year.) It's no secret that many of the thirty-something parents sending their single-digit-aged children to these schools get assistance from their sixty- and seventy-something parents; the thirty-somethings may be losing their jobs (or just making less money) while the grandparents all of a sudden are facing the prospects of their retirement on half the savings they thought they had. In this scenario, will private schools be forced to cut tuitions or will only the truly rich be able to attend? And if many private schoolers shift to a public school system that's simultaneously undergoing large cuts, what does that mean for class sizes and education quality? On the other hand, could the injection of some private school refugees be good news for some public schools? What do you think?




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:40 AM | Comments (72)
Categories: Schools

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7271

Comments

PS321 had its highest kindergarten enrollment *ever* this year, and one of the reasons cited was that families who would have gone to private school opted for public instead. Meanwhile, I definitely know families where the grandparents help with the private school tuition and they suddenly can no longer afford to, precisely because their investment portfolio has indeed shrunken so much. (The transfer of wealth to our parents' generation has been extraordinary in the last few decades, but some of that wealth transfer is currently getting destroyed.) My concern as a parent is more overcrowding of the popular schools, on top of inevitable budget cuts in education. On the other hand, more parents turning to the public school system overall can lead to more parent involvement, which is a good thing. Hopefully, the less "popular" schools will benefit and continue to get better and better as more parents put their energy and resources into their local schools.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 19, 2008 10:48 AM

I think this will be very good news for the public schools. I think more parents will take their kids out of private and put in public, this creating a tipping point of high achieving schools in ones which might be lacking.

I also think that in these tough economic times, parents will get more involved with schools, and perhaps spend some time to increase the quality of the middle and high schools, as they did/have been doing with the elementary schools over the past few years.

I think most parents still want to stay in the city, so I think that this could be an ultimate positive in the long run for many parents who choose to raise their kids here.

Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 10:50 AM

sorry, take 2...I think more parents will take their kids out of private and put in public, THUS creating a tipping point of high achieving STUDENTS in schools which might be lacking.

Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 10:52 AM

I think skimming the fat is never an entirely bad thing. that said, with the school budgets being cut, you're going to see a sharp drop in quality offered there, no matter which kids and their parents are entering the ps system. it's a simple matter of resources and overworked teachers who end up having to cater to the lowest common denominator. kids are going to lose out in these transitions. Private schools have gotten MUCH too expensive and even the progressive ones have attracted some painfully elitist families. unfortunately those families will be the ones who can stick around. All of this is just another nail in the coffin of the choices and opportunities of the shrinking middle class.

Posted by: miss priss at November 19, 2008 10:55 AM

11217 - i think the same thing. in my area, empty condos will be rented if not sold, and either way, there are tons of new families coming in. schools in my immediate are are quite good academically, but a couple have a high minority population (hispanic-virtually no african americans) which scares the upper middle class away needlessly.

Posted by: wine lover at November 19, 2008 10:56 AM

Private and college tuition have been outstripping income and inflation for a long time, and as far as I can see, for not very good reasons. A downturn might help reduce that.

Posted by: Heather at November 19, 2008 10:58 AM

Another thing to consider is NYC tax policy. These issues - schools, NYC budget, taxes, shifting demographics - are all inter-related. Brian Lehrer did a show last week about the impact of tax increases on higher-income New Yorkers (something that looks likely to happen) and there is a tipping point at which some of these folks - precisely the ones who might have the resources to give more to their local public school - DO decide to leave NYC. On this blog, there is a real bullishness about NYC since most of us who are obsessed with NYC real estate love the city and assume others feel as passionately as we do about it. But that is not necessarily a given if life here becomes too difficult and suddenly, nearby communities outside of NYC start to look more attractive. Yet another ingredient that will affect public schools here.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 19, 2008 10:59 AM

Wine-lover, if you live in 11211 the schools aren't currently that great contrary to what you are saying. Send you kids to schools in 11222 if you want good schools.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 19, 2008 11:02 AM

lol miss muffet, you just want someone's house. transparent like scotch tape (i kid i kid). are nyc high schools really really bad? ugh the worst are the trains around 3pm. gack! every other word is F-aggot and the N word.

-rob

Posted by: PitbullNYC at November 19, 2008 11:07 AM

I agree with Miss Muffett - increased taxes at state and city level - which are all but an inevitability, plus reduced services, are going to push people out of the city. that being said, I don't think schools that have already hit a tipping point into being good are going to get worse - even if they have less bells and whistles (i.e., arts etc)- because a school's reputation feeds on itself and once it's established as good or decent, people will continue to send their children there.

Posted by: gkw at November 19, 2008 11:08 AM

So Miss Muffet...can you tell me how it's cost effective for a family to leave the city and instead of paying 20,000 a year for private school, you are paying that or higher each year in taxes in such places like New Jersey.

So not only would you be paying that for the years your kids are in school, but for the years after when they aren't.

I also REALLY don't think too many people are looking to sell their homes anytime soon unless they HAVE to. To suggest that more than a handful of people want to take a loss on their home to move to Jersey to pay 10 times the taxes and live in a bankrupt state is a little short sighted if you ask me.

Of course some will choose to leave, but I really don't think it will be that popular. I'd actually think the opposite...I would think that some families which moved to the burbs (and now hate it) might be looking to get back INTO the city if prices drop significantly.

I know very few people who have left the city and didn't regret it later.

Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 11:13 AM

dittoburg - well. with all due respect, you are wrong about 11211. PS 17, 132 and 84 are very good. 17 has 5 stars math according to insideschools.org. the DOE rates 17 higher than 321! how much better do you want? yes 31 and 34 are considered the best elementary schools in brooklyn, but 11222 is going to be full, they are not going to accepting everyone from out of zone - and no way can they accommodate the thousands that are moving into 11211 or are already here and now have kids entering the system. 4 kids from my building are going to 17 next year. take tours of these schools first before you dismiss them. i have. the principal at 84 really impressed me. i am not a racist, and don't think that just because hispanic kids are in the class that the academics can't be excellent.

Posted by: wine lover at November 19, 2008 11:18 AM

11217 - you have your perspective, and as someone how is committed to staying in NYC through thick and think, I share your NYC bias. But you must understand that not everyone feels the same way. Believe it or not, some people prefer to leave the city - practically my entire mom's group did so after having their 2nd child. There are many reasons which I don't have time to go into now. Maybe it's not true of the people *you* know, but the fact is, many people can and do leave NYC and many of them, as shocking as it may sound to you, are very happy doing so.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 19, 2008 11:19 AM

11217 - Easy - sell your house in NYC (at a 20% loss to last years high)- buy a bigger, more luxurious house in the suburbs that was always less than NYC and now down around 35-40%. Pay more in property tax, less in income tax and pocket the 100s of thousands of capital gains on the move.

Not saying its going to be a trend, BUT - historically upper middle class people who could not afford private school and who felt that they did not have a viable public school option did MOVE and it is certainly a likely scenario for some.

Posted by: fsrg at November 19, 2008 11:21 AM

poly prep's headmaster recently sent an email to parents assuring them that applications are "on target" and the school's finances are solid. . . . fwiw

Posted by: ontheparkway at November 19, 2008 11:21 AM

Some people do prefer to leave the city, Ms. Muffet, but if you look at the history of New York City's population, you will notice that it continues to rise each and every year.

We'll lose some overindulgent white upper middle class people who want 4000 sf to raise one child so they have room for their Hummer and Mercedes SUV, and gain a hard working immigrant family with 3 kids, struggling, but probably more likely to buy a home in Brooklyn or Queens and enroll their kids in public school anyway.

Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 11:23 AM

wine lover, I didn't accuse you of being racist.
My daughter was in one of those schools you mention, I used to live on N7. And I'm afraid that while schools often put on a good show when you express interest, the day-to-day performance often doesn't match up, becuase the day to day isn't just decided by how good the principal is. Anyway, I hope for everyone's sake they get better, and I'd agree that more people sending their kids there, and participating and believing in them is a good thing. However, if you're starting now, get to 11222. You'll get more square foot for your money anyway ;-)

Posted by: dittoburg at November 19, 2008 11:27 AM

Wine lover...we all know how you NEVER say a bad word about anything Williamsburg related and are still delusional enough to continue saying that "there are tons of new families coming in" which gives little credence to your bias.

You REALLY think tons of new families are moving in right now?? That's laughable.

I believe there will not be a mass exodus, but I certainly would never be so insane as to suggest that "TONS" of people are moving to Park Slope right now.

BTW, the grading system you speak of has to do with school improvement, the rating is not on the school itself. You seem very misinformed on a number of levels. A school can receive an "A" grade because its year over year improvement was above average, but the school could still be quite below average.

Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 11:28 AM

11217 - you better review your population stats again - we went through a very long period of declining population here in NYC - the increase only was in the last decade or so - and frankly since this coincided with an economic boom - not sure how relevant that is.

Posted by: fsrg at November 19, 2008 11:31 AM

11217, on the tax point, it's true that property taxes are much higher outside the city, but income taxes are a lot less. also, for a family with kids, $20k in property tax is still less than most private-school tuitions; with two or more kids, the savings are even greater (e.g. 3 kids = $7k/kid in 'school tax'). so there are legitimate economic reasons to move to the burbs, especially when kids and schools are a factor. i wouldn't want to do it myself, but your caricatures about the people who do want to do it are off the mark.

Posted by: z at November 19, 2008 11:33 AM

11217;

I wouldn't be so cavalier about the prospect of the upper middle class leaving the city. The attitude you display mirrors in many ways that of the City Fathers during the 60's (the Lindsey administration in particular).

The upper middle class, as well as the middle class, did leave during that time, and the results were devastating. The city had no money for executing even the most basic services. The filth and decay were overwhelming _ I lived through that period.

I'm not predicting that this is going to happen again - I certainly hope not. All I'm saying is that it is not wise to write-off a key portion of the population simply because you don't like their lifestyle. When all is said and done, this is the group that pays the lion's share of the taxes. Most are willing to do so, as long as the level is not excessive and they feel like they are getting something for their money - which is the point Miss Muffet was trying to make.

Posted by: benson at November 19, 2008 11:33 AM

There were two decades which saw population declines. Mostly due to white flight...

Take a look at the decades during the Great Depression. HUGE increases in population...

1698 4,937 —
1712 5,840 18.3%
1723 7,248 24.1%
1737 10,664 47.1%
1746 11,717 9.9%
1756 13,046 11.3%
1771 21,863 67.6%
1790 33,131 51.5%
1800 60,515 82.7%
1810 96,373 59.3%
1820 123,706 28.4%
1830 202,589 63.8%
1840 312,710 54.4%
1850 515,547 64.9%
1860 813,669 57.8%
1870 942,292 15.8%
1880 1,206,299 28.0%
1890 1,515,301 25.6%
1900 3,437,202 126.8%
1910 4,766,883 38.7%
1920 5,620,048 17.9%
1930 6,930,446 23.3%
1940 7,454,995 7.6%
1950 7,891,957 5.9%
1960 7,781,984 −1.4%
1970 7,894,862 1.5%
1980 7,071,639 −10.4%
1990 7,322,564 3.5%
2000 8,008,288 9.4%
2007* 8,274,527 3.3%

Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 11:35 AM

Benson,

I'm not writing them off, I simply don't think they will leave in great numbers, that's all. I think the world has changed a lot since the 60's 70's and 80's. Gas prices might be low now, but that isn't going to last. I really truly believe we are moving more towards a more urban way of living and I think that will only snowball into the coming decades.

Sure, some will leave, but they really weren't cut out for city life (or at least NYC life) and we can't force them to stay.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to like the city, but I do see urban life becoming more and more popular as time goes on.

Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 11:38 AM

11217 - sorry but I really do not think that population data from 100yrs ago and prior is at all relevant (the suburbs werent even truly developed back then) - unfortunately the period 1970-1980 are probably the nearest comparison - btw where do these stats come from anyway?

Posted by: fsrg at November 19, 2008 11:41 AM

The data is from the U.S. Census. Is it not good enough because it doesn't support your point?

The point is that NYC continues to grow.

Whether it's families with children (thus having to do with the topic at hand) seems to be the point in question, however.

In any event, the city is expanding. There were 10 years where lots of white people left the city (1970's) and if they decide to do it again, so be it. The city is still expanding in the long run.

Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 11:50 AM

11217;

I agree with you that urban living has been increasing in popularity, and is in line with the "green" movement. Looking ahead, the city is heading into stormy days due to the meltdown of the financial sector, and it will be interesting to observe if this movement continues to grow, or is washed away by other cross-currents. If I knew the answer to how it will go, I'd be making some bets right now!!

Posted by: benson at November 19, 2008 11:54 AM

I just realized that I'm coming across as really gruff. Sorry.

It just makes me a little crazy that up until 6 months ago, everyone loved NYC, everyone loved Brooklyn, and this was the center of the universe. I'm exaggerating, obviously.

Now things get a little rocky and everyone talks about leaving the city? It just shows how many people are here based on greed, and really were most interested in seeing their property values climb.

I don't even have kids and I support the public schools.

Why am I the only person on this thread who seems to be speaking positively about Brooklyn?

Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 11:57 AM

And when I mean speaking positively, I don't mean with regard to home values, just to clarify. They are going to plummet, we all know that.

But that does not in any way change how I feel about New York.

Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 11:59 AM

Let's start sending our kids to PS 282.

Posted by: nan at November 19, 2008 12:07 PM

i think a lot of people already do. and they like it.

Posted by: i disagree at November 19, 2008 12:51 PM

11217

It shouldn't surprise you at all. Most people make hasty decisions regarding everything and are committed to almost nothing besides their own personal whims.

Posted by: Polemicist at November 19, 2008 12:54 PM

I'm honestly not sure how all this will work out for public schools, but I do know I won't buy property in an area unless I have a high degree of confidence that 5 years from now when my kid starts school it will be in a public school that I am happy with.

This is non-negotiable. I would very much like that place to be in NYC, but if I don't believe it can be, I wouldn't respect myself if I knowingly sent my kid's to a school I didn't have confidence in just so I could be self indulgent and stay in the city.

If I weren't a parent, I wouldn't even consider leaving the city but having a kid makes you think about things a little differently.

Posted by: northsloperenter at November 19, 2008 1:01 PM

i agree with you northsloperenter. but i don't necessarily see it as self-indulgence to want to stay in the city, and to be willing to take some minor risk on kindergarten or first grade to make it work. in addition to seeing less of my kid once my commute is longer (and it pretty much has to be longer in order to get into one of the truly confidence-inducing suburban school districts), we'd also have less to do and more hassle involved in doing it (i.e., cars and driving or else long train rides into the city, etc.).

also, it's a really personal thing, which sacrifices you conclude are worth making for your kid's elementary school education and which might not be. for example, lots of people on here talk about how they work in the "arts" or media and aren't well paid...but they love their jobs and are so fulfilled, etc. so they could sacrifice their lovely jobs in exchange for better pay, but they don't. yet, you probably wouldn't find that self-indulgent.

Posted by: i disagree at November 19, 2008 1:19 PM

Self-indulgent was probably not my best word choice ever :p.

I think it is important for parents to be happy with their lives or else they will be miserable people, and no kid is better off living with miserable people.

I went to a fairly lousy public school system (in suburban new jersey), and I just want something better for my son. If it means I have to leave Brooklyn or NYC, then I will probably do it because it would make me miserable not to, even though I think I would miss the city very much.

Posted by: northsloperenter at November 19, 2008 1:26 PM

Here's an interesting report from the city comptroller's office. It suggests that middle and upper middle class families with kids are leaving the city all the time, and that this is not the same group responsible for population increase over the last decade or so.

http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/bud/econnotes-pdf/Vol-xv-3-sep07.pdf

Posted by: Back40 at November 19, 2008 1:33 PM

well said, northsloperenter. i went to a great public school in california, but i agree. as an aside, with 30 kids and one teacher per class and plenty of classrooms in trailers, lots of people around here would probably say it was so overcrowded that it was on the brink of collapse. we had no "enrichment" classes (although we did have recess a couple times a day) except for in random years when some music teacher wanted a few kids once a week. yet, somehow, we all survived!

Posted by: i disagree at November 19, 2008 1:48 PM

Of course families every year choose to leave NYC, but I don't know what the suburbs really offer our particular demographic. It's not cheaper to buy a comparable house in the near suburbs, for the typical reader of Brownstoner who would always otherwise prefer NYC for its lifestyle, and has certain standards for the town and house they'd live in. I have looked many times at real estate located close to NYC in NY state and CT, in the better towns with good amenities we would find acceptable. I never find any historic house (mcmansions not being an option) that's the same size or larger and costs less than our current Brooklyn house, in any well located town with fast commute to NYC and good public schools. Schools being the only reason to go there. The towns and houses I actually would be willing to live in are very expensive and have insane property taxes. Also we'd have to come back. It wouldn't be a permanent move. That's the thing that would be a pain, having to buy our way back into NYC after leaving for 15-18 years. We'd definitely without question move back to NYC again after our child goes to college. Both for our own lifestyle when we're older and because it gives our son a place to live Summers during college while doing internships, and immediately after college getting established. Which I personally think is a huge benefit. I would have killed for the opportunity to live and work in my chosen field in NYC every Summer in college. Who knows, never say never. But all things considered we'd hate to leave the city so we'd do whatever we could to figure it out and I think most families in brownstone Brooklyn are of that mindset.

Posted by: traditionalmod at November 19, 2008 2:04 PM

nsrenter: "wouldn't respect myself if I knowingly sent my kid's to a school..."

Your kid's what?

Posted by: cmu at November 19, 2008 2:08 PM

Actually, there were a lot more than 10 years when white people left the city. Until very recently (like 2007), NYC lost net population to the rest of the country. More people left than moved here from elsewhere in the US. The population growth from the 1970s until now was entirely due to immigration.

Posted by: Sparafucile at November 19, 2008 2:11 PM

dittoburg - committed to 11211 (at least for now cause we own) - quick question - were you at 17 or 84? i do think that the schools will tip soon to a white majority. and, yes, i know you didn't accuse me of being racist, i was responding to the world at large. if 17 doesn't work for the long run then we'll figure it out. the middle school moved in to the building and friends have kids there and like it.

i do think that with so many well educated people sending their kids to the schools, and fund raising, and donating money that the schools have a huge upside. the condo owners have added an entire new demographic and the effects of this on schools hasn't totally happened yet. some of my neighbors have 2 kids under the age of 4, so they haven't even entered the system yet.

in any case, 132 is really well regarded right now, but tough to get in to from out of zone.

Posted by: wine lover at November 19, 2008 2:27 PM

"Your kid's what?"

Typo. :( Just supposed to read "sent my kid".

Either too much or not enough caffeine today. Not sure which. My son decided he wanted me to get up at 5:00 instead of 6:30 this morning and I'm really missing those 90 minutes of sleep..

Posted by: northsloperenter at November 19, 2008 2:28 PM

"Why am I the only person on this thread who seems to be speaking positively about Brooklyn?" -- 11217

Maybe you're spending too much time on this thread, which if you ask me offers a really distorted picture of Brooklyn and the concerns of its denizens. Leave the brownstoner comment post behind and step out into the real world, there are a lot of people who love brooklyn and aren't leaving any time soon. I'm just one of them, but I also count many of the neighbors I know on our block, most of whom have never heard of Brownstoner.

Posted by: Vanderman at November 19, 2008 2:45 PM

11217 - with all due respect, you are certainly not the only person saying positive things about Brooklyn! There are many Brooklyn cheerleaders on this list, and I count myself among them. I know some people think all I do is repeat my belief that home values will come down now, but if you read more, I actually do say other things - like what a great place this is to live. Otherwise, why would I want so much to buy a house here? So I do not disagree with the people who think Brooklyn, and brownstone Brooklyn in particular, is great. BUT, I do know many people who do not find its charms worth it when it is so incredibly expensive. Even if property values in prime Brooklyn went down by 50%, (and when I say this, the bulls still practically bite my head off), it would **still** be very expensive. Traditionalmod, I don't know what kind of homes you're looking at, but there are gorgeous, historic homes to be had for well under a million dollars in lots of communities within commuting distance of NYC. Not to mention other East Coast areas such as Boston which offers an incredible array of well-paying jobs and many of the benefits of NYC. I'm not saying anything is comparable exactly to living in NYC (again, I DO appreciate NYC's unique charms), but it is just absurd to think everyone thinks the way you do. And it's wrong to stereotype those who leave - they are a diverse group, just as New Yorkers are a diverse group. I really hope New Yorkers stick it out here, especially the ones who will pitch in and make our schools great, but some of them may just decide they'd rather live in NJ, Boston, Portland, whatever...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 19, 2008 2:53 PM

I see lovely historic and affordable houses I like that are 1.5 to 2 hours from NYC, but we'd never do that. "Close commuting distance" for us means 45 minutes or less on an MTA North. We'd downsize back into an apartment or condo in order to stay in the city if financially we had to do, rather than move somewhere further than 30-45 minutes from NYC.

Posted by: traditionalmod at November 19, 2008 3:08 PM

Long-term, my plan has always been to leave the city when my kids got to school age, meaning past kindergarten. I don't really think I'm in the minority either. Hasn't this been the natural middle/upper-middle class progression for decades in the city? Young people move in, parents with kids move out, retirees/empty-nesters move back.

Property taxes in most suburbs are an absolute bargain compared to sending two or three kids to private schools in the city, not to mention the other advantages to raising kids in a suburban or rural environment.

As much as I love the BK lifestyle and amenities, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for my kids' education and safety, to an extent.

Posted by: slopestoner at November 19, 2008 3:09 PM

Well, Montclair is very close to NYC, has great schools, and lovely, modestly priced, historic homes. There are many other options. Anyway, I too would not move there since my husband is an urbanite through and through and I love this city -- but again, many other people see places outside NYC as a very attractive alternative.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 19, 2008 3:21 PM

I grew up in, and my parents still live in, an affluent NJ suburb 20 miles from Manhattan with a strong public school system. It isn't McMansion land-- most houses were built in the 20's. When my husband and I were buying our Park Slope apartment my parents would (in vain) drive us around showing us houses in the neighborhood we could buy for the same amount as our 2 bedroom apartment. Real houses-- four bedrooms, solidly built, on a half acre. Yes, you have to factor in higher property taxes, commuting expenses, and higher utility bills, but there is no comparision in price per square foot. I bristle at the suggestion that everyone who moves to the suburbs is a BMW/Hummer driver who can't live with less than 4,000sf-- there are pluses and minuses to bringing kids up in a suburban or urban enviroment. People balance both and just try to decide what is best.

Posted by: fawn at November 19, 2008 3:33 PM

"Long-term, my plan has always been to leave the city when my kids got to school age, meaning past kindergarten. I don't really think I'm in the minority either. Hasn't this been the natural middle/upper-middle class progression for decades in the city? Young people move in, parents with kids move out, retirees/empty-nesters move back."

Slopestoner;

I believe that your statement above describes the situation up until about 2002. Since that time, I think there has been a sea change. I see more and more young couples deciding to raise their kids in the city. For example, I live in a relatively new condo development in Park Slope. The majority of units in our complex are 3 bedroom apartments, and they are heavily populated by couples with school-age children. Most seem devoted to raising their kids in the city. What is also interesting is that most of these couples were themselves raised in the suburbs, but don't want their kids to go through the experience. It also ties into the new "green" sensitivity. Most believe that living in Brooklyn is more "green".


Posted by: benson at November 19, 2008 4:06 PM

Several post here stating that suburbs are at an advantage because taxes are less than private tuition. That's true to a point if you have moe than one child. Keep in mind however, that tuition is something you'll pay for a short time while taxes are something you'll pay forever.

I've raised to kids in the City, sending them to private school through 8th grade and to public high school. We're very pleased with the public high schools (the selective ones anyway).

Posted by: Boerum Hill at November 19, 2008 4:06 PM

I just don't think anyone is looking to move cities/jobs right now Ms. Muffet.

Nor do I believe they are willing to take a loss on selling their Brooklyn/NYC home. Assuming one could even sell a home right now, even if they wanted to.

I see people holding tight right now and waiting out the next couple years...which I think are going to be REALLY rough.

In the meantime, it's a great time to further improve NYC'S public schools...

Who is going to pick up and move to Boston right now if they have a job here? You'd have to be pretty nuts.

Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 4:06 PM

Boerum Hill,

Yes, if you live in the burbs beyond when your kids are out of high school you are still paying those taxes, that was also part of the progression I was talking about. Empty-nesters moving back to the city when their kids go off to college.

Posted by: slopestoner at November 19, 2008 4:12 PM

Slopestoner mentioned safety. As do others sometimes. I have to say I don't get the hysteria over safety when talking about children in cities. Far far more kids die every year driving cars or riding in cars in the suburbs than from flying bullets in the cities. Also most abductions occur in suburban places. I completely understand why some people choose the suburbs over the city for their chidren (namely cost of schooling for more than one child) but I'd never list safety as one of the reasons.

Posted by: traditionalmod at November 19, 2008 4:14 PM

I've been a social studies teacher in a large public high school in Brooklyn for seven years. The schools have been in decline the entire time because an increasingly standardized-test and data-driven system leaves no room for individual critical thinking. I don't doubt more students can read than ten years ago, but fewer can think. You be the judge.

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at November 19, 2008 4:16 PM

11217 - again, I'm relying on anecdotal evidence based on people I know. Clearly, many people in NYC are currently losing jobs, or at risk of losing their job. A city like Boston might be a bit more buffered from job losses since they have a strong academic/medical/bio-tech sector. So, I know people who've either lost jobs, or have the option of transferring their job to Boston, and see that as an attractive alternative. Also, the only people who will probably have to take a loss on their homes will be people who bought within the last 3-5 years. This is where everyone always yells at me, and why I feel compelled to remind everyone that prices on some properties *doubled* in this short period, so even a decline of 50% would leave many people close to breaking even. Yes, the folks who bought at the very peak may indeed all they can to sit tight, but there are TONS of people who bought just a few short years ago at much more modest prices who might now see attractive alternatives elsewhere and even if they are not selling high now, they can also buy even lower at cities outside of NYC. Your (and others') repeated insistence that suddenly everyone's underwater and almost no one will sell is just as much a form of annoying repetition as my repeated countering of this assertion.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 19, 2008 4:19 PM

tradmod - i completely agree with you. we looked 30-45 min outside of the city and felt that it was completely unaffordable. MM - we looked in montclair. if you add the 20k taxes to the house price it becomes very unaffordable. a 600-700k house is now a 900k house, with taxes increasing every year. we can't afford private school or taxes, so there is really no savings. the thought pattern that if you have more than one kid - move to the 'burbs & pay taxes, only works if you can afford an extra 20k in the first place! we have more than one kid, can not afford an extra 20k, both work in the city and would have a more expensive commute. so bottom line, we plan to stay in brooklyn and support the public school system. many moms in my 'hood do not have school aged children and are very involved in the fundraising for the local school. they want the school to be more solid when it's time for there kids to attend.

Posted by: bkny at November 19, 2008 4:39 PM

bkny - not sure on your math - but even still - you'd be hard pressed to find a family sized apartment OR house zoned for a good/excellent public school in Brooklyn for 900K nad since you have to pay tuition for EACH child and property taxes for only one house - sorry suburbs are going to be cheaper then virtually anything comparable her in Brooklyn. Glad youre staying - but the economics favor the suburbs.

Posted by: fsrg at November 19, 2008 4:52 PM

Montclair has 38,000 residents.

A little different than a city of 8.3 million.

I know 3 families who moved to Montclair from Park Slope in the mid to late 90's. All have since moved back and had to pay about double to buy back in. Imagine how expensive NYC is going to be in 15 or 20 years when your kids are out of school and you want to move back to the city...

Or you can stay in Jersey and pay the 25K plus a year in taxes from when you're age 50-90 with grown children. Does not sound like a bargain to me.

I agree with you very much Traditionalmod.

Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 4:56 PM

FSRG,

You can get a gorgeous 2 or 3 bedroom for 900K in the PS. 321 school district.

I've seen some nice 2 bedrooms listed for less than 700K in fact.

Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 4:59 PM

Maybe a 2br - which is hardly family sized or comparable to a suburban house of any size - but please show me legitimate 3brs in PS321...not saying you wont be able to get one in the future - but not now (at least anything desirable) and when you will that suburban house will have fallen even more

Posted by: fsrg at November 19, 2008 5:19 PM

11217 is right, and if you go a few blocks north to the PS 282 district (a decent school that's improving) you can get a nice 2BR coop in a brownstone building even less for $500-600K, on a lovely North Park Slope block.

Posted by: traditionalmod at November 19, 2008 5:20 PM

FSRG:

Here's a 1200 sf 3 bedroom on 5th Avenuue and 2nd Street for 879K:

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1435067


So a search. There a ton. There's a really nice looking 3 bedroom on Sterling (probably ps. 282) for 799K.


Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 5:38 PM

Here's a 4 bedroom/2 Bath/1600sf place on Berkeley for 1.265 million.

That's a pretty nice family sized place if you're looking for a ton of space and not a whole house.

http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=1434744&ohDat=11/23/2008%2012:00:00%20AM;

Posted by: 11217 at November 19, 2008 5:43 PM

Come on 11217 be real - the 1st one while a bargin on many levels has 1 Bathroom and a tiny 3rdBR - how can you compare this to a suburban house???? and the second one is not in 321, costs 30% more then the 900k we were discussing, has a maintainance of 1400K a mo (hardly making up for the low taxes) and isnt even in 321.

Posted by: fsrg at November 19, 2008 6:08 PM

PS 17 looked good to us before we moved. I think people are sheep, for many, it's 29, 321 or nothing.

Their loss.

Posted by: Heather at November 19, 2008 6:17 PM

11217 and traditionalmod - really, how can you accuse me of broken record-dom when it's like the pot calling the kettle black? It's fine for you to repeat your points over and over again about how you think NYC is so much better than the burbs, all people who move out become miserable and want to move back, etc. etc. but, unlike the things I repeat (i.e. prices are still too high and must come down a lot), your assertions are not necessarily backed up by evidence but rather are expressions of your particular taste. I respect your taste - indeed, I heartily agree with it! - but saying it over and over again is not going to change people's minds. However unbelievable it may be to you (which it clearly is), not everyone thinks NYC is the best & only place to live on earth, and some people - shocker of shockers - like living in the suburbs.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 19, 2008 6:36 PM

I also want to add that, while Montclair is a tiny community, a lot of busy parents don't necessarily have the time to engage in this city as frequently as a more carefree single person. Believe me, I take advantage of the city's offerings MUCH less than I used to. I still appreciate them being there, but honestly, if you can commute from Montclair to Manhattan once or twice a month to go to a great museum, is it really that much worse than commuting from Brooklyn? Honestly, I often feel as I spend most of my time in my little Brooklyn neighborhood which is also pretty small relative to the city as a whole. And I happen to know many families who moved to Montclair and happily stayed there. Yes, I also know a few who moved back, but the point is, some do and some don't. Different strokes...

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 19, 2008 6:42 PM

Jeepers, Miss Muffet. I simply shared my honest opinions and observations, and our own reasons why we have made the choices we've made as a family about where to live. I did not repeat myself in this thread and I stayed on topic. In my posts here I absolutely acknowledged the suburbs are the right choice for some. Just not for us. That's all any of us were doing here, talking about their personal experiences and choices. Not any official "evidence". Weird how you missed that. I admit it, I'm a fan of NYC and urban city living, and have faith in hanging in there with it. Sure, I'm going to express that when it's applicable to a topic I comment on. I don't see exactly what bugs you so much about that.

Posted by: traditionalmod at November 19, 2008 7:45 PM

It does not bug me and as I said, I do respect your opinion and share it. I just find it ironic that others complain if I repeat something but I was just pointing out that others repeat themselves too (I've heard you make the case before for why NYC is so much more desirable than the burbs and all your posts here were to reinforce this idea) but I think that's fine - in fact, I don't get the flak some posters dole out when you're right - all we're doing is talking about opinions. Peace out!

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 19, 2008 9:17 PM

"saying it over and over again is not going to change people's minds."
Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 19, 2008 6:36 PM

hilarious! now this is a quote of the day right here.

Posted by: i disagree at November 19, 2008 9:22 PM

I disagree - but I'm not trying to change people's minds, since the market is a collective force beyond any individual changing their mind. I am simply incredulous that some people are in such denial about a market correction. What I am repeating - mainly that prices are still much too high - is based on evidence all around us (which some sellers seem unwilling to accept - also classic end-of-bubble behavior), not a subjective opinion regarding the desirability of suburban vs. urban living.

Posted by: Miss Muffett at November 19, 2008 9:33 PM

i dont get the "people who lose jobs will move out of the city" thing tho. it's like well if you lose a job here where the hell will you go? youre not going to get a job in a suburb anyway? youll just be another bread-liner here stuck in the city. stuck in the ghetto. stuck like many of our ancestors were. life is cyclical like that.

*Rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at November 19, 2008 11:16 PM

Well sure, all of the regular posters repeat themselves. It's not a blog that covers a wide array of topics, it's about Brooklyn brownstones, the purchase and renovation of them, and about Brooklyn real estate in general. So in covering the same topics we repeat certain opinions and arguments. It's not bad or strange. If someone were to always flip-flop and veer wildly from one side of the argument to the other, that's what would be very weird behavior.

Posted by: traditionalmod at November 20, 2008 1:12 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions