$300+ million annually

is the cost if DC is truly successful in recruiting and retaining families with children, who would then enroll their children in DC Public Schools, either the traditional system or charter schools. That's a lot of money. See "Three Strategies Could Boost Enrollment" from today's Washington Post.

I don't know what the number is for typical local revenue (property, income, sales) generated by an average DC household. But let's say that a household with $100,000 combined income and a house valued at $500,000 might pay about $12,000/year in income and property taxes.

(DC is fortunate in some ways compared to typical cities, because not only does it collect all of its property tax revenue--and the commercial property in the city generates the lion share of revenues--it collects 100% of the sales and income taxes of residents too. DC also collects a fair amount of sales, hotel, car rental, and parking taxes on visitors to the city. The people who work in the city but don't live here--70% of DC-based workers live outside of DC--don't pay all that much revenue, some sales taxes. If they spend $1500/year on miscellaneous goods and $3500 on meals, that would generate $450/year in sales taxes.)

The cost of educating one child is about $15,000 annually.

So, all my progressive leftist fellow travelers need to think long and hard about complaining about providing housing to/attracting residents that are DINKs (double income no kids) as well as opposing selectively intensifying development where it can be accommodated appropriately, thereby generating additional commercial property tax revenue, income and sales taxes.

In fact, after reading "Boston Properties purchases NPR building, plans new one" in the Washington Business Journal, I was thinking about how commercial property tax abatement programs need to be weighted according to how much income and sales taxes are generated by the business/property. For example, NPR is getting a major tax abatement. I don't know how many of their employees live in DC, I presume a fair number. But if not many do, and the city therefore doesn't generate much income, sales, and property taxes from the employees as residents of the District of Columbia, then maybe it isn't reasonable to extend property tax abatements to such businesses. (NPR, as a nonprofit, probably doesn't pay taxes, except for on unrelated business income.)

I can't remember where I read it, but I thought that the demographic projections for cities generally and maybe DC is that it would have about 17% of households with school-aged children. So the report, Quality Schools, Healthy Neighborhoods, and the Future of DC recommends:

The city should make a major effort to improve school quality where the child population is already high or growing and expand affordable, family-friendly housing in all the city’s neighborhoods. More specifically, policies should:

- Target increased educational and out-of-school time investment to neighborhoods of greatest need: where lots of families already live and do not have high-quality school options.

- Move quickly to preserve and expand affordable housing in neighborhoods that are currently undergoing gentrification as well as in historically high-priced neighborhoods that are already served by quality schools; and promote a welcoming environment for racial, ethnic, and economic diversity in all schools.

While I think it is very costly to have underperforming schools--certainly the city's crime and unemployment rates are partly (but not wholly) a function of the failures of the DC Public School system--we have to be conscious of the costs involved in implementing the policy as suggested. To break even on educating more students, the city will need to raise more than $300 million of additional tax revenue each year.

In any case, improving the school system is necessary. Do I think that Chancellor Rhee has a plan that will do so? No, not really. But I have written plenty about that over the years.