Why Is Connecticut Losing Its Young?
Housing, Jobs, and Cost of Living Top Concerns
James Bailey Brislin
The Carpet City Chronicle
The Enfield Press, June 26, 2008
“‘How you gonna keep ‘em on the farm, after they’ve seen Paree?’ was said of the World War I soldiers who went off to Europe. Well, how you gonna get ‘em back in the ‘burbs, after they’ve seen D.C., one might ask.“
-Patrick J. Buchanan
A couple weeks ago, I had the opportunity to participate in an interactive forum at the Legislative Office Building entitled, “Why is Connecticut Losing Its Young?” Sponsored by CCSU’s Institute for Regional and Municipal Policy, the program used the interactive theatre of HartBeat Ensemble and Sojourners to stimulate dialogue.
The term that demographers use to describe the export of population is “out-migration”. As a member of Generation Y, the out-migration of young people from Connecticut is a topic of great personal interest. I have watched the best and brightest of my contemporaries leave Connecticut with no intention of ever returning. Just within my own family, I watched my cousin Steve take a job in Manhattan and move to New Jersey. It says something sad about Connecticut when young people think that New Jersey is a more affordable, comfortable, and vibrant place.
One of the points raised by economist James Johnson at the recent Hartford-Springfield Economic Partnership conference is that people have become consumers of place. Thus, it’s fair to say that the out-migration of young people constitutes a rejection of Connecticut’s product.
What did forum participants think was wrong with Connecticut?
Let’s start with the most obvious: the cost of living. The housing bubble aggravated this phenomenon. The recommended guideline for homebuyers is to buy a house worth no more than three times your income. For your average entry level worker, making $30,000-50,000 a year, that means they shouldn’t buy a house selling for more than $90,000-$150,000 a year. How many houses do you see selling for less than $150,000? Most of the houses in Connecticut sell for more than five times the median income of an entry-level professional worker.
Because much of the discussion on this topic has centered on “affordable housing”, the liberals in the legislature have used it as an excuse to promote more government-sponsored housing. However, the answer is not to construct the 21st Century version of Charter Oak Terrace.
I propose a paradigm shift in the discussion: that we are really dealing with a “starter-housing” issue. The Starr capes and ranches that dot the landscape of Enfield have been zoned out of existence by cities and towns. Think about it… when’s the last time you’ve seen the construction of modest, affordable housing units like the ones built by Ledger Starr? Zoning laws favor the construction of McMansions and “Active Adult” Communities while disfavoring the construction of modest units and multi-family housing. Enfield especially restricts the construction of condominiums, the housing units favored by single young professionals.
If the cost of living is a concern, why are so many young people flocking to Boston, New York, and D.C.? It is because people are consumers of place, and young people find very little to consume in Connecticut. Although Connecticut’s cost of living is comparable to these big cities, it does not offer the job opportunities, social amenities, and public services available in big cities. The dominance of single use development contributes to this perception. It is exacerbated by a culture that many perceive as cold, stuffy, and insular. Single-use development ghettoizes retail activity, commercial activity, industrial activity, and residential activity into completely separate areas. High barriers to market entry have contributed to the long-term dominance of chain stores and restaurants.
Despite having the highest tax burden in the nation, Connecticut provides few public services to young people. However, it heavily serves and subsidizes those in middle and old age. High municipal property taxes are supplemented by massive state subsidies to public schools, benefiting parents and children. The elderly benefit from subsidized housing, healthcare, social services, and property taxes. It’s no wonder that single young professionals pay through the nose!
Efforts to bring the cosmopolitanism of New York to Hartford are hampered by the lack of public transportation. For example, the last bus from Hartford to Enfield leaves at 6:30 PM? Who wants to party in downtown Hartford when the $50 cost of a taxicab back to Enfield exceeds the cost of a bar tab? Although MADD has been at the vanguard of efforts to increase penalties for drinking and driving, they have been absent from efforts to provide alternatives. Their “designated driver” solution works for married people attending house parties in the suburbs but does nothing for single people looking to party in a city. Many of the bars in downtown Hartford might even be willing to help sponsor transit alternatives.
Another issue raised at the forum was jobs. Most of Connecticut’s jobs are at old-economy companies that offer opportunity primarily through hierarchical advancement. The poor business climate discourages the kind of new economy startup activity dominant elsewhere. To make matters worse, The Hartford Courant reports the employers have responded to high gas prices by screening candidates based on distance.
What can Enfield do to retain its native sons? It can reform the zoning code to permit the construction of starter housing and mixed-use development. It can cut taxes to stimulate job growth. It can reduce commuting costs by offering more transit options. Municipal leaders should do more to pitch the virtues of staying in Enfield. Right now, the town’s sales pitch centers around having good schools and being halfway between Hartford and Springfield. It’s akin to saying, “Be friends with me… I have these really cool cousins and offer this expensive, high-quality service that you don’t need.” A more effective pitch needs to answer the question, “Why is it worth my while to live in Enfield when the South is more affordable and the cities are more hip?”
The out-migration of young people is not an intractable problem. It can be solved with out of the box thinking… a willingness to cut taxes, trim subsidies, eliminate single-use zoning, and improve transit. All of these solutions require change. If there is one thing that Connecticut is bad at, it is change. After all it’s called, “The Land of Steady Habits”? Unfortunately, “steady habits” have poorly prepared us for a 21st century world dominated by constant change.
December 6, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I found it interesting to note your reference to Ledger Starr. He was my uncle and my grandfather Wilfred was a contractor from Hazardville. My mother states that her brother went on a class trip to Washington D.C. and returned home saying some lower income housing was definitely needed. His brother Paul disagreed and built the more expensive homes. Ledger always felt he was serving the community. Recently on a field trip to Washington, one of my gifted students conducted an interview with the curator of the Smithsonian because her project was on Levittown and the curator stated that Ledger Starr was the only one comparable to Levitt. At the time he did not know that he was my uncle.