As a member of this so-called prime demographic, saying this development is not positive is an understatement.
I recall Hubert Humphrey stated that, “… the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
What he left out was the fact that you need a workforce to generate prosperity so government has the resources to care for those in need. Massachusetts seems to be losing a big piece of that workforce.
So is there anything we can do to buck the trend? We can’t change the weather, although maybe global warming will do that for us in time (so what if Cape Cod and the Back Bay are underwater as long as we are balmy year-round). But there has to be something we can do.
Housing costs are a big deterrent. What drives housing affordability is lack of supply. Obviously the best way to address that is to build more homes, homes that are affordable and amendable to young workers and families (and I am well aware the declining housing market not only makes it less likely house builders will build at current and makes housing slighly more affordable. Ultimately, the current house building dynamic only exarcerbates the long-term trends. We simply don’t build enough homes that average families can afford over time). But, our zoning laws and local culture are generally averse to new development. That needs to change, but in a sustainable way.
The State has already adopted incentive programs to pay off towns and cities who adopt “smart growth” principles. We need to ramp them up and go further. I think the State should take a larger role in planning and driving sustainable development, compelling towns and cities to adopt sustainable zoning policies that enable growth. This means greater State powers to ensure zoning that facilitates higher-density and transit-oriented development, fewer McMansions and more modest size single-family homes that first-time buyers can afford. It means less 55-and-over only developments, which towns love because they keep pressure off school budgets, but which only serve to drive Massachusetts closer to becoming a retirement community surrounding a bunch of universities (where grandchildren can check on gramps before decamping to Raleigh for work upon graduation). I mean some towns treat kids like an epidemic. If “children are the future” it would be nice if towns and cities stopped doing everything they can to keep the future out.
The State should also consider what more it can do to support older workers to keep up their skills. 44 is way too young to start writing people off as “un-productive” when more and more people will live to 80-90-100 – I mean 50 years on the slide is a little much. And it is equally important keeping people in the active workforce.
Everyone always focuses on the unemployment rate as a gauge in judging the health of the economy. Maybe it’s a useful short-term measure, but the real indicator that matters is what percentage of the working age population are in the workforce (as unemployment only captures those actively seeking employment). Here, both nationally and locally the figures show a lot of people leaving active work and not coming back (sorry I don’t have a stat on that, will try and find one). Getting a higher percentage of Bay Staters back into the workforce is critical.
Of course such an agenda would enhance the State’s powers at the expense of localities. It would require greater State intervention in supporting school spaces and other local services. Skills and life-long learning cost money and we are struggling enough with funding the programmes we have. So be it. We need to address our demographic future lest we are consigned to an economic fate of slow decline. I’m sure there are other ideas for addressing this issue. Please share them.
Even despite the price slump comparative housing costs remain high, and then there is the effort by many suburbs to keep out people who might have kids by promoting over 55 developments and by trying to ensure that new appartment units remain very small.
Instead of supporting housing for those 55 and over maybe it’s time for housing for those 35 and under.
<
p>Whereever one stands on the senior housing issue there is a more fundamental probelm in that towns often have an interest in polices that are bad for the state as a whole. Towns may not want kids to move in, and homeowners may want rules that require large lots, but such policies in sum help to push away young adults to areas where the cost of living is lower.
They love the over-55 housing because it brings property taxes without bringing little bodies populating the school system.
I have a secret for people. You can buy a good starter house in Springfield for $150k. You can buy a brand-new house for $329k. You can buy a mansion for $500k — the cost of a starter home in much of Greater Boston.
<
p>The problem is the economy. Jobs have largely been concentrated in Boston, and have left the rest of the state behind. A recent study by MassINC and the Brookings Institute noted that since 1970, greater Boston saw a 51% increase in new jobs, but the 10 “Gateway cities”, with 15% of the states population, lost 3% of their 1970’s level jobs.
<
p>I read an article about a Biotech building a few miles outside of Boston that is sitting empty, because all the Biotech firms want to be within a stone’s throw of MIT. That’s insane.
<
p>Massachusetts does not end at Route 128. There are a number of cities in this state that are affordable and in need of jobs. The pace of life in those cities certainly doesn’t rival Boston — but are young families really looking to go clubbing at 2am? I doubt it.
<
p>The Patrick administration and others are finally starting to realize this. They had a hand in Liberty Mutual’s plan to open a 300-employee call center in Springfield. Liberty’s CEO even noted that Massachusetts is not a high cost of business state — if you go west.
<
p>When I was in high school, the conventional wisdom was that people went to college, acquired skills, and then came back to work at one of the many entry-level jobs in the area. But those jobs have dried up as company after company has been bought and moved, or as either production or back-office functions have been moved offshore. The jobs available to today’s graduates are fewer and further between. That’s the crux of the problem.
<
p>I have never heard anyone actually moving from Massachusetts because of the taxes. People move because they can find a better job somewhere else. It’s all about the jobs. Let’s stop trying to squeeze more people into Boston and focus a little more on the rest of the state.
And we also need to get rid of the stupid mandate to purchase crappy stripped down insurance. For the younger demographic it’s called “YAP”. These are stripped down insurance plans for young people. If the political leadership in MA would find their cojones (it’s similar to courage) and enact a statewide single payer health care plan, we’d attract both employers AND skilled workers!! See http://www.MassCare.org to learn more.
There are many more affordable urban hubs outside Boston and their growth and development needs to be a focal point. I think the Patrick Administration, as you point out, get’s that and through “Growth Districts” and other efforts is trying to capitalize on the competitive advantages and infrastructure already existing in these communities.
<
p>But housing costs relative to other parts of the region remain high and there is no doubt that, alongside the ability to get a good job at good wages, affects decisions about where to locate.