The Hartford Courant is reporting that the insurance company AETNA is exploring a move to Boston from Hartford. In general this seems like a silly proposition, but is a perfect opportunity for our state leaders to help the Western Massachusetts economy, especially since AETNA seems to be speaking to Charlie Baker’s office about this.
I don’t know why AETNA is looking to move from Connecticut, but let’s assume that they are simply unhappy with the state and its policies, and they like Massachusetts. Instead of luring them to Boston, how about giving them some incentive to move to the greater Springfield area? It’s just up the road from Hartford, so the benefit to AETNA would be pretty strong – they wouldn’t have to relocate their workforce.
Let’s face it, the Boston area is doing pretty well. State unemployment is allegedly under 3%, but the unemployment in Western MA is still higher, and the types of jobs we have out here pay a lot less than Boston. Boston’s metro median household income in 2015 was $78,800. Springfield’s was $53,393 for the metro area. Boston city was $54,485, and Springfield was $34,751. We clearly need some help here.
We have plenty of cheap land, and a lot of unused capacity. Although we can’t offer the world-class-city amenities that Boston can, we can offer less congested roads, lower property taxes, and way of life that is generally more low key. Plus, we have a workforce that already has insurance skills – we have Mass Mutual Life Insurance company headquartered within our borders.
Hartford is one of the places that people in Western MA work, so AETNA moving to Boston would actually actively hurt our economy out here.
So how about it, Governor Baker and the legislature? How about trying to get AETNA to move here instead of cramming more opportunity into Boston?
The city and state could have just sponsored their own patch with the same money that GE apparently took and then spent on sports jersey advertising.
If we’re going to waste the taxpayers’ money helping corporations that don’t need it, let’s at least spread it around while we’re wasting it.
You’re offering a 60 mile round trip daily on those roads, with (virtually?) no mass transit option. That’s a lot of roads.
Very few people actually live in Hartford. I would venture that a non-trivial amount of AETNA’s workforce comes from the 30-mile stretch between Springfield and Hartford. If I was an AETNA worker, I think it would be a lot easier to drive the 30 miles north than it would be to relocate to the Boston area.
This isn’t like Boston, where 30 miles translates to 90 minutes.T hat 30 mile drive takes only about 30 minutes.
Do people really have an issue with statewide prosperity? Are people really OK with concentrating all opportunity into Boston and letting the western part of the state wither and die?
No thanks to Massachusetts; Connecticut stepped up to the plate, and next year, CT DOT will start running commuter trains from New Haven to Springfield (via Hartford) – 12 trains per day between Springfield and Hartford.
It seems like moving AETNA to downtown Springfield, near the train station, would be a pretty good option.
…and should probably foot some of the bill.
MA has contributed some money to this effort, but CT has been leading it. CT conceived of it, and is doing all the work. MA just ponied up some dollars. It is as if Western MA is more a part of CT than it is of MA.
To be sure, some folks live north of Hartford and will drive to the highway and then north, and it will be 15, 20, 25 miles at maybe a minute a mile, probably not quite that fast.
Some folks live east, west, or south of Hartford — and they’ll drive to 84 or 384 or 91 or 2, have go get through Hartford (around if they can use 291, but not most), and then the 30 miles. That’s now 40, 45, 50 miles at much slower speeds because Hartford is a bear to get through.
I do like the train option, had forgotten about it brewing, and appreciate you pointing it out. Of course, we have no idea if the proposed Springfield site would be within walking distance of the train (or if AETNA would have cute little shuttles)…
Personally, I have no problem with AETNA locating in Springfield or Boston, and I’m pretty “hands off” about governors baiting companies from other states. I think the governor should listen to what AETNA is looking for, and propose any and all MA sites that (a) respond to AETNA’s concerns, and (b) are consistent with MA policies and values.
My only point is that we know AETNA is talking to the governor, and that I think that the governor/state should at least float the idea of selling the entire state, especially the areas that really need it, when an opportunity like this arises.
If AETNA is looking to locate in a world-class city in an attempt to attract and retain a younger (and cheaper…) workforce, then Boston is likely their only choice, but if they are looking to move to MA because they like its tax structure and its skilled workforce, then other areas may make equal sense to them, perhaps with a slight bit more pot-sweetening.
Making sure that our entire state is productive seems like a better approach than jamming more and more into Boston, and then grappling with issues like transportation and housing costs.
a renovated train station this spring. I don’t have a strong interest in transportation, but Wikipedia is always a good starting point: