[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Jumping in here, as I'm from FFC originally, and I found the following interesting posts about why young people are leaving the NYC suburbs (including Connecticut)

First, this post details how in lower Fairfield County the population of children under 5, as well as young adults 25-34, has collapsed. The writer concludes that it is high prices which are forcing young adults out of Connecticut.

This follow up post talks about how the local property tax system of funding schools probably contributes to the problem. Essentially, as long as you have schools funded on a town-by-town basis it won't be in their interest to expand the housing stock by offering "family-friendly starter houses," as it will result in higher property taxes due to additional funds needed by the public school system.

Just some food for thought.

With respect to the second article, should we change to more of a Westchester model (town/county) level with more condos for young families even in the tony suburbs? That seems to really help property taxes for SFH owners (sacrasm off).

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Jumping in here, as I'm from FFC originally, and I found the following interesting posts about why young people are leaving the NYC suburbs (including Connecticut)

First, this post details how in lower Fairfield County the population of children under 5, as well as young adults 25-34, has collapsed. The writer concludes that it is high prices which are forcing young adults out of Connecticut.

This follow up post talks about how the local property tax system of funding schools probably contributes to the problem. Essentially, as long as you have schools funded on a town-by-town basis it won't be in their interest to expand the housing stock by offering "family-friendly starter houses," as it will result in higher property taxes due to additional funds needed by the public school system.

Just some food for thought.

I think the study's demographic assumptions are wrong. The assumption that the prime age to start a family is 25 to 34 may have been true for boomers, but not for Gen X. Gen Xers tend to wait longer to get married (28 to 32 would be the sweet spot), which in turn pushes back starting a family. IME, the prime age to start a family has shifted to 30 to 39. Also, Gen X is much smaller in number than the boomers so it makes sense that there would a drop in percentages of people in that age bracket, especially when you consider the fact that the boomers are skewing the older age brackets upward.

More telling would be the increase or decrease in children in the 5 to 10 range. The big draw of these towns are the schools, and many people wait till their children are school age before moving out to the burbs. The whole "baby on the way its time to by a house" routine doesn't happen that much anymore.

Now maybe this just proves the author's point that young adults are priced out of these towns, but I don't think most 25 year olds are looking to move to a bed room community, regardless of price. In other words, if they wouldn't consider living in these towns in the first place, how can you conclude that they are priced out?

[Serious Conversation]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

I think the study's demographic assumptions are wrong. The assumption that the prime age to start a family is 25 to 34 may have been true for boomers, but not for Gen X. Gen Xers tend to wait longer to get married (28 to 32 would be the sweet spot), which in turn pushes back starting a family. IME, the prime age to start a family has shifted to 30 to 39. Also, Gen X is much smaller in number than the boomers so it makes sense that there would a drop in percentages of people in that age bracket, especially when you consider the fact that the boomers are skewing the older age brackets upward.

More telling would be the increase or decrease in children in the 5 to 10 range. The big draw of these towns are the schools, and many people wait till their children are school age before moving out to the burbs. The whole "baby on the way its time to by a house" routine doesn't happen that much anymore.

Now maybe this just proves the author's point that young adults are priced out of these towns, but I don't think most 25 year olds are looking to move to a bed room community, regardless of price. In other words, if they wouldn't consider living in these towns in the first place, how can you conclude that they are priced out?

You could look at median HHI for that group vs. median home price. I bet anything they are priced out, but how relevant that is is up for debate.

[Stephy0519]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

I think the study's demographic assumptions are wrong. The assumption that the prime age to start a family is 25 to 34 may have been true for boomers, but not for Gen X. Gen Xers tend to wait longer to get married (28 to 32 would be the sweet spot), which in turn pushes back starting a family. IME, the prime age to start a family has shifted to 30 to 39. Also, Gen X is much smaller in number than the boomers so it makes sense that there would a drop in percentages of people in that age bracket, especially when you consider the fact that the boomers are skewing the older age brackets upward.

More telling would be the increase or decrease in children in the 5 to 10 range. The big draw of these towns are the schools, and many people wait till their children are school age before moving out to the burbs. The whole "baby on the way its time to by a house" routine doesn't happen that much anymore.

Now maybe this just proves the author's point that young adults are priced out of these towns, but I don't think most 25 year olds are looking to move to a bed room community, regardless of price. In other words, if they wouldn't consider living in these towns in the first place, how can you conclude that they are priced out?

I have to agree with this.

I don't necessarily agree with being priced out of the towns--but I do agree with not considering to live in the burbs. I'm going to be paid 2K + a month for my apartment (the equivilant of a decent mortgage) and I'm doing that because I don't WANT to live in the burbs, burbs yet. I'm choosing to live in an all inclusive apartment complex, with every amenity I could want (including a 5K sq ft gym)...because I don't want to buy (or start a family!) yet.

Interesting-ish side bar--I'm in Madison, WI for business this week, which is a very young town, due to the University and Epic. However, a majority of the people out here (all ages)--and the things that come out of their mouths--are just so ignorant...no matter the age. Things are cheaper...but the way of thinking is about 10 years back and way more sheltered than CT/NYC. I couldn't deal with that, personally.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

That's great you finally see the light Nep. I remember not too long ago you were complaining about the "gay scene" or dwindling gay bars of CT in particular. While having some, especially ones with a history, is important for culture and tradition sake, others pointed out that they go to "whatever bar they feel like going to",choosing NOT to segregate themselves.

Don't get me wrong. I would never care to go to a straight bar. Why would I do that? There's no point. I'm gay. I only go to gay bars. When I go out to a bar, I have an agenda that can only be achieved by going to a gay bar.

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by nep321

Don't get me wrong. I would never care to go to a straight bar. Why would I do that? There's no point. I'm gay. I only go to gay bars. When I go out to a bar, I have an agenda that can only be achieved by going to a gay bar.

You devil you....And I'm not sure most people would refer to a conventional bar as a "straight bar", just sayin.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

With respect to the second article, should we change to more of a Westchester model (town/county) level with more condos for young families even in the tony suburbs? That seems to really help property taxes for SFH owners (sacrasm off).

He doesn't really discuss Westchester as a success here. His point is that part of the reason sun-belt metros might be lower cost, and continue to see growth in the numbers of families, is because they tend to have county-wide school systems, which means you don't see different towns (indeed, different towns don't even exist) engaging in cutthroat competition to keep property values high like in the Northeast.

Originally Posted by Mike 75

I think the study's demographic assumptions are wrong. The assumption that the prime age to start a family is 25 to 34 may have been true for boomers, but not for Gen X. Gen Xers tend to wait longer to get married (28 to 32 would be the sweet spot), which in turn pushes back starting a family. IME, the prime age to start a family has shifted to 30 to 39. Also, Gen X is much smaller in number than the boomers so it makes sense that there would a drop in percentages of people in that age bracket, especially when you consider the fact that the boomers are skewing the older age brackets upward.

More telling would be the increase or decrease in children in the 5 to 10 range. The big draw of these towns are the schools, and many people wait till their children are school age before moving out to the burbs. The whole "baby on the way its time to by a house" routine doesn't happen that much anymore.

Now maybe this just proves the author's point that young adults are priced out of these towns, but I don't think most 25 year olds are looking to move to a bed room community, regardless of price. In other words, if they wouldn't consider living in these towns in the first place, how can you conclude that they are priced out?

The average age of first-time parenthood for mothers with at least a bachelors degree now peaks around 30-34 nationally. Nearly as many still have kids in their early 20s and late 30s. Admittedly the numbers probably skew higher for those with graduate degrees (who are more the economic class who would have to buy into FFC) and for Connecticut in general, but still, plenty of women have popped one out by 35.

The study linked does not talk about school-aged children of course, but I would be shocked if there were not significant declines here as well. First, as was noted in the posting, public school enrollment is down virtually everywhere in metro NYC. Second a lot of 0-5 year old kids do have older siblings, so a missing family with a young child might also be missing a school-age child.

I don't think this explains the whole issue - not by a long shot - because I think how unfriendly suburbs are to the modern "young childless" stage. But I think it's an aspect which bore mentioning.

[Stephy0519]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

You devil you....And I'm not sure most people would refer to a conventional bar as a "straight bar", just sayin.

lol! agreed! I have quite a few close, gay friends and they come to me to what Nep refers to as "straight" bars...and guess what? They have definitely met people to their liking there!

[nep321]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

You devil you....And I'm not sure most people would refer to a conventional bar as a "straight bar", just sayin.

Well, STRAIGHT people don't refer to a conventional bar as a "straight" bar, obviously. But gay people often do, understandably. It's just a way to distinguish the theme and clientele of one bar to another.

Having gay bars separate from straight bars is a GOOD thing for the gay community. I mean, if I went to an "integrated" bar, how the hell am I supposed to know which guys are gay? Having dedicated gay bars takes out the guess work and makes it easy to assume that nearly 100% of the attendees are gay.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by eschaton

He doesn't really discuss Westchester as a success here. His point is that part of the reason sun-belt metros might be lower cost, and continue to see growth in the numbers of families, is because they tend to have county-wide school systems, which means you don't see different towns (indeed, different towns don't even exist) engaging in cutthroat competition to keep property values high like in the Northeast.

They continue to have lower costs on account of two factors (and these two factors only):

1. Surging population growth and as a result, surging revenues
2. Young and or non-existent pensions (mature pensions are a tremendous drag)

I'm not convinced that county-wide school systems are actually more efficient. Provided the student teacher ratio is held constant you are only saving costs on busing and a handful of superintendents. A few million dollars spread across a tax base of 10,000 households is really not a lot of money. County-wide school systems also assuredly lower quality compared to a top tier single town system. Law of averages. Can you provide any examples of county-wide systems that perform at the Bronxville, New Canaan or Wilton level?