[Biker53]

The fact that most counties in VT are slowly losing population and the Burlington area only increasing enough to keep the overall population flat has come up from time to time in different threads. Nationwide all of the country's population growth has been in the urban/suburban areas while rural/small town areas have stayed relatively flat, thus declining as a % of the total. VT is thus typical of rural areas nationwide.

The questions for me is what are the long term implications of population decline in much of VT. Population growth and population decline are both self reinforcing. On the growth side I look at where my daughter lives in NC. Her metro area's population increases by 1,000 people a month. These are mostly young families moving in. The result is more teachers needed, more schools built, more medical facilities built & staff hired, more police, more homes and stores built, more everything that in turn brings more people filling those newly created jobs which in turn brings more people in an ongoing cycle.`The young don't have to move away to get good jobs.

The decline side is equally self reinforcing. With declining enrollments teachers retire and don't get replaced, new construction is minimal so less construction and trades workers are needed than used to be the case, the older debt-free owner of a country store or gas station retires and the business closes as it isn't viable for a young family that would have to carry debt to take over. An aging population will keep the healthcare segment humming for a period but as the baby boomers begin to die off, that will suffer and begin to shrink too. Some of VT's rural hospitals are already in trouble financially.

The mitigating factor VT has that many other rural parts of the country don't is tourism. Our proximity to the Greater NYC area in combination with the mystique VT has keeps well healed tourists and 2nd home owners coming. Some move here in middle age bringing their source of income with them or they come as affluent early retirees. The rural VT economy would collapse without them.

My county and my town have been slowly losing population for a couple decades. Our young head off to college and generally don't come back because their career opportunities lie in urban/suburban areas. The result is an aging population and schools that don't have half the number of kids they had a couple decades ago. That all but assures ongoing population decline.

What do others think?

[RobinG60]

Hey there Biker.
I don't really know the long term ramifications of the population shift to more urban areas. I can only cite what I observed back in Jersey, agreeing with your statement that it is not only Vt that might be struggling with exodus.

I was born in a NJ urban town in 1960.
20 years later, the suburbs and even the rural farmlands were top relocation spots for many of us city dwellers as we entered adulthood and began having children.
Previous to moving to Vt last year, we lived and raised our children in the rural northwest corner of the state for 30 years. From 1985 to about 2010, our sleepy town population grew from about 5,000 to 20,000+ Then, in the last decade or so, as our children went off to college, got jobs, they began migrating back to the more urban areas their parents had moved from. Hence, the rural area populations began shrinking again.

My children, in their 30's, and so many of their friends, do not want to spend long times commuting. They like grabbing an Uber, or just walking to the neighborhood eatery. While our focus was job/house/kids, many of them are all still in condos or apartments, spending their money on travel vs home repair. Families are being started much later, if at all.

So, yes, I don't think it's just Vermont that is losing population. I think that this new generation might be reversing population trends, not just for job prospects, but because their ideals, dreams and life's trajectory is different than their parents.

Be curious to see how it all turns out.

[squarpeg]

I am not sure depopulation is a problem even though people imply it is. Americans seem to feel society must always be growing and expanding, it is part of our capitalist mind set. More money, more things etc. Down in Florida where I now spend much of the year I live in an area wildly expanding, paving, growing crowds and commerce. Lots of jobs and things to do for work. Lots of places to spend your money, new ones popping up everyday. I see why people like it. I doubt I will stay here much longer as in my eyes for every good thing growth brings also brings an equal or larger bad thing. Anyway, regarding Vermont. I moved there in 1977 I believe at the time the population was around 450,000 and the cows did truly outnumber the people. Something I always tell my Florida friends is that I can look at photos from the late 1800's of my town in VT and it really looks the same. Same general store, church, inn. The town population is about the same. In the years I have lived in southern VT I can say it is very much unchanged as when I moved there. With as few job opportunities as the day I arrived. I would say there is probably a little more money in town now from the transplants, a few more buildings, a few more things to do but generally it is still limited if your idea is a career and nightly dancing. The biggest change I have seen is a loss of the agricultural sector. Dairy mostly. That is a shame but those jobs were always verging on subsistence living. What I do see now is a lot more self-employed people. People like myself that either run web based businesses or specialty businesses of some kind. The original point though that Vermont is in some type of crisis of depopulation I think is not entirely correct. It is a very rural state, it has always been. I recall when I was 17 and left my urban home outside NYC to move to Vermont, my father lecturing me that I was going somewhere where the only choice was being poor. In some ways he was correct. Friends who stayed in NYC had careers and expensive homes. I however never wished for those things and was drawn to the natural beauty and rural character. Vermont is what you make it. The hardship of the area keeps people at bay. My guess is it will remain essentially unchanged for the next 200 years that is fine with me.

[Biker53]

Robin, with the young flocking to urban areas the implication for rural areas is ongoing population decline and an aging population with fewer workers to support them. What that means long term is what I'm wrestling with.

Squarepeg, I sort of agree with you that no population growth has a definite upside, but I've made my money and can live out my days in comfort and so the economic implications aren't an issue for me. My son who lives in VT does a long commute into MA for a high end job but that's a price he willingly pays in order to live on some acreage here in VT. My daughter on the other hand likes suburban life in NC. Her kids go to a school the likes of which I doubt exists anywhere in VT, a large K-12 STEM-focused charter school. They frequent the local YMCA named after and sponsored by a national retail chain headquartered where she lives. I've never seen a Y like it and doubt there is a facility like that open to the public anywhere in VT. The amenities in her area are endless and yet her property taxes in an upscale neighborhood are half what I pay in a rural town with no amenities. VT can't offer what pulls so many of our young away.

The upside however is our fields and forests are not under development pressure. Not much of anything is getting built, and we lose more homes to demolition or abandonment to mother nature than new ones get built. Another upside that is in plain view for all to see is our history. It is a reminder of our heritage and is culturally important. In urban/suburban areas it has mostly been swept away in new development like where my daughter lives. There are no signs of what used to be there. Its all gone. They live solely in the present which to me is kind of sterile.

The problem though is with there being fewer children in VT year after year after year is it is starting to impact communities in ways people aren't going to like. The recent forced consolidation of school districts is just the precursor to what's coming. The next step will be the closing of schools in small towns across the State and that is going to impact the identity of communities for which the school is their centerpiece. In my 4 town district we already have enough excess capacity that the 3 smallest schools could be closed and consolidated into the largest. In my county we have 7 public high schools and could bring that down to just the 2 largest given excess capacity already present. In my town the Boy Scouts disbanded as there just weren't enough boys to keep it going. We've gone from multiple youth baseball teams to barely being able to field one per age group. The Middle/High School is starting to struggle to field sports teams even when everyone that tries out gets in.

It is seeing things like this that prompt my wondering about the implications of our very slow but ongoing depopulation (except for the Burlington area).

[Tyler Grievance]

The population bomb theory presumably gained considerable traction in Vermont versus many other states. What the doomsayers did not tell you was that once childbirths go below the replacement rate it elicits a whole new set of problems which aren't necessarily any better than that of the reverse situation. Humans solve problems by working together. If there are no people, all you have is problems.

[Riley.]

I see a very bumpy road ahead for VT due to the population lag. Specifically, I think many of the issues will be played out in local politics pertaining to the schools - consolidation, decreasing student populations, refusal to merge, insistence on local control, which often also pits neighbor against neighbor and makes for increasing property taxes year after year (mostly). Couple that with the attendant lack of amenities, which most young families look for, I generally only see native VTers moving here, trying to make a go of it. As I've mentioned, in my town in NW VT, town meeting is a somewhat quaint, but laughable, exercise in 'democracy.' Those who disagree with the opinion that the local school should be kept running no matter the cost are usually shut down (and sometimes verbally denigrated and insulted) by the rest of those who show up, who mostly work for the school, have kids in the school (of course) or know someone who works for the school. For me, it has become a farce. There is no will to change the status quo with a forward looking vision that attempts to solve that particular problem.
State government, IMO, closely mirrors local politics. There seems to be no will to control costs, become more business friendly, crack down on increasing crime and the opioid problem in its many manifestations, etc, etc. Let's legalize marijuana!! There's an idea. We'll make $$ from that. CBD shops are popping up everywhere.
Sometimes you have to vote with your pocketbook. As I get closer to retiring, I realize, for me, there are more reasons to leave, and few to keep me here (especially the extended winter). On the plus side, summers here can be truly magnificent!

[millerm277]

Perspective of someone in their 20s: Aside from the job market, the housing stock not matching up to current reality is by far the biggest issue pushing people my age away from the region, IMO.



There's very limited rental stock or other smaller units available.


Most people in their 20s today are unmarried and without kids. I'm one person. I don't have much use for a single-family house, but that's about all that's available in most areas.


I just need a 1-2 bedroom apartment/condo/townhouse/whatever, but decent units (not a trailer, appears well-maintained - we aren't talking demanding modern NYC luxury here) like that are in very limited supply outside Burlington and a handful of other towns.

[Biker53]

millerm277, you raise a good point about the housing. Regretfully the bureaucrats/zealots behind what we call Act 250 seemingly go out of their way to try and stop anything anywhere from getting built. They live in an idealistic world devoid of practical thought, and they certainly have no understanding of the needs of ordinary people.

[squarpeg]

Act 250 seems to me to be a double edge sword. My feeling, it is too onerous in the permits and various departments you have to go through. I personally think that should be streamlined and made easier for development projects. I do not however feel that the goal of of act 250 is that far off. It is designed to protect us from the effects of development and the way it impacts the environment and the community. The focus is on a number of criteria

1. Will not result in undue water or air pollution.Included are the following considerations: (A) Headwaters; (B) Waste disposal (including wastewater and stormwater); (C) Water Conservation; (D) Floodways; (E) Streams; (F) Shorelines; and (G) Wetlands.
2. Has sufficient water available for the needs of the subdivision or development.
3. Will not unreasonably burden any existing water supply.
4. Will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or affect the capacity of the land to hold water.
5. Will not cause unreasonably dangerous or congested conditions with respect to highways or other means of transportation.
6. Will not create an unreasonable burden on the educational facilities of the municipality.
7. Will not create an unreasonable burden on the municipality in providing governmental services.
8. Will not have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics, scenic beauty, historic sites or natural areas, and 8(A) will not imperil necessary wildlife habitat or endangered species in the immediate area.
9. Conforms with the Capability and Development Plan which includes the following considerations: (A) The impact the project will have on the growth of the town or region: (B) Primary agricultural soils; (C) Productive forest soils; (D) Earth resources; (E) Extraction of earth resources; (F) Energy conservation; (G) Private utility services; (H) Costs of scattered developments; (J) Public utility services; (K) Development affecting public investments; and (L) Rural growth areas.
10. Is in conformance with any local or regional plan or capital facilities program.

As you can see this cover a lot of area the reason developers have a hard time with it. In the developers defense it is a difficult process with a lot of people and hoops to jump over and through. The process should certainly be made as easy as possible by the state, while at the same time holding our standards. Now for those who want to drop the standards I would just point to Florida where I am currently. Here the developers reign, do as they will. Pave over everything, rollout an endless concrete strip mall that essentially runs down the the whole east and west coast with nothing but a repeating landscape of corporate strip malls, box stores and fast food chains. Housing developments go in overnight. There is one down the road from me being built. the plan is 30,000 homes. The forest is clear cut, the roads laid, you pick your one of 7 styles of homes and you get to pick one of 5 colors. A month later the house is up, the turf brought in and rolled out. A few palm trees and you are good to go. Meanwhile, water table depleted, traffic over the top at a standstill, schools underfunded, every lawn full of "weed be gone" and pesticides, lots of chemical fertilizer pouring into the waterway. No nature, eat your meals at a gas station....that I am sorry to say is what I see all up and down the coast in many states. It is called progress. My feeling on Vermont is we should stand firm against this and while it may seem onerous. in the end, we will have something very unique that others do not. I already sense this is happening in Vermont. How does the 49th least populated non-industrialized state make it. The answer I believe is we brand ourselves. We brand ourselves as the cleanest, least developed place, a progressive state that consistently ranks very high in many areas of living. I for one am in favor of promoting this ideal while other states follow a completely different path. People will pay for things that are rare. Whether it is gems, antique cars, books, the rarer it is the more people covet and value it. We should be very careful and thoughtful on how we let development into the state. I am not opposed to it, I just do not want the developers making the rules.

[Biker53]

squarpeg, the original intent to not let VT look like NJ made sense and supports the mystique of VT, but the folks in charge have carried things to an extreme. The criteria is such that any zealots who don't want any development use Act 250 as their mechanism to stop it, and some of the zealots are people who work for the State. The end result is often either significantly increased cost from jumping through the regulatory hoops, or businesses that just walk away and go to NY or NH.