Should North Country families really fight to keep their kids around?
It’s become a political mantra in the North Country.
One of the reasons we want better jobs and better opportunity is so that our children can stay here after they graduate from high school — or return here after college.
You hear it again and again from Democrats and Republicans alike.
In rural policy circles, the part of our population that yearns for this kind of stability is known as ‘place bound.’
They are loyal to their communities, their neighborhoods, their networks of family and friends — even when those places are no longer prosperous.
In some North Country towns, people have stayed on long after there was any viable private sector economy.
Now an author and urban theorist named Richard Florida is urging Americans to be…less rooted.
“During our era of mass production and American greatness, we really thought extending home ownership to just about every American was part of the American dream,” Florida said this morning on NPR.
It’s a startling argument.
Florida points to studies indicating that in areas of high home ownership — translation: low geographic mobility — there is “less economic productivity, higher rates of unemployment and…lower levels of well-being.”
Sound familiar?
Here’s more from Florida’s conversation with Morning Edition host Steve Innskeep:
“I think the great advantage that the US has had in being acompetitve innovative and productive country is that it’s had great labor mobility. What’s happened now is that so many people are trapped in houses they can’t sell. US mobility is at the lowest levels that it’s been at in decades. And I think this is the biggest long-run constraint on our ability to reset and recover. If folks are trapped in their homes, they can’t get out, they can’t sell them, they can’t recoup their investments…”
Florida is talking chiefly here about the housing market collapse, which has hit urban and suburban families the hardest.
But he’s also touching on a cultural idea that is deeply rooted in small towns — the idea of staying put, holding on, ranking place over prosperity.
You can read read more about Florida’s ideas here.
What do you think? Are we and our kids better off anchored in the North Country? Or should we follow the path of opportunity and career wherever it leads?
I’ve long subscribed to Wendell Berry’s “Country of Marriage” ethic. I believe our lives are deepened and enriched by making a commitment to a place and abiding by that commitment, working to enrich the quality of our lives there, as opposed to our historic cultural norm of taking what you can from a place, using it up and moving on. As much as I would love to have our children and grandchildren closer by, I prefer that they find their own country of marriage, wherever that may be, and thereby find the joy and rewards that come with their own commitment to a place.
Both of our children have made college decisions that will allow them to stay in the NC, if they so wish. I can only describe the reception to new business/development/industry/maunfacturing in the NC as adversarial. It is certainly not helped by NYS, but that is a different discussion. The choices are limited if one decides to stay.
I have always argued one of the big problems in the Adirondacks is the lack of decent and affordable year-round rentals.
If the Adirondacks wants to keep and attract the young, affordable rentals are need far more than affordable houses.
Houses come after you have a job, have saved some money and have decided you’ll be some place for an extended time.
Many people we openly say they want their kids to stay here and what we need are more jobs and affordable housing.
Privately they will say they really hope their kids move out and find a decent job.
It’s the kids who want to stay, not us trying to keep them. Whenever we travel outside this area, they see how lucky they are to live here. I worry that their attachment may lead to frustration, as their ambition and talents may not find outlets here. OTOH, perhaps they will be the ones to bring opportunity here in the next generation.
I can speak from experience. I went to high school in Tupper Lake and college at North Country CC and then Plattsburgh. So far I have been able to continue living in the Park. Granted, I now live along the southern periphery close to the Capital Region, but still in the Park. The reason for moving down here was specifically job related.
Having kept in touch with several of my classmates, I can say that some graduates leave the Park to pursue their careers, others leave just to leave and the rest decide to stay for one reason or another. What I believe is most important is to make sure our children’s career aspirations are not limited. We must encourage them to find a career where they can be successful. If that leads them out of the Park, hopefully they will be able to move back once they are established if they desire.
In my day job (which I should be doing instead of writing this comment) I have worked with numerous communities outside the Park and they have similar concerns with their children not being able to stay in the town’s they grew up in. It is obviously not just a NC thing.
While we should encourage our children to live and invest in the NC, our focus should be on identifying and implementing strategies to attract and retain residents that not only want to live here, but can live here. I live in the Adirondacks because I can. If I could not support my family here, I would be living somewhere else.
Our graduates will leave to follow their career goals. Perhaps we should focus less on keeping people from leaving (this will happen, and we cannot help that) and focus more on how we can create an Adirondack economy that attracts the best and brightest that want to live here and invest in our region.
The opportunities are not in the North Country or New York. Some people will fight to stay where they are, most will leave. Is there anything to discuss really? People have been moving for jobs for years — this is not news or controversial.
At least most of them are staying in the US.
The argument that “children need to be able to live here” seems to be one of those strange perceptions of rural economies. I grew up in Princeton, NJ. Very few people expected that their children should be able to live there, certainly not when they graduated from high school or college; they could never afford it. The idea that there should be hobs and housing available for anyone who wants to live in a particular place simply doesn’t make sense. Those who are innovative, successful, and capable of knitting together a career should be able to live in the park. Just like all other places, it demands a particular set of skills, and it is not for everybody.
A tough question for sure. Many families are fortunate to own their own homes and hopefully plan on leaving the property to their children, grandchildren or other family member. Considering the expense involved in rental properties when one moves to a new area, a hand-me-down home, (furnished) would not be an unwelcomed gift. Granted, salaried and hourly jobs are more plentiful in other locations, but so is crime and areas that are better off diverted from. Young people just starting off directly from college look forward to establishing themselves, making their own way and supporting themselves, both emotionally and financially. This is a good thing, as this is how we hope to have raised them….to be independant, self-reliant and self-sufficient. However in this economy, attaining and keeping a well-paying job doesn’t make much sense if you can’t afford the cost of living in the area where this job is. Many young people work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, and with this comes exhaustion, depression and a pretty good chance of running into debt just trying to stay afloat. Sometimes when first starting out, having family support (again emotionally and financially) helps to get one on their feet and allows them to spread their winds in a more supportive fashion. With the taxes parents and grandparents have paid during their life time, especially the taxes paid here in NYS…….opportunities for employment should be a thing we demand for our children. It’s time politicians look at northern NY (areas ABOVE Syracuse…..) as a beautiful place to raise families……..instead of ‘votes’ and a vacation-land for them to use at their convenience. The choice to remain or leave the area one grows up in should be expected, not hoped for.
I think there may be some deeper issues surrounding community and stability that are missed. They might be intangible values but they have real value. The fact is even in our current situation we are still far more mobile and rootless than people in other countries.
After saying that I will encourage our children to follow their own path and that will in all probability lead them away from the North Country at least for a while and that is fine and great.
I think Markus has a point. If nothing else I want to be able to give my kids a place to be from a sense of home and community even when they move away.
The social-economic history of the U.S. has involved massive migrations and relocations as people looked for better opportunities. Over the past 100 years there have been significant shifts from rural to urban areas and from the Northeast to the West Coast and the South. The rural to urban shift is still going on and what is happening with young people in the Adirondack Park is no different than other rural areas of NYS. Heck, I grew up in a relatively prosperous upstate suburban area and I am the only one in my family still in NY. And my kids also live in another state. These are the result of larger global economic trends and just part of the unique mobility that allows Americans to adapt to change. I am amused by North Country residents who seem to feel entitled that their children should have opportunities (that don’t exist in other remote rural areas) that would allow them to stay in the region. Stop blaming all the usual scapegoats (APA, state land purchases, environmental groups, etc) they don’t exist in other rural areas that are experiencing the same exodus of young people. Local Adirondack government types would be much better off if they stopped feeling sorry for themselves while diverting attention from their own failures to adapt and seize the opportunities that could exist if they would look forward rather than at the past. The Adirondack Park is here to stay. And while it has increased in size, greatly increasing recreational/tourist type opportunities, local governments continue to fight it. It is time for Adornondack state and local political leaders to embrace the reality of the Park and the unique opportunities it presents – which no other rural area has.
People on the move to areas where jobs are available and opportunity abounds is nothing new. It was the reason why tens of millions migrated to the United States in particular and to the Western Hemisphere in general.
“opportunities abound” that is (:-0
What is the flip side of his argument? Is a boomtown in the south or southwest his ideal? High mobility, greater economic productivity, higher crime rates, more sprawl, boom and bust cycles but who cares because the next boomtown is just down the road? Sounds like the old theory that growth is always good, but there are good things about a maintenance economy as well. In a biological system unrestrained growth is called cancer.
It’s good for young people to get out in the world and see other places, expand their horizons…but we want some of them to come back and put the good things they’ve learned to use here.
I think this idea of “ahving jobs for our kids” is ridiculous and what stifles many communities. Popel need to elave and area – to get out and see how other people live, think, craft their lives and communities – if you stay wher you are raised you have NO PERSPECTIVE. IF, you thne choose to come back later to contribute – great! But you may also have something to share from where you came with another place. This does not mean there is not community. Too many people stay in palces they don’t like becasue “family is ther” which I find weird since most folks I know fight with their families or they hae the weather or bemoan the costsa and lack of jobs – then MOVE to aplace that you like. We need young, old and middle-aged people form other places to come into our communities bringin their talenst, perspectives, experience, businesses form outside and they CHOOSE to be here meaning they like the lack of shopping, small town feel, etc. Many of the folks that contribute to community and enrich our communities come from away bringing their talent for art – teaching dances classes in their spare time, giving lectures on travels, starting a new business for alternative energy, etc. and they LIKE the weattehr and the rough roads and remoteness and don’t want o trun it into the subrubia that they left. other who grew up here anddont’ watn the isolated rural farm life can move to suburbia or the city and think it’s great. So we need to encourage people who liek the lifestyle and area to come or stay, not just encourage “antive-born” to stay and eschew others – that leads to an in-bred community of like-minded thinkers and we lose innovation and creativity.
NY’s substantial regulatory and tax burden is leading to an exodus of jobs and people from the state and NNY in particular. This is is an exodus that has not happened in rural states like Vermont, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, etc.
Unfortunately, the leadership in the state legislature is not supportive of policies that would reverse, or at least slow this exodus. Indeed, NYC lawmakers are constantly looking for ways to increase taxes and regulations.
scratchy says:
April 28, 2010 at 3:11 pm
“NY’s substantial regulatory and tax burden is leading to an exodus of jobs and people from the state and NNY in particular. This is is an exodus that has not happened in rural states like Vermont, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, etc. ”
Exactly my point below – there is no data that substantiates the above assertion, particularly with regards to NNY. I have owned property in the Adirondacks and elsewhere in NYS and the taxes were always much lower in the Adirondacks than elsewhere. One reason is the amount of State land (that local politicians love to complain about) and the payments the State makes on their assessments (that local politicians don’t like to acknowledge) which in some towns provide the bulk of their income.
If you don’t think Vermont has a substantial regulatory or tax burden you haven’t spent time there or don’t know any Vermonters. Ironically, Vermont’s regulations are viewed as progressive and the results are seen as attractive to young people while NY is not, particularly NNY. Again, local NNY politicians and State legislators keep focusing on the past and do not understand what attracts young people to an area. They should be emphasizing the Park, its beauty and recreational opportunities for both tourists and potential residents.
Vermont doesn’t have a substantial regulatory and tax burden, at least nothing like NY’s. Which state’s red tape is holding up construction of the bridge in Crown Point? Not Vermont’s. Property and gas taxes are much lower in Vermont than in NY. In fact, as someone how frequently travels to Vermont I make sure I fill up my gas tank in Vermont where the gas is cheaper.
Census data shows that most rural states grow at a faster rate than NNY. And that’s in spite of the Fort Drum expansion.
Scratchy, you are entitled to your opinion but it just doesn’t reflect reality. And buying gas in Vermont is not sufficient data to make a conclusion about state taxes.
Have you heard of Vermont’s Act 250, known as the Land Use and Development Act? From Wikipedia: “The law created nine District Environmental Commissions to review large-scale development projects using 10 criteria that are designed to safeguard the environment, community life, and aesthetic character of the state. They have the power to issue or deny a permit to real estate developers for any project that encompasses more than 10 acres (40,000 m²), or more than 1 acre (4,000 m²) for towns that do not have permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws.”
Very similar land use controls as the APA, but applies to the whole state. And ironically was also passed in the early 1970’s. Ask Walmart how easy it is to locate a store in Vermont, or a builder why there aren’t more subdivisions in VT? Maybe Vermont’s popularity is actually because of the results of Act 250 controls being more effective than the weak APA regulations.
As far as property taxes go – just look at stuff for sale in Vermont and compare their taxes with something similar in NNY. No way Vermont’s are less.
Vermont’s tax burden and regulatory burden are less than NY’s.
Act 250 is much narrower in scope than the APA, which has much broader authority. The APA’s authority is not limitted to projects over 10 acres; all development in the Park is subject to APA regulations. The Park is much less developed than Vermont and Wal-mart, Costco’s, Home Depot, Lowes, etc. all have Vermont stores. In addition, the APA is not accountable to Park residents.
NY has more regulations than Vermont in other ways as well. For example, NY”s Project Labor Agreement regulations are holding up construction of the Crown Point bridge.
Vermonter’s pay 10.3% of their income to state and local taxes, which is close to the national average of 9.7%. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/topic/62.html
NYer’s pay 11.7% of their income, considerably higher than Vermont’s.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/topic/46.html
Sratchy – thanks for the data. However, I don’t think the small difference in tax rates you report is significant enough to prove NY’s taxes are driving people away while VT’s slightly lower tax rate attracts people to that state. Both are over the national average and more similar than not. Taxes cannot explain any difference in population trends between NY and VT.
Yes, Wal-Mart has 4 stores (not supercenters) in VT – but not without denials, lengthy legal battles and location restrictions. According to Stephen Holmes of the Vermont Natural Resources Council the Wal-Mart permitting “process has been fairly contentious,” and points out that Wal-Mart loves to site stores in neighboring New Hampshire, where development regulations are more lax. “They have a strategy of circling Vermont,” he says.
Vermont’s Act 250 does apply to development as small as one acre if the town does not have permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws. Similarly the APA act cedes approvals for class B regional projects to towns that have approved local land use programs (Section 810 of the APA Act). Again, both of these regulations are very similar in their intent and structure.
I still don’t see where Vermont’s tax burden and regulatory burden are less than NY’s in any meaningful way.
It’s not simply a question of overall tax burden; it’s also a matter of value for money. Vermont has few uninsured, better schools, lower crime, more honest government- though that’s saying very, very, little, higher unemployment benefits, etc. I suppose NY has better roads, but that’s about it.
Vermont approves 98% of proposed developments. In addition, a majority of private land in the Park is classified as Resource Management where over 40 acres of land is require to build- quite possibly the strictest zoning classification in North America. I do not know if it’s been litigated in federal courts, but a strong arguement could be made that such a classification is a 5th amendment “taking” requiring owner compensation.
And of course there are number of non-land use regulations that NY has but Vermont does not, like the Scaffold Law.