Many people in Massachusetts are talking about the need to attract and retain young workers, but we are hardly sending out the welcome wagon. As the Globe reported recently, the Census Bureau estimates that the number of Massachusetts homeowners between ages 25 and 34 dropped by nearly 32,000 — or 19 percent — between 2005 and 2010. This massive decline reminds us that, despite our abundance of colleges, the Commonwealth remains inhospitable to young talent. I agree with those who would like less regulation of nightclubs and food trucks, but the larger problem is over-regulation of new housing, especially in suburbs near the urban core.
The Commonwealth’s economy is doing reasonably well, which should make it a magnet for the skilled and ambitious. In April, our unemployment rate was down to 6.3 percent. Our state’s gross domestic product increased in real terms by 6.5 percent between 2009 and 2011, leading the Northeast. According to the Case-Shiller Housing Price Index, the Boston area’s housing prices have only declined by 17 percent since their December 2005 peak, which represents remarkable resiliency during an historic housing collapse.
Comments
This comment has been removed.
Another statistics driven article by prof. Glasser. A word of advice to Mr G. Get on your bikr or in yourcar and visit these so called over-regulated suburbs. For every Town of Dover with its exclusionary policies ( and über high prices) there are tens of towns where the housing ( or building ) density has reached its max. Go to the soccer and baseball fields that are worn down from over use. Talk to the home owners who now have "wet" basements because over new homes in marginal areas affected the water table. Tell them they need more housing for young people moving into the area. Stats are meaningless unless you understand the data. Sadly, it seems you do not.
I wish Ed would have listed at least five or ten municipalities to focus on here. We are left to wonder. Definitions about what exactly is meant by the "urban core"can vary. I imagine he's talking about the areas just around or just outside 128. Topsfield, Middleton, Burlington, maybe Billerica. Certainly Lincoln/Sudbury, Weston, Welesley, Norwood and Walpole and Milton on the south. To me, those communities are out in the country. The large lot sizes are fine because they should be vacation homes. More development would just make traffic problems worse. If he's talking about Brookline, Cambridge, Arlington/Belmont, maybe Winchester, Stoneham, Dedham, Lynn, Saugus, Newton some of those communities are already "built"like Newton, some don't have the restrictions as much like Lynn and some fit right into what he's talking about like Brookline.
Skippy you hit the nail on the head I live in one of those built out suburban communities. Because of slack zoning codes developers fed on our community for years packing it with apartment and condo complexes. Our town has provided a lot of housing and what was our reward? I don't leave my home during certain hours because our streets are gridlocked with traffic. We have an overcrowded, underfunded school system. The drug problem has exploded.
To all the negative commenters here, what's your next move? Tell people we're closed for business and they should move somewhere else to start their companies? I like reading idiotic suburban commenters with their small-minded views and then imagining them sitting in ever-increasing traffic jams as they force people to build more suburban wastelands farther and farther from the city.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
If your next job might be in another state, owning a home can be a liability. Reasonably priced, family-friendly rental units are far more appealing.
The article is interesting but does not tell the whole story. With the recent housing bubble burst and uncertainties in the workplace, many have opted to rent/lease rather than buy. The article ignores this point and thus may show a significant bias in its conclusions. I am disappointed in this ignored situation from a writer whose credentials show he should know better.
Thank you for writing that...you took the words out of my mouth. Why do we need to build on that outlying land? Build in the city areas near the T.
There is plenty of low-priced housing in urban communities. In Springfield the median single-family house listed right now is at $125,000. Why not encourage young workers to buy here instead of building more housing in communities that don't want it?
Great idea. How long is the commute to Boston?
How much did you get from Hammond Real Estate for the close up and front page AD?
The real issue is that many of the wealthier suburbs around metro Boston ignore the rules regarding affordable housing enacted in recent years. Communities have an obligation to provide affordable housing for their young people but instead watch them leave to other states where housing is more affordable and wages earned don't consume too much of your net income. I was unable to live in the town I grew up in (Danvers)after college in the mid 80's as rents and mortgages were way too high. I was not able to return to MA. until the early 90's when I could 'afford' to live in Eastern Ma. where I wanted to live. Most relatives of mine with young adult children have seen their children move out of state where their wages buy more home and/or a better apartment. Home prices are still way too high in this area. I fear for the next generation which includes my children. They will not be better off than I am and that is the tragedy. The American Dream is 'tax code created' and renting is the only option for these young people.
This comment has been removed.