Sunday, March 05, 2006
Vermont Views - of Mountains and Futures ?
When my wife and I were looking for a place to retire with our horses, we started looking first at Vermont, with a plan to continue south to the Great Smokey's. We never got past NE PA and are grateful for our good fortune. A recent NYTimes article reminded me of that decision and of some similarities and differences between Pennsylvania, Vermont and Europe.
Let's start with four excerpts from the NYT, Vermont Losing Prized Resource as Young Depart:
"Vermont, with a population of about 620,000, now has the lowest birth rate among states. ..... Vermont also has the highest rate of students attending college out of their home state — 57 percent, up from 36 percent 20 years ago. Many do not move back. The total number of 20- to 34-year-olds in Vermont has shrunk by 19 percent since 1990."
"While Vermont's population of young people shrinks, the number of older residents is multiplying because Vermont increasingly attracts retirees from other states. It is now the second-oldest state, behind Maine. Arthur Woolf, an economist at the University of Vermont, said that by 2030, there would be only two working-age Vermonters for every retiree."
"The worker shortage recently forced (Gov.) Douglas to say he would not drive out illegal immigrants working on Vermont's dairy farms. "I respect the laws of the United States, of course," Mr. Douglas said. "But the cows have to be milked."There is also a serious housing shortage, with mountains and environmental restrictions barring building in many places."
I do think Vermont's situation reflects some of the problems (incompatibilities?) of trying to have both a rural working environment and a rural leisure environment; and that's a problem we share in Pennsylvania. For, example, Mr. Fogel's is absolutely realistic in contrasting the desire for anti-sprawl and environmental protection with the ability of the working, tax-paying population to afford those policies. We face that problem today in NEPA; and as we pursue regional zoning, we may also face a reinforcing common problem of having "a serious housing shortage, with mountains and environmental restrictions barring building in many places".
Another common problem is the shrinking of the younger workforce. I do not think our declines are quite so severe as Vermont's, but they are real. (Don't get too concerned about large declines that cite the 20-34 year-olds from 1990, since that population segment includes 10 years of the Baby Boomers; hence, the declines may not represent an exodus so much as just folks getting older.)
These problems are not insurmountable or inevitable and there are lessons to be learned from how Vermont handles them. Perhaps, Vermont can offer some views of our future as well as of their mountains.
Let's start with four excerpts from the NYT, Vermont Losing Prized Resource as Young Depart:
"Vermont, with a population of about 620,000, now has the lowest birth rate among states. ..... Vermont also has the highest rate of students attending college out of their home state — 57 percent, up from 36 percent 20 years ago. Many do not move back. The total number of 20- to 34-year-olds in Vermont has shrunk by 19 percent since 1990."
"While Vermont's population of young people shrinks, the number of older residents is multiplying because Vermont increasingly attracts retirees from other states. It is now the second-oldest state, behind Maine. Arthur Woolf, an economist at the University of Vermont, said that by 2030, there would be only two working-age Vermonters for every retiree."
"The worker shortage recently forced (Gov.) Douglas to say he would not drive out illegal immigrants working on Vermont's dairy farms. "I respect the laws of the United States, of course," Mr. Douglas said. "But the cows have to be milked."There is also a serious housing shortage, with mountains and environmental restrictions barring building in many places."
"And Daniel M. Fogel, the University of Vermont's president, says some have not grasped the seriousness of the problem. They believe a shrinking population will prevent overdevelopment, but these "antisprawl folks are the very people who tend to value very highly the environmental protections and the social programs, which the state is not going to be able to afford if the working population shrinks," Mr. Fogel said."
It seems appropriate that Vermont, one of our most eastern and liberal states, should be afflicted with the European social problem of too few young workers to support an ageing population resulting in the need for immigrant labor to fill the gap. But, I do not think there is a real westward trend of creeping socialist-welfare malaise from Europe; although the article does raise that image.I do think Vermont's situation reflects some of the problems (incompatibilities?) of trying to have both a rural working environment and a rural leisure environment; and that's a problem we share in Pennsylvania. For, example, Mr. Fogel's is absolutely realistic in contrasting the desire for anti-sprawl and environmental protection with the ability of the working, tax-paying population to afford those policies. We face that problem today in NEPA; and as we pursue regional zoning, we may also face a reinforcing common problem of having "a serious housing shortage, with mountains and environmental restrictions barring building in many places".
Another common problem is the shrinking of the younger workforce. I do not think our declines are quite so severe as Vermont's, but they are real. (Don't get too concerned about large declines that cite the 20-34 year-olds from 1990, since that population segment includes 10 years of the Baby Boomers; hence, the declines may not represent an exodus so much as just folks getting older.)
These problems are not insurmountable or inevitable and there are lessons to be learned from how Vermont handles them. Perhaps, Vermont can offer some views of our future as well as of their mountains.
