Affluent (11 percent of population, 22 communities): Mostly
bordering New York, these communities have a large share of the state’s
expensive homes and a small share of the social strains. They have tax bases, on
average, nearly three times the state average, and growing considerably faster
than in every other community type. In fact, these places appear to reap all of
the benefits of regional competition with few of the costs.
But the opportunities of these prosperous suburbs are limited to just a lucky few. Many of these places have deep and growing job pools, but most have little racial or economic diversity and few residential opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. Although their moderate rate of population growth assures that they can keep up with needed and locally funded infrastructure without overtaxing local resources, they rely heavily on infrastructure funded by other levels of government. Workers’ commute times are by far longer than those in any other community type. The share of workers using mass transit was also above average, largely due to the significant number heading into New York City by rail.
From CT
Metropatterns, p.3
All types of communities are hurt by the way Connecticut is growing Nearly two-thirds of the state’s population—65 percent—lives in cities or suburbs struggling with social or fiscal stresses. Stressed suburbs have problems typically associated with large cities, including weak tax bases and significant and growing poverty in their schools. At-risk suburbs must cope with continuing population growth and increasing social needs with below average tax bases that are barely growing. Fringe-developing places have fewer social needs, but are facing growth-related costs with stagnant, below-average tax bases and modest household incomes.
Even middle-class, bedroom-developing suburbs struggle to provide needed schools and infrastructure with largely residential tax bases. Just a small share of the population lives in affluent suburbs with expensive housing and plentiful commercial development. But even these places are suffering from the loss of valued open space, growing traffic congestion resulting from inefficient development and the extra costs felt statewide as a result of highly concentrated poverty.
From CT Metropatterns, p. 3