At-risk (28 percent of population, 43 communities):
These places are still stable by many measures—they have slightly
below-average poverty rates in their schools, an average number of jobs per
resident and greater-than-average job growth. But there are signs of stress
afoot in these cities and towns. School poverty rates edged up slightly faster
in this group than in the state as a whole during the 1990s. And although
greater than in central cities or stressed communities on a per capita basis,
property tax base and growth in property tax base in these communities are still
below the state averages, a fact that hinders their ability to adequately meet
social and physical needs.
These
fiscal stresses are important because these places are growing—they contain 25
percent of the land that urbanized during the 1980s and 1990s. Policies to help
local governments manage growth are critical to this group of communities
because they
feel tremendous pressure to attract development that will expand their tax
bases. This pressure can drive land-use planning decisions and discourage a cooperative,
regional approach to planning.
From
CT Metropatterns, pp.2-3
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.