[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Henry10

I got to talk to my Postal guy the other day in CT. He said he is retiring soon. I said "Florida?" He said "no way." He said some of his friends are coming back from FL -- too many people, no public transportation, too hot and humid.

Granted, he's getting a nice pension as postal worker, who can afford to stay. He said, he is selling his house, and moving into an apartment, and don't wanna do the snowbird thing. "Not worth the money to keep two homes, and hassle" he said.

In the winter he said, I just ride the train to NYC some days, stay inside the other days and watch football. Maybe take the Shoreline to NH, and hang out in NH, eat there, catch a lecture, have a beer and ride home.

He said, that for a $2-3k a year saving (he had done the math) he said that lifestyle in CT was worth the higher cost for him.

I have said this here before. The savings of moving to lower cost areas us rarely as much as expected. I had this discussion with in laws who were thinking of doing the 6 month plus a day route to save on taxes but I pointed out that only saved them a couple of thousand a year and much of that will be lost by extra airfares to go back and forth for family events. I also warned them not to assume their kids will be willing to give up their vacations to visit. Just not worth it IMHO. Jay

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I have said this here before. The savings of moving to lower cost areas us rarely as much as expected. I had this discussion with in laws who were thinking of doing the 6 month plus a day route to save on taxes but I pointed out that only saved them a couple of thousand a year and much of that will be lost by extra airfares to go back and forth for family events. I also warned them not to assume their kids will be willing to give up their vacations to visit. Just not worth it IMHO. Jay

I think the key to making that work would be to move some where that is within 6 hour driving distance or amtrak train distance from New Haven / Hartford. Some people may want a shorter time, but I think 6 hours is good as long as you don't plan on driving back / taking amtrak back on the same day.

Six hour radius doesn't give many choices for low(er) COL and taxes, except for Delaware. I'm afraid that secret is out now though and Delaware will have some big changes in the next 20 years.

Southern DE along the shore is really nice with great beaches. It's also 2 hours to DC/Baltimore and one can access Cape May NJ via car / people ferry. Can also access Atlantic City NJ this way too.

[JayCT]

With all the complaints about the economy in our state, I find is very interesting that we have some of the tightest rental markets as well. Hartford has a vacancy rate of 3.5% which is basically full occupancy and rents have increased 1.3 % in the first half of this year. Vacancy rates in New Haven and Fairfield Counties are around a healthy 4 percent. The article below has some very interesting information on it. Jay

Hartford’s robust apartment market paces healthy CT rental housing | HartfordBusiness.com

[howdydoody342]

Dan Haar: Why Hartford Is Headed For Bankruptcy - Courant Community

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I have said this here before. The savings of moving to lower cost areas us rarely as much as expected. I had this discussion with in laws who were thinking of doing the 6 month plus a day route to save on taxes but I pointed out that only saved them a couple of thousand a year and much of that will be lost by extra airfares to go back and forth for family events. I also warned them not to assume their kids will be willing to give up their vacations to visit. Just not worth it IMHO. Jay

Living in CT and snowbirding to the South has also other headaches:

- Who is going to take care things when you're gone?
- Many expenses are doubled.
- If you rent down South, rents are going, because supply-and-demand, plus add the upcoming wave of boomers retiring.
- Relationships are more transient. By the time you learn the tricks at one bingo, you gotta go to the other.

That's why many seniors are staying put in CT, although CT is squeezing them. Since my inlaws hate the weather and congestion down South, they are re-considering, but staying is becoming more and more expensive.

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I think the key to making that work would be to move some where that is within 6 hour driving distance or amtrak train distance from New Haven / Hartford. Some people may want a shorter time, but I think 6 hours is good as long as you don't plan on driving back / taking amtrak back on the same day.

Six hour radius doesn't give many choices for low(er) COL and taxes, except for Delaware. I'm afraid that secret is out now though and Delaware will have some big changes in the next 20 years.

Boomers are gonna be everywhere. They'll discover every secret, and flood every cheap place. See how South Florida has become.

So yes, many will stay in CT.

[nep321]

I saw in the news today on Facebook that CT towns will cluster and provided shared services and tax structures! This is what I've been dreaming of for years. The 169 towns have too much sovereignty.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by nep321

I saw in the news today on Facebook that CT towns will cluster and provided shared services and tax structures! This is what I've been dreaming of for years. The 169 towns have too much sovereignty.

That is Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin's dream. I doubt many municipalities will agree to it. It would be political suicide for a politician to agree to eliminate towns that have been independent for 100's of years. They would have to show that millions would be saved and no control would be lost and that is just not going to happen no matter what you think or want.

Why would you even want it anyway? You have moved around a lot over the years and do not own a home. Maybe you think you have nothing to lose but I think the vast majority would disagree. Jay

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by nep321

I saw in the news today on Facebook that CT towns will cluster and provided shared services and tax structures! This is what I've been dreaming of for years. The 169 towns have too much sovereignty.

Too much sovereignty? Who are you -- Vladimir the Third The Impaler?

Originally Posted by JayCT

That is Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin's dream. I doubt many municipalities will agree to it. It would be political suicide for a politician to agree to eliminate towns that have been independent for 100's of years. They would have to show that millions would be saved and no control would be lost and that is just not going to happen no matter what you think or want.

Why would you even want it anyway? You have moved around a lot over the years and do not own a home. Maybe you think you have nothing to lose but I think the vast majority would disagree. Jay

I actually do not think this is too far-fetched. Under the guise of "Govt efficiency" politicians may view this as another way to fleece the working stiffs.

It'll start as innocent, benevolent, "savings" kinda of thing, and before you know it, more bureaucracy, more rules, higher taxes.

Come to think of it -- it's a perfect work-around the issue of "well has run dry." Pols just start another well.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Too much sovereignty? Who are you -- Vladimir the Third The Impaler?




I actually do not think this is too far-fetched. Under the guise of "Govt efficiency" politicians may view this as another way to fleece the working stiffs.

It'll start as innocent, benevolent, "savings" kinda of thing, and before you know it, more bureaucracy, more rules, higher taxes.

Come to think of it -- it's a perfect work-around the issue of "well has run dry." Pols just start another well.

This will pit the "haves" verses the "have nots" and severely divide the state so I doubt any politician who cars to ever be re-elected would propose it. "Government efficiency" is an oxymoron. Just does not happen and the vast majority of the public know it. Bigger is NOT better. It is cheaper but not better. Jay

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by JayCT

This will pit the "haves" verses the "have nots" and severely divide the state so I doubt any politician who cars to ever be re-elected would propose it. "Government efficiency" is an oxymoron. Just does not happen and the vast majority of the public know it. Bigger is NOT better. It is cheaper but not better. Jay

Jay: you are talking like a responsible taxpayer, but unfortunately you don't count that much. Merging Bridgeport with Westport for example will enable politicians to take wealth out of Westport and re-distribute to Bridgeport. A lot more of it.

Bridgeport has more voters, who will vote themselves money from Westport. Politicians will be more than willing to orchestrate this. Isn't that essentially what's happening now at the state level?

But of course, to the socialist left -- this is never enough. Hence "towns have too much sovereignty."