2023 Real Estate Observations (Boston, Springfield, Lowell: high school, fence, metro area)

[msRB311]

The big problem is also the commute...if someone has to be in the office 5 days a week a 40 mile drive might not seem so bad until you are sitting in traffic every day wasting hours of your life in the car.

I think it's a shame that so many work places are apparently not allowing people to WFH. I guess the people making these rules don't give a crap about the environment either. Sad. So many good things could have come out of people being remote.

[id77]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Sure, but I don't think you need all (or even most) of those workers to opt for one of those places in order to have an impact and build some momentum. And it's also a moot point without an internal effort to boost the skillset of the people currently living in those cities (many of whom will also probably move out of state once they have those credentials). In order for there to be any chance of success, you need both things to happen. You're right that someone who wants Westin or Brookline is highly unlikely to ever be steered toward Brockton just to take advantage of a one-time incentive. But there's a big gap between a potential Westin/Brookline buyer and someone renting a $700 1br/ba in Fall River; and there are a LOT of people that fall into that space in between.

Ideally, the gateway cities would be capturing some of the in between. The people who never realistically stood a shot at landing a 2,500 square foot SFH in Westin or Brookline and as of right now have to choose between renting a tiny overpriced apartment in/around town or moving to exurbs 40+ miles from the city in order to get a SFH. There are a ton of people in this camp. Many (maybe even most) of whom, like you said, end up leaving the state. And if you're just going to eventually lose them to Nashville, Dallas, or Salt Lake City anyway, doesn't it make sense to try to capture even a small percentage of them and simultaneously move the needle on adding educated workers to cities that are sorely lacking on that front?

I would see most of those 'in betweens' as falling into the priced-out-but-dont-have-a-choice bucket -- they may be working for a company that doles out high-paying jobs, but they're not in one of the high-paying jobs themselves. They're not going to get relocation assistance, their job doesn't have offices in other cities they can transfer to, they can't afford to move out of pocket, or some combination of these and other factors keeps them here. Incentives will attract these, but what's the return to the gateway cities in incentivizing this group? Further, what's keeping them there once the terms of the incentive end? Incentives are like sign-up bonuses on credit cards -- without anything else there to keep the people it brings in, people will just take the bonus and leave for greener pastures as soon as they're allowed.

If a city wants to attract an educated workforce, the best bang for their buck (if spent properly) is education itself, not relocation money. Turn the city's public schools into schools rivaling the Brooklines, and people will come...so much so that the in betweens will get priced out eventually. Add to that families with school-aged kids will probably be glued to the same city for over a decade and there's your stickiness as a bonus. Become a city that's attractive to the people you want living there, and they will naturally come. Bribing them to live there is pushing a boulder uphill.

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by id77

I would see most of those 'in betweens' as falling into the priced-out-but-dont-have-a-choice bucket -- they may be working for a company that doles out high-paying jobs, but they're not in one of the high-paying jobs themselves. They're not going to get relocation assistance, their job doesn't have offices in other cities they can transfer to, they can't afford to move out of pocket, or some combination of these and other factors keeps them here. Incentives will attract these, but what's the return to the gateway cities in incentivizing this group? Further, what's keeping them there once the terms of the incentive end? Incentives are like sign-up bonuses on credit cards -- without anything else there to keep the people it brings in, people will just take the bonus and leave for greener pastures as soon as they're allowed.

If a city wants to attract an educated workforce, the best bang for their buck (if spent properly) is education itself, not relocation money. Turn the city's public schools into schools rivaling the Brooklines, and people will come...so much so that the in betweens will get priced out eventually. Add to that families with school-aged kids will probably be glued to the same city for over a decade and there's your stickiness as a bonus. Become a city that's attractive to the people you want living there, and they will naturally come. Bribing them to live there is pushing a boulder uphill.

Pfft they come anyways even with BPS the way it is.

Are ya'll saying that Boston isn't attracting enough people? Do show proof of this. Just because people have left doesn't mean more still don't come.

[id77]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Pfft they come anyways even with BPS the way it is.

Are ya'll saying that Boston isn't attracting enough people? Do show proof of this. Just because people have left doesn't mean more still don't come.

Nah, the mini-topic is how to get those people attracted to living in Boston attracted to living in Lowell or Springfield instead.

[ThatGuy781]

Originally Posted by id77

If a city wants to attract an educated workforce, the best bang for their buck (if spent properly) is education itself, not relocation money. Turn the city's public schools into schools rivaling the Brooklines, and people will come...

Not sure if the education system in a given town can be fixed by throwing money at it. I looked up per student expenses in a few school districts I am somewhat familiar with. Lynn is ~$15k/pp, Lawrence is ~$17k/pp, Lexington is ~19k/pp. The difference is certainly not as drastic as the median level of graduates in those school districts.

[id77]

Originally Posted by ThatGuy781

Not sure if the education system in a given town can be fixed by throwing money at it. I looked up per student expenses in a few school districts I am somewhat familiar with. Lynn is ~$15k/pp, Lawrence is ~$17k/pp, Lexington is ~19k/pp. The difference is certainly not as drastic as the median level of graduates in those school districts.

Some might be too far gone, but what may be more pertinent is how that money is spent, and specifically how it was spent in the years when a school went from bad/average to good/great. Find a town that's gone from average to great in the last 10-15 years and look at how it spent money during its rise. Many of the blue chip districts weren't always blue chip, so they did something to get that way.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by ThatGuy781

Not sure if the education system in a given town can be fixed by throwing money at it. I looked up per student expenses in a few school districts I am somewhat familiar with. Lynn is ~$15k/pp, Lawrence is ~$17k/pp, Lexington is ~19k/pp. The difference is certainly not as drastic as the median level of graduates in those school districts.

I tend to agree. I believe academic attainment is more strongly correlated with parental involvement and motivation from within the home rather than school budgets.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by id77

I would see most of those 'in betweens' as falling into the priced-out-but-dont-have-a-choice bucket -- they may be working for a company that doles out high-paying jobs, but they're not in one of the high-paying jobs themselves. They're not going to get relocation assistance, their job doesn't have offices in other cities they can transfer to, they can't afford to move out of pocket, or some combination of these and other factors keeps them here. Incentives will attract these, but what's the return to the gateway cities in incentivizing this group? Further, what's keeping them there once the terms of the incentive end? Incentives are like sign-up bonuses on credit cards -- without anything else there to keep the people it brings in, people will just take the bonus and leave for greener pastures as soon as they're allowed.

I think you might be underestimating both the size of this "in betweens" group and the extent to which they bridge a pretty major income gap. Even if everything you're saying about these workers is true, they're still typically earning an HHI that's significantly higher than what's currently typical in a place like Brockton or Lawrence. An "in between" family with an HHI of $150k represents a pretty drastic increase over Lawrence's HHI of just under $60k.

For these cities, the incentives are pretty clear:

• Increase the number of owner-occupied homes
• Increase the tax base
• Socioeconomic diversification
• Attract businesses that cater to this (relatively) higher-income demographic

Some may leave after the incentives run out (though the incentives could be structured in a way that encourages longer tenure), there's no stopping that in the long run. But even if a small percentage stay, it should help to develop communities of educated professionals (even if they're the highest income earners) that these cities don't currently have in great quantities.

If a city wants to attract an educated workforce, the best bang for their buck (if spent properly) is education itself, not relocation money. Turn the city's public schools into schools rivaling the Brooklines, and people will come...so much so that the in betweens will get priced out eventually. Add to that families with school-aged kids will probably be glued to the same city for over a decade and there's your stickiness as a bonus. Become a city that's attractive to the people you want living there, and they will naturally come. Bribing them to live there is pushing a boulder uphill.

I'm still not sure why it can't be both? If you incentivize Boston area professionals without also creating pathways for the people currently living in these cities, you're really just encouraging the worst types of gentrification. And as has been pointed out, these cities tend to spend fairly competitively on a per-pupil basis. They can certainly do better (i.e. emphasis on college preparation in relevant fields, financial aid/breaks on higher ed, etc.), but turning Brockton's schools into schools that rival Brookline's is more unrealistic than encouraging a family with an HHI of $500k to choose Brockton over Weston. Work on educating the existing population (not just k-12 programs) while also incentivizing outside investment.

I don't consider financial incentives for new buyers to be "bribes" when they still get to benefit from relatively easy access to Boston, a sizeable historic housing stock at significantly lower cost, and (in most cases) decent urban bones with a lot of untapped potential. Many will take advantage and then cash-in/bail for greener pastures, but for many, it may be the incentive they need to consider a place that might not have been on their radar to begin with. Again, even if only 1 in 4 stays, it's a win for these cities.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

I tend to agree. I believe academic attainment is more strongly correlated with parental involvement and motivation from within the home rather than school budgets.

Is correlated with parental wealth.

When your parent didn't graduate HS, work 2.5 jobs, spend time on the Bus asopposed to quickly driving, and doesn't speak much English. They can be as involved as they want but they cant help your academics. More realistically they don't have time nor energy to be that involved.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I think you might be underestimating both the size of this "in betweens" group .

The in-between arent in between...

not being able to buy in Weston/Brookline but not needing a $700/mo apartment describes probably 95% of people in the state.