Economic gardening and population

By Andrew McKeever

GNAT-TV News Project

Driving south on Route 30 from Middlebury to Manchester on a spectacular Sunday afternoon under clear blue skies, passing through green fields dotted with barns and farmhouses, it’s hard not to think how anyone would want to live anywhere else. On this day, almost any drive, or walk, or bike ride on almost any rural road would have probably yielded the same reaction. This, you think, is what the phrase “quality of life” is all about.

Clean air, rolling green fields, unspoiled mountains and ridgeline stuffed with trees, clear lakes and picturesque little villages — it doesn’t get any better than this.

Unfortunately, not enough people agree with that enough to make them want to stay or move here. Or rather, that’s all good, but we have to eat and pay the mortgage too, and all that quality of life comes with a price tag.

With an election suddenly little more than a month away, those issues of “affordability,” to use one candidate’s favored description, are getting a little more scrutiny. Both major party candidates for governor, Phil Scott and Sue Minter, want to address that and bring more, and better paying jobs into Vermont, grow the state’s economy and where possible, control state spending to lower or at least not worsen the tax burden and other costs borne by those Vermonter’s who for whatever reason, aren’t in the top 1 percent. How to do that, is of course the proverbial $64,000 question. Economic development is driven by many factors, and most, maybe all, aren’t directly under any public office holder’s control. Variables like availability of workforce, cost of borrowing money, location, proximity to markets, and yes, taxes, all weigh in the mix of where risk capital and investment money flows to.

But clearly whatever we’ve got going so far isn’t working as well as it needs too. Vermont’s population is holding steady, but it’s not growing either. While economics may not determine all human behavior — let’s recall all those verdant vistas and access to outdoor recreation — it clearly drives a lot of it.

We’re hearing a lot of talk about the demographic time bomb and the net outflow of younger workers and the effects of an aging population. It popped up last week down at Bennington College at the introduction of the new project manager for the initiative given a big push by the Southern Vermont Economic Zone committee, which aims to bring better coordination and integration between the numerous groups, public and private, which get involved in planning and promoting economic development. Demographics and the trends currently going the wrong way also pop up in discussions about health care, and the Vermont Health Exchange, and government spending — in education when we note that there are 20,000 fewer students being educated in K-12 public schools than was the case 20 or so years ago, and the shortage of skilled workers to fill jobs currently going begging.

Moreover, all of us aging Vermonters will be imposing more demands on the healthcare system, and beyond the question of where will the people to fill these healthcare jobs come from we can add the shortages of doctors and MDs, who can make more money elsewhere, or so they think, to repay those massive medical school debts.

Both candidates have talked about the need to boost Vermont’s population, presumably more through attracting more people to move here and creating the circumstances (good paying jobs in a steady, stable economy) that might encourage those of family-building ages to have more children. A larger population would be a boon to the economy, creating more more demand for pretty much everything, while lessening pressure on the tax burden by spreading those costs out among more people.

But where will they come from?

Some might come from Syria, if Rutland’s officials can ever sort through the issues around the transparency, or lack of, that clouded the noble and great idea of welcoming 100 refugees from that war-torn country. Or they could be refugees from someplace else. There are an awful lot of people on the move right now, fleeing conflicts of one sort or another or repressive regimes, or better economic opportunities. Five million people have been displaced in Syria alone, according to most estimates, and it’s hard to picture how any of them will ever get home. Trying to absorb that any people from another culture will be a daunting task for the European nations they seem to be fleeing to and  North America (funny how few seem to be agitating to get to Russia or China).

Despite the angst we’ve seen emerge in Rutland (and would in all fairness probably emerged in almost any Vermont town large enough to be considered as a host community), we really are going to need a lot more than 100 Syrians if repopulating Vermont is a desired goal. Presumably we’re thinking more about Americans from other states who are under retirement age. That means providing an incentive for them to move here, but we need more than clean air, water, good schools and local grassroots-driven  government. There needs to be the prospect of giving folks the chance to get ahead in life financially.

Fortunately, we know that this can be done and doesn’t need to involve tax credit giveaways to big corporations who want to play one state off against another when it comes time to relocate or expand business operations.

Christine Hamilton-Pennell, in an article titled “Strengthen your Local Economy through economic gardening” summed it up well when she described economic gardening as “an entrepreneurial approach to economic development that seeks to grow the local economy from within,” adding that it focuses on nurturing existing businesses which are already here, to help them grow and add jobs, rather than through “big game  hunting” or poaching other community’s businesses.

Which all sounds good, but takes time, effort and a willingness by local political leaders to stick their necks out from time to time. Sometimes the funding for these efforts will come from elsewhere, but at some point it seems likely that local dollars will have to go to support the start up entrepreneurs with big ideas, or an existing business that’s ready to go to the next level.

An obvious candidate for some sort of boost like this would seem to be those in the food economy. Locally grown or made food items would not only hearken back to Vermont’s roots, but it’s not high tech, which everyone seems to want and view as the magic bullet. And the “gardening” metaphor sure fits!  Then there’s the tourism sector. Helping market given regions, like the Shires group that recently hosted their “summit” meeting in Manchester a couple of weeks ago, would seem to be a good way to nurture or sprinkle fairy dust over the often small, independent and often struggling businesses in this sector. Not every gift shop is going to grow up to a multi-state chain of stores, but these are worth a good bet and avoids the “insider favorites” issue. At the worst, the region gets the benefit of some good exposure, which may help indirectly through things like real estate sales.

Buying local is important and good. Investing and gardening local may have an even bigger bang for the buck.

Especially if we want to increase the state’s population by 10 percent or in 10-20 years, which doesn’t seem like it should be impossible.  But we need to start somewhere.