By Russ Barksdale Jr.
N.Y. Governor Kathy Hochul’s remarks about encouraging former New Yorkers to return from Florida drew national attention. They also raised a broader question that reaches far beyond New York: Why wait until longtime residents have left to recognize their value to a community?
This is not about assigning blame or reducing a complex issue to a single policy. People move for many reasons, including proximity to family, climate, healthcare access, housing, and the desire for a different pace of life. Still, for many retirees, affordability and predictability increasingly shape whether they can remain.
Connecticut’s communities should take that reality seriously. As more baby boomers enter their later years, communities across the state will be called upon to consider how they support residents who have spent decades building and sustaining the places we value. We cannot assume that longtime residents will always remain. More of them are thoughtfully weighing their options.
A retiree may draw income from Social Security, a pension, savings, investments, or other benefits earned through a lifetime of work. Much of that income is portable. What changes from one community to another is how far it goes, how predictable expenses feel, and whether staying put remains financially sustainable.
That is why the conversation deserves more care than a debate over tax tables alone. Property taxes, utility bills, healthcare access and costs, insurance, and daily household expenses all matter, particularly to people living on fixed or carefully managed incomes. A community can be beloved, familiar, and rich with memories, yet still become difficult to afford. When that happens, a decision to leave may not feel like a choice at all.
The loss is greater than a line item in a municipal budget. Older residents are often among the most dependable participants in local civic life. They shop at neighborhood businesses, contribute to charitable organizations, serve on boards, attend public meetings, volunteer at schools and libraries, mentor the next generation, and lend experience when a community faces a difficult problem. Their investment in a town is not merely financial; it is deeply personal.
Many helped establish the very foundations we now take for granted. They supported schools when their own children were enrolled and continued to support them afterward. They sustained local institutions, coached teams, raised funds, mentored young professionals, and stepped forward when there was work to be done. Their knowledge of a community’s history—what has succeeded, what has not, and why—is a resource we should not underestimate.
When older residents leave a community, the effects can unfold quietly. A local nonprofit may lose a committed volunteer, donor, or a wise board member. A small business may lose a loyal customer. A town may lose someone who remembers the lessons behind previous decisions. None of these absences makes headlines by itself, but together they can change the character and resilience of a community.
Nor is this simply a contest between Connecticut, New York, or Florida. Older residents compare options within the same county and among neighboring towns and communities. Communities need not imitate every approach or abandon the qualities that make them special. But they must recognize that goodwill and lifelong roots, while powerful, cannot by themselves overcome rising costs and uncertainty.
The most constructive response is not to promise easy answers. It is to listen more closely, assess the cumulative pressures older residents face, and make helping them remain an explicit civic priority. That means pursuing greater predictability in the costs that affect household budgets, considering how state and local policies influence retirement decisions, and inviting older residents themselves into the discussion before they feel compelled to leave.
Above all, it means treating older residents not as a revenue source to be counted after the fact, but as neighbors whose continued presence strengthens our towns. Their experience, generosity, and civic commitment are all part of the fabric of a community’s life.
No community can prevent every move, and no policy can outweigh every personal reason to relocate. Yet we can choose whether to make staying easier or harder. We can decide whether we will notice the value of older residents only after they have gone or demonstrate—through our priorities and our actions—that they remain essential to the communities they helped create.
Russell R. Barksdale, Jr., PHD, MPA/MHA, FACHE is President and CEO of Waveny LifeCare Network.
