Gap Between Rich And Poor Widens In Nutmeg State

HARTFORD (AP) — The suburban rich got richer and the urban poor made a slight gain in Connecticut between 1990 and 2000, according to a new study by the University of Connecticut.

The study, released June 17, shows a Connecticut that remains a mosaic of wealth and poverty.

Per capita income in the state’s eight wealthiest towns, all in Fairfield County, increased 31.3 percent in the ten-year period, besting the state average of 11.1 percent.

The urban poor, meanwhile, saw their per capita income grow only 2.1 percent in the same period.

UConn’s Center for Population Research said the data make it hard to paint a picture of the average Connecticut.

“The average Connecticut does not exist,” Wayne Villemez, the center’s director, said June 17. “I asked someone to find me the average town, and it doesn’t exist.”

Researchers also said “two Connecticuts” of rich and poor also does not exist.

The study breaks Connecticut up into five groups of cities and towns:

Wealthy towns like Westport. The eight towns are characterized by exceptionally high income, low poverty, and an increasing concentration of the state’s income gains.

Suburban towns like Cheshire. The 61 towns in this category, including Newtown, have above-average incomes that are gaining ground in terms of educational attainment and income, but becoming less racially diverse.

Rural towns like North Stonington. The 63 towns are characterized by average incomes, below-average poverty, but are losing ground in terms of education relative to the rest of the state.

Urban periphery towns like Manchester. The 30 towns are characterized by below-average income, average poverty, and high population density.

Urban core cities and towns like Bridgeport. The seven communities, including Hartford and New Britain, are characterized by the lowest incomes and the highest poverty and population density.

“Connecticut is not balanced at all,” Mr Villemez said. “In terms of socioeconomics, however you measure it, between 1990 and 2000, wealthy and suburban towns became more separated from the remainder of the state.”

Between 1990 and 2000, 44 cities and towns changed classification, with 28 formerly “rural” towns growing so much that they changed to a “suburban” classification.

“Rural Connecticut,” the report concludes, “is transforming into suburban Connecticut.”

The number of suburban towns grew from 37 in 1990 to 61 in 2000, as development led to a rise in wealth and population density in some rural areas, including Salem and Lyme.

The state’s seven urban centers, including New London, absorbed an increase in poverty from 19.1 percent in 1990 to 19.4 percent in 2000. Both figures far outpace the state average of 7.6 percent in poverty and the national average of 12.1 percent.

The study identified a Gold Coast of eight towns, all in the southwest corner of the state — New Canaan, Darien, Weston, Westport, Greenwich, Wilton, Easton, and Ridgefield — where the median family income in 1999 outmatched the state average by a ratio of 2.5 to 1. That median income, $155,655, was culled from information in the 2000 Census and did not account for capital gains.

Newtown, which is classified as a suburban town in the study, ranked 19th of Connecticut’s 169 in family income, with a median family income of $123,750. With three percent of its population living in poverty, the Newtown ranked 61st in the study (with the #1 town having the least poverty). The town ranked 84th in population density with 433 people per square mile (with the #1 town having the least density).

Racially, the wealthy towns became 93.2 percent white by 2000, up from 91.9 percent in 1990. Researchers did not venture explanations for the broadening gap between the wealthy and the poor.