I read this list of ways to tell if your city is dying and was uncomfortable with how many would appear to apply to Rutland.
Our population declined from 17,292 in the 2000 census to 16,495 in the 2010. Now, that's not nearly as bad as the loss the article describes in Detroit, but what kind of a standard is "not as bad as Detroit?"
Median age rose over the same period from 39.3 years to 42.9 years.
On the upside, I can't think of any "signature" buildings that are vacant.
I'd say that Rutland is certainly dying, but it's different than Detroit. In fact, I'd say that Detroit is unique in the history of civilization. No other major city has ever been so dependent upon one product -- not just one industry, one product -- as Detroit has been on automobiles. Unlike other cities it never developed any sort of businesses on the side to serve the people. You worked for a car company, you belonged to the UAW and between the two of them your retirement, your house, your insurance, your childrens' college education and whatever were all taken care of. They didn't need savings banks because the union took care of it, they didn't need vocational schools because you learned your skills on the line. Rutland's decline has been more like that of other New England cities and towns like Lynn, Lowell, Springfield and Holyoke, Massachusetts -- cheap labor and more advanced manufacturing plants and techniques outcompeted the local businesses. Most of the ones that have made a comeback have done so because they're in the Boston metro area and have cheap housing and cheap startup space available to go along with the area's universities. Personally, I think Rutland could do well by trying to attract hipsters from Brooklyn, but in my experience of Rutland the residents are just plain against new ideas and for anytthing that attempts to establish itself, it's a toss-up as to whether it will be killed by the City first or the State. It's kind of hard to pick yourself up by your bootstraps if you keep shooting yourself in the foot.
Posted by: Matt Robare | 06/08/2012 at 05:59 PM