Worcester Business Journal

18 Worcester Business Journal | September 28, 2020 | wbjournal.com B A N K I N G & F I N A N C E FOCUS BY GRANT WELKER Worcester Business Journal News Editor During the nation's prolonged period of economic growth, several Census tracts in Worcester County stagnated or regressed, while the current recession is causing more issues Le behind W hile the economy was growing into the lon- gest economic expan- sion in the nation's history, most Worces- ter County neighborhoods missed out – not only failing to capture rising income and attracting new residents but even going backward in many cases. Looking at four key economic indica- tors of population growth, rising home values, increasing household income and residents with college degrees, 55 of the 170 Census tracts in Worcester County had decreases in three or all four categories, according to a Worcester Business Journal analysis of data from 2010 to 2017 compiled by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a Washington, D.C. economic research and advocacy group. Beyond those years in which the na- tion's economy was in a small but steady incline, the poorer areas of Worcester County appear to suffer worse in the coronavirus-related economic recession started in February, with Census tracts in places like Fitchburg and the city of Worcester having unemployment rates above 30%. "is is the story of being le behind," said Randy Albelda, an economics profes- sor at UMass Boston and a senior research fellow at its Center for Social Policy. Even though low unemployment rates were common across communities pre- pandemic, the data from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition shows it didn't lead to broad economic prosperity in Worcester County. In total, 13 of Worcester County's 170 tracts – including parts of Fitchburg, Leominster, Graon and Southbridge – saw reversals in all four key economic indicators. Another 42 neighborhoods went down in three of the four economic measures. Looking at one key metric, 19 – or 11% of the total – saw home values rise. "It's completely a story of divergence. It's like a tale of two Massachusettses in some ways," said Smriti Rao, an urban economics professor at Assumption University in Worcester, contrasting the Boston area's prosperity to further away areas. "Some parts of Worcester are getting incorporated into that Western Massachusetts story, which is one of being le behind," Rao said. "It's really a case of a part of Massachusetts that was le behind by the recovery." Not gentrification but disinvestment It's a buzzword conveying both the rising prosperity but also potential for displacing residents or businesses as a result: gentrification. Most neighborhoods in the city of Worcester are instead experiencing something entirely different: disinvestment. e National Community Reinvestment Coalition issued a report in June highlighting urban areas and put some neighborhoods into one of two categories: gentrification or disinvestment. Worcester did not fare particularly well. ree neighborhoods fit the coalition's definition for gentrification: the north side of the Chandler Street corridor west of downtown, Quinsigamond Village and Stafford Street, which runs to Leicester. ose three tracts make up 12% of the Worcester neighborhoods the coa- lition considered eligible for gentrifica- tion – that is, they were relatively poor to begin with. e coalition considered a neighborhood eligible for gentrifica- tion if it was in the lowest 40th percen- tile of median household income and home value for the area. Other neigh- borhoods were either better-off to begin with or had worsening economics. In Boston, by comparison, 21% of neighborhoods were deemed gentrified. In Hartford, it's 18%, and Providence it's 8%. Most cities – and even most parts of cities that did well – did not experience rising economic fortunes, the coalition's report said. MassINC, the Boston-based research nonprofit studying economics in cities like Worcester and Fitchburg, has previously highlighted a lack of financial help for such neighborhoods. e state's Gateway Cities – ones like Worcester and Fitchburg that tend to have diverse populations and more chal- lenged economies – have missed out on $100 million annually in federal commu- nity development funds compared to 30 years ago, according to MassINC. In the last two decades, such funds to Gateway Cities have fallen by half. ose funds used to help pay for a wide range of initiatives, from buying and fixing foreclosed or abandoned properties, to repairing roads or side- walks, installing new street lights or planting trees, according to MassINC. "Whatever it is, you need resources to be able to respond accordingly," said Ben Forman, MassINC's research director. Worcester County's cities didn't keep up in population growth with their suburban counterparts, despite a period of time when urban living has generally been seen as more appealing and a way to draw young professionals. Worcester, for example, grew by 2.2% and Fitchburg and Southbridge each by 0.8% from 2010 to 2017. e county as a whole grew by 2.5%. Massachusetts grew by 4.8%. Many of the county's poorest neighborhoods got even poorer despite the economic expansion, according to the National Community Reinvestment Downtown Worcester fell in three of four major economic measurements, including population and household income, from 2010 to 2017. PHOTOS/GRANT WELKER

• Cover