Milford’s Housing Strategies: A Comparative Review

Listen to the audio review.

Milford’s current housing development strategies introduce potential risks to the town’s economic success. This essay compares Milford’s surrounding community’s housing development strategies. It assesses how these strategies have advantages and disadvantages and how comparative outcomes have affected Milford’s current and future residents. Many facts show a strong suggestion. Milford’s current development strategies conflict with the letter and spirit of the Master Plan.

Any examination that includes unique and vested interest groups will increase their visibility. They will see it as a threat. It is viewed as compromising personal, financial, and investment objectives. Milford’s Master plan was written and approved by the Planning Board and the Select Board. It clearly states that final government decision-makers should seek the best interest of the whole community. They must do this at all times and in all places. A reevaluation seems appropriate. Current strategies have not produced the objectives needed to compete. They did not achieve fair community health, welfare, and prosperity standards.

                                          Background 

Milford has historically viewed itself as a “hub” of commercial activities. It is located at the intersection of two state roadways, Rte 13 and Rte 101. Its prosperous manufacturing legacy became an integral part of its identity. The commercial downtown Oval once had diverse household and commercial services. It also included retail and entertainment establishments. Milford still retains some fraction of this historical self-image. This historic identity still exists, with most retail and commercial interests at the far end of its borders.

The percentage of manufacturers in Milford has significantly declined from its former zenith. If large apartment complexes were excluded, the commercial sector’s representation in the Milford tax base would be considerably lower. These complexes offer square footage of living space without ownership hope for its customers.   

The town’s development strategies have been marked by a significant expansion of rental housing dwellings over the past fifty years. The scope of these strategies appears to be accelerating. Unfortunately, these strategies have not yielded the anticipated outcome that benefited the community. Instead, they have resulted in declines across nearly all comparable measurements with Milford’s neighboring communities. These declines are seen in prosperity and the standard of living. They also affect educational rankings and opportunities, health and welfare, and quality of life.

Additionally, there are fewer investments in municipal services and recreational amenities, less building expansion, and fewer other improvements. Tax incentives have decreased, and aggregate homestead property values are comparably lower. 

The Data

The charts below show aggregate data from various reputable sources. These sources include searchable and verifiable federal, state, and local government agencies. They also encompass commercial organizations and universities. The data assesses comparative strategies that, if adopted, will enhance and improve Milford’s objectives outlined in its Master Plan.

Comparative and Competitive Resources Area Median Household Incomes (AMI) by Towns Within Hillsborough County. 

This chart highlights the comparative income and wealth disparities between Milford’s surrounding and competing communities. These communities have resources and positional advantages partly resulting from Milford’s development strategies. Milford ranks near the bottom of income among all communities within Hillsborough County.

Source: Nashua Regional Planning Commission Housing Needs Assessment 2023, Census Bureau-ACS.

This chart highlights the distortions in rental unit dwelling development compared to single-family homesteads by towns. The implications for a community’s health, welfare, wealth, and future prosperity are profound and lasting.

In a real estate marketplace, the value of buildings of all types is set. Towns with large volumes of rental dwellings are perceived as undesirable. Milford’s rapidly increasing rental dwelling development appears to accelerate toward extra economic and social disadvantages. 

The first chart shows how the real estate market perceives home values. The second chart highlights tax burdens comparable to those in neighboring communities compared to Milford. These comparisons are made irrespective of each community’s fiscal appropriation. Brookline (M.H.I) has a relative tax burden of 94.1% lower than Milford’s. The real estate market valuations of Milford homesteads are directly influenced by the type of housing development, specifically rental dwellings.  Money does matter when all communities are competing for the same things!

This chart reflects the relative High School rankings in New Hampshire and the greater Manchester metro area. The lower the number, the higher the ranking.  Milford appears to be “less bad” compared to Merrimack. 

It is a researchable fact and settled law that children in communities with higher property values have qualitative advantages. They also have quantitative advantages in resources and outcomes.

Percentage Of Milford Residents Living Below The Area Median Household Income (A.M.I.)

                         Hillsborough County N.H. A.M.I. Approx $95,122

                                      Owners Occupied Households:

This Nashua Regional Planning Commission Housing Needs Assessment 2023 chart illustrates the number of individuals. It also highlights the working families in single-family homes, who are struggling to make ends meet.

Milford now has 3666 single-family dwellings, averaging 2.45  (2.45 = American Community Survey, A.C.S.) persons per household (PPH). Of the town’s 16420 residents, 4,939 Individuals (55%) live below the Area Median Income.

                            (Hillsborough County AMI = $95,122).         

                                 Renters Occupied Household:

These two charts show the number of individuals and working families struggling to meet daily needs.
There are now 2678 rental dwellings and 330 mobile home dwellings. If we average 2.45 persons per dwelling (PPH, A.C.S.), 7367 x .85 equals 6264 individuals living below the Area Median Income.

Note:

Adding all individuals from single-family, rental, and mobile home dwellings, occupants by 2.45 per household (2.45 per household American Community Survey, A.C.S.) equals 11,203 out of 16420 or approximately 68% of Milford’s total population living below the Area Median Income (AMI).

                      15-year Development Targets- Milford

                   Nashua Regional Planning Commission. (N.R.P.C )  

                                          5 Year Intervals    

            N.R.P.C. Development Targets for Milford By 2040

1.   2025+391
2.   2030+713
3.   2035+938
4.   2040+1080

A total of 3122 dwelling units x 2.45 persons per dwelling (PPH, A.C.S.) equals an increase in Milford’s population of 7649

N.R.P.C Total Population Goals for Milford by 2040, 15 years:                                              

16,420 (current pop)+7649= 24,069 by 2040

                                           Summary

According to the best available data, the N.P.R.C.’s current development strategies will inevitably require a significant expansion of rental dwellings. Because of its wastewater treatment and water systems, Milford’s taxpayers will bear the brunt of this expansion. Compared to her neighboring communities, the considerable aggregate cost is a concern. Rental dwelling expansions result in measurable short-term and long-term negative tax revenues and ill-defined benefits. This trend results in lower if any, community value-added development. 

Furthermore, this expansion will continue to lower the market’s perceptions of Milford’s property values. These values will be compared to those of neighboring wealthier communities, which actively repel significant diverse housing developments. Single-family property values account for 82.1% of tax revenues for Milford’s municipal and school expenses. Property values directly affect the town’s ability to supply resources for high-standard services. They influence both quantitative and qualitative services. Investments are affected to compete effectively.

State law mandates that all towns share the responsibility of providing low-income and workforce housing. The New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decisions in Claremont vs. Governor of NH clarified that property values and a community’s wealth affect the quality of children’s education and achievement outcomes.

Milford can adopt new strategies to improve the economic and social welfare and lack of competitiveness. These strategies should promote fairness and equity. This sends a strong message to the New Hampshire legislature to act on enforcing its laws. The laws should guarantee that communities share responsibility for relieving the housing crisis. A new “Nash Equilibrium” is established between Milford and its neighbor competitor. This term is from Game Theory or Strategic Interactive Decision Making. It signifies a stable state in strategic interaction. Establishing a more pragmatic and practical rebalance will correct the current economic distortions. It will also tackle inefficiencies in financial and social outcomes. 

Implementing an immediate moratorium on all proposed rental unit construction is a practical approach. This also includes halting approved permits and new applicant approvals. This moratorium will lead to a more balanced and affordable housing market. It will improve Milford’s economic competitiveness. Additionally, it will enhance wealth and educational outcomes for her children.

Correlation does not prove causation. Still, readers can draw reasonable conclusions from the current data context. This holds unless and until extra independent and verifiable variables emerge. Such variables would significantly influence the relationships between the cited data.

All citizens concerned about rising taxes should become involved. They should also consider the quality of education for their children, both current and future. Additionally, homestead values and competitiveness are essential issues. Citizens should contact their municipal administration and local and state representatives. This will help them seek extra information and redress the matters discussed in this essay.  

REFERENCES

1. US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2015-2020 -2023. 
2. Nashua Regional Planning Commission Regional Housing Assessment 2023.
3. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security Community Profile (ELMI).
4. New Hampshire Department of Revenue 2024.
5. US News and World Report.
6. National Multifamily Housing Council (N.M.H.C). 

Scott Kimball                                                                                 

207 Whitten Rd

Milford N.H. 03055

Bmwmcaw@Gmail.com

                                                                Scan the QR Code for Web Page updates.

REFERENCES

1. US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2015-2020 -2023. 
2. Nashua Regional Planning Commission Regional Housing Assessment 2023.
3. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security Community Profile (ELMI).
4. New Hampshire Department of Revenue 2024.
5. US News and World Report.
6. National Multifamily Housing Council (N.M.H.C). 

About The Author

Scott Kimball Blog

See author's posts