Enfield is drifting. It is without clear vision, without bold leadership, and increasingly, without young families. They’re voting with their feet, and the most urgent signal is the steady departure of children. That trend reflects a deeper loss of confidence—particularly in our public schools—and a growing sense among families that Enfield no longer offers the future they imagined.
Since 2010, Enfield has lost over 3,500 residents—nearly 8% of its population. But even more telling is the drop in children. U.S. Census data shows that the number of residents under 18 has fallen by more than 13%. That’s not just a demographic shift—it’s a clear signal that families are losing faith in Enfield’s future.
This change carries consequences. Politically, it shifts priorities toward an aging population. Economically, it undermines our long-term vitality. And socially, it points to something more unsettling: young families no longer see Enfield as a place where they can grow roots.
And yet, we start strong. Enfield has a higher-than-average share of children under five—5.7%, compared to the state average of 5%. But once those children reach school age, the numbers dip. Just 18.6% of Enfield’s population is under 18, compared to 20% statewide. That difference—just 1.4 percentage points—may seem small, but it represents hundreds of families. (See footnote for detailed explanation and underlying math)
[Update Note: Some of the overall population decline—possibly as many as 2,300 people—is attributable to the closure of local prisons and the removal of the incarcerated population from the census count, as Tom Kienzler, the Republican Registrar of Voters, points out in a
comment on Facebook. That’s a fair and important clarification. However, the decline in the under-18 population is unaffected by that change and is the more meaningful focus. It reflects a real shift in how many families with children are choosing to live in town—and that’s where the long-term challenge lies.]
Why are we losing them?
It’s a combination of factors: uncertainty around school funding, a lack of housing options that suit growing families, and too few walkable, vibrant neighborhoods that suggest long-term livability. But beneath all of that lies a deeper truth: the perception that Enfield no longer aims high.
Car washes not restaurants
We see it in how we shape our public spaces and make critical decisions. When the 99 Restaurant closed at one of Enfield’s most visible corners, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a zone change to permit a car wash—an uninspired decision on a site once envisioned for regional commercial appeal. A planning official assured residents that buffer rules—meant to prevent an over-concentration of similar businesses—would stop a proliferation of car washes. But there was no real analysis. Just a quick fix.
Instead of holding out for something that could elevate the area—another restaurant, a family-friendly business, or a public gathering space—leaders opted for expedience. It sent a message about what we’re willing to settle for. And those watching—LL Bean, in the adjacent plaza, likely among them—took note.
The Enfield Square decision
The same pattern is playing out at Enfield Square. Residents have been clear about what they want: entertainment, green space, walkability, and a destination that blends shopping with community. The town and state are investing roughly $50 million in incentives—but there’s little sign that this investment is being used as leverage to deliver what residents asked for. A major public survey is being overlooked. The process has been opaque. And despite the scale of investment, the decision-making feels closed, rushed, and devoid of long-term planning. See:
Enfield Square Redevelopment: What Enfield Could Have Asked For—And Didn’t.A potential financial disaster: The budget referendum
Now, Enfield faces another turning point: a proposed 5% budget referendum provision set to appear on the November ballot. On the surface, it sounds like fiscal responsibility. In practice, it risks political gridlock. The proposal would require any annual town budget increase over 5% to go to a public vote—with no minimum turnout threshold. That gives outsized influence to a small group of voters—most likely retirees on fixed incomes—while sidelining the voices of working families who rely most on public services and are least likely to make it to the polls.
The result? A system prone to delay and dysfunction. Credit agencies may view it as fiscally inflexible, raising borrowing costs for schools and infrastructure. More uncertainty. More reactive cuts. A weaker foundation for the very services families depend on—and another reason for them to look elsewhere.
The process needs improvement
We’ve already seen what happens when transparency and vision take a back seat. Major development projects—like Enfield Square—are being rushed through without meaningful dialogue. The current Town Council majority has too often treated the Board of Education as an adversary and the public as an afterthought. They dropped the Square incentive package on a Friday and voted on it the following Monday. That’s not governance—it’s maneuvering. And if the MassMutual site is handled the same way—behind closed doors, without community input—we risk repeating the same costly mistakes.
Enfield needs a reset
We need elected leaders—Republican or Democrat—who are willing to act with the next generation in mind. Leaders who understand that attracting and retaining families is essential to our shared future.
That means investing in strong schools. It means holding developers to higher standards—not lower ones. It means creating more walkable, livable neighborhoods. And above all, it means restoring transparency, oversight, and trust.
Ideas like Zach Zannoni’s proposed Design Review Committee are a start. But real change requires more than one good idea. It requires a culture shift—one that sees residents not as obstacles to manage, but as partners in shaping what comes next.
There’s still time to turn things around. But we have to be honest about where we are—and clear-eyed about what it will take to move forward.
Enfield deserves better. So do the families who still want to believe in it.
Footnote:
I'm realizing from some of the Facebook comments that the under 18 issue needs more explanation. Here's the math underpinning the argument.
We know the under 5 population makes up 5.7% of the town's population, and the under 18 (which includes the under 5) makes up 18.6. The under 5 over performs, beating state averages, but the under 18 falls short of the state average.
The problem here is to estimate the proportion. What would our under-18 population look like if the proportion of under-5 children stayed consistent as they grew older?
Question: How many times does the 5-year old age group fit into the 18-year age group?
That is 18 divided by 5, equaling 3.6.
If the under 5 population remained stable, this would happen:
5.7% x 3.6 = 20.52%, which is near the state average.
That suggests Enfield is losing children as they grow—or families with school-age kids aren't moving in.
The Census estimated population in 2024 is 41,140.
41,140 x 20.5% = 8,433 children.
Enfield's actual under-18 population:
41,140 x 18.6% is 7,652.
That's a gap of nearly 800 children, although I am using a conservative gap estimate of 600.
During the town's budget discussions, council members talked about other towns. One town that was mentioned was South Windsor. Let's look at their numbers.
South Windsor Under 5: 6.2% vs. Enfield's 5.7%
South Windsor Under 18: 24.3% vs. Enfield 18.6%
Using the same calculation as Enfield: 6.2 (under 5) x 3.6 (under 18): 22.3%
South Windsor's actual under-18 population (24.3%) significantly outperforms what would be expected if only its under-5 proportion continued proportionally (22.3%). The town is not only retaining children, it's expanding its population.
Consider Somers.
Under 5: 4.7% of the population, well below Enfield.
Under 18: 21.8%, well above Enfield.
Weird, right?
If the 4.7% of those under five had proportionally carried through high school, the under 18 group would constitute 16.9% of Somer's overall population. But instead they have nearly 22% people under age 18. That tells us that Somers is attracting families with older children.
Why is South Windsor doing well?
I'm not a fan of Niche rankings, but parents use them, even though they tend to favor more affluent communities. The
South Windsor public schools rank "A." Enfield's ranking is "B," -- which is strong and above average. But we're competing in a state with some exceptional school systems. Parents who want to improve their children's chances of attending a good college will tend to favor school districts that help foster this, such as those that offer a wealth of AP courses. When Enfield makes cuts that affect AP offerings, it's losing its competitive advantage.
Enfield needs to examine why we are losing children. If we understand this, we can better respond to the community's needs.
Appendix: Some comparison towns.
West Hartford
2010: 63,268
2020: 64,083
2024: 64,184
Under 5: 5.2%
Under 18: 21.7%
Over 65: 19.7%
Owner-occupied housing rate: 67.5%
Median household income: $125,616
Suffield
2010: 15,735
2020: 15,752
2024: 15,964
Under 5: 3.1%
Under 18: 16.2%
Over 65: 18%
Owner-occupied housing rate: 87.2%
Median household income: $125,352
Somers
2010: 11,444
2020: 10,255
2024: 10,905
Under 5: 4.7%
Under 18: 21.8%
Over 65: 19.3%
Owner-occupied housing rate: 89.5%
Median household income: $115,119
South Windsor
2010: 25,709
2020: 26,918
2024: 27,062
Under 5: 6.2%
Under 18: 24.3
Over 65: 16.5%
Owner-occupied housing rate: 84.4%
Median household income: $143,025
Middletown
2010: 47,648
2020: 47,717
2024: 48,616
Under 5: 3.8%
Under 18: 14.7%
Over 65: 16.6%
Owner-occupied housing rate: 53.1%
Median household income: $73,979
Southington
2010: 43,069
2020: 43,069
2024: 44,197
Under 5: 4.5%
Under 18: 19.8%
Over 65: 20.3%
Owner-occupied housing rate: 82.2%
Median household income: $121,584
Wallingford
2010: 45,135
2020: 44,369
2024: 44,389
Under 5: 5.2%
Under 18: 18.1%
Over 65: 21.9%
Owner-occupied housing rate: 72.4%
Median household income: $101,572
Enfield
2010: 44,654
2020: 42,141
2024: 41,140
Under 5: 5.7%
Under 18: 18.6%
Over 65: 18.8%
Owner-occupied housing rate: 76.2%
Median household income: $91,141
Shelton
2010: 39,559
2020: 40,869
2024: 42,805
Under 5: 6%
Under 18: 18.9%
Over 65: 20.1%
Owner-occupied housing rate: 75.9%
Median household income: $114,739
Bristol
2010: 60,447
2020: 60,883
2024: 62,195
Under 5: 4.6%
Under 18: 19.7%
Over 65: 15.9%
Owner-occupied housing rate: 64.7%
Median household income: $83,458
Connecticut
2010: 3,574,097
2020: 3,605,944
2024: 3,675,069
Under 5: 5%
Under 18: 20%
Over 65: 19.1%
Owner-occupied housing rate: 66.2%
Median household income: $93,760
Comments
Post a Comment