This provocative article in the Globe today uses Medfield as an example of a town where the costs to the town of additional children (education services > property tax revenue share) are making for tough planning choices. While no one is seriously out to discourage families from moving to towns, some argue there are greater benefits to having older, childless residents buy property. Certainly the numbers add up in the short-term--adding kids to the schools costs more than the taxes their parents will likely pay. But in the long run, how the town is perceived affects its real estate marketability and economic development opportunities.

Consider Needham. Why do homes in Needham continue to hold their value? One reason is that the town is seen as the the ultimate family-friendly suburb. Parents desparately want to move there because they perceive the town has a great school system and it is a convenient location to get to jobs in the city.

A fundamental component of Westwood's brand is "excellent school system." But it is a tough balance...if too many kids come to town, the school will be unable to handle the load and expenses will rise, and ultimately quality will suffer. But if the town were to be seen as less family-friendly--I think all property values would drop like a stone. We could become an exclusive suburb for rich kids, I suppose, but I don't think we want to be that kind of town either.