White House Office of Management and Budget Seeks Public Comment on new MSA Standards

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Generally yes, but the threshold for a lot of these grants, especially HUD and DOT is based on being in MSAs of a certain size.

Here's an example of a grant to community newspapers, for example:



There are hundreds of grants within the legislative canon that have stipulations like that. So you can think of these MSA definitions as the weed-out course. Then, the formula grant doles out to cities, counties, state. A city within an MSA of 100,000 people unlocks far more Federal goodies than a city in an MSA of 97,842.

Another one:

Sure, but those are generally smaller funding outlays (and they go to an actual entity that meets certain statistical stipulations). Big federal funding packages go to the state level and county/city/locality level. Often, that funding to states and localities is directed towards determined needs that exist in metropolitan areas. But federal funds do not go to an MSA... because they obviously don't actually exist.

What I was getting at with my original question is maybe there are other, better ways to look at things. Because, like you said, MSA/CSA "ranks" in effect are really just a dick measuring contest. It's just a system based on a large amount of bullshit... somehow assigning hard certainty to a system that accepts tons of uncertainty at the same time.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Because hundreds of billions of dollars annually get disbursed as formula grants based on these arbitrary definitions. The Census doesn't spend millions on this for no reason. It has a major fiscal impact. We just care about it because we like to dick measure our cities, but that's not even its purpose.

Just read a few of the comments so far: https://beta.regulations.gov/documen...1-0001/comment

Here's a comment about what just the change of Saint Joseph, Missouri, from MSA to Micro will mean for them: https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/OMB-2021-0001-0015

The OMB nominee was even asked about these regulations during her confirmation hearing by a Western Senator. It's definitely important.

Thanks for your informative post. I had no idea so much federal funding was derived from MSA designations. I hope this change is not rushed through. It seems to me that it would be very punitive to smaller cities that rely heavily on federal funding streams. It would create a lot of difficulties in areas that likely already face serious economic and social challenges and also breed more resentment towards the federal government in some of these places.

[muertecaza]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

But why that matters anyway? It’s an oddity to have those rural counties added to Dallas or Atlanta but they increase their population by few thousands only.

On the other hand, to me it’s much more problematic to have Fairfield County outside New York metro area or Inland Empire outside LA’s.

The main frustration I have with using county boundaries is that especially in the West it can make density calculations not really reflect reality.

Maricopa County, for instance, is at least 3/4 undeveloped desert, and Pinal County is almost completely undeveloped desert. Both counties, however, make up Phoenix's "metropolitan area," and as a result Phoenix's MSA is listed as comprising almost 15,000 square miles, which of course does not reflect reality. This leads to people having to do secondary calculations like "weighted density" to provide the real density of Phoenix's MSA. Seems like there should be a better way.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Stop using Counties would be one way to improve the methodology. Outside of the NE, counties are just too large. I supposed census blocks and block groups would just complicate things too much. Counties are easier but they lead to weird results in areas with huge counties that are as large as some east coast states (or break up large counties already).

I support this

[PhillyRising]

My suggestion, give Mercer County, NJ back to the Philadelphia MSA........LOL

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

But why that matters anyway? It’s an oddity to have those rural counties added to Dallas or Atlanta but they increase their population by few thousands only.

On the other hand, to me it’s much more problematic to have Fairfield County outside New York metro area or Inland Empire outside LA’s.

The irony is NY has plenty of counties in its MSA or CSA that shouldn't be there.

Mercer County NJ. Monroe and Pike Counties in PA.

As the crow flies, Mercer County is about 12 miles from Philadelphia County's northeastern most border. (Philadelphia County and City are contiguous).

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I support this

Merced would get taken away from "being in the bay area" though (MSA added to the SF aka SJ CSA).

[Dariusb]

According to an article I read some metros may lose their status if current qualifications change from the core city at least having 50,000 to 100,000. Here's the link https://www.texarkanagazette.com/new...be-msa/862607/
What are your thoughts on this potential change?

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

According to an article I read some metros may lose their status if current qualifications change from the core city at least having 50,000 to 100,000. Here's the link https://www.texarkanagazette.com/new...be-msa/862607/
What are your thoughts on this potential change?

There's already a thread on it: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=245826

[Steely Dan]

^ I merged them.

[M II A II R II K]

Bye, Bismarck: 144 Cities Could Lose Status As Metro Areas


March 6, 2021

By MIKE SCHNEIDER

Read More: https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin...398d2ca8339ca7

Bye-bye, Bismarck. So long, Sheboygan. Those cities in North Dakota and Wisconsin, respectively, are two of 144 that the federal government is proposing to downgrade from the metropolitan statistical area designation, and it could be more than just a matter of semantics. Officials in some of the affected cities worry that the change could have adverse implications for federal funding and economic development.

- Under the new proposal, a metro area would have to have at least 100,000 people in its core city to count as an MSA, double the 50,000-person threshold that has been in place for the past 70 years. Cities formerly designated as metros with core populations between 50,000 and 100,000 people, like Bismarck and Sheboygan, would be changed to “micropolitan” statistical areas instead. --- A committee of representatives from federal statistical agencies recently made the recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget, saying it’s purely for statistical purposes and not to be used for funding formulas. As a practical matter, however, that is how it’s often used. Several housing, transportation and Medicare reimbursement programs are tied to communities being metropolitan statistical areas, or MSAs, so the designation change concerns some city officials.

- In Corvallis, Oregon, the state designates certain funding sources to metropolitan statistical areas and any change to the city’s status could create a ripple effect, particularly when it comes to transportation funding, said Patrick Rollens, a spokesman for the city that is home to Oregon State University. --- “I won’t lie. We would be dismayed to see our MSA designation go away. We aren’t a suburb of any other, larger city in the area, so this is very much part of our community’s identity,” Rollens said in an email. “Losing the designation would also have potentially adverse impacts on recruitment for local businesses, as well as Oregon State University.” --- If the proposal is approved, it could be the first step toward federal programs adjusting their population thresholds when it comes to distributing money to communities, leading to funding losses for the former metro areas.

- Rural communities are concerned that more micropolitan areas would increase competition for federal funding targeting rural areas. The change would downgrade more than a third of the current 392 MSAs. Statisticians say the change in designations has been a long time coming, given that the U.S. population has more than doubled since 1950. Back then, about half of U.S. residents lived in metros; now, 86% do. --- Nancy Potok, a former chief statistician of the Office of Management and Budget who helped develop the new recommendations, acknowledged that officials in some cities will be upset with the changes because they believe it could hurt efforts to lure jobs or companies to their communities. --- “There are winners and losers when you change these designations,” Potok said. “A typical complaint comes from economic development when you are trying to attract investments. You want to say you are part of a dynamic MSA. There’s a perception associated with it. If your area gets dumped out of an MSA, then you feel disadvantaged.”

.....

Under a federal proposal, a metro area would have to have at least 100,000 people compared with the 50,000-person threshold that was implemented more than 70 years ago. The change could affect these 144 cities.

[Steely Dan]

^ from that map, it looks like PA will lose the most MSAs (9) if this change goes through.



Looking at my home state, IL would lose four MSAs:

Carbondale
Danville
Decatur
Kankakee

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ from that map, it looks like PA will lose the most MSAs (9) if this change goes through.



Looking at my home state, IL would lose four MSAs:

Carbondale
Danville
Decatur
Kankakee

It makes sense to me. This isn't Canada, where having 99,000 people makes you a Top 45 metro.

We have 356 metros over 100,000. I don't think anyone considers Mankato an urban city, or Gettysburg or Lima, Ohio. We have a different concept of urban here.

I'd go a step farther and create a middle category for cities in the 100-500k range. When I think of a "metropolitan" city, I don't think of Houma, Louisiana (208k), Saint Cloud, MN (202k), or Hattiesburg, MS (169k).

Make the 100-500k range something like "minor agglomeration" and leave "metropolitan" for the bigger 500k metros.

We also have 53 metros over 1 million, so maybe add a distinction once a city hits that threshhold (aka "large metropolitan areas") and 5 million could be ("national metropolitan areas") or something fancy sounding.

The British use "city" status as a sign of prestige, so we should reserve different titles for cities that achieve different benchmarks. There's no reason why New York (19,216,182 people) and Walla Walla (60,760) should be categorized the same.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

or this small Illinois town of 3,200 people: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4164...7i13312!8i6656

or this tiny michigan town of only 500 people: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.8482...7i13312!8i6656

The heart of Appalachia has a lot of these <5000 pop towns that have very dense, often pretty intact downtowns.

Welch, WV (Pop 2400)
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4324...7i13312!8i6656
The town has half a dozen midrise buildings
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4321...7i13312!8i6656

Logan, WV (Pop 1800) has several midrises too
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8472...7i13312!8i6656

Maysville, KY is bigger (pop 9000) but it also punches well above its weight class. It might have the most significant inventory of historic rowhouses in Kentucky too?
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6485...7i13312!8i6656

[Yuri]

I just saw on citypopulation.de that they just updated MSA and CSA definitions. I quickly looked through the list and it seems Minneapolis CSA was expanded.

[MolsonExport]

Galena looks Great!

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by memph

The heart of Appalachia has a lot of these <5000 pop towns that have very dense, often pretty intact downtowns.

Welch, WV (Pop 2400)
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4324...7i13312!8i6656
The town has half a dozen midrise buildings
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4321...7i13312!8i6656

Logan, WV (Pop 1800) has several midrises too
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8472...7i13312!8i6656

Maysville, KY is bigger (pop 9000) but it also punches well above its weight class. It might have the most significant inventory of historic rowhouses in Kentucky too?
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6485...7i13312!8i6656

very nice stuff.