The US Census Bureau thread

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

Several other states are due out tomorrow, and next week we get two biggies: Illinois and Texas.

Very exciting! I had just been assuming that the big ones would take longer and be last.

[LMich]

Something seems fishy, here. The Census, which hadn't at all sugar-coated Gary's decline with its estimates, has the city 15,000 off its own 2009 estimate...

Rusted out: Clay says city has ‘many, many, many more people’

By Jon Seidel jseidel@post-trib.com Feb 11, 2011 02:05AM

Gary’s population has slipped below that of Hammond, according to U.S. Census data released Thursday, with the Steel City losing 22 percent of its citizens in the past 10 years.

Gary’s 2010 total population was 80,294, according to the state’s Legislative Services Agency. Hammond, meanwhile, had a total population of 80,830. That’s 536 more residents than Gary.

The Gary numbers reflect a 22 percent population loss since the 2000 Census, when its total population was 102,746. Hammond, meanwhile, lost just 2.6 percent of its total population since 2000, when its number was 83,048.

Gary Mayor Rudy Clay said he will appeal the results of the 2010 census.

“We really worked tenaciously to try to get people to fill out the forms,” Clay said. “Those numbers may be on paper, but those are not the real numbers.

“In reality Gary has many, many, many more people than that,” Clay said.

State Rep. Charlie Brown, a Gary resident, called the numbers “hard to believe.”

“In fact, it’s impossible to believe,” Brown said.

...

Indianapolis grew 4.8 percent to 829,718 residents. Fort Wayne saw the largest growth among the five most populous cities as it jumped 23.3 percent to 253,691 residents.

...

I wonder what the participation rate was for Gary? If Gary really lost nearly a full quarter of its population over the decade, it doesn't bode well for other hard-core rustbelt towns with populations still left to be released (i.e. Youngstown, Flint, etc...)

[lawfin]

^^I wouldn't extrapolate too much from Gary's mis-fortune.....even amongst shit-holes....it is a shit-hole of shit-holes

[pesto]

Originally Posted by lawfin

^^I wouldn't extrapolate too much from Gary's mis-fortune.....even amongst shit-holes....it is a shit-hole of shit-holes

There must be a nicer way of expressing this.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

The Maryland files do not appear to be on the FTP site yet, but the press release states that the city of Baltimore is at 620,961, a decrease of 4.6%.

Several other states are due out tomorrow, and next week we get two biggies: Illinois and Texas.

Oooooh this is gonna be fun. By my estimation one of three things will happen. Curious to see how it plays out

[bnk]

Originally Posted by pico44

Oooooh this is gonna be fun. By my estimation one of three things will happen. Curious to see how it plays out

Hay

Pray tell.

I would venture for Illinois that the collar counties grew enough to increase the Chicagoland MSA. Chicago has lost blacks to the southern part of the USA and southern Cook county [ remember the elimination of the projects, which is a good thing really ] and the out flux did not match the numbers of young and empty nesters that have moved into the new condos in LSE and others...

I suspect Chicago city limits will lose around 70-80 K Cook County will lose around 50 K but the rest of the growth in Illinois will be in the collar counties sans around -100K down state. Some cities down state have really taken it in the chin for some time now. One example is Decator. The flint mi of Illinois.

The empty towns of the far central west and the towns south of
Springfied continue to empty much like Iowa and the rest of the Empty quarter of the USA, see rural NE, MN, ....

Those little towns simpley cannot grow and we should expect population loss in towns and cities in Illinois outside the Chicagoland region to follow this path. There are no real educated jobs for those with higher degrees. Either they live in the Chicagoland area for new jobs, or the midwest or other areas of the country. But if you are born and raised [and later educated at a higher university level ] in central or anywhere really there are
no new jobs for you. So some states will depopulate their rural areas and there is little us or any other state that can stem that flow of brain drain that is moving to the larger job generators of the country, which luckily are in large to massive metro areas.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by bnk

<snip>
So some states will depopulate their rural areas and there is little us or any other state that can stem that flow of brain drain that is moving to the larger job generators of the country, which luckily are in large to massive metro areas.

I'm kind of expecting the opposite in Texas. I mean I fully expect huge growth (20-25%) in the big cities but I think the smaller towns are going to show much much bigger growth. Many of the smaller towns have been doing very well in attracting bigger companies, hospitals, to even entertainment like movie studios and such.

[SD_Phil]

Should be exciting to see Texas' results. I have a question for Texas forumers though:

We care about the census for two reasons right? 1) We're interested and invested in sustainable growth for the nation so some set of total population numbers (%5-10) would be good AND 2) we care about politics and we want to know about reapportioning of house seats.

So here's my question: how has a population increase affected Texas politically? Is it becoming more liberal (as other southwestern states with increasing populations are trending), is it holding basically stable, or is the increase coming mostly from conservatives?

[BevoLJ]

It is kind of hard for me to really say on that one because Austin has always been extremely liberal and that has not changed at all. In regards to the rural areas of Texas people outside of Texas have a misconception on of them. Texans and especially in the rural areas has always voted liberal as the idea of sharing and operating on a Co-op type basis is essential to them, but now feel that the Democratic party part has turned its back on the rural population. We have had 3 Republican Governor in the past 150 years. All three very recent, with the last two being Republican. I really don't think it is all that much of a change of how the population has changed their views as how the parties have changed over the past 10-15 years.

It used to be that the Texas cities (except Austin) were very Conservative and the rural Texas very Liberal, but that has changed.

Houston and Dallas I do get a much more liberal feel from now than I did say 10 years ago. I even believe Houston elected a gay Mayor a few years back? So I do think in Houston and Dallas there has been a clear shift, while Austin is still the same extremely liberal Austin it has always been, and San Antonio is still quite conservative. Those are just the feelings I get and based on absolutely nothing so probably way off. I'm sure someone from Houston, Dallas or SA can tell you I am totally wrong and much better speak for their towns. =)

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by bnk

I suspect Chicago city limits will lose around 70-80 K .

Do you really expect Chicago to lose that much? That would be a near complete reversal of the 112K gain we had for the 2000 census. Granted at this point I don't really know what to expect but I was hoping that Chicago's growth rate would be about on par with the state of Illinois average (3.3%) and the suburbs more and downstate with a population loss. I remember four or five years ago people were saying that they thought Chicago had 3 million people for sure at that point.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

It is kind of hard for me to really say on that one because Austin has always been extremely liberal and that has not changed at all. In regards to the rural areas of Texas people outside of Texas have a misconception on of them. Texans and especially in the rural areas has always voted liberal as the idea of sharing and operating on a Co-op type basis is essential to them, but now feel that the Democratic party part has turned its back on the rural population. We have had 3 Republican Governor in the past 150 years. All three very recent, with the last two being Republican. I really don't think it is all that much of a change of how the population has changed their views as how the parties have changed over the past 10-15 years.

It used to be that the Texas cities (except Austin) were very Conservative and the rural Texas very Liberal, but that has changed.

Houston and Dallas I do get a much more liberal feel from now than I did say 10 years ago. I even believe Houston elected a gay Mayor a few years back? So I do think in Houston and Dallas there has been a clear shift, while Austin is still the same extremely liberal Austin it has always been, and San Antonio is still quite conservative. Those are just the feelings I get and based on absolutely nothing so probably way off. I'm sure someone from Houston, Dallas or SA can tell you I am totally wrong and much better speak for their towns. =)

TBH, Austin has never been more liberal than Houston or Dallas. Austin just did a better job at advertising their "liberalness". Austin is a different type of liberal though. In Austin, it seems to be more about protests and stuff like that (I like to call it "show off liberalism"), than public service stuff that Houston and Dallas do (welfare, etc.). And yes, Houston elected an openly gay mayor last year. And San Antonio is fiscally conservative it seems, because that city votes Democrat a lot it seems.

[BillBanneker]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

It is kind of hard for me to really say on that one because Austin has always been extremely liberal and that has not changed at all. In regards to the rural areas of Texas people outside of Texas have a misconception on of them. Texans and especially in the rural areas has always voted liberal as the idea of sharing and operating on a Co-op type basis is essential to them, but now feel that the Democratic party part has turned its back on the rural population. We have had 3 Republican Governor in the past 150 years. All three very recent, with the last two being Republican. I really don't think it is all that much of a change of how the population has changed their views as how the parties have changed over the past 10-15 years.

It used to be that the Texas cities (except Austin) were very Conservative and the rural Texas very Liberal, but that has changed.

Houston and Dallas I do get a much more liberal feel from now than I did say 10 years ago. I even believe Houston elected a gay Mayor a few years back? So I do think in Houston and Dallas there has been a clear shift, while Austin is still the same extremely liberal Austin it has always been, and San Antonio is still quite conservative. Those are just the feelings I get and based on absolutely nothing so probably way off. I'm sure someone from Houston, Dallas or SA can tell you I am totally wrong and much better speak for their towns. =)

Austin is extremely liberal? News to me.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by BillBanneker

Austin is extremely liberal? News to me.

It's not, but the hype of it has many people to believe that Austin is some liberal oasis in Texas, when that couldn't be further from the truth. If you want to see how "liberal" Austin is, visit during the Texas Relays. Still a very cool city though, with some cool urban development going on.

[pip]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Do you really expect Chicago to lose that much? That would be a near complete reversal of the 112K gain we had for the 2000 census. Granted at this point I don't really know what to expect but I was hoping that Chicago's growth rate would be about on par with the state of Illinois average (3.3%) and the suburbs more and downstate with a population loss. I remember four or five years ago people were saying that they thought Chicago had 3 million people for sure at that point.

look at enrollment at CPS. It has dropped quite a bit this decade. Those numbers do include magnet/charter schools.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by pip

look at enrollment at CPS. It has dropped quite a bit this decade. Those numbers do include magnet/charter schools.

Has there been an increase in private school enrollment? In particular I am curious about Chicago catholic archiocese schools in the city. It might not be enough to make up the difference but is it possible that Chicago's growth is pretty much zero as in it has 2.9 million, maybe gaining just a few thousand people? Also has a population loss if there is one the result of the recession that has only been the past few years or has this been happening the entire decade? Its odd because just a few years ago people were so confident that Chicago had 3 million people and was on its way upward.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by Trae

It's not, but the hype of it has many people to believe that Austin is some liberal oasis in Texas, when that couldn't be further from the truth. If you want to see how "liberal" Austin is, visit during the Texas Relays. Still a very cool city though, with some cool urban development going on.

Wow, guess I hit a nerve saying Austin is liberal.

Lets look at the past elections.

2008: Every major Texas city voted for Obama (Austin, Dallas, Houston, EP, and SA)
2004: Kerry got Austin and El Paso, Bush got Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio
2000: Every city voted Bush
1992 and 1996: Clinton got Austin, El Paso, and San Antonio while Houston and Dallas voted for Dole
1988: Dukakis got Austin and EP, rest voted Bush Sr.
1984: Reagan carried the state.
1980: Only Austin voted for Carter while Dallas, Houston, EP and SA voted Regan.
1976: Entire state voted for Carter
1972: Entire state voted for Nixon
1968: Humphrey got Austin, SA and EP while Houston and Dallas voted Nixon.
1964: LBJ so obviously all Texans voted for him.
1960: Kennedy got Austin, SA and EP while Houston and Dallas voted for Nixon.

It goes on and on like that. Some might even call it a trend.... Lets take the final number. Times a city voted D and time they voted R.

Austin: D-10 R-3
Dallas: D-4 R-9
El Paso: D-9 R-4
Houston: D-4 R-9
San Antonio: D-6 R-7

And with what you call "show off liberalism" what do you expect from a city with over 100k students and the 3 main factors that make up that city are education, politics and music. Just because we are more vocal doesn't make us less liberal. Look at the election results they speak for themselves.

I suggested to another poster asking how the cities might have changed with the influx of people and in that post I said I believe Austin hasn't while Houston, and Dallas have become more liberal. I also said that was my guess about the other cities and invited you guys from those cities to state if that was right or not. However rather than state what change your cities might have experienced you go and say my assessment of my own city is inaccurate? Really?

[mhays]

Sounds like "extremely" is extremely relative.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Wow, guess I hit a nerve saying Austin is liberal.

No, you didn't hit a nerve. But you were wrong when you said "It used to be that the Texas cities (except Austin) were very Conservative". That just isn't true. For example, Houston has never elected a Republican mayor. Has Austin?

Lets look at the past elections.

2008: Every major Texas city voted for Obama (Austin, Dallas, Houston, EP, and SA)
2004: Kerry got Austin and El Paso, Bush got Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio
2000: Every city voted Bush
1992 and 1996: Clinton got Austin, El Paso, and San Antonio while Houston and Dallas voted for Dole
1988: Dukakis got Austin and EP, rest voted Bush Sr.
1984: Reagan carried the state.
1980: Only Austin voted for Carter while Dallas, Houston, EP and SA voted Regan.
1976: Entire state voted for Carter
1972: Entire state voted for Nixon
1968: Humphrey got Austin, SA and EP while Houston and Dallas voted Nixon.
1964: LBJ so obviously all Texans voted for him.
1960: Kennedy got Austin, SA and EP while Houston and Dallas voted for Nixon.

It goes on and on like that. Some might even call it a trend.... Lets take the final number. Times a city voted D and time they voted R.

Austin: D-10 R-3
Dallas: D-4 R-9
El Paso: D-9 R-4
Houston: D-4 R-9
San Antonio: D-6 R-7

And keep in mind the county size differences. The City of Austin holds a higher percentage of its county population than Houston does for Harris County and Dallas does for Dallas County. Because it doesn't look like you are actually listing the cities here, just the counties.

And with what you call "show off liberalism" what do you expect from a city with over 100k students and the 3 main factors that make up that city are education, politics and music. Just because we are more vocal doesn't make us less liberal. Look at the election results they speak for themselves.

I suggested to another poster asking how the cities might have changed with the influx of people and in that post I said I believe Austin hasn't while Houston, and Dallas have become more liberal. I also said that was my guess about the other cities and invited you guys from those cities to state if that was right or not. However rather than state what change your cities might have experienced you go and say my assessment of my own city is inaccurate? Really?

All I did was say you were wrong. You should probably only speak for Austin if you didn't know then. I'm not sure I bashed Austin in any way. I'm telling the truth. I'm not up on what Dallas has been doing lately, even though I live in DFW, but I know Houston is something like the fourth largest purchaser of clean energy. They want to put over 100 electric car charging stations around the city. Plus, all of the people from more left leaning areas like California moving here and minorities. Counties like Fort Bend are becoming more blue (Harris already is). Those are some of the changes, since you wanted to know.

[pip]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Has there been an increase in private school enrollment? In particular I am curious about Chicago catholic archiocese schools in the city. It might not be enough to make up the difference but is it possible that Chicago's growth is pretty much zero as in it has 2.9 million, maybe gaining just a few thousand people? Also has a population loss if there is one the result of the recession that has only been the past few years or has this been happening the entire decade? Its odd because just a few years ago people were so confident that Chicago had 3 million people and was on its way upward.

Sure maybe some private schools are growing but the numbers are small in perspective. Chicago's Catholic schools? Aren't some of them closing.

Listen I want the numbers to be positive too but having anecdotal hearsay from working in a restaurant, the kitchen staff, the latino immigrants, want out to the suburbs for the same reason as all the previous flight. Mostly the want for a house with a lawn then better schools and lower crime.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by Trae

For example, Houston has never elected a Republican mayor. Has Austin?
...

I'm telling the truth.

No you are not. Houston has had plenty of Republican and Conservative mayors including your most famous one, Mayor Holcombe, who served something like a dozen terms from the 20's to the late 50's. Also I could go look it up if you like to give you some name of others as I don't know them off the top of my head but I know for a fact you have had Republican mayors since then. As for Austin, I do not know of any but I am sure there has been a few.

While you raise the question of mayors of the cities it does help my point though. My point was that Houston and Dallas have become more liberal, and recently Houston has been electing liberal mayors, and although Dallas has had a few their current mayor is a Republican.

Oddly enough anyone care to guess when New York City last had a Democrat as a mayor?