"Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore lead nation in population lose."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...aricopa-county
Printable View
"Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore lead nation in population lose."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...aricopa-county
The title of the article is misleading, as the figures are based on the counties, not the cities. The cities may be losing population, but there are no statistics for the cities themselves.
This may be true, but:Quote:
Originally Posted by GMan
1) The article says nothing about Detroit losing population, just Wayne County.
2) I don't trust mid-decade Census figures at all, especially when you are talking small changes between large numbers.
Between 1970 and 2010, Detroit lost 800,000 people, while the rest of Wayne county lost 46,000. Of that 46,000 more than half came from Highland Park.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast
I realize that the inner ring suburbs are all losing population now at a much quicker rate, but unless there has been some massive change and the rest of Wayne county is now losing more people than Detroit, this is still a story about Detroit losing population.
Yes I noticed that this seems to be county wide, not city specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast
The headline was Detroit though.
Yes, but one can make reasonable assumptions on city populations. Many cities are counties [[NYC, Philly, Nashville, DC) so we know the city population estimate is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast
In cases like Chicago or Detroit, it's reasonable to assume substantial population loss, given that the counties have substantial population loss, and the cities are a large % of the counties.
Cook County [[Chicago) has epic population loss. Net domestic outmigration of nearly 70,000 residents in one year. 3x worse population loss than any other county in the U.S. All the major Chicago-area counties had substantial population loss.
Makes even Wayne County look like a boomtown in comparison.
I agree, especially #2.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Looking at the components of change, the most reliable are births and deaths. Migration is much harder to measure.
In Wayne County's case: Births > Deaths.
My guess so long as that statistic holds, WC's population will be stable.
Here's another take:
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...owth/99519598/
So Wayne Country lost the smallest amount of people since 2004. And the 6 county region was unchanged.
Detroit will be lucky to have 500,000 residents left by the 2020 census.....
I think it's pretty clear the population loss is slowing dramatically. I call total BS on those claiming it's increasing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colombian Dan
But I suspect we'll have lost a lot less than the 201,493 we lost from 2000 - 2010.
I'd guess 150k or less. I think we could be more like 550,000 strong at the 2020 census.
I wonder if Detroit will 'finish strong' in say 2018, 19 until 4/1/2020.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
There are a couple factors that might drive it the other way unfortunately.
Most of the NEZ tax abatement's that cause people to buy lofts and apartments downtown are scheduled to run out. Young people are going to find Detroit living a lot less attractive when they have to pay $12,000 a year in taxes for their condo instead of just $500.
Though it's likely a small number of residents as compared to the city as a whole.
I think both Detroit and Wayne County [[the city more dramatically) are on the verge of the point at which inflow exceeds outflow. 2 reasons for this. 1) Continued rapid growth in downtown & nearby neighborhoods [[slowing creeping outward), 2) Most of those trying to "get out" have already done so. Downtown boom will continue and spread outward. Outer neighborhoods are slowly stabilizing and will mostly also grow in the next decade, although most won't boom. 2020 will have only slightly less than 2010, and 2030 will be quite a bit more. I second the notion that mid-decade numbers are not precise. Of course, so are the actual Census numbers every 10 years.
I'm not saying you're incorrect, but I think people have been rationalizing the population loss for 20 years now, using the exact same arguments. "Any minute now, this ship is gonna turn around".Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
Downtown gentrification is modest/limited, and has basically no affect on the county numbers. If there are 10,000 hipsters/yuppies living downtown I would be surprised. I also see no obvious end to people trying to "get out"; it isn't like Wayne is running out of poor people or declining communities.
I think it was around 2 years ago some group looked at the numbers pretty closely and figured that the city's population would not be losing or gaining much.
These census numbers say that Wayne County lost 0.44% in one year. That's a very small percent [[it does add up over time of course). Maybe last year the county gained 0.44%? Or maybe some cities in the county lost a few percent and some gained a few percent. So I'm not alarmed by this number and I eagerly await the next census.
The article is taking numbers from the Census Bureau and they're real numbers, but it's not surprising to see this site taking this story up. It wants to be your "premiere conservative watchdog", and they have a "conservative gear" section selling "DON'T BELIEVE THE LIBERAL MEDIA" "DON'T TREAD ON ME" and others printed on baby's onesies, bibs, t-shirts and even flip flops. Which I'm guessing the ridiculous people in the comments section actually buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason
Well,.. they are real "estimated" numbers.
There are some hard numbers that they can use like recorded births that occurred in the city to people that have Detroit addresses,.. and deaths of Detroiters that occurred here. But other numbers like people who died elsewhere,.. or people who moved in with their sister outside the city, and didn't update their address on their State ID, people who moved to Florida, etc are virtually impossible to track. [[If you move,.. there is no requirement to notify the Census bureau,.. or the city.)
That's why these mid-census estimated have to be taken with a grain of salt. Until you get an actual count,.. you just don't know.
The 2020 census count will be much easier with over 100,000 structures removed since the last census. Also, no fudging or rounding numbers. The 2020 will reveal just how hollowed out Detroit really is...
If a stupid little city like Centerline is allowed to exist in the middle of Warren -then the massive Detroit should be partitioned off into smaller items.
That's the opposite of what should happen. We need amalgamation not just for the city but for the suburbs as well. However, it's not going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by O3H
I've also enjoyed the idea of having the Australian suburb system, in which individual suburbs are to be organized together in larger towns and cities that share some services. But that's a pipe dream.
Though both would make regionalization much easier to work towards.
I would sure love to see population/income/demographic numbers divided by zip code or census tract. I would guess that 48226 and 48201 would have stunning numbers.
One would think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy
I suggest a little less focus in increase and decrease -- and more focus on rate of decrease. It does seem like there's a slowdown in the loss. That's a good first step.
More broadly, I think there's a problem in the world of statistics. The advent of better data storage and distribution has driven everyone to become a statistician. Every newspaper and corner gin joint publishes stats on the size of butterfly wings per $ spent on peanut butter in a household.
There are a lot more stats strolling around like zombies waiting for someone to love them. Selection bias must be having a great day.
And even more important is the number of people in Detroit working and paying taxes, and making a descent income.
As an example,.. back in the day, something like 16,000 people worked in Highland Park.
Now days there are only 10,000 living there total. And only 1/2 are working.
A city cannot survive on that.
Detroit needs 1/2 million people working, making a descent living, paying taxes,... and with discretionary income left over to support neighborhood businesses [[other than liquor stores, fast food places, and the dope-man)
This is exactly how Toronto's amalgamation was done.Quote:
Originally Posted by dtowncitylover
First, came 'regional government' in the form of 'Metro Toronto'. This was in 1953. At the time, police, ambulance and transit became the main 'regional' services and most other city functions stayed with the then 13 local governments.
In the 60s, further consolidation occurred within Metro reducing 13 municipalities to 6.
Then in the late 90s, we did full amalgamation, creating one City of Toronto covering 243sq miles.
The way some people weigh Detroit's population losses with something approaching satisfaction illustrates why this metropolitan area isn't ready for real regionalism.
It's sorta like watching people on one side of a ship cackling about how the water is pouring into the bulkheads "on their side of the ship! Haw-haw-haw!"
I have little doubt that Detroit's ~resident~ population is considerably larger than its census population for two primary reasons - 1-lack of counting of the homeless, semi-homeless, transients and 2- lack of count of "bunking" residents, my guess is young people who live in Detroit but can't afford car insurance so they list there residences as mom and dad's.
Additionally I would suspect that a good share of the new green zone residential units are pied-a-terre's, downtown bunking 'cabins' where the residents keep their primary residence and voter registrations in the burbs.
The census should have some way to compensate for this, particularly for state revenue sharing calculations.
Mayor Duggan ran on the promise that he would grow Detroit's population. If it doesn't, as is likely, look for him to point to the above arguments.
Agreed on all points. And it's not just young people who are bunkers, but also older and established Detroit residents [[including homeowners) who use their relatives' addresses in the suburbs. I know of a couple folks myself who fall into this category.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
But really, in today's age, the size of a city proper isn't everything. Detroit also has to complete with cities that are 500 - 600 miles square wide due to county mergers despite having metro populations not even half Detroit's size [[Indianapolis, Columbus, Nashville, etc.), so comparing ourselves to them strictly based on population just isn't fair.
I know many of us think and want Detroit to be a big and important city. Regardless of how you count population look at the number of abandoned and empty properties as an indicator of the health of a city or metro area. No other city or metro region in the world has more abandoned and vacant properties than Detroit. Dan Gilbert rehab efforts are a drop when compared to the rest of the city. Only Chernobyl can come close to the number of abandoned structures Detroit has.
Seems that people who are using relative's / friend's addresses to avoid higher insurance fees are not concerned about committing fraud at a few levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
Also if residences don't match up for insurance / taxes / voting records than there is a problem beyond just revenue sharing issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor
That is why Detroit and the suburbs will never amalgamate due to race and taxation problems.
Classic problem, where individuals are disproportionately harmed by their honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
No. The census should report facts, not compensate. Compensation should be left to the users, or the census will become politicized, and less valuable to us all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
Michigan population issues, see Insanity
Insanity: Keep on doing exactly the same thing and expecting different results.
The underreporting is not factual. It is not the correct number of people living there. The problem is that they are reporting things that are not correct. However, I don't know if they have a good way to "compensate" for that. I agree that they shouldn't use unreliable methods to do assess population, and there may not be reliable methods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Census report details are held confidential for 72 years. So....how many of you have ever seen your name in a census report???? Well, here's mine from the 1940 census. And I plan on seeing it in the 1950 census in 2022!
I hope to see you there, Ray. 1950 will be my first census appearance, then living in my parents' new house on Waltham in Detroit. That house is now one of the serious eyesores on the block.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray1936
Um.....that makes it perhaps worth mentioning that in 1940 we were living at 1108 Beechwood in Grand Rapids. And the house today looks just as bright as it did back then, as does the entire neighborhood. [[We moved to Detroit the next year.)Quote:
Originally Posted by jiminnm