Detroit, Wayne Co. still losing population

[313WX]

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.

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.

[Colombian Dan]

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.

[GMan]

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.

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.

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.

Also if residences don't match up for insurance / taxes / voting records than there is a problem beyond just revenue sharing issues.

[Danny]

This is exactly how Toronto's amalgamation was done.

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.

That is why Detroit and the suburbs will never amalgamate due to race and taxation problems.

[Wesley Mouch]

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.

Classic problem, where individuals are disproportionately harmed by their honest.

The census should have some way to compensate for this, particularly for state revenue sharing calculations.

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.

[ABetterDetroit]

Michigan population issues, see Insanity

Insanity: Keep on doing exactly the same thing and expecting different results.

[mwilbert]

Classic problem, where individuals are disproportionately harmed by their honest.

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.

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.

[Ray1936]

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!

[jiminnm]

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.

[Ray1936]

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.

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.)