AARoads Forum

U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for July 1, 2024 have been released. The data is available here:

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-total-cities-and-towns.html

Some observations in my neck of the woods:

Wichita, Kansas has surpassed 400,000 for the first time. It now has a population of 400,991.

Aurora, Colorado has surpassed 400,000 and now has a population of 403,130.

Garden City is the largest city in western Kansas, but only by a few hundred. Garden City has 27,996 and Dodge City has 27,663.

Celina, Texas has dropped from No. 1 in annual growth among cities 20K or larger in 2024 to No. 4 this year. No. 1 is neighboring Princeton, which had to call a 120-day development moratorium last year because they didn't have their shit together.

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/south-texas-el-paso/news/2025/05/17/princeton-is-the-fastest-growing-city-in-the-u-s-

All of the Indy's northern suburbs are still growing...

Carmel- 103,606
Fishers- 103,986
Noblesville- 75,239
Westfield- 62,994
Zionsville- 33,161
Whitestown- 14,564
Lebanon- 17,608

Both Carmel and Fishers have passed the 100k mark in 2021, and both Westfield and Noblesville are not that far behind.

Dang, Baltimore supposedly grew for the first time in a while.

Quote from: epzik8 on May 18, 2025, 06:52:26 AMDang, Baltimore supposedly grew for the first time in a while.

Same with Milwaukee. Younger people moving into trendy neighborhoods, along with some retirees returning to an urban environment, outpaces those who are leaving.

Seems like Visalia is going to pass a crap ton of cities in this coming decade.  Fresno keeps growing also at a rapid pace (which I have mixed feelings on).

Of the 351 municipalities in Massachusetts, 61 went down from 2023. All are in western Massachusetts except for Rowley (by exactly one person), six on Cape Cod, and Concord which was somehow the largest percentage decrease of all of them.

Four of the five largest percentage increases are Stoneham, Woburn, Wakefield, and North Reading, where the first three touch and North Reading is two towns away. (The other one in the top five is Pelham, which I guess increased because it's adjacent to Amherst.) The SW corridor between 128 and 495 (Millis, Dover, Norfolk) also has some with large percentage increases.

Lawrence, which is 80% Hispanic, grew way more than expected between 2010 and 2020. It's in the middle of the pack from 2023-2024, which is still a minor increase.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 08:02:05 AM

Quote from: epzik8 on May 18, 2025, 06:52:26 AMDang, Baltimore supposedly grew for the first time in a while.

Same with Milwaukee. Younger people moving into trendy neighborhoods, along with some retirees returning to an urban environment, outpaces those who are leaving.

Detroit, MI (city) grew slightly, too.  I am expecting that as people with direct memories of the 'bad old days' continue to age out and move/pass on, this trend will continue and speed up.

Mike

With Baltimore and Detroit growing, it's a good time to remind everyone that gentrification is a bad thing.

No mention made of this yet, but now we have two more million resident cities - Jacksonville and Fort Worth.

Also, the five most populous cities to have lost population - Memphis, Albuquerque, Long Beach, New Orleans, and Chandler.

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 12:08:57 PMWith Baltimore and Detroit growing, it's a good time to remind everyone that gentrification is a bad thing.

I don't know.  There's displacement and then there's tangible improvement.  I find labeling all rises in property value as gentrification to be a bad thing.

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 12:08:57 PMWith Baltimore and Detroit growing, it's a good time to remind everyone that gentrification is a bad thing.

Depends on how you feel about Urban Exploration and Ruins Porn.

Quote from: mgk920 on May 18, 2025, 12:02:39 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 08:02:05 AM

Quote from: epzik8 on May 18, 2025, 06:52:26 AMDang, Baltimore supposedly grew for the first time in a while.

Same with Milwaukee. Younger people moving into trendy neighborhoods, along with some retirees returning to an urban environment, outpaces those who are leaving.

Detroit, MI (city) grew slightly, too.  I am expecting that as people with direct memories of the 'bad old days' continue to age out and move/pass on, this trend will continue and speed up.

Mike

In theory I have at least 30-40 years to go in which to remind others how bad Detroit (my home city) was. 

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 12:08:57 PMWith Baltimore and Detroit growing, it's a good time to remind everyone that gentrification is a bad thing.

There are likely plenty of affordable options available in Detroit, Baltimore and Milwaukee, while also providing housing options for those with more wealth. I doubt any of them are going to become like San Franciso or Manhattan anytime soon.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram had a story about its city reaching 7 digits.  It's currently one of 11, and the story said it was the 13th US city to ever reach that level.

Quote from: wxfree on May 18, 2025, 03:43:04 PMThe Fort Worth Star-Telegram had a story about its city reaching 7 digits.  It's currently one of 11, and the story said it was the 13th US city to ever reach that level.

This post is like a really bad Jeopardy answer.

Quote from: Rothman on May 18, 2025, 07:54:04 PM

Quote from: wxfree on May 18, 2025, 03:43:04 PMThe Fort Worth Star-Telegram had a story about its city reaching 7 digits.  It's currently one of 11, and the story said it was the 13th US city to ever reach that level.

This post is like a really bad Jeopardy answer.

Nevertheless. What is San Jose and Detroit?

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 12:08:57 PMWith Baltimore and Detroit growing, it's a good time to remind everyone that gentrification is a bad thing.

Why do we have to shove abrasive negativity into such a non-charged thread?

But if the topic at hand is out there and open for debate

Quotegentrification is a bad thing.

I would ask for some justification as to why . . . I think people don't understand that the trendy hip cities everyone wants to live in are, in a sense, the gentrified versions of places like Baltimore, Detroit, and Milwaukee. If Milwaukee was heavily gentrified, it would look a lot like Minneapolis. If Tulsa was gentrified, it would be a smaller Austin. If Louisville was gentrified, it would be a less touristy Nashville.

White flight is racism. The reverse of white flight is, supposedly, gentrification, which is of course also, supposedly, racist. That criticism, supposedly, wipes away the benefits of additional housing (which helps COL for everyone), walkable communities, and revitalizing often empty city blocks (of which there are plenty in those cities).

Quote from: tdindy88 on May 18, 2025, 08:06:43 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 18, 2025, 07:54:04 PM

Quote from: wxfree on May 18, 2025, 03:43:04 PMThe Fort Worth Star-Telegram had a story about its city reaching 7 digits.  It's currently one of 11, and the story said it was the 13th US city to ever reach that level.

This post is like a really bad Jeopardy answer.

Nevertheless. What is San Jose and Detroit?

According to the estimates, San Jose gained 13K last year and sits at 997K. In all likelihood both Austin (993K) and San Jose will cross (or re-cross) the 1 million line this year, giving us 13 cities over 1 million.

By 2030, Charlotte will likely cross 1 million as well, meaning four cities will have passed 1 million between 2020 and 2030. Previously there had never been more than two cities crossing that line in a decade: Chicago and Philadelphia in 1880-1890; Detroit and Los Angeles in 1920-1930; San Diego and Dallas in 1980-1990.

Detroit is a special case even by rustbelt standards.  Detroit sunk lower than any large American ever has for a myriad of reasons.  Going from 1,800,000 residents in to just over 600,000 without war being a factor in seven decades is pretty amazing (in a bad way).  The bottom had to be somewhere, and it appears to have been finally reached.

"White flight" is not racism.  So-called white flight was simply the fact that some (most) people prefer a suburban lifestyle to a urban one.  They worked hard and achieved what, for them, is the American Dream.  "Gentrification" is also not racism.  It is simply the fact that some other people prefer a urban gentrified lifestyle to a suburban one.

Others prefer rural areas, high rises, cabins in the mountains, RV wandering, Ex-pat to Panama or Costa Rica, older close in suburbs, gated lifestyle communities, 55 plus communities, whatever.

It's a big country and a bigger world.  Before condemning people you do not know, learn that.

Quote from: thspfc on May 18, 2025, 08:20:27 PM

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 12:08:57 PMWith Baltimore and Detroit growing, it's a good time to remind everyone that gentrification is a bad thing.

Why do we have to shove abrasive negativity into such a non-charged thread?

But if the topic at hand is out there and open for debate

Quotegentrification is a bad thing.

I would ask for some justification as to why . . .

Because I live in poverty and I don't like the idea of being pushed out of my own neighborhood by hipsters.

Quote from: thspfc on May 18, 2025, 08:20:27 PMI would ask for some justification as to why

The problem with gentrification is when a neighborhood with lower-income residents begins to gentrify, property values increase, which means that rents generally increase too. So people who have lived in a place for years, grinding out a living and living within their means, through no fault of their own, suddenly can no longer afford to live where they have for years. Depending on tax laws even homeowners may be affected, if their property values increase so much they are no longer able to pay their property tax.

On the other hand, gentrification is usually the result of cleaning up and generally improving derelict properties, and typically increases the tax base of the affected area, which are both good things for a city overall. So neither "gentrification is always bad" or "gentrification is always good" is correct.

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 08:29:54 PM

Quote from: thspfc on May 18, 2025, 08:20:27 PM

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 12:08:57 PMWith Baltimore and Detroit growing, it's a good time to remind everyone that gentrification is a bad thing.

Why do we have to shove abrasive negativity into such a non-charged thread?

But if the topic at hand is out there and open for debate

Quotegentrification is a bad thing.

I would ask for some justification as to why . . .

Because I live in poverty and I don't like the idea of being pushed out of my own neighborhood by hipsters.

Outside of the small cluster of gentrification which has occurred on Woodward nobody stays in Detroit because they want to. 

Quote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2025, 08:28:43 PMOthers prefer rural areas, high rises, cabins in the mountains, RV wandering, Ex-pat to Panama or Costa Rica, older close in suburbs, gated lifestyle communities, 55 plus communities, whatever.

Clearly the solution that would serve everyone is an older high-rise cabin with a motor that relocates to different gated mountain properties in rural Costa Rica.

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 08:29:54 PM

Quote from: thspfc on May 18, 2025, 08:20:27 PM

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 12:08:57 PMWith Baltimore and Detroit growing, it's a good time to remind everyone that gentrification is a bad thing.

Why do we have to shove abrasive negativity into such a non-charged thread?

But if the topic at hand is out there and open for debate

Quotegentrification is a bad thing.

I would ask for some justification as to why . . .

Because I live in poverty and I don't like the idea of being pushed out of my own neighborhood by hipsters.

It's not "your" neighborhood. You're trying to deny other people the ability to live there, often based on "immutable characteristics" such as where they were born, where they were raised as children, etc. The left/liberal side is usually the side that says it's wrong to discriminate based on "immutable characteristics".

Quote from: ran4sh on May 18, 2025, 09:21:23 PMIt's not "your" neighborhood. You're trying to deny other people the ability to live there, often based on "immutable characteristics" such as where they were born, where they were raised as children, etc. The left/liberal side is usually the side that says it's wrong to discriminate based on "immutable characteristics".

That's a fucking bold statement. So I should let the rich hipsters push me out of my house and onto the streets?

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 09:29:10 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 18, 2025, 09:21:23 PMIt's not "your" neighborhood. You're trying to deny other people the ability to live there, often based on "immutable characteristics" such as where they were born, where they were raised as children, etc. The left/liberal side is usually the side that says it's wrong to discriminate based on "immutable characteristics".

That's a fucking bold statement. So I should let the rich hipsters push me out of my house and onto the streets?

Are you at risk of this presently?  If so, how does your circumstances compare to that of someone living in Detroit? 

I mean hey, I am not particular fan of the hipster crowd.  But Detroit needs any boost in population it can get.  The city is basically in ruins and everyone has been leaving for a long time.

On the last two trips back to Michigan I actually found downtown welcoming and lively.  There was even a jazz festival last year that caught my wife's interest.  Certainly felt like a step in the right direction despite the crowd mostly being comprised of hipsters. 

I think cities should have affordable areas, but also need the regeneration that people with more wealth provide. Too much of one or the other isn't great.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 09:42:08 PMI think cities should have affordable areas, but also need the regeneration that people with more wealth provide. Too much of one or the other isn't great.

That I can agree with. But unfortunately, whenever redevelopment happens, no one knows where to pump the brakes.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2025, 09:39:40 PMAre you at risk of this presently?

I'm not, but seeing the rest of the neighborhood redevelop, I might be eventually.

Quote from: LilianaUwU on May 18, 2025, 09:46:40 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 18, 2025, 09:42:08 PMI think cities should have affordable areas, but also need the regeneration that people with more wealth provide. Too much of one or the other isn't great.

That I can agree with. But unfortunately, whenever redevelopment happens, no one knows where to pump the brakes.

And where it's going to happen.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2025, 08:28:43 PM"White flight" is not racism.  So-called white flight was simply the fact that some (most) people prefer a suburban lifestyle to a urban one.  They worked hard and achieved what, for them, is the American Dream.  "Gentrification" is also not racism.  It is simply the fact that some other people prefer a urban gentrified lifestyle to a suburban one.

Others prefer rural areas, high rises, cabins in the mountains, RV wandering, Ex-pat to Panama or Costa Rica, older close in suburbs, gated lifestyle communities, 55 plus communities, whatever.

It's a big country and a bigger world.  Before condemning people you do not know, learn that.

Aw.  Educating people how to use dog whistles is...ick. 

Simplifying motivations like this does ignore the extensive history of race being a factor, especially with the migration north of southern black populations.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 18, 2025, 08:33:20 PM

Quote from: thspfc on May 18, 2025, 08:20:27 PMI would ask for some justification as to why

So neither "gentrification is always bad" or "gentrification is always good" is correct.

I agree.

The type of gentrification I disapprove of is when old but functional single-family homes are rebuilt as new single-family homes.

The type of gentrification that is not just good, but necessary for the health of our cities is when abandoned blocks and unused parking lots and blocks of decrepit, unlivable homes are converted into blocks of higher-density housing.

Quote from: SP Cook on May 18, 2025, 08:28:43 PM"White flight" is not racism. It's a big country and a bigger world.  Before condemning people you do not know, learn that.

I was speaking from the perspective of someone who staunchly opposes gentrification, to point out the obvious contradiction in the common "it's racist" argument (whites leave, they're racist; whites come back, they're also racist).

I don't know if white flight was racism; I was not around while it was happening.

Quote from: thspfc on May 18, 2025, 09:59:25 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 18, 2025, 08:33:20 PM

Quote from: thspfc on May 18, 2025, 08:20:27 PMI would ask for some justification as to why

So neither "gentrification is always bad" or "gentrification is always good" is correct.

I agree.

The type of gentrification I disapprove of is when old but functional single-family homes are rebuilt as new single-family homes.

How dare we keep the same functional zoning that had been in place for decades...(wut?)

My own family left Detroit during the late 1960s for the suburbs after the big riots.  My grandfather isn't who was the breadwinner isn't someone I think was a racist.  He grew up in a different time and was cautious around people of other ethnicities.  He was not a worldly person and worked for four decades in a lumber yard.  Really I think he was just afraid of the city after my mom got caught in downtown during the 1967 riot.  But yes, a lot of white racism went into why that riot (and others) broke out. 

Sometimes I wonder what my grandparents would think of me being in a mixed ethnicity marriage.  I doubt my grandpa from Detroit would have an issue.  My hyper religious grandpa from Baltimore on the other hand almost certainly would have had a problem.

Quote from: Rothman on May 18, 2025, 10:01:00 PM

Quote from: thspfc on May 18, 2025, 09:59:25 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 18, 2025, 08:33:20 PM

Quote from: thspfc on May 18, 2025, 08:20:27 PMI would ask for some justification as to why

So neither "gentrification is always bad" or "gentrification is always good" is correct.

I agree.

The type of gentrification I disapprove of is when old but functional single-family homes are rebuilt as new single-family homes.

How dare we keep the same functional zoning that had been in place for decades...(wut?)

I assume that's referring to when starter homes get replaced with McMansions.

Quote from: vdeane on May 18, 2025, 10:26:56 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 18, 2025, 10:01:00 PM

Quote from: thspfc on May 18, 2025, 09:59:25 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 18, 2025, 08:33:20 PM

Quote from: thspfc on May 18, 2025, 08:20:27 PMI would ask for some justification as to why

So neither "gentrification is always bad" or "gentrification is always good" is correct.

I agree.

The type of gentrification I disapprove of is when old but functional single-family homes are rebuilt as new single-family homes.

How dare we keep the same functional zoning that had been in place for decades...(wut?)

I assume that's referring to when starter homes get replaced with McMansions.

I suppose that could happen if you stretch "urban setting" to be the reaches of sprawling cities like Houston.  Manhattan, not so much.

Quote from: Rothman on May 18, 2025, 10:38:36 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 18, 2025, 10:26:56 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 18, 2025, 10:01:00 PMHow dare we keep the same functional zoning that had been in place for decades...(wut?)

I assume that's referring to when starter homes get replaced with McMansions.

I suppose that could happen if you stretch "urban setting" to be the reaches of sprawling cities like Houston.  Manhattan, not so much.

Houston doesn't have zoning.  :D

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 19, 2025, 12:01:46 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 18, 2025, 10:38:36 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 18, 2025, 10:26:56 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 18, 2025, 10:01:00 PMHow dare we keep the same functional zoning that had been in place for decades...(wut?)

I assume that's referring to when starter homes get replaced with McMansions.

I suppose that could happen if you stretch "urban setting" to be the reaches of sprawling cities like Houston.  Manhattan, not so much.

Houston doesn't have zoning.  :D

I forget the term they use down there for their legal substitute and I'm too lazy to Google it this morning.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 18, 2025, 08:33:20 PM

Quote from: thspfc on May 18, 2025, 08:20:27 PMI would ask for some justification as to why

The problem with gentrification is when a neighborhood with lower-income residents begins to gentrify, property values increase, which means that rents generally increase too. So people who have lived in a place for years, grinding out a living and living within their means, through no fault of their own, suddenly can no longer afford to live where they have for years. Depending on tax laws even homeowners may be affected, if their property values increase so much they are no longer able to pay their property tax.

On the other hand, gentrification is usually the result of cleaning up and generally improving derelict properties, and typically increases the tax base of the affected area, which are both good things for a city overall. So neither "gentrification is always bad" or "gentrification is always good" is correct.

There are 3 types of problems, where most areas deal with at least one of those:
-Area is growing, and people suffer the consequences
-area is decaying, and people suffer consequences
-area is stagnant, and people suffer consequences

Detroit's population decline was not just "white flight". It lost 10% in both the 60's and 70's. But it lost 20% in the 80's and 15% in the 90's, 7% in the 2000's, 25% in the 2010's and 10% in the 2020's. Much of those years of largest decline were due to the auto industry contracting and moving out of the rust belt; people who didn't have jobs didn't stay.

A lot more of Detroit's decline was due to people of color moving out of the city to the suburbs when they were able to afford it (like the whites did earlier). The city of Warren had a very low minority population (1-2%) 4 decades ago; today it is 1/3 each white, black and Asian. Southfield is majority black, mostly due to migration in the 1990's and later. Removal of restrictions on minorities played a large part in many suburbs gaining people of color.

Quote from: tdindy88 on May 18, 2025, 08:06:43 PM

Quote

QuoteThe Fort Worth Star-Telegram had a story about its city reaching 7 digits.  It's currently one of 11, and the story said it was the 13th US city to ever reach that level.

This post is like a really bad Jeopardy answer.

Nevertheless. What is San Jose and Detroit?

I was trying to figure out the other two. Detroit was pretty obvious, but San Jose was a surprise.

Quote from: vdeane on May 18, 2025, 10:26:56 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 18, 2025, 10:01:00 PM

Quote from: thspfc on May 18, 2025, 09:59:25 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 18, 2025, 08:33:20 PM

Quote from: thspfc on May 18, 2025, 08:20:27 PMI would ask for some justification as to why

So neither "gentrification is always bad" or "gentrification is always good" is correct.

I agree.

The type of gentrification I disapprove of is when old but functional single-family homes are rebuilt as new single-family homes.

How dare we keep the same functional zoning that had been in place for decades...(wut?)

I assume that's referring to when starter homes get replaced with McMansions.

I don't think starter homes getting replaced by McMansions is the major issue. I think the issue is when apartment buildings are replaced by high-end apartments or condos, and it drives up the price of everything in that neighborhood - including the single family houses. As I said above, some of that is good. An example is the Walker's Point area of Milwaukee, which is not a place you would generally want to hang out 30 years ago. Now it is full of younger professionals, but the cost of housing in the neighborhood has increased. And it is definitely less affordable for those with less means.

Quote from: webny99 on May 19, 2025, 08:15:13 AM

Quote from: tdindy88 on May 18, 2025, 08:06:43 PM

Quote

QuoteThe Fort Worth Star-Telegram had a story about its city reaching 7 digits.  It's currently one of 11, and the story said it was the 13th US city to ever reach that level.

This post is like a really bad Jeopardy answer.

Nevertheless. What is San Jose and Detroit?

I was trying to figure out the other two. Detroit was pretty obvious, but San Jose was a surprise.

San Jose got to just over a million (1,013,000) at the 2020 Census, but the COVID flight from cities (exacerbated in California by housing costs) dropped it under by 2022 (978K). It was back to 997K as of 7/1/2024, so it's likely to already be over a million again.

Interesting to note that when the Census Bureau releases their estimates they also revise their estimates for previous years - Fort Worth's 2023 estimate was revised upward by 27,000; Houston by 33,000; Chicago by 35,000; Los Angeles by 27,000; New York by 133,000. In fact, the 18 largest cities all had their estimates revised up by at least 6,000.

It seems to paint the picture that cities' losses during COVID were not as big as we were led to believe, or that the recovery is stronger than we were led to believe.

Here we go yet again....

317,317  Corpus Christi

Compared to the following professional sports cities:

314,915  Cinncinati
307,668  Pittsburgh
279,695  St. Louis
276,617  Buffalo

Also comparable to other sports cities of Cleveland, New Orleans, and Orlando.

Mind you, I am NOT advocating for my home city acquiring a pro-sports club because A) I know perfectly well that will never happen (at least in my lifetime) unless our city experiences an exponentially skyrocketing population (improbable chance), and B) I'm already spoken for with the Houston sports teams.


Hard to believe that Ft. Worth looks to be on pace to overtake Dallas in size.  Dallas might soon not even be the largest city in its own metroplex.

If Las Vegas and North Las Vegas could pull itself together, that city could have had almost a million people.  I'll never understand why there are these [enter cardinal direction] [enter city name].  North Little Rock, North Miami, North Las Vegas, etc.  If they wish to remain separate city, couldn't they have come up with a name more original/unique?

Quote from: jgb191 on May 19, 2025, 10:48:19 AMNorth Little Rock, North Miami, North Las Vegas, etc.  If they wish to remain separate city, couldn't they have come up with a name more original/unique?

East Detroit did in 1992. It became Eastpointe. They wanted to be associated more with the other Pointes than with Detroit.

Quote from: jgb191 on May 19, 2025, 10:48:19 AMNorth Little Rock, North Miami, North Las Vegas, etc.  If they wish to remain separate city, couldn't they have come up with a name more original/unique?

This has prompted me to read up on the history of those towns' names.  Fascinating stuff.  In the case of North Miami, the Florida state government allowed a new development near Miami Shores to also be named Miami Shores, then required the original town to change its name.

Quote from: jgb191 on May 19, 2025, 10:48:19 AMHere we go yet again....

317,317  Corpus Christi

Compared to the following professional sports cities:

314,915  Cinncinati
307,668  Pittsburgh
279,695  St. Louis
276,617  Buffalo

Also comparable to other sports cities of Cleveland, New Orleans, and Orlando.

Mind you, I am NOT advocating for my home city acquiring a pro-sports club because A) I know perfectly well that will never happen (at least in my lifetime) unless our city experiences an exponentially skyrocketing population (improbable chance), and B) I'm already spoken for with the Houston sports teams.

2024 Metropolitan Area size
20. Orlando - 2,940,513
23. St. Louis - 2,811,927
28. Pittsburg - 2,429,917
30. Cincinnati - 2,302,815
34. Cleveland - 2,171,877
51. Buffalo - 1,160,172
59. New Orleans - 966,230
...
121. Corpus Christi - 450,187

2024-2025 Television market size (numbers are TV households, not total population)
15. Orlando - 1,902,420
19. Cleveland - 1,554,340
24. St. Louis - 1,273,870
27. Pittsburgh - 1,167,890
37. Cincinnati - 958,630
54. Buffalo - 637,090
50. New Orleans - 672,790
...
130. Corpus Christi - 209,780

Those are why Corpus Christi doesn't have its own pro team.

Also note that when Buffalo got the Bills in 1959, the metro area was the 14th largest in the nation, bigger than the Atlanta, Houston, Kansas City, or Seattle metros.

QuoteHard to believe that Ft. Worth looks to be on pace to overtake Dallas in size.  Dallas might soon not even be the largest city in its own metroplex.

It's also the first time the U.S. has two cities of 1,000,000+ in the same metropolitan area.

I still feel like McAllen-Harlingen-Brownsville is lacking, especially since I suspect most Americans can't name either McAllen or Harlingen. The southernmost two counties in Texas have about 1.35 million people, and that's just on the US side. This would put it above the New Orleans metro, and if you exclude the Canadian side, above the Buffalo metro. It wouldn't quite reach #32, but it could have one sport.

Quote from: jgb191 on May 19, 2025, 10:48:19 AMHard to believe that Ft. Worth looks to be on pace to overtake Dallas in size.  Dallas might soon not even be the largest city in its own metroplex.

The Star-Telegram article mentioned the possibility of Fort Worth outgrowing Dallas.  I don't know how much open or lightly developed land is in each city, but I'm pretty sure Fort Worth has more room to grow geographically.  Dallas is just about locked in, while Fort Worth is only locked most of the way around.  It looks like there's some ETJ to the west and northwest.

According to Wickerpaedia, Dallas is bigger than Fort Worth by about 30 square miles, but it has 44 square miles of water, while Fort Worth has only 8, meaning it (347 square miles) is already bigger than Dallas (340) in terms of land.

Fort Worth has much more room to grow geographically than Dallas.

Quote from: hotdogPi on May 19, 2025, 12:06:54 PMI still feel like McAllen-Harlingen-Brownsville is lacking, especially since I suspect most Americans can't name either McAllen or Harlingen. The southernmost two counties in Texas have about 1.35 million people, and that's just on the US side. This would put it above the New Orleans metro, and if you exclude the Canadian side, above the Buffalo metro. It wouldn't quite reach #32, but it could have one sport.

McAllen and Brownsville metros combined would get you to #45, which is comparable to some current metros with pro teams like Buffalo, Salt Lake City, or New Orleans. But if you're going to combine McAllen and Brownsville (about 60 miles apart), then you'd need to combine Baton Rouge (880K people) with New Orleans, Provo and Ogden (1.4 million combined) with Salt Lake City, and Rochester (1 million) with Buffalo - all of which are comparable distances apart (40 to 80 miles).

Also note that McAllen and Brownsville are combined as a media market, and that's ranked #80. I'm pretty sure market size plays as much if not a bigger role than city or metro populations in determining potential sports teams locations.

There are other, comparable or larger, growing metro areas that have yet to get a "big 4" pro team - Austin is the glaring example, but also Norfolk/Virginia Beach and Louisville - and many others that only have one - Orlando, Portland, Sacramento, Columbus, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, etc.

Quote from: jgb191 on May 19, 2025, 10:48:19 AMIf Las Vegas and North Las Vegas could pull itself together, that city could have had almost a million people.  I'll never understand why there are these [enter cardinal direction] [enter city name].  North Little Rock, North Miami, North Las Vegas, etc.  If they wish to remain separate city, couldn't they have come up with a name more original/unique?

North Las Vegas was founded by a guy who didn't like Las Vegas, so he had the unoriginal idea to create a town that was boring, and thus it got an unoriginal, boring name.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 19, 2025, 02:07:14 PM

Quote from: jgb191 on May 19, 2025, 10:48:19 AMIf Las Vegas and North Las Vegas could pull itself together, that city could have had almost a million people.  I'll never understand why there are these [enter cardinal direction] [enter city name].  North Little Rock, North Miami, North Las Vegas, etc.  If they wish to remain separate city, couldn't they have come up with a name more original/unique?

North Las Vegas was founded by a guy who didn't like Las Vegas, so he had the unoriginal idea to create a town that was boring, and thus it got an unoriginal, boring name.

There used to be an East Gary, Indiana, but when Gary turned from a destination into a place to avoid, the city changed its name to Lake Station.

My read on Detroit (city) is that it was originally developed waaaaay too heavily with detached single family residential, that was the primary land use in those parts of the city that have fallen into ruin and are now slooowly being 'discovered' by today's younger crowd.  I can easily see that fate befalling MANY other places as well over the next several decades, especially 'traditional' post-WWII suburban tract areas.

Mike

Quote from: DTComposerAlso note that McAllen and Brownsville are combined as a media market, and that's ranked #80. I'm pretty sure market size plays as much if not a bigger role than city or metro populations in determining potential sports teams locations.

I think the biggest problem the cluster of Rio Grande Valley cities faces with trying to attract something like a major sports team is the average income levels in that region. They're not very high.

Quote from: DTComposerThere are other, comparable or larger, growing metro areas that have yet to get a "big 4" pro team - Austin is the glaring example, but also Norfolk/Virginia Beach and Louisville - and many others that only have one - Orlando, Portland, Sacramento, Columbus, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, etc.

Other factors may be involved, such as internal politics between sports team owners and league management. Any sort of expansion to add new teams is always very difficult. Most of the other team owners have to sign off on it. The process isn't cut and dry for a major pro sports team to relocate to another city either. Lots of secret good ole boys network stuff goes on in those talks.

I doubt if the NFL will ever add more teams, but if a team chooses to relocate I think the Austin-San Antonio region could be a likely landing spot. But that's only if Jerry Jones or future Dallas Cowboys ownership doesn't stand in the way of a deal.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 19, 2025, 04:40:06 PM

Quote from: DTComposerAlso note that McAllen and Brownsville are combined as a media market, and that's ranked #80. I'm pretty sure market size plays as much if not a bigger role than city or metro populations in determining potential sports teams locations.

I think the biggest problem the cluster of Rio Grande Valley cities faces with trying to attract something like a major sports team is the average income levels in that region. They're not very high.

I thought that might be a factor, but I didn't have the numbers in front of me.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 19, 2025, 04:40:06 PM

Quote from: DTComposerThere are other, comparable or larger, growing metro areas that have yet to get a "big 4" pro team - Austin is the glaring example, but also Norfolk/Virginia Beach and Louisville - and many others that only have one - Orlando, Portland, Sacramento, Columbus, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, etc.

Other factors may be involved, such as internal politics between sports team owners and league management. Any sort of expansion to add new teams is always very difficult. Most of the other team owners have to sign off on it. The process isn't cut and dry for a major pro sports team to relocate to another city either. Lots of secret good ole boys network stuff goes on in those talks.

I doubt if the NFL will ever add more teams, but if a team chooses to relocate I think the Austin-San Antonio region could be a likely landing spot. But that's only if Jerry Jones or future Dallas Cowboys ownership doesn't stand in the way of a deal.

Absolutely. And the NFL, especially, lets the owners run the show. The Cowboys are a world-wide brand, the most valuable franchise in the world for the last 10 years (even though they haven't even been to the NFC title game, let alone the Super Bowl, in 30 years). I doubt they'd be seriously impacted by another team in Texas, but the fact that he can hold the cards on whether Austin-San Antonio, with over 5 million people, 200+ miles away from Dallas, can get a team is ludicrous.

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on May 19, 2025, 02:18:11 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 19, 2025, 02:07:14 PM

Quote from: jgb191 on May 19, 2025, 10:48:19 AMIf Las Vegas and North Las Vegas could pull itself together, that city could have had almost a million people.  I'll never understand why there are these [enter cardinal direction] [enter city name].  North Little Rock, North Miami, North Las Vegas, etc.  If they wish to remain separate city, couldn't they have come up with a name more original/unique?

North Las Vegas was founded by a guy who didn't like Las Vegas, so he had the unoriginal idea to create a town that was boring, and thus it got an unoriginal, boring name.

There used to be an East Gary, Indiana, but when Gary turned from a destination into a place to avoid, the city changed its name to Lake Station.

I heard a similar story about East Detroit, now known as Eastpointe, to be associated with the communities of Grosse Pointe.

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on May 19, 2025, 05:39:23 PMI heard a similar story about East Detroit

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=36209.msg2984464#msg2984464

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 19, 2025, 04:40:06 PMI think the biggest problem the cluster of Rio Grande Valley cities faces with trying to attract something like a major sports team is the average income levels in that region. They're not very high.

Quote from: DTComposer on May 19, 2025, 05:15:09 PMI thought that might be a factor, but I didn't have the numbers in front of me.

Median household income, 2019-2023
$99287 - Tarrant County, TX (Fort Worth, Arlington)
$86227 - Harris County, TX (Houston)
$85452 - Dallas County, TX (Dallas)
$84963 - Bexar County, TX (San Antonio)
$58672 - Cameron County, TX (Brownsville, Harlingen)
$57989 - Hidalgo County, TX (McAllen, Edinburg)

Judging by the 2024 population estimates the only places in Oklahoma that seem to be growing at all are parts of the OKC Metro and a portion of the Tulsa metro, Broken Arrow in particular. Most other cities and towns around the state are either static and not growing or they're losing population. Lawton looks like it's about to drop below 90,000 for the first time since the 1990's. The 10 most populous cities in OK are listed below according to their rank in the Census Bureau document.

20 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - 712,919
48 Tulsa, Oklahoma - 415,154
221 Norman, Oklahoma - 131,010
240 Broken Arrow, Oklahoma - 122,756
347 Edmond, Oklahoma - 99,040
394 Lawton, Oklahoma - 90,027
617 Moore, Oklahoma - 63,845
695 Midwest City - 58,505
809 Enid, Oklahoma - 50,519
816 Stillwater, Oklahoma - 50,138

Among CT's cohort of small-by-outside-standards cities, Stamford (solid #2) is approaching 140k, but didn't make up much ground on Bridgeport, which crept back above 150k. (I think the highest census figure all-time for CT is 177,397, Hartford, 1950.)

(Another bit of trivia: in 1756, Lebanon had a higher population than Hartford (source (https://portal.ct.gov/sots/register-manual/section-vii/population-1756-1820))).

Quote from: DTComposer on May 19, 2025, 11:58:47 AMIt's also the first time the U.S. has two cities of 1,000,000+ in the same metropolitan area.

Yeah I thought it would be the first metro area in the continent's history with concurrent millionaire cities, but it was pointed out that a couple of Mexican metro areas already beat DFW to it, but it is the first in US/Canada history.

Another fun fact about the DFW Metroplex:  Ft. Worth is now practically the same size as Dallas' 1990 population; back then Ft. Worth hadn't even reach a half-million.  So basically Ft. Worth has more than doubled in population in the last three decades, while Dallas only gained around one-third 1/3 million since it reaching the million mark in the late 1980's.  Assuming current growth rates, Ft. Worth is projected to catch Dallas in 18 years.


As for Houston vs Chicago:  I'm still hopeful that Houston can catch Chicago for the third-largest city in the US -- and fifth largest city in the continent -- before the end of this decade.

Is Los Angeles ever going to reach four million within it's city limits?  It only gained about 125,000 since the beginning of this century (quarter-century time span).

In the case of Los Angeles, I'm kind of surprised the city and metro overall hasn't been losing a lot more people. The city limits population got a bump of about 50,000 people between 2022-2024, but was slowly losing residents in previous years.

I think the combination of stubbornly severe living costs and new government policies on immigration could start hitting Los Angeles population numbers significantly. There has been a significant out-flow of people who were born in California but are faced with having to move to less costly areas of the state or move out of the state entirely if they don't want to be stuck living with their parents.

California has been great for attracting foreign born workers, both the high-skilled H1B Visa types as well as migrant workers toiling in the shadow economy. New federal policies are yanking the welcome mat for both. Nationally we could see a lot of highly educated, foreign-born workers move back home and take their skills with them. Computing software companies can adapt to such changes. It's not so easy for a hospital that suddenly loses a bunch of surgeons and specialists. I'm worried a "brain drain" could happen at leading universities who do a lot of cutting edge research on science, technology, health care, etc.

Regarding Houston, I thought the city had a good chance of catching Chicago in population count by 2030. However the current housing price bubble and other economic issues look like they're now stalling that growth (which is something that 2024 estimate cannot show). Depending on how bad an economic downturn materializes Houston's growth could recover in a couple of years or it might take more than a decade. Also, the city limits area of Houston has only so much room left for development. The city is pretty packed. They'll have to start razing a lot of 1-2 story buildings and replacing them with more high rise towers. It's either that or the growth will be confined to the suburbs.

I think Fort Worth has grown so much lately simply because Dallas and certain other locations have run out of room to build.

I'm also surprised Fort Worth hit the 1 million mark in population before Austin could do so. Austin's residential real estate market has been hitting the skids lately though.

A couple of interesting population tidbits:

1. The 2024 estimates show Sioux City, IA, having 86,875 residents, with Sioux Falls, SD having 209,289 residents. As recently as the 1980 Census, Sioux City had more people within city limits than Sioux Falls did.

2. As recently as the 1960 Census, South Dakota had more people than Idaho did, with Rapid City having more residents than Boise. We will learn at the end of this year that Idaho surpassed Nebraska in population, and in all likelihood, Idaho will surpass New Mexico by 2030 Census. South Dakota, meanwhile, has a 2024 estimated 924,669 residents.

Chicago and Dallas (along with many others) are also landlocked by suburbs. That is why I put MUCH more credence in metro numbers than I do in city limit numbers.

Mike

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 21, 2025, 11:22:39 AMI think the combination of stubbornly severe living costs and new government policies on immigration could start hitting Los Angeles population numbers significantly. There has been a significant out-flow of people who were born in California but are faced with having to move to less costly areas of the state or move out of the state entirely if they don't want to be stuck living with their parents.

I wouldn't be too sure. There are considerable benefits to living in California (good-paying jobs, employee-friendly labor laws, good healthcare by American standards, government benefits like MediCal, etc.) For expensive as California is, you really do get a lot of bang for the buck there.

It is not uncommon for people to move to Las Vegas to try to take advantage of the comparatively lower cost of living, only to realize that California was a better deal for them after all and move back, even if it means they have to live with their parents.

Lucille Bluth's line "I'd rather be dead in California than alive in Arizona" is actually the reality for a decent amount of Californians.

You might see outflow from Los Angeles to cheaper California cities, though.

Like every Central Valley city along 99 for example...  Almost every other new neighborhood is coming from the Bay Area or Los Angeles. 

Quote from: brad2971 on May 21, 2025, 12:17:31 PM2. As recently as the 1960 Census, South Dakota had more people than Idaho did, with Rapid City having more residents than Boise. We will learn at the end of this year that Idaho surpassed Nebraska in population, and in all likelihood, Idaho will surpass New Mexico by 2030 Census. South Dakota, meanwhile, has a 2024 estimated 924,669 residents.

Boise metro alone is close to South Dakota in population. Even so, I think we can put South Dakota on watch to hit 1 million by the next census. Current trend would put it at 980k, so it'll be close.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 21, 2025, 01:13:46 PMI wouldn't be too sure. There are considerable benefits to living in California (good-paying jobs, employee-friendly labor laws, good healthcare by American standards, government benefits like MediCal, etc.) For expensive as California is, you really do get a lot of bang for the buck there.

I believe I mentioned this on another thread, but I know of a California couple that thought moving to Texas was a money-saving move, but to their disappointment they found out not so much. 

1) They left their comfortable mild climate of San Francisco to the semi-tropical swamp of "Humid Houston"

2) Their dream was to own their own home, and saw what seemed to them like "more affordable" lifestyle to own one in SE Texas.  They were absolutely blindsided by the state's burdening property taxes (plus homeowners insurance plus HOA fees, etc) which they never had to deal with renting in SF.

3)  Neither of them ever driven a car before -- apparently no need to in the Bay Area.  So now they have to learn to drive and buy a car, buy insurance, and purchase fuel time and time again.

4)  While cost of living is arguable lower in Texas than in the Bay Area, they also overlooked the fact that the pay/income is lower in this state too and not as many benefits for employees.  I read somewhere about 10-15 percent less pay for the similar positions/responsibilities.


They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.  So yeah I absolutely concur that Californians in some ways do have it better than we Texans do....it really does depend on the person and situation.

Quote from: jgb191 on May 22, 2025, 12:18:34 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 21, 2025, 01:13:46 PMI wouldn't be too sure. There are considerable benefits to living in California (good-paying jobs, employee-friendly labor laws, good healthcare by American standards, government benefits like MediCal, etc.) For expensive as California is, you really do get a lot of bang for the buck there.

I believe I mentioned this on another thread, but I know of a California couple that thought moving to Texas was a money-saving move, but to their disappointment they found out not so much. 

1) They left their comfortable mild climate of San Francisco to the semi-tropical swamp of "Humid Houston"

2) Their dream was to own their own home, and saw what seemed to them like "more affordable" lifestyle to own one in SE Texas.  They were absolutely blindsided by the state's burdening property taxes (plus homeowners insurance plus HOA fees, etc) which they never had to deal with renting in SF.

3)  Neither of them ever driven a car before -- apparently no need to in the Bay Area.  So now they have to learn to drive and buy a car, buy insurance, and purchase fuel time and time again.

4)  While cost of living is arguable lower in Texas than in the Bay Area, they also overlooked the fact that the pay/income is lower in this state too and not as many benefits for employees.  I read somewhere about 10-15 percent less pay for the similar positions/responsibilities.


They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.  So yeah I absolutely concur that Californians in some ways do have it better than we Texans do....it really does depend on the person and situation.

To be fair, those people sound like outliers on the naivete scale, especially on the car front.

I know a couple California natives who moved to the upper midwest, love it, and never plan on moving back.

However I know many more upper midwest natives who have moved to California and aren't leaving. One of my best friends from high school used to be a lawyer in San Franciso, and now is a high priced real estate agent, and some of the stuff he is selling is amazing. Way out of my price range, but I see why people who have money live out there.

Quote from: jgb191 on May 22, 2025, 12:18:34 AM2) Their dream was to own their own home ... HOA fees ...

They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.

Either that would mean giving up on their dream, or else they're saying that buying a house in San Francisco would still be cheaper than buying one in Houston.  How much does a house in San Francisco, one that's big enough to be comparable to what's offered in a Houston HOA, go for these days in San Francisco?

Let's see... poking around on Zillow... starting with a random house for sale in Houston...

8621 Beechcrest St, Houston (gated community)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1107 square feet
Price = $211,000 + $100/month HOA fees

73 Athens St, San Francisco
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1157 square feet
Price = $998,000

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2025, 10:36:27 AM

Quote from: jgb191 on May 22, 2025, 12:18:34 AM2) Their dream was to own their own home ... HOA fees ...

They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.

Either that would mean giving up on their dream, or else they're saying that buying a house in San Francisco would still be cheaper than buying one in Houston.  How much does a house in San Francisco, one that's big enough to be comparable to what's offered in a Houston HOA, go for these days in San Francisco?

Let's see... poking around on Zillow... starting with a random house for sale in Houston...

8621 Beechcrest St, Houston (gated community)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1107 square feet
Price = $211,000 + $100/month HOA fees

73 Athens St, San Francisco
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1157 square feet
Price = $998,000

If you read the post, they did not consider all the other outrageous costs of owning a home in Texas and would have preferred to have kept renting in San Francisco.

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 10:48:15 AMIn other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

You may still find some free cheese lying around. But most likely it would be in a mousetrap.

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 10:48:15 AMIn other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 10:48:15 AM

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2025, 10:36:27 AM

Quote from: jgb191 on May 22, 2025, 12:18:34 AM2) Their dream was to own their own home ... HOA fees ...

They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.

Either that would mean giving up on their dream, or else they're saying that buying a house in San Francisco would still be cheaper than buying one in Houston.  How much does a house in San Francisco, one that's big enough to be comparable to what's offered in a Houston HOA, go for these days in San Francisco?

Let's see... poking around on Zillow... starting with a random house for sale in Houston...

8621 Beechcrest St, Houston (gated community)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1107 square feet
Price = $211,000 + $100/month HOA fees

73 Athens St, San Francisco
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1157 square feet
Price = $998,000

If you read the post, they did not consider all the other outrageous costs of owning a home in Texas and would have preferred to have kept renting in San Francisco.

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

The difference in monthly mortgage payments between the two houses above is something like $3,700 assuming they put 20% down in both cases. (Which doesn't make a lot of sense since they could buy the Texas house outright for the California downpayment...but whatever.)

It doesn't cost $3,700 per month more to live in Texas than California even if they have to buy and finance two cars they aren't going to come close in Texas to paying what they would need to pay in California.

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 10:48:15 AM

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2025, 10:36:27 AM

Quote from: jgb191 on May 22, 2025, 12:18:34 AM2) Their dream was to own their own home ... HOA fees ...

They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.

Either that would mean giving up on their dream, or else they're saying that buying a house in San Francisco would still be cheaper than buying one in Houston.  How much does a house in San Francisco, one that's big enough to be comparable to what's offered in a Houston HOA, go for these days in San Francisco?

Let's see... poking around on Zillow... starting with a random house for sale in Houston...

8621 Beechcrest St, Houston (gated community)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1107 square feet
Price = $211,000 + $100/month HOA fees

73 Athens St, San Francisco
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1157 square feet
Price = $998,000

If you read the post, they did not consider all the other outrageous costs of owning a home in Texas and would have preferred to have kept renting in San Francisco.

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

Oh and don't forget the $10K to $15K property taxes every year, and interest rates for borrowing.  Because they've never owned a car or a house, (I could be wrong) I believe interest rates for first-time borrowers can be quite high.  So let's say $750/month per car payment (with interest) times two cars plus $500/month to insure two cars plus car maintenance/registration plus nearly 3,000/month house payments (price of house + HOA fees + property tax + homeowners insurance) can all add up to a lot and really eat into their considerably smaller salary in Texas.  Again from what they told me (and this is generally what I've been hearing about the Bay Area) they've never owned or drive cars there until moving to Houston.

And you're not going to find very many new houses for less than a quarter-million anymore even in Texas unless you buy a very old one built decades ago.  Today's newly built houses are approaching a half-million nowadays.

More than just housing costs more in California than Texas. Gasoline prices in California are often the highest in the nation. Texas is on the low end of the pricing scale. Fuel prices make an impact all sorts of other costs.

HOA's were mentioned earlier in the thread in regards in housing in Texas. Yeah, there are quite a few HOA-controlled housing subdivisions in the more douchey parts of Texas. Last time I checked California has done nothing to ban HOA's in that state.

Probably worth pointing out that our house in Fresno cost 171k when purchased in 2010.  Even now we probably could likely get 330-340k for it with the new school across the street.  I feel like I should point out that San Francisco isn't an apples to apples comparison with much of the state. 

I particularly don't like the gas prices here and question the need for a state specific blend of gas.  All the same, I paid way more factoring inflation as a visitor on work trips to Los Angeles circa 2007-2013.  That said the difference of $20-40 dollars a month for gas isn't going break the bank, at least not for me. 

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 10:48:15 AMIf you read the post, they did not consider all the other outrageous costs of owning a home in Texas and would have preferred to have kept renting in San Francisco.

I did read the post.  It didn't say anything about them preferring to have "kept renting in San Francisco", just "staying in SF".

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 10:48:15 AM

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2025, 10:36:27 AM

Quote from: jgb191 on May 22, 2025, 12:18:34 AM2) Their dream was to own their own home ... HOA fees ...

They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.

Either that would mean giving up on their dream, or else they're saying that buying a house in San Francisco would still be cheaper than buying one in Houston.  How much does a house in San Francisco, one that's big enough to be comparable to what's offered in a Houston HOA, go for these days in San Francisco?

Let's see... poking around on Zillow... starting with a random house for sale in Houston...

8621 Beechcrest St, Houston (gated community)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1107 square feet
Price = $211,000 + $100/month HOA fees

73 Athens St, San Francisco
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1157 square feet
Price = $998,000

If you read the post, they did not consider all the other outrageous costs of owning a home in Texas and would have preferred to have kept renting in San Francisco.

In other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

Or just homeownership in general.  Many people seem to just compare rent to mortgage and not consider things like maintenance.

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on May 22, 2025, 11:15:45 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 10:48:15 AMIn other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

Quote from: vdeane on May 22, 2025, 12:35:26 PM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on May 22, 2025, 11:15:45 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 10:48:15 AMIn other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

if we are comparing NY to TX, a very significant chunk of difference in government spending comes from school budgets (Thanks to NYSUT, one of strongest public unions)  Oil money in TX seems to be another factor.

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2025, 10:36:27 AM

Quote from: jgb191 on May 22, 2025, 12:18:34 AM2) Their dream was to own their own home ... HOA fees ...

They told me they regretted moving to Houston and were better off staying in SF.

Either that would mean giving up on their dream, or else they're saying that buying a house in San Francisco would still be cheaper than buying one in Houston.  How much does a house in San Francisco, one that's big enough to be comparable to what's offered in a Houston HOA, go for these days in San Francisco?

Let's see... poking around on Zillow... starting with a random house for sale in Houston...

8621 Beechcrest St, Houston (gated community)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1107 square feet
Price = $211,000 + $100/month HOA fees

73 Athens St, San Francisco
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1157 square feet
Price = $998,000

I'm in no way arguing whether California vs. Texas is more or less expensive, but I don't think these two houses are the best comparison. Houston (the city proper) has 13 times the land area and 3 times the population of San Francisco (the city proper). You've picked a house in San Francisco 4 miles out of downtown vs. a house in Houston 21 miles out of downtown.

A more apt California house might be:
4125 Miflin Avenue, El Sobrante (20 miles from downtown San Francisco)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1,225 square feet
$599,000

Or a more apt Texas house might be:
2117 Gostick Street (4 miles from downtown Houston)
3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
1,176 square feet
$635,000

Again, I'll be first in line to tell you how expensive California is, but I don't know if the first comparison was really apples to apples. (and I'll admit I don't know enough about Houston to tell you if my selections are, either).

Quote from: kalvado on May 22, 2025, 12:50:52 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 22, 2025, 12:35:26 PM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on May 22, 2025, 11:15:45 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 10:48:15 AMIn other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

if we are comparing NY to TX, a very significant chunk of difference in government spending comes from school budgets (Thanks to NYSUT, one of strongest public unions)  Oil money in TX seems to be another factor.

Comparing NY to TX's public schools shows you get what you pay for...

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 02:33:21 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 22, 2025, 12:50:52 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 22, 2025, 12:35:26 PM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on May 22, 2025, 11:15:45 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 10:48:15 AMIn other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

if we are comparing NY to TX, a very significant chunk of difference in government spending comes from school budgets (Thanks to NYSUT, one of strongest public unions)  Oil money in TX seems to be another factor.

Comparing NY to TX's public schools shows you get what you pay for...

Comparing NY to US average shows that you don't.

Quote from: kalvado on May 22, 2025, 04:56:04 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 02:33:21 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 22, 2025, 12:50:52 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 22, 2025, 12:35:26 PM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on May 22, 2025, 11:15:45 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 10:48:15 AMIn other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

if we are comparing NY to TX, a very significant chunk of difference in government spending comes from school budgets (Thanks to NYSUT, one of strongest public unions)  Oil money in TX seems to be another factor.

Comparing NY to TX's public schools shows you get what you pay for...

Comparing NY to US average shows that you don't.

Would rather have quality schools than average schools...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education

Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 22, 2025, 11:35:23 AMIt doesn't cost $3,700 per month more to live in Texas than California even if they have to buy and finance two cars they aren't going to come close in Texas to paying what they would need to pay in California.

But most people also make far less money in Texas than they do in California.

Taking my own experience (which doesn't involve Texas or California but rather the states just north of each), we are living in a house in Nevada which cost twice as much as the one we were living in in Oklahoma. But my wife, who did the same kind of work in both states, is making way more than twice what she was making in Oklahoma. I'm kind of shocked at how well the move went for us, and I wish we had done it years ago. After years of living paycheck to paycheck we might actually be able to start saving money again soon (once we pay off the debt we accumulated moving out here, that is).

A move to Texas might make sense if you're able to keep working remotely for a California company paying California wages while living in Texas. Or maybe if you have a gob of money saved up to buy a place in Texas, are going to live there for a few years to build up equity, and then sell that and use the proceeds for a down payment in California.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 22, 2025, 05:31:04 PMTaking my own experience (which doesn't involve Texas or California but rather the states just north of each), we are living in a house in Nevada which cost twice as much as the one we were living in in Oklahoma.

What are the state income taxes and/or local property taxes like living in NV or OK?

IIRC, Nevada doesn't have an income tax.

I think you could be right.  Any state that has legalized gambling probably wouldn't need state income tax (both NV & OK are two of those states) right?  In the case of my state, the 'Texas Lottery' generates several billions of dollars in state revenue per year.

45 out of 50 states have a state lottery. Nevada is one of the five that doesn't, most likely because it wouldn't sell well compared to all the casinos.

https://wizardofodds.com/online-gambling/articles/the-lottery-sucks

It's a few years outdated, but you can see the average loss per resident at the table at the bottom. These numbers are way lower than what income tax would be.

Quote from: hotdogPi on May 23, 2025, 08:25:55 AM45 out of 50 states have a state lottery. Nevada is one of the five that doesn't, most likely because it wouldn't sell well compared to all the casinos.

https://wizardofodds.com/online-gambling/articles/the-lottery-sucks

It's a few years outdated, but you can see the average loss per resident at the table at the bottom. These numbers are way lower than what income tax would be.

That list always makes me laugh when you see how "educated" Massachusetts is relative to how much money its residents piss away.

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 05:04:40 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 22, 2025, 04:56:04 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 02:33:21 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 22, 2025, 12:50:52 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 22, 2025, 12:35:26 PM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on May 22, 2025, 11:15:45 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 10:48:15 AMIn other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

if we are comparing NY to TX, a very significant chunk of difference in government spending comes from school budgets (Thanks to NYSUT, one of strongest public unions)  Oil money in TX seems to be another factor.

Comparing NY to TX's public schools shows you get what you pay for...

Comparing NY to US average shows that you don't.

Would rather have quality schools than average schools...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education

#17 in Education
#22 in Best States Overall
#40 in graduation rates
#1 in costs per student.

I would say that's pretty much not getting what is paid for!

Quote from: jgb191 on May 23, 2025, 08:18:43 AMI think you could be right.  Any state that has legalized gambling probably wouldn't need state income tax (both NV & OK are two of those states) right?  In the case of my state, the 'Texas Lottery' generates several billions of dollars in state revenue per year.

NY called to comment that  the best of both worlds at the same time is certainly possible.

Quote from: jgb191What are the state income taxes and/or local property taxes like living in NV or OK?

Oklahoma does have a state income tax. Rates are progressive, with the top rate being 4.75%. I think Oklahoma is in the lower half of state rankings on income tax rates. Property taxes vary by locale, but are generally moderate compared to rates in others states like Texas.

Every now and then some state politician will float the idea of abolishing Oklahoma's state income tax while trying not to say anything about hiking property tax rates to offset the revenue loss. And those property tax hikes would probably be big since there are so many people in Oklahoma who are partially or fully exempt from paying property taxes. Lawton has a LOT of people who pay little or nothing in property taxes. The folks who still pay property taxes have to make up the difference. Oklahoma will probably have even more teachers leaving in droves since the state superintendent of schools is such a fucking nutjob. Maybe if we have a bunch of schools shut down from lack of staff that might lead to a property tax decrease.
:crazy:

For reference

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Median_household_income_and_taxes.png/1920px-Median_household_income_and_taxes.png)

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United_States

Maybe it's just too early for me, but I can't, for the life of me, figure out how that chart is sorted. It's not by any individual colored bars. It's not by total tax burden. Strange.

Quote from: kalvado on May 23, 2025, 09:28:46 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 05:04:40 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 22, 2025, 04:56:04 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 02:33:21 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 22, 2025, 12:50:52 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 22, 2025, 12:35:26 PM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on May 22, 2025, 11:15:45 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 10:48:15 AMIn other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

if we are comparing NY to TX, a very significant chunk of difference in government spending comes from school budgets (Thanks to NYSUT, one of strongest public unions)  Oil money in TX seems to be another factor.

Comparing NY to TX's public schools shows you get what you pay for...

Comparing NY to US average shows that you don't.

Would rather have quality schools than average schools...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education

#17 in Education
#22 in Best States Overall
#40 in graduation rates
#1 in costs per student.

I would say that's pretty much not getting what is paid for!

I'll take the combination of all factors which certainly shows NY outranks TX.

Quote from: JayhawkCO on May 23, 2025, 10:22:16 AMMaybe it's just too early for me, but I can't, for the life of me, figure out how that chart is sorted. It's not by any individual colored bars. It's not by total tax burden. Strange.

It's sorted by total state taxes, excluding federal.

Quote from: hotdogPi on May 23, 2025, 10:34:28 AM

Quote from: JayhawkCO on May 23, 2025, 10:22:16 AMMaybe it's just too early for me, but I can't, for the life of me, figure out how that chart is sorted. It's not by any individual colored bars. It's not by total tax burden. Strange.

It's sorted by total state taxes, excluding federal.

There we go. I knew there had to be something.

What states other than HI, NV and UT don't have state-run lotteries?

Also, and it still stands with me, if I am EVER in the market for an O/O house, the presence of an HOA = 'NO offer' -- don't even bother wasting your or my time showing me one if it does.

Mike

Quote from: Rothman on May 23, 2025, 10:29:14 AM

Quote from: kalvado on May 23, 2025, 09:28:46 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 05:04:40 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 22, 2025, 04:56:04 PM

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 02:33:21 PM

Quote from: kalvado on May 22, 2025, 12:50:52 PM

Quote from: vdeane on May 22, 2025, 12:35:26 PM

Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on May 22, 2025, 11:15:45 AM

Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2025, 10:48:15 AMIn other words, they did use your simple comparison, said "Oh, Texas is cheaper!" but didn't consider all the other increases in cost that Texas imposed.

States have to get money somewhere. The lower the income tax is, the higher other, more regressive taxes are.

It's the #1 scam the wealthy run to get the rest to subsidize the government because people pay more attention to income tax rates than anything else.

If I were running a state, there would be no sales tax except on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and lottery; no toll roads; minimal vehicle registration fees. Nearly all of the state's income would come from income and property taxes.

Agreed overall.  The "low tax" states inevitably make up for it somewhere (more regressive taxes, more fees, pushing infrastructure maintenance/costs onto HOAs, etc.).  I don't mind sales tax, but then, NY has a ton of exemptions on things like groceries and clothing so that it really hits discretionary spending, not essential goods.  I'm not a fan of property taxes, though; they can make it so that people are pushed out of their home if rising property values make taxes unaffordable, or if they're unemployed and can't afford the tax bill.  At least income tax and sales tax (with appropriate exemptions) adjust with respect to ability to pay; property taxes don't.

if we are comparing NY to TX, a very significant chunk of difference in government spending comes from school budgets (Thanks to NYSUT, one of strongest public unions)  Oil money in TX seems to be another factor.

Comparing NY to TX's public schools shows you get what you pay for...

Comparing NY to US average shows that you don't.

Would rather have quality schools than average schools...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education

#17 in Education
#22 in Best States Overall
#40 in graduation rates
#1 in costs per student.

I would say that's pretty much not getting what is paid for!

I'll take the combination of all factors which certainly shows NY outranks TX.

Certainly outranks in spending by a factor of 2.3  - does the rest of the ranking gaps getting close? 

Quote from: kalvado on May 23, 2025, 09:28:46 AM#17 in Education
#22 in Best States Overall
#40 in graduation rates
#1 in costs per student.

I would say that's pretty much not getting what is paid for!

NY's average is dragged down by urban poverty.  Looking at the districts where the parents actually care about education, they're on par with private schools in other states, or at least they were when I was in school.

Quote from: jgb191 on May 22, 2025, 06:23:04 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 22, 2025, 05:31:04 PMTaking my own experience (which doesn't involve Texas or California but rather the states just north of each), we are living in a house in Nevada which cost twice as much as the one we were living in in Oklahoma.

What are the state income taxes and/or local property taxes like living in NV or OK?

Zero income tax in Nevada. There is property tax on real estate, which I would consider reasonable.

Oklahoma has a state income tax, which I considered reasonable. The tax tables start on page 27 of this PDF (https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/tax/documents/forms/individuals/current/511-Pkt.pdf).  There is property tax on real estate, which I considered reasonable, as well as business inventory, which is fucking crazy. I owned a small business there, and I calculated once that I wouldn't have to grow too much before it got to the point where it would have made more financial sense to rent a storage unit in Kansas and just drive up there any time I needed to access my inventory.

The incredible thing is that the Nevada government seems to be run in a professional manner, and has processed every interaction I've had with it correctly and in a timely manner. As a roadgeek, I have very little to complain about with NDOT (well, NV-613 should probably have a lower number, I guess, and the alternate US routes are kind of silly, but they're an institution at this point). Oklahoma...well, they made the Craig County sign and took six months to get me a birth certificate once.

If Oklahoma's government would just get rid of that damned tax on inventory it might make the state just a little more competitive with neighbors like Texas. It's not just the dollar cost of the tax; our business can use deductions that can offset a lot of it. Complying with Oklahoma's inventory tax is an administrative pain in the ass that wastes all sorts of time. It's time we can't get back or offset. And that time would be better spent on more productive efforts.