The only thing that's been released at this time is the population of the nation (308,745,538) and populations of individual states (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/) that you can see by rolling your mouse over each state. Every state except Michigan gained population, but was still good enough for 8th place. I thought Michigan would've been passed up by either or both Georgia and North Carolina (9th and 10th, respectively), but they will very soon. The top ten:
1. California
2. Texas
3. New York
4. Florida
5. Illinois
6. Pennsylvania
7. Ohio
8. Michigan
9. Georgia
10. North Carolina
Nevada grew the fastest at 35% over its 2000 numbers, while Rhode Island was the slowest gainer at .4%
I was hoping Georgia would've hit the ten-million mark, but they will soon. I didn't realize North Carolina was growing as fast either. They're not too far behind Georgia in population. There are still just seven states with ten million or more. Conversely, Montana just missed out being a millionaire state, so we still have seven states with less than a million.
Can't wait for the city and county breakdowns when they become available.
Fun fact: West Virginia has fewer people now than in 1940.
Quote from: golden eagle on January 25, 2011, 11:44:05 PM
I was hoping Georgia would've hit the ten-million mark, but they will soon. I didn't realize North Carolina was growing as fast either. They're not too far behind Georgia in population. There are still just seven states with ten million or more. Conversely, Montana just missed out being a millionaire state, so we still have seven states with less than a million.
Does Montana still have just one House seat? Because if so that would make it the most-populous Congressional District. (And Georgia ten million? Really? When did that happen?)
Quote from: golden eagle on January 25, 2011, 11:44:05 PM
Can't wait for the city and county breakdowns when they become available.
Nor can I - keep us posted.
I was looking the other day for cities over 100,000 in the 2000 census, and couldn't find it easily. If you know your way around the site....
Fun Fact #2: The District of Columbia is the densest entity on the map at 9,856.5 people per square mile.
Of course, most of us already new DC was the densest place in the country! :sombrero:
Fun Fact #3: New Jersey is the densest STATE at 1,195.5 per square mile.
I'll let that number speak for itself. (ducks)
Quote from: Michael in Philly on January 26, 2011, 12:03:52 AM
Quote from: golden eagle on January 25, 2011, 11:44:05 PM
I was hoping Georgia would've hit the ten-million mark, but they will soon. I didn't realize North Carolina was growing as fast either. They're not too far behind Georgia in population. There are still just seven states with ten million or more. Conversely, Montana just missed out being a millionaire state, so we still have seven states with less than a million.
Does Montana still have just one House seat? Because if so that would make it the most-populous Congressional District. (And Georgia ten million? Really? When did that happen?)
Quote from: golden eagle on January 25, 2011, 11:44:05 PM
Can't wait for the city and county breakdowns when they become available.
Nor can I - keep us posted.
I was looking the other day for cities over 100,000 in the 2000 census, and couldn't find it easily. If you know your way around the site....
Montana (as well as the other six states below one million) has only one House seat. Each House seat is supposed to have at least 500K in population, so them missing out on one million people may not get them an extra seat. But you never know how reapportionment may go. Doing some Google searching, I saw some articles where Utah will gain a House seat, while Pennsylvania will lose one.
Georgia hasn't hit ten million yet, but they tend to add at least 100K each year mainly due to Atlanta's soaring population. When 2020 comes around, I think we'll be talking about 11 million, if not more. Same with North Carolina, which actually slightly outgrew Georgia percentage-wise by a razor thin margin (18.5% to 18.3%). Despite NC's growth, they're expected to stay at 13 seats.
BTW, the Census Bureau's website isn't the most user-friendly out there. I did see a Twitter post from 1/20 about how journalists should get ready for next month's big release, so maybe that's when we could expect to see the city and county breakdowns.
Quote from: algorerhythms on January 25, 2011, 11:50:38 PM
Fun fact: West Virginia has fewer people now than in 1940.
One thing I found fascinating was how Nevada's population grew by over 93% from 1900-1910, but fell 5.5% in 1920. But since the 1950, Nevada has increased by at least a third in every census count.
West Virginia: The three counties closest to DC gained so much population as to off-set the population loss in the rest of the state. But for this territory, included almost by accident and closer to the capital of five other jurisdictions than its own, the state would have lost a greater %age than Michigan. WV will lose another 40% of its population in this generation.
Nevada: 87% of the population of Nevada lives in Clark County (Las Vegas). In the 2000 redistricting Nevada had three districts, two entirely in Clark and one with a few rural areas in Clark and the entire rest of the state, the largest district in the country (other than states that have only one seat). The 2010 deal, with four seats, will be the same.
Delaware: Has never been redistricted. Has always had either one or (briefly in the 1800s) two seats, always elected at-large.
Reapportionment (among the states, not the redrawing of the districts within, which is a matter for the state legislatures) is already out. NY and OH -2, MA, NJ, PA, MI, IL, IA, LA, and MO -1; TX +4, FL +2, SC, GA, AZ, UT, NV, WA +1.
California: First time California has not gained at least a seat. Ever. Close to losing one.
Quote from: SP Cook on January 26, 2011, 07:43:07 AM
West Virginia: The three counties closest to DC gained so much population as to off-set the population loss in the rest of the state. But for this territory, included almost by accident and closer to the capital of five other jurisdictions than its own, the state would have lost a greater %age than Michigan. WV will lose another 40% of its population in this generation.
Which somehow reminds me that there's a radio station in Harrisburg, Pa., that carries Pittsburgh Steelers games, and five NFL teams (one of them in the same state) that are closer to Harrisburg than the Steelers are.
I realize that's irrelevant....
Divide 308,000,000 by 435 and you get the ideal population per congressional district. That's 708,000 per district. So obviously, some states like Montana (which has too much for one but not enough for another) and Wyoming (not enough for one district even) get over or under represented per capita in Congress.
The redistricting question has me wondering how much would the population of the United States have to increase before they would just straight up add congressional seats rather than trying to redistribute the 435. Keeping the number at 435 has been gradually causing us to be underrepresented. Especially since they take seats away from states that didn't necessarily lose population, but rather were stable and just 'outgrown' by others.
At this point, we should be adding seats to the House rather than punishing states with steady population. States should only be losing seats if they lose population.
Will San Jose clinch the 1 million mark? In 2009 it had a population of 965,000. It's funny how there are 52 metropolitan areas with more than 1 million people, while the 52nd largest city has a population of only 356,000 (St. Louis). I'm also wondering if Houston will pass Chicago as the third largest city proper in the U.S. and if the DFW metro area will surpass the Chicago metro area. Houston has a larger city proper but Dallas / Fort Worth have more suburbs. Most of suburban Houston seems to be unincorporated as opposed to the DFW area by the way.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 26, 2011, 04:40:22 PM
The redistricting question has me wondering how much would the population of the United States have to increase before they would just straight up add congressional seats rather than trying to redistribute the 435. Keeping the number at 435 has been gradually causing us to be underrepresented. Especially since they take seats away from states that didn't necessarily lose population, but rather were stable and just 'outgrown' by others.
At this point, we should be adding seats to the House rather than punishing states with steady population. States should only be losing seats if they lose population.
Congress fixed the size after the 1910 Census to put the cap at 435. Interestingly enough, the Constitution called for a representative for every 30,000 people. You'd have over 10,000 congressman if that were the case now! Maybe they should cap it at 500. But then again, Congress is so unpopular that people may shoot the idea down. I'd bet most people would rather shrink the size of Congress rather than grow it.
Quote from: Chris on January 26, 2011, 04:53:53 PM
Will San Jose clinch the 1 million mark? In 2009 it had a population of 965,000. It's funny how there are 52 metropolitan areas with more than 1 million people, while the 52nd largest city has a population of only 356,000 (St. Louis). I'm also wondering if Houston will pass Chicago as the third largest city proper in the U.S. and if the DFW metro area will surpass the Chicago metro area. Houston has a larger city proper but Dallas / Fort Worth have more suburbs. Most of suburban Houston seems to be unincorporated as opposed to the DFW area by the way.
1. I get the feeling San Jose will miss out on a million, but won't be too far away from it to where they may achieve it in a year or two.
2. I don't think Houston will pass Chicago right now. I think we're about 15 years away at the soonest from that happening.
3. DFW being larger than Chicago is likely, but I don't know how soon that will happen.
Quote from: golden eagle on January 26, 2011, 05:23:11 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 26, 2011, 04:40:22 PM
The redistricting question has me wondering how much would the population of the United States have to increase before they would just straight up add congressional seats rather than trying to redistribute the 435. Keeping the number at 435 has been gradually causing us to be underrepresented. Especially since they take seats away from states that didn't necessarily lose population, but rather were stable and just 'outgrown' by others.
At this point, we should be adding seats to the House rather than punishing states with steady population. States should only be losing seats if they lose population.
Congress fixed the size after the 1910 Census to put the cap at 435. Interestingly enough, the Constitution called for a representative for every 30,000 people. You'd have over 10,000 congressman if that were the case now! Maybe they should cap it at 500. But then again, Congress is so unpopular that people may shoot the idea down. I'd bet most people would rather shrink the size of Congress rather than grow it.
The trouble with increasing the number of House seats now is simply a lack of space in Congress--literally. They would need to build more office space and possibly expand (or make smaller seats in) the actual room-the floor of the house.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 26, 2011, 04:40:22 PM
The redistricting question has me wondering how much would the population of the United States have to increase before they would just straight up add congressional seats rather than trying to redistribute the 435. Keeping the number at 435 has been gradually causing us to be underrepresented. Especially since they take seats away from states that didn't necessarily lose population, but rather were stable and just 'outgrown' by others.
At this point, we should be adding seats to the House rather than punishing states with steady population. States should only be losing seats if they lose population.
Historically, seats have typically been added whenever states are added. But we're not adding states anymore.
Not true. When Alaska and Hawaii were added, the house did expand to 437 temporarily, but after the next census they went back to 435. And the reason it was capped at 435 is because it would be difficult for the house to do business at a larger number.
We have 650 MPs in the House of Commons, and while the Government wanted to reduce it to 500, that didn't pass and was mostly as a cost saving measure (and a way of getting the seats of equal size - Labour safe seats are smaller on average than Tory safe seats - by about 20%. You have a few Scottish and Welsh seats that are around the 20-30k mark, and the Isle of Wight at 100k, and the average home-counties commuter belt seat around 70k. Urban seats are usually less populous than rural seats (50-60k in England, normally). What's bizarre is that the boundary commission won't split the Isle of Wight into 2 seats of 50k (which is below average but not by much, without doing the 'unthinkable' and adding some mainland areas to it) yet were happy to split a seat in Wales in two, creating one of the seats with less than 30k).
The US House of Representatives can manage with 500 if it can manage with 65 less at the moment.
I assume that part of the reason for the 435 number is the size of the house chamber.
If I'm not mistaken, the senators also sit on the house floor during joint sessions like the recent State of the Union message. That would imply that the house floor can seat at least 535. (plus non-voting members like DC) Of course, if you added 100 reps, where would the senators sit in a joint-session?
Does anyone know what is the capacity of the house chamber?
My understanding is that when the number of members of the House of Representatives was capped at 435, this was solely because of the physical size of the House chamber--at the time office space for members was not a prime consideration (in fact I think most of the House and Senate office buildings postdate World War II and the mother of a family friend, who is now in her late eighties/early nineties, can remember working as a typist in the Capitol basement when she was young).
I don't think the public will stand for an expansion of Congress, and the Capitol building is too iconic for teardown or radical remodelling. In any case, the problems with Congress are far deeper than the mere number of representatives in either chamber. Congress now has a large and unaccountable bureaucracy which shadows that of the executive branch (most of those House and Senate office buildings were erected to accommodate the staffers who populate that bureaucracy). Moreover, the seniority system, which is a comparatively recent innovation (dating from Cannon's regime in the early twentieth century, I think), gives incumbents unwarranted advantages. Plus the disparities in population density between the most populous and least populous states are so much greater than in 1790 that the current system of territorial representation in the Senate has itself been called into question.
Most of the reforms that were considered and pushed through in state legislatures in the early twentieth century have passed Congress by. For example, Congress is not bound by a single-subject rule. Congress also transacts private business (which has by and large been tapered down if not abolished outright in most state legislatures because of nineteenth-century abuses), though that has tailed off sharply since the early 1970's and is now used largely to resolve difficult immigration cases. Both chambers in a typical state legislature are bound by the rule of one person one vote, which limits the ability of rural districts to exercise a stranglehold over legislative business. A mere increase in number of representatives will not change these institutional factors and the number would have to increase by at least an order of magnitude to have a perceptible effect on retail politics within the districts.
Quote from: mightyace on January 27, 2011, 11:10:08 AMI assume that part of the reason for the 435 number is the size of the house chamber.
After making the post above, I did some Google searching to see if I could find a fire-marshal's capacity estimate for the House chamber. Notwithstanding my comment above, I am beginning to suspect that the physical-size rationale for the 435-member cap is one of those myths that high-school civics/US History teachers push out as fact, like the claim that Alexander Hamilton was ineligible for the Presidency because he was born in the Virgin Islands.
QuoteIf I'm not mistaken, the senators also sit on the house floor during joint sessions like the recent State of the Union message. That would imply that the house floor can seat at least 535. (plus non-voting members like DC) Of course, if you added 100 reps, where would the senators sit in a joint-session?
It is also my understanding that the senators do sit on the House floor. A few considerations come to mind:
* The seating density that is acceptable for a ceremonial speech by the President may not be considered an acceptable density for transacting ordinary business. (The House chamber has to seat more than 535 + nonvoting delegates on this occasion, BTW--there are also nine Supreme Court justices and the President's special guests, for example.)
* What proportion of the 535 members of Congress actually show up for the State of the Union? (Was Michele Bachmann there, for example?)
* Both chambers have public galleries. I do not know if these are, in fact, open to the public during the actual State of the Union address. Presumably, if a higher working density was accepted for the House chamber, these galleries could be closed to accommodate the senators during nonvoting joint sessions. Alternatively, joint sessions could convene in an offsite venue, such as a convention hall (offsite sessions were very common in the nineteenth century since the Capitol was not finished until after the Civil War).
I have some knowledge of constitutional history, and a law degree I'm not using, so weighing in....
That 30,000 referred to in the Constitution was a minimum: each representative has to have at least that many constituents. Which was reasonable for a country of 3 or 4 million people. Since the country was growing so fast - nearly doubled in population between 1790 and 1800 alone - district size started increasing right away. I know that in the apportionment that followed the 1850 census (which was in effect for the 1860 election, which I'm familiar with because of the Civil War), New Jersey had five House seats (seven electoral votes) for a population of about half a million.
I'm guessing the origin of the 435 was simply that that was the size of the House when Congress decided to freeze it. It expanded with the admission of Alaska and Hawaii in 1959 (because the alternative would have been to take seats away for other states) but dropped back to 435 the next time seats were reapportioned (after the 1960 census for the election of 1962).
At the State of the Union, guests of the President tend to sit in the gallery (with the First Lady), but not only Senators, but Supreme Court Justices, the Cabinet, and I believe some diplomats sit on the floor for the occasion. (I didn't watch it this year - a bit off politics at the moment.)
I found additional information which addresses the point about capacity constraint in Congressional buildings--opening dates for the House and Senate office buildings.
House
* Cannon: 1908
* Ford: 1940 (but not occupied by Congress until after 1974)
* Longworth: 1933
* Rayburn: 1965
Senate
* Dirksen: 1958
* Hart: 1982
* Russell: 1909
The timing of the Cannon and Russell buildings is very close to the timing of the apportionment statute (PL 62-5, passed in 1911) which fixed the 435-member cap on the House. In fact the Wikipedia article on the Cannon building explicitly attributes its construction to overcrowding in the Capitol itself. And although the list above confirms my suspicion that the majority of the House and Senate office buildings have been occupied by Congress and its staffers in the postwar years, the Dirksen office building (notwithstanding its 1958 opening date) had been in the pipeline since just before 1941.
Wikipedia needs detailed floor square-footage figures for all of the Congressional office buildings, but has it just for the Dirksen building, so I am not presently able to develop this analysis to include utilization of floor square footage. Wikipedia however implies that the institutional basis for Congressional staffing was created by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.
I think it's high time we revisited the number of 435 for the House. As it stands right now, states that grow, but grow slowly, lose seats to faster growing states. It's an unfair system, and as the population of the US grows, it means less representation for the People, those for whom the House was originally supposed to represent. I think the Framers would be pissed to know that the People are getting less representation in the House meant for such representation. I believe we should have at least on Representative per 500,000 people, or a House of about 600 Representatives. It would be fairer than what we have now, and would add Representatives at a slow but steady rate. Screw the overcrowding of the House chamber - we can always add on to it.
I would say that any argument that says that congressional representation should be hindered because of infrastructure limitations is a bunk argument, especially in this day and age. The infrastructure should be designed to meet the role of the government, not the other way around. There is no excuse whatsoever for that being the case. Absolute worst case scenario is we could have representatives telecommute.
Quote from: corco on January 27, 2011, 02:41:28 PM
Absolute worst case scenario is we could have representatives telecommute.
Yes, and they could telecommute from the beach in Maui, Cancun, Jamaica, Bermuda, etc. :evilgrin:
Just to clarify, Alexander Hamilton was born on Nevis.
He was, and he was also eligible to run for President under a clause, now long spent, in Article II of the Constitution which allowed people who had been in the US at the time of adoption to run for President. He therefore should not be used as an example of someone disqualified under the "natural-born" provision but he continues to be so used by high-school US History teachers, including mine.
I don't see how it's unfair that states that aren't growing as quickly lose House seats. If they're growing slower than other states their percentage of the population is still declining. Moving around House seats like we're doing now is functionally exactly the same as if we were giving the fast-growing states new House seats–the faster growing states gain representation, the slower-and-declining-growth states lose representation. (Even if you keep your seats and new ones are added, then it is in fact the same–the power of your X number of representatives is diluted because there are more of them in the chamber.) Adding more House seats just increases the cost of doing business by adding more reps and their staffers, all of whom have to be paid and their offices housed.
IMHO,
It is perfectly fair and right (not to mention required by the Constitution) to reapportion the seats among the states, and to further redraw the districts within states, based on population. Especially considering the unrepresenative nature of the Senate.
The 435 number was the number when the Congress decided enough was enough. Its as good as any other number.
The USA should be asshamed of the way we draw districts. Take a look at the maps, either the current ones or the new ones to come out, and see the crazy districts drawn for partisan or racial reasons. IMHO, if the US had districts based on simple geographic units (central city, smaller city and its suburbs, the suburbs of a central city, the rural parts of a state, etc) the politics of the country would be better.
^^^
Agreed. One district in TN that I used to live in included both part of Nashville Metro and the Memphis suburbs. This was a partisan play as the area in Davidson count (Nashville) was one of the few predominantly Republican areas in the city. At some point, the district is only 3-5 miles wide and I don't think there would be a way to drive from one end of the district to the other without leaving it.
I picked that simply because it was familiar. Both major parties do this and the offending party (pun intended) is whatever one holds the balance of power in that state's legislature.
Now that the Republicans control the state government here, I unfortunately expect to see new districts drawn to the other extreme.
Also, another common tactic is redrawing the lines to make sure two of the opposing party are now in the same district. This is easier, though not limited to, states that lose seats.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 27, 2011, 05:52:39 PMI don't see how it's unfair that states that aren't growing as quickly lose House seats. If they're growing slower than other states their percentage of the population is still declining. Moving around House seats like we're doing now is functionally exactly the same as if we were giving the fast-growing states new House seats–the faster growing states gain representation, the slower-and-declining-growth states lose representation. (Even if you keep your seats and new ones are added, then it is in fact the same–the power of your X number of representatives is diluted because there are more of them in the chamber.) Adding more House seats just increases the cost of doing business by adding more reps and their staffers, all of whom have to be paid and their offices housed.
Yup, this is a valid point. The strongest argument for increasing the number of representatives relates to retail politics: the ability of the individual citizen to meet his or her member of Congress and have his or her concerns heard and acted upon. However, as I said upthread, I think it would take at least an order-of-magnitude increase in order for change to be perceptible in this aspect of things.
The problem of declining relative population bites different states differently. Low-population Rocky Mountain states like Wyoming and Montana still retain enormous influence through their senatorial delegations (which tend to lean Republican). The states which really lose out through declining relative population are Great Lakes/rustbelt states like Michigan (which are urbanized and tend to lean Democratic).
Quote from: mightyace on January 27, 2011, 07:17:28 PMAgreed. One district in TN that I used to live in included both part of Nashville Metro and the Memphis suburbs. This was a partisan play as the area in Davidson count (Nashville) was one of the few predominantly Republican areas in the city. At some point, the district is only 3-5 miles wide and I don't think there would be a way to drive from one end of the district to the other without leaving it.
I have heard of at least one district (in metropolitan Chicago, I think) which essentially consists of two noncontiguous chunks connected by a highway corridor. That means part of the district is no wider than a highway ROW.
These redistricting plans are the result of logrolling between the two parties, subject to constraints imposed by past judicial precedent, and are developed in full expectation of court review. For example, the doctrine of one person one vote is construed as a soft guarantee of proportional representation for minority groups, although this is typically cast in negative terms--e.g., you are not allowed to create districts which dilute black votes to the extent that black voters cannot elect a black Congressperson (or at any rate a Congressperson who will function as a recognized advocate for "black" issues). As your example shows, party affiliation (either declared or based on past election returns) can also be a factor in redistricting.
I think the current redistricting process is messy and does not entirely succeed in its design aim of preventing one party from developing overweening power on a localized basis, but it is hard to imagine acceptable substitutes. For example, the paradigm SP Cook suggests could easily lead to a situation where urban votes get diluted by rural votes as part of the process of making up the numbers. (We have this problem in the Kansas legislature right now. Since it is a state legislature, both House and Senate seats are apportioned according to the one-person-one-vote doctrine, but the House has 125 seats to play with while the Senate has just 40. Before the past election, Wichita had an [almost?] all-Republican Senatorial delegation, since most Senate seats in the Wichita area are large and have significant dilution of urban votes by rural votes, while Wichita's House delegation was about half Republican and half Democrat.)
In Britain MPs' constituency boundaries are drawn up by an independent and at least nominally nonpartisan Boundary Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Commissions_%28United_Kingdom%29). The process is somewhat analogous to what happens in US states where redistricting has to occur under active judicial supervision. It is not entirely free from political interference because changes to constituency boundaries have to be introduced to Parliament by a Secretary of State (i.e., elected politician), so they can be legislated in the normal way. Plus, as si404 notes upthread, there are all sorts of odd constraints which have to be observed--e.g. Isle of Wight has to be treated on its own, Shetland and Orkney Islands each get their own MSP, so many MPs for Wales, so many MPs for Northern Ireland, City of London cannot be divided and must be in a seat which has "City of London" in the name, etc.
I could make some sort of argument about how states with stagnating populations (eg the Rust Belt) are the ones that need representation the most, but such an argument is almost certainly unconstitutional and would require massive change in perception of government that couldn't possibly happen, so I won't.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 27, 2011, 08:44:12 PM
I have heard of at least one district (in metropolitan Chicago, I think) which essentially consists of two noncontiguous chunks connected by a highway corridor. That means part of the district is no wider than a highway ROW.
You're thinking of Illinois's 4th:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F9%2F99%2FIllinois_District_4_2004.png&hash=234e89bed761b8c3d7c7c2551ada8ed8878953a8)
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 27, 2011, 05:52:39 PM
I don't see how it's unfair that states that aren't growing as quickly lose House seats. If they're growing slower than other states their percentage of the population is still declining. Moving around House seats like we're doing now is functionally exactly the same as if we were giving the fast-growing states new House seats–the faster growing states gain representation, the slower-and-declining-growth states lose representation. (Even if you keep your seats and new ones are added, then it is in fact the same–the power of your X number of representatives is diluted because there are more of them in the chamber.) Adding more House seats just increases the cost of doing business by adding more reps and their staffers, all of whom have to be paid and their offices housed.
On the other hand, that cost of doing business is - by definition - being shared by more people....
I think there's something to be said for a representative serving a reasonably limited number of people - I see my member of the Pennsylvania legislature in my neighborhood all the time. In European countries that have proportional representation (where, to oversimplify a bit, every party presents a list of candidates large enough to fill the parliament, everyone in the country gets the same "ballot," with all these party lists and votes for the party of their choice, and a party getting, say, 35 percent of the vote gets 35 percent of the seats), one disadvantage, in my opinion, is that there's no one you can think of as "my" congressman.
Yet if we made the House much bigger than it is, it would become unmanageable. I think the Chinese parliament has something like 2,000 members. And of course it's a rubber stamp. I wonder about India, as the world's most populated democracy.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 27, 2011, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 27, 2011, 08:44:12 PM
I have heard of at least one district (in metropolitan Chicago, I think) which essentially consists of two noncontiguous chunks connected by a highway corridor. That means part of the district is no wider than a highway ROW.
You're thinking of Illinois's 4th:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F9%2F99%2FIllinois_District_4_2004.png&hash=234e89bed761b8c3d7c7c2551ada8ed8878953a8)
About 20 years ago, North Carolina created a district that consisted of mostly-black neighborhoods of every city from Durham to Gastonia, and stretches of I-85 to connect them. The Supreme Court struck that one down, announcing a "compact and contiguous" requirement, but it seems not to be being enforced. (If no one challenges a district like that one in the Chicago area, the courts won't deal with it. I think - I may be wrong - that the South, because of its history particularly relating to disenfranchisement of minorities, is subject to more active supervision by the U.S. Department of Justice.)
I once lived in a New Jersey district affectionately known as the Fishhook....
The district you are refering to is NC's 12th district.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NC12_109.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NC12_109.gif)
Pretty much it is the black parts of Charlotte, Salisbury, High Point, Lexington, Thomasville, Winston-Salem and Greenboro, joined together by the interstate (where, of course, no one lives.)
Illinois 4th, referenced above, are the two Spanish parts of Chicago, again joined by a highway.
The law you are thinking about is the "voting rights act" (which has nothing to do anymore with anyone's right to vote) which requires certain states to draw what are called "majority minority districts", which lead to the contorted things you see here. Rather than do what, IMHO, is normal and reasonable, which is to draw the districts fairly and let the chips fall where they may.
Quote from: SP Cook on January 28, 2011, 06:37:47 AM
The district you are refering to is NC's 12th district.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NC12_109.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NC12_109.gif)
Pretty much it is the black parts of Charlotte, Salisbury, High Point, Lexington, Thomasville, Winston-Salem and Greenboro, joined together by the interstate (where, of course, no one lives.)
Illinois 4th, referenced above, are the two Spanish parts of Chicago, again joined by a highway.
The law you are thinking about is the "voting rights act" (which has nothing to do anymore with anyone's right to vote) which requires certain states to draw what are called "majority minority districts", which lead to the contorted things you see here. Rather than do what, IMHO, is normal and reasonable, which is to draw the districts fairly and let the chips fall where they may.
^^I don't think that's it: this was a good 20 years ago, so the apportionment coming out of the 1980 census (maybe 1990). And the Supreme Court threw it out - that I'm certain of. Googling the expression "compact and contiguous" reveals that the term goes back much farther than I thought: it's in statutes going back to (at least) the 1920s and the Supreme Court addressed it in 1932. So, a research project I don't have time for now.
The last time this came up, and I wanted a map of New Jersey's Fishhook, I couldn't find historical district boundaries anywhere.
All of that said, the concept of majority-minority districts could be seen as detrimental to minorities, rather than beneficial, if you gather all the African-Americans in a given state into as few districts as possible. Because the remaining districts come out whiter. All of which sounds a bit old-fashioned now, since we're past the point where blacks or whites are monolithic or where there's no one else in the population.
But, as I said, no time now. To be continued, perhaps....
I just want to point out that making districts based on race was ruled unconstitutional. Can still do it by party though.
Quote from: mightyace on January 27, 2011, 07:17:28 PM
Agreed. One district in TN that I used to live in included both part of Nashville Metro and the Memphis suburbs.
This district is Tennessee's 7th Congressional District:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalatlas.gov%2Fprintable%2Fimages%2Fpreview%2Fcongdist%2FTN07_110.gif&hash=0190201a51c8f8521d2c8dbd711aaac0b249b2fe)
and the 3rd is a bit funky, too.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalatlas.gov%2Fprintable%2Fimages%2Fpreview%2Fcongdist%2FTN03_110.gif&hash=f0b5d707055a61c64b75ef6b50a2a02036c67dd3)
Quote from: SP Cook on January 27, 2011, 07:08:40 PM
The 435 number was the number when the Congress decided enough was enough. Its as good as any other number.
You make some good points, but I disagree with this one. I don't know what they have to do to expand the House, but they really need to do it. I don't think a rep can be as responsive to constituent issues as he or she needs to be when they're representing such a huge group of people as some of them do now. Maximum district size, in population, should be no more than 700k, in my opinion. 500k is even better.
If it means tightening up on the floorspace afforded each lawmaker, or even remodeling of the Capitol building, it needs to happen. We're getting farther and farther away from true representative govt; we need to take a step back the other way.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on January 28, 2011, 02:27:43 AMI think - I may be wrong - that the South, because of its history particularly relating to disenfranchisement of minorities, is subject to more active supervision by the U.S. Department of Justice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act#Preclearance
But in fact the states subject to preclearance are not all in the South or the former Confederacy--Arizona and Alaska are subject to it too.
Also, SP Cook is not correct about the Voting Rights Act no longer dealing with voting. It, for example, requires multilingual ballots in districts with significant populations not speaking English.
Wow, this reapportionment deal really took off here!
But to change the subject a bit, while we wait for other census numbers to come in, what are you expecting to happen to your area's population compared to 2000? I expect Jackson and Hinds County to drop, with the metropolitan area as a whole increasing in population. Jackson recently annexed four square miles land near the newly-incorporated Byram area as a compromise of sorts since Jackson wanted to annex all of what is now Byram. Even with the annexation, I expect the population of Jackson to be near 180K. Recent estimates had it around 175K. That would still put it below the 2000 figure of over 184K.
Here is my attempt to redistrict and add a seat to Washington. It is not entirely accurate as I do not have the 2010 data.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi55.tinypic.com%2F2cqjh1g.jpg&hash=b3ffa74b954e4f9538038b8ad5476ec0fa3b1407)
Close-up of Western Washington:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi55.tinypic.com%2F6ynk91.jpg&hash=93bbbf60523186d246abb71a8e47e919c0be4a54)
Changes:
1st: becomes an entirely east sound district. Trades Shoreline, Bainbridge, and North Kitsap, for Bellevue and Everett.
2nd: The state's NW district needs to shrink due to strong growth. It loses South Everett and Skykomish.
3rd: The state's SW district sheds Olympia and gains Klickitat County and the Westport Peninsula.
4th: Due to strong growth, the district sheds Chelan, Kittitas, Klickitat, and western Adams County. Adds Walla Walla and Columbia.
5th: Sheds Walla Walla and Columbia. Gains Adams panhandle.
6th: Unites the entire Olympic Peninsula by adding North Kitsap, Bainbridge, and Olympia. Sheds Lakewood, western Tacoma, and Westport.
7th: Trades Vashon Island and Lake Forest Park for Shoreline.
8th: Loses downtown Bellevue, Points Cities, and portions of Pierce and South King. Adds Woodinville, more Renton, Kittitas, and Chelan.
9th: Loses Olympia, Lacey, Yelm, and Spanaway. Adds Vashon Island and portion of the old 8th in Pierce and South King County.
10th: the new district includes Tacoma, Lakewood, Lacey, Yelm, and rural Pierce County.
Comments:
- Inslee lives on Bainbridge and would have to move under the above scenario (or retire to run for Governor as has been rumored)
- Not sure exactly where in Auburn Dave Reichert lives, so I may have chopped him out. It would be easy to get him back in by trading away another piece to the 9th.
- All others are secure in their district.
- A possibility to represent the new 10th would be former Congressman and current Insurance Commissioner Mike Kriedler. I don't see the GOP with a shot there.
- The 7th, 9th, and 10th districts are pretty safe to ultra safe Democrat districts. The 4th and 5th are safe GOP districts. The 3rd and 8th lean Republican while the 1st and 6th lean Democrat. The 2nd is pretty close to a swing district.
More detail:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi53.tinypic.com%2Fvmwydz.jpg&hash=986d75ccc5458ea7caec0b6a76a2fc9899d3a871)
Here is a slightly tweaked version of the one I posted above. I drew it up over OFM's 2000 density map to show where the people are approximately (some areas have grown/densified over the last 10 years). I added more East Wenatchee in exchange for the Adams panhandle (Othello). I drew the lines by hand (poorly), so it is not totally accurate, but a good representation.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi54.tinypic.com%2F6qi3nn.jpg&hash=495760c24d08b6e566b759e699c63d7f49550c07)
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 28, 2011, 11:43:28 AM
Also, SP Cook is not correct about the Voting Rights Act no longer dealing with voting. It, for example, requires multilingual ballots in districts with significant populations not speaking English.
Umm, no. "Joe Smith" in Spanish is "Joe Smith", in French it is "Joe Smith". In Chinese, it is "Joe Smith".
The VRA was supposed to be a temporary deal. It has been extended three times. At one time one of the two major political parties was based on denying the vote to blacks. It no longer holds to that platform, and in fact is now headed by a black. Since that political party has joined the other's long heald (since its founding) views on race, the VRA is no longer needed, because it no longer has anything to do with the right to vote, since no one (well no one with any chance of winning anything) wants to take away anyones.
Quote from: SP Cook on January 28, 2011, 07:54:06 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 28, 2011, 11:43:28 AM
Also, SP Cook is not correct about the Voting Rights Act no longer dealing with voting. It, for example, requires multilingual ballots in districts with significant populations not speaking English.
Umm, no. "Joe Smith" in Spanish is "Joe Smith", in French it is "Joe Smith". In Chinese, it is "Joe Smith".
The VRA was supposed to be a temporary deal. It has been extended three times. At one time one of the two major political parties was based on denying the vote to blacks. It no longer holds to that platform, and in fact is now headed by a black. Since that political party has joined the other's long heald (since its founding) views on race, the VRA is no longer needed, because it no longer has anything to do with the right to vote, since no one (well no one with any chance of winning anything) wants to take away anyones.
Said political party (known to Americans as the Republican Party) is no longer "headed" by a black man. He was voted out as RNC chair two weeks ago.
Now as to whether the Republican Party "likes blacks" as you're hinting above. As long as you're a millionaire, the Republican party likes you. Color doesn't matter, Income class does.
As to whether the VRA is needed, or not. Alot more issues need to be considered than just the chair of the RNC, or the President of the United States being men of color.
Quote from: Adam Smith on January 28, 2011, 09:41:15 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 28, 2011, 07:54:06 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 28, 2011, 11:43:28 AM
Also, SP Cook is not correct about the Voting Rights Act no longer dealing with voting. It, for example, requires multilingual ballots in districts with significant populations not speaking English.
Umm, no. "Joe Smith" in Spanish is "Joe Smith", in French it is "Joe Smith". In Chinese, it is "Joe Smith".
The VRA was supposed to be a temporary deal. It has been extended three times. At one time one of the two major political parties was based on denying the vote to blacks. It no longer holds to that platform, and in fact is now headed by a black. Since that political party has joined the other's long heald (since its founding) views on race, the VRA is no longer needed, because it no longer has anything to do with the right to vote, since no one (well no one with any chance of winning anything) wants to take away anyones.
Said political party (known to Americans as the Republican Party) is no longer "headed" by a black man. He was voted out as RNC chair two weeks ago.
Now as to whether the Republican Party "likes blacks" as you're hinting above. As long as you're a millionaire, the Republican party likes you. Color doesn't matter, Income class does.
As to whether the VRA is needed, or not. Alot more issues need to be considered than just the chair of the RNC, or the President of the United States being men of color.
Actually, I thought he was talking about the Democrats (as the party that's in a very different place from where it was before the civil rights movement), in contrast to a party that started out anti-slavery (anti-expansion-of-slavery-outside-the-South would be more accurate). But, can of worms....
Quote from: SP Cook on January 28, 2011, 07:54:06 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 28, 2011, 11:43:28 AMAlso, SP Cook is not correct about the Voting Rights Act no longer dealing with voting. It, for example, requires multilingual ballots in districts with significant populations not speaking English.
Umm, no. "Joe Smith" in Spanish is "Joe Smith", in French it is "Joe Smith". In Chinese, it is "Joe Smith".
You are forgetting special questions, which also appear on ballots.
QuoteThe VRA was supposed to be a temporary deal. It has been extended three times. At one time one of the two major political parties was based on denying the vote to blacks. It no longer holds to that platform, and in fact is now headed by a black. Since that political party has joined the other's long held (since its founding) views on race, the VRA is no longer needed, because it no longer has anything to do with the right to vote, since no one (well no one with any chance of winning anything) wants to take away anyone's.
You are forgetting segregationist Democrats, Republican poll watchers, and vote caging. There are enough states and localities trying to pursue dubious practices with regard to voting that the DOJ still has to mind the store. The Voting Rights Act gives them the authority to do so.
I was reading a story on the local fishwrap's website and Mississippi's census data is to be released Friday. I don't know what kind of data and if all the other states' data will be included too. Check back here on Friday for more details.
Quote from: golden eagle on February 01, 2011, 02:01:05 PMI was reading a story on the local fishwrap's website
I thought it was a specifically British thing to wrap fish in poor newspapers.
We have our decennial census this year, including a few controversial questions about the bedroom (the religion question is also controversial, but not for "the state shouldn't be involved in this" reasons, but more "this is a irrelevant question so I'll say I'm a Jedi as it'll be funny" reasons).
Quote from: english si on February 01, 2011, 03:44:24 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on February 01, 2011, 02:01:05 PMI was reading a story on the local fishwrap's website
I thought it was a specifically British thing to wrap fish in poor newspapers.
Hey, it's not quite good enough for that other purpose. You don't want ink all over your butt.
California officials claim state undercounted by 1.5 million (http://www.heraldandnews.com/news/article_0f52119c-0fcd-11e0-a095-001cc4c002e0.html)
Census info for LA, MS, NJ & VA to be released Friday (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn05.html)
Quote from: golden eagle on February 01, 2011, 08:31:03 PM
California officials claim state undercounted by 1.5 million (http://www.heraldandnews.com/news/article_0f52119c-0fcd-11e0-a095-001cc4c002e0.html)
I'll bet you anything the state count includes illegals and the Census doesn't.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on February 02, 2011, 07:26:08 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on February 01, 2011, 08:31:03 PM
California officials claim state undercounted by 1.5 million (http://www.heraldandnews.com/news/article_0f52119c-0fcd-11e0-a095-001cc4c002e0.html)
I'll bet you anything the state count includes illegals and the Census doesn't.
Maybe, but I would like for officials to tell us how they came up with such a high undercount.
Quote from: Adam Smith on January 28, 2011, 09:41:15 PM
Said political party (known to Americans as the Republican Party)
I would strongly recomend you take a good basic community college American history class, or at least read a few books.
Read Gone with the Wind if you want to know why the South is still full of racist assholes.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 03, 2011, 06:38:28 AM
Quote from: Adam Smith on January 28, 2011, 09:41:15 PM
Said political party (known to Americans as the Republican Party)
I would strongly recomend you take a good basic community college American history class, or at least read a few books.
I read more than you and taken more history classes than you spent years in school.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on February 02, 2011, 07:26:08 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on February 01, 2011, 08:31:03 PM
California officials claim state undercounted by 1.5 million (http://www.heraldandnews.com/news/article_0f52119c-0fcd-11e0-a095-001cc4c002e0.html)
I'll bet you anything the state count includes illegals and the Census doesn't.
The Census counts do not exclude illegals, at least not intentionally (the completeness of Census counts, particularly for minority populations, is a subject of some debate).
Some Friday...NJ.com released the census stuff. The part that interests me is the bottom 4 towns and how drastic the change is.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/njs_population_grew_most_in_so.html
2000:
563. Walpack - 41
564. Pine Valley - 24
565. Tavistock - 20
566. Teterboro - 18 (never should've been there, blame the 2000 censustakers)
2010:
(the only thing that didn't change here was which 4 municipalities it was)
563. Teterboro - 67
564. Walpack - 16
565. Pine Valley - 12
----------------------- the Pahaquarry Dotted Line of Defunction
566. Tavistock - 5
If anyone's wondering what I call the "Pahaquarry Dotted Line of Defunction" - In 1997, the state took Pahaquarry Township, which had population below 12 and merged it with Hardwick Township. Tavistock and Pine Valley will join it probably. Walpack will eventually merge with Sandyston if I know this state well. (Sandyston has 1998 people for 2010 and the two share elementary schools.)
Some other notes:
1 - Edgewater in Bergen County went up to 11,513 people in 10 years from 7,677 in 2000, a jump of 50% or 3,836 people!
2 - Go persuade 33 of your friends to move to Edison! The listed 2010 population is 99,967 people, 33 short of the big 100,000 (only would be the 5th municipality to do so). Woodbridge isn't far behind at 99,500 or so.
3 - Camden has now fallen out of the Top 10 in Population (was 10th in 2000)
4 - Newark went up for the first time in over 30 years up to 277,000 people from 273,000 in 2000.
5 - My borough went down a decimal of a percent from 2000, losing about 17 residents.
Quote from: Adam Smith on February 03, 2011, 11:24:50 PM
I read more than you and taken more history classes than you spent years in school.
I seriously doubt that.
In any event, if you do not understand the basic political history of the USA from Reconstruction to 1965, that is OK. Just don't insult and comment those who do.
Quote from: oscar on February 04, 2011, 01:01:03 AM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on February 02, 2011, 07:26:08 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on February 01, 2011, 08:31:03 PM
California officials claim state undercounted by 1.5 million (http://www.heraldandnews.com/news/article_0f52119c-0fcd-11e0-a095-001cc4c002e0.html)
I'll bet you anything the state count includes illegals and the Census doesn't.
The Census counts do not exclude illegals, at least not intentionally (the completeness of Census counts, particularly for minority populations, is a subject of some debate).
Actually, isn't the census supposed to count everyone it finds residing here? Does it even
check immigration status?
Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on February 04, 2011, 01:26:16 AM
Some Friday...NJ.com released the census stuff. The part that interests me is the bottom 4 towns and how drastic the change is.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/njs_population_grew_most_in_so.html
2000:
563. Walpack - 41
564. Pine Valley - 24
565. Tavistock - 20
566. Teterboro - 18 (never should've been there, blame the 2000 censustakers)
2010:
(the only thing that didn't change here was which 4 municipalities it was)
563. Teterboro - 67
564. Walpack - 16
565. Pine Valley - 12
----------------------- the Pahaquarry Dotted Line of Defunction
566. Tavistock - 5
If anyone's wondering what I call the "Pahaquarry Dotted Line of Defunction" - In 1997, the state took Pahaquarry Township, which had population below 12 and merged it with Hardwick Township. Tavistock and Pine Valley will join it probably. Walpack will eventually merge with Sandyston if I know this state well. (Sandyston has 1998 people for 2010 and the two share elementary schools.)
Some other notes:
1 - Edgewater in Bergen County went up to 11,513 people in 10 years from 7,677 in 2000, a jump of 50% or 3,836 people!
2 - Go persuade 33 of your friends to move to Edison! The listed 2010 population is 99,967 people, 33 short of the big 100,000 (only would be the 5th municipality to do so). Woodbridge isn't far behind at 99,500 or so.
3 - Camden has now fallen out of the Top 10 in Population (was 10th in 2000)
4 - Newark went up for the first time in over 30 years up to 277,000 people from 273,000 in 2000.
5 - My borough went down a decimal of a percent from 2000, losing about 17 residents.
Some remarks from a native New Jerseyan who's been paying attention to this sort of thing since a geeky childhood. :-)
How the heck did Teterboro quadruple?
I have no problem with the abolition of Pahaquarry Township (which I never did know how to pronounce anyway), but with a population of a few dozen in a land area larger than Manhattan, it did have the virtue of serving as evidence that the state's not entirely built-up. (By way of background, most if not all of it falls in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, hence the lack of population. Don't know how populated it was before it became government property).
Can the state force municipalities to merge? Tavistock, as you may know, consists of a golf course and one short street of houses. Pine Valley too. I think both are instances of country clubs that actually incorporated as boroughs for the sake of autonomy.
It's sad about Camden, but very nice to see Newark growing. I've had occasion to go to Camden and its utterly-deserted downtown (granted, I haven't been there in a decade or more) makes Newark's look thriving. Actually, Edison would be the seventh municipality in the state to reach 100,000; Camden and Trenton both did early in the 20th century, then fell below it.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 04, 2011, 06:14:29 AM
In any event, if you do not understand the basic political history of the USA from Reconstruction to 1965, that is OK. Just don't insult and comment those who do.
Since Reagan, the Republicans have been the party of corporations. The fact that they were pro-black from Reconstruction to 1965 doesn't change that. The Democrats do far more for minorities today than the Republicans. This is fact. Btw, Republicans being for the rich isn't new: Teddy Roosevelt was made McKinley's VP because the party though that would be the place where he'd be least likely to become president (had they known McKinley would be assassinated, they most certainly would not have made TR VP). He was only allowed to run for re-election because it would be political suicide not to.
Back on topic,
Census Finds Hurricane Katrina Left New Orleans Richer, Whiter, Emptier (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-04/census-finds-post-katrina-new-orleans-richer-whiter-emptier.html)
QuoteNew Orleans lost 140,845 residents, a drop of 29 percent from 2000. The percentage of black population fell to 60.2 percent from 67.3 percent. The loss in New Orleans translates into one fewer congressional seat for Louisiana -- now six instead of seven.
NOTE to Admins:
Could someone put the political mudslinging into it's own thread.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 04, 2011, 09:01:04 AM
Actually, isn't the census supposed to count everyone it finds residing here? Does it even check immigration status?
I never did, though they may have been some of the houses that refused to respond.
Quote from: US71 on February 04, 2011, 10:25:48 AM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 04, 2011, 09:01:04 AM
Actually, isn't the census supposed to count everyone it finds residing here? Does it even check immigration status?
I never did, though they may have been some of the houses that refused to respond.
You were a census worker?
I've heard, of course, of the concern that illegals (and others) would have that responding would put them on the government's radar, but I thought that was the point of the 72-year limit. More and more countries, by the way (France for example, at least for larger cities) are no longer attempting a full head count. I sort of like it that we at least try.
(And I'm saying "the concern that illegals would have" rather than just "the concern they have" deliberately: it was always news articles, usually pre-census, assuming that would be the case.)
Mississippi census info (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn14.html)
No way Hattiesburg only grew up to just under 46K. There should be more than that. Should be closer to, if not above, 50K. Not surprised about Southaven being #3. I do believe they will surpass Gulfport eventually. Also not surprised Biloxi lost population due to Katrina. Gulfport did too, but not to the level Biloxi did.
eh, I don't think I even filled in my census form. I deeply distrust anyone that wishes to bestow upon me benefits just by virtue of my existence ... and then asks me to prove it!
to paraphrase Groucho Marx: I do not care to belong to any club that would have me as a member.
Virginia census info (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn16.html)
Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 04, 2011, 09:11:45 AM
Some remarks from a native New Jerseyan who's been paying attention to this sort of thing since a geeky childhood. :-)
How the heck did Teterboro quadruple?
I have no problem with the abolition of Pahaquarry Township (which I never did know how to pronounce anyway), but with a population of a few dozen in a land area larger than Manhattan, it did have the virtue of serving as evidence that the state's not entirely built-up. (By way of background, most if not all of it falls in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, hence the lack of population. Don't know how populated it was before it became government property).
Can the state force municipalities to merge? Tavistock, as you may know, consists of a golf course and one short street of houses. Pine Valley too. I think both are instances of country clubs that actually incorporated as boroughs for the sake of autonomy.
It's sad about Camden, but very nice to see Newark growing. I've had occasion to go to Camden and its utterly-deserted downtown (granted, I haven't been there in a decade or more) makes Newark's look thriving. Actually, Edison would be the seventh municipality in the state to reach 100,000; Camden and Trenton both did early in the 20th century, then fell below it.
Teterboro was never technically 18 people. The 2000 Census left out some people in Teterboro, namely a new development.
Pahaquarry was stoned in history for good due to the Tocks Island Dam. The only person really to blame for the drop in population for Pahaquarry was the Army Corp of Engineers, who demolished houses left and right on both sides of the river.
The state can force it, but its unpopular. However, Senate President Steve Sweeney has proposed denying aid to towns that don't want to merge. Yes Tavistock has a lower population than Centralia PA, which is funny.
Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on February 04, 2011, 12:17:01 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on February 04, 2011, 09:11:45 AM
Some remarks from a native New Jerseyan who's been paying attention to this sort of thing since a geeky childhood. :-)
How the heck did Teterboro quadruple?
I have no problem with the abolition of Pahaquarry Township (which I never did know how to pronounce anyway), but with a population of a few dozen in a land area larger than Manhattan, it did have the virtue of serving as evidence that the state's not entirely built-up. (By way of background, most if not all of it falls in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, hence the lack of population. Don't know how populated it was before it became government property).
Can the state force municipalities to merge? Tavistock, as you may know, consists of a golf course and one short street of houses. Pine Valley too. I think both are instances of country clubs that actually incorporated as boroughs for the sake of autonomy.
It's sad about Camden, but very nice to see Newark growing. I've had occasion to go to Camden and its utterly-deserted downtown (granted, I haven't been there in a decade or more) makes Newark's look thriving. Actually, Edison would be the seventh municipality in the state to reach 100,000; Camden and Trenton both did early in the 20th century, then fell below it.
Teterboro was never technically 18 people. The 2000 Census left out some people in Teterboro, namely a new development.
Pahaquarry was stoned in history for good due to the Tocks Island Dam. The only person really to blame for the drop in population for Pahaquarry was the Army Corp of Engineers, who demolished houses left and right on both sides of the river.
The state can force it, but its unpopular. However, Senate President Steve Sweeney has proposed denying aid to towns that don't want to merge. Yes Tavistock has a lower population than Centralia PA, which is funny.
If you go back farther than 2000, Teterboro was flirting with the number 20 for decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teterboro,_New_Jersey
Lake Buena Vista, Florida has a rather amusing history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Buena_Vista,_Florida#Population_history
How does a city exist with only 16 people?
^^^
It's a small town after all. It's a small town after all. It's a small town after all. It's a small, small town. :sombrero:
I wonder how municipal functions are carried out in towns like Lost Spring (population 4) and Van Tassell (population 8).
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2011, 08:23:35 PM
I wonder how municipal functions are carried out in towns like Lost Spring (population 4) and Van Tassell (population 8).
I would imagine Olnes City is an extremely autocratic place.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/blog/photos/031621.jpg)
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2011, 08:23:35 PM
I wonder how municipal functions are carried out in towns like Lost Spring (population 4) and Van Tassell (population 8 ).
Probably a neighboring community carries out most of that.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 04, 2011, 08:23:35 PM
I wonder how municipal functions are carried out in towns like Lost Spring (population 4) and Van Tassell (population 8).
If you read French, check French Wikipedia for the so-called "villages morts pour la France" - villages that died for France. There are about half a dozen municipalities in Lorraine that became completely depopulated as a result of the battle of Verdun (I suppose the locals were evacuated or just left on their own and never came back). The municipalities still exist as such, with the prefect of the department taking responsibility for running them, the main responsibility being the local roads.
(In this article under "Meuse": http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villages_fran%C3%A7ais_d%C3%A9truits_durant_la_Premi%C3%A8re_Guerre_mondiale (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villages_fran%C3%A7ais_d%C3%A9truits_durant_la_Premi%C3%A8re_Guerre_mondiale))
Some analysis of the first few population trends released:
Louisiana: The southeastern parishes around New Orleans experienced massive population losses due to many who evacuated the area due to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 not returning back. While Orleans Parish's (same as the city of New Orleans) population did bottom out after Katrina and is back on the rise, they now rank third among the most populated parishes in Louisiana, behind East Baton Rouge and Jefferson parishes. In fact, Jefferson Parish is among a select few suburban parishes/counties that is now larger than the county of its central city. Arapahoe, CO is on the verge on of doing this, too, but I don't think it will happen with this census.
Mississippi: Growth here is mainly in suburban Jackson, the Pine Belt, Gulf Coast (sans Harrison County, which lost population) and northwest Mississippi (including Desoto County). Mississippi's net growth can be contributed to northwest Mississippi experience spillover growth from Memphis and some metro New Orleans growth spilling into Pearl River and Hancock counties.
New Jersey: Only two counties (Cape May & Bergen) lost population. Cape May joined Salem County as the only two in the state with less than 100K in population. Nothing else really stood out to me.
Virginia: Most of the growth here is concentrated in the northern part of the commonwealth near Washington, around Richmond and in the Tidewater area. No real surprises here.
Quote from: golden eagle on February 04, 2011, 05:24:47 PM
How does a city exist with only 16 people?
By filing annual reports with the state.
QuoteProbably a neighboring community carries out most of that.
In the case of Van Tassell it's entirely governed by Niobrara County. There's a post office in Van Tassell that delivers mail to the zipcode, but everything else is just county. I suppose they could form a city government if they wanted to, but there's absolutely no need to.
They do officially have city streets (or at least they are inventoried by WYDOT as such- I know because I actually performed the inventory for WYDOT :cool:) but they are maintained by the county.
If Van Tassell is not governmentally independent, then what is the basis for what appears to be a city limit sign with "POP 8"? (In general, are we to expect such signs to be used for Census-designated places without any indication of whether they are incorporated or not? If so, what is the basis for estimating population when the place is unincorporated?)
Michael--thanks for the heads-up regarding the depopulated villages in northern and eastern France.
Whenever I see a city limit sign, especially with population, I've always assumed it is incorporated. I've always seen CDPs and other communities on highway signs with just the name of the community and nothing else.
According to http://www.niobraracountylibrary.org/history/index.php?id=30 Van Tassell was incorporated in 1916 and has a mayor and four council members.
In Florida incorporated places have the text "city limit" on signs (whether it's officially a city or something else, since it makes no difference in Florida). I don't remember if any unincorporated places (or incorporated places, for that matter) have population estimates on signs, but they don't have "city limit".
There is a town in Nebraska called Monowi that has a population of 1. It is incorporated, which means it technically has a government and directly receives state funds. The sole resident(a woman-her husband died several years ago) serves all of the functions of government and receives the state funds and uses the money to contract out the services(primarily for upkeep of the town's streets and a few streetlights). The town does have one business-a bar/cafe that the woman runs. Law enforcement(what little is needed) is provided by the Boyd County Sheriff's Department(even many larger small towns in Nebraska contract out with the local sheriffs department for law enforcement).
QuoteIf Van Tassell is not governmentally independent, then what is the basis for what appears to be a city limit sign with "POP 8"? (In general, are we to expect such signs to be used for Census-designated places without any indication of whether they are incorporated or not? If so, what is the basis for estimating population when the place is unincorporated?)
Van Tassell actually is a town and evidently has some local government according to NE2's article (although I know for sure the county maintains the roads). I wasn't aware of that (and had been told otherwise), but that seems like just as good a source as the person I heard it from.
One thing in Wyoming that I thought to be the case for a while that turns out not to be true is that just because the area has the ELEV/POP sign the area may not actually be an incorporated community. In the case of Van Tassell it is, but Buford for instance is just unincorporated Albany County. It somehow got a city limit sign, but it is in no way incorporated as a city. Off the top of my head- Emblem is another with deceptive signing, as is Banner/Story/Big Horn up in Sheridan County (although I have to believe Story and Big Horn have some form of local government).
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on February 06, 2011, 03:27:40 PM
There is a town in Nebraska called Monowi that has a population of 1. It is incorporated, which means it technically has a government and directly receives state funds. The sole resident(a woman-her husband died several years ago) serves all of the functions of government and receives the state funds and uses the money to contract out the services(primarily for upkeep of the town's streets and a few streetlights). The town does have one business-a bar/cafe that the woman runs. Law enforcement(what little is needed) is provided by the Boyd County Sheriff's Department(even many larger small towns in Nebraska contract out with the local sheriffs department for law enforcement).
I remember seeing that on the news before.
As I doing a Wikipedia search on Monowi, I also came across a list of other towns in the U.S. that have ten people or less. One such town is Luckenback, Texas (pop. 3). It's the namesake of a country song from the 1970s.
Quote from: golden eagle on February 05, 2011, 03:35:31 PM
Some analysis of the first few population trends released:
Louisiana: The southeastern parishes around New Orleans experienced massive population losses due to many who evacuated the area due to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 not returning back. While Orleans Parish's (same as the city of New Orleans) population did bottom out after Katrina and is back on the rise, they now rank third among the most populated parishes in Louisiana, behind East Baton Rouge and Jefferson parishes. In fact, Jefferson Parish is among a select few suburban parishes/counties that is now larger than the county of its central city. Arapahoe, CO is on the verge on of doing this, too, but I don't think it will happen with this census.
Which parish leads in population now; EBR or Jefferson?
EBR now leads, with Jefferson not too far behind.
New census info for Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa and Vermont released:
http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html
The city population of Chicago falls http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312904576146741729857936.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird
Someone at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5166681&postcount=20 posted a map from the Chicago Tribune showing the changes of population of various cities in the area. (The map don't include the Wisconsin and Indiana parts of Chicagoland)
Texas is the next up (along with South Dakota). Remember that Texas gains 4 seats (gets to draw four districts with no incumbent) and most all of the population growth is urban and sub-urban, meaning districts can easily be drawn in all sorts of contorted ways.
Not really replying to anything in particular but, last night I wrote a massive automation task using census data, inparticular the 2010 TIGER shapefile data available via ftp site.
Basically my end goal was creating a list of every single unique road name in the U.S., with additional accumulations by county and state level, along with the number of times they show up (usually as a road ID in the roads dbf, meaning each time that road name appears in a CDP - which could be the same road, or just a road with the same name, if that makes sense)
It was a fun task and I spent all night on it.. (it's all Excel VBA if anyone's curious)
My *first* 'holy hell!' moment was because I started doing it by hand (doing a few major counties that would contain a high % of the total names, like L.A. County, etc.) and then realized that I would never finish, or at least, it would take a year or two to do it by hand.. I had *no* clue how many counties or county-like entities existed. The TIGER site separates the road and map shapefile data by county, so I had to come to terms with this number - I guessed in the 800-900 range figuring most states had like 10-15 counties with larger ones having 30-40. If you could believe it, there's around 3221 counties in the U.S. + Puerto Rico. Maybe that number is well known to some of you, but I was quite surprised.
Anyway, I'll post my numbers later tonight or ASAP.
Quote from: relaxok on February 17, 2011, 06:06:27 PM
If you could believe it, there's around 3221 counties in the U.S. + Puerto Rico. Maybe that number is well known to some of you, but I was quite surprised.
3143 counties and county equivalents (including D.C., independent cities, Louisiana parishes, and Alaska boroughs and census areas) in the 50 states + D.C., plus about 78 municipios in Puerto Rico.
Here the list of various cities census I saw at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5168091&postcount=388
Quote
Chicago city, IL: 2,695,598 (-200,418)
Indianapolis city, IN: 829,718 (+37,792)
Baltimore city, MD: 620,961 (-30,193)
Washington D.C.: 601,723 (+29,664)
Oklahoma City city, OK: 579,999 (+73,867)
Virginia Beach city, VA: 437,994 (+12,737)
Tulsa city, OK: 391,906 (-1,143)
New Orleans city, LA: 343,829 (-140,845)
Newark city, NJ: 277,140 (+3,594)
Fort Wayne city, IN: 253,691 (+47,964)
Jersey City city, NJ: 247,597 (+7,542)
Norfolk city, VA: 242,803 (+8,400)
Baton Rouge city, LA: 229,493 (+1,675)
Chesapeake city, VA: 222,209 (+23,025)
Richmond city, VA: 204,214 (+6,424)
Des Moines city, IA: 203,433 (+4,751)
Shreveport city, LA: 199,311 (-834)
Aurora city, IL: 197,899 (+54,909)
Little Rock city, AR: 193,524 (+10,391)
Newport News city, VA: 180,719 (+569)
Jackson city, MS: 173,514 (-10,742)
Sioux Falls city, SD: 153,888 (+29,913)
Rockford city, IL: 152,871 (+2,756)
Joliet city, IL: 147,433 (+41,212)
Paterson city, NJ: 146,199 (-3,023)
Naperville city, IL: 141,853 (+13,495)
Alexandria city, VA: 139,966 (+11,683)
Hampton city, VA: 137,436 (-9,001)
Cedar Rapids city, IA: 126,326 (+5,568)
Elizabeth city, NJ: 124,969 (+4,401)
Lafayette city, LA: 120,623 (+10,366)
Evansville city, IN: 117,429 (-4,153)
Springfield city, IL: 116,250 (+4,796)
Peoria city, IL: 115,007 (+2,071)
Norman city, OK: 110,925 (+15,231)
Elgin city, IL: 108,188 (+13,701)
South Bend city, IN: 101,168 (-6,621)
I'm rather surprised Chicago lost as many people as it did.
Chicago and downstate plunged the subrubs and exurbs boomed Kendall doubled. Its a county of 114,000 with only some recently 4 laned sections of US 34
If Kendalls growth was not slowed by the hosuing crisis I wonder how much bigger it would have been by 2010.
It alos shows sprawl can occur before the highways
Texas data released (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/)
Five largest cities:
Houston, 2,099,451 (7.5%)
San Antonio, 1,327,407 (16%)
Dallas, 1,197,816 (.8%)
Austin, 790,390 (20.4%)
Fort Worth, 741,206 (38.6%)
Five largest counties:
Harris, 4,092,459 (20.3%)
Dallas, 2,368,139 (6.7%)
Tarrant, 1,809,034 (25.1%)
Bexar, 1,714,773 (23.1%)
Travis, 1,024,266 (26.1%)
San Antonio has solidified its lead over Dallas as the state's second-largest city. While the Big D has a 400K-plus lead over Austin & Fort Worth, is is possible that both or either city (with their double-digit growth percentage) could be larger than Dallas someday?
Dallas County has a 559k-plus lead over neighboring Tarrant County, but just as it could be possible for Fort Worth to top Dallas, could Tarrant overtake Dallas County as well?
Quote from: golden eagle on February 17, 2011, 08:38:15 PM
I'm rather surprised Chicago lost as many people as it did.
I spotted these articles from the Associated Press and Chicago Sun-Times about the subject,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGe569O82We8XQma1KvWUKl9SiWg?docId=8fa760d649f7447d814fe27b3b6a3760
http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/3854589-452/not-surprised-about-black-migration-to-burbs.html
Thanks for the links, Stephane. That Google link reported growth rates in Texas and in the town of Fate in Rockwall County, it grew by 1,100 percent! I'm interested in seeing growth rates for other communities in Texas and other areas when full numbers come out.
Top 5 counties are half the Texas population I think it is 60 in Illinois. ALL Illinois growth was hispanic in 101 of the 102 counties
There is some speculation that many northern African Americans went south .
Politically Illinois was described as the big redistricting prize by the Wash Post I agree. I think with the population shifts here the Dems could pick up 7 seats. I had heard Texas would offer 3 of 4 seats to Dems to shore up GOP incumbents and avoid Voting Rights Act Issues
Quote from: 3467 on February 17, 2011, 09:50:26 PM
Top 5 counties are half the Texas population
Not quite. Just a shade 11 million live in the top five counties out of 25 million-plus in the state. Close but somewhere closer to 40% though.
Quote from: 3467 on February 17, 2011, 09:50:26 PM
There is some speculation that many northern African Americans went south.
Stephane's Google link at the bottom of page 4 sheds some light on this. In fact, Illinois had its first-ever decrease in the black population.
Quote from: 3467 on February 17, 2011, 09:01:07 PM
Chicago and downstate plunged the subrubs and exurbs boomed Kendall doubled. Its a county of 114,000 with only some recently 4 laned sections of US 34
If Kendalls growth was not slowed by the hosuing crisis I wonder how much bigger it would have been by 2010.
It alos shows sprawl can occur before the highways
However, US-34 is only one high-growth corridor in Kendall County. The other is Caton Farm Road, which was recently four-laned east to Essington Road.
Kendall is the fastest-growing of any county with 10K or more.
Quote from: golden eagle on February 17, 2011, 10:18:15 PM
Quote from: 3467 on February 17, 2011, 09:50:26 PM
There is some speculation that many northern African Americans went south.
Stephane's Google link at the bottom of page 4 sheds some light on this. In fact, Illinois had its first-ever decrease in the black population.
That's just confirmation to what folks were telling me in Louisiana (even after Katrina/Rita) and Mississippi when I was attending LSU.
Quote from: golden eagle on February 17, 2011, 09:13:48 PM
Texas data released (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/)
Five largest cities:
Houston, 2,099,451 (7.5%)
San Antonio, 1,327,407 (16%)
Dallas, 1,197,816 (.8%)
Austin, 790,390 (20.4%)
Fort Worth, 741,206 (38.6%)
Five largest counties:
Harris, 4,092,459 (20.3%)
Dallas, 2,368,139 (6.7%)
Tarrant, 1,809,034 (25.1%)
Bexar, 1,714,773 (23.1%)
Travis, 1,024,266 (26.1%)
I thought Dallas had a larger population than that. Maybe I'm thinking of the metro population for Dallas-Ft. Worth instead.
Quote from: 3467 on February 17, 2011, 09:50:26 PM
Top 5 counties are half the Texas population I think it is 60 in Illinois. ALL Illinois growth was hispanic in 101 of the 102 counties
There is some speculation that many northern African Americans went south .
Politically Illinois was described as the big redistricting prize by the Wash Post I agree. I think with the population shifts here the Dems could pick up 7 seats. I had heard Texas would offer 3 of 4 seats to Dems to shore up GOP incumbents and avoid Voting Rights Act Issues
As a political junkie who follows this stuff pretty closely, and has read a couple of analyses of the redistricting scenarios in Illinois, I would say that Democrats picking up 7 seats in Illinois alone would be virtually impossible. Republicans currently have a 11-8 majority in the congressional delegation-if the Democrats picked up 7 seats, that would leave Republicans with only 3 since Illinois loses 1 seat. Illinois is a Democrat-dominated state overall, but even the most partisan gerrymander would have a tough time producing a situation where Republicans could only win 3 seats in the state. There are just too many Republicans downstate and in the exurban areas around Chicago to be able to lump those voters into only 3 districts. Even the most partisan gerrymanders don't always end up working anyway-the 17th District(one of the most bizarrely drawn districts in the country) was clearly drawn to elect a Democrat, and it elected a Republican in November.
The analyses I have seen suggest that Democrats could pick up 3 or 4 seats in Illinois by throwing two of the downstate Republicans into the same district(probably Aaron Schock and Bobby Schilling) and then making that district more favorable to the Democrats and then adding Democrat precincts into a couple of the other metro-Chicago based districts now held by Republicans(probably the 8th and the 10th).
As for Texas-giving 3 districts to the Democrats is probably accurate since much of the growth in Texas has been from Hispanics and some of those new districts are going to have to be drawn to favor Hispanics(and thus Democrats, although the Hispanic-majority 23rd and 27th Districts both elected Republicans in November). Republicans are pretty much maxed out in Texas as it is, so they will likely use this opportunity to shore up the gains they have made already and the 4th new district they add will likely be a Republican-friendly district in the DFW area, probably in the fast-growing northern suburbs.
There was a 4 seat swing and Kirks Dist. which is really close stayed Republican At a minimum the dems take those 5 seats back.
Chicago has 7 packed CDs that could be spread to the suburbs
17 wasnt just for Hare,it was to give LaHood a safe district. This time all bets are off. You could have a downstate dem CD with Peoria and the QC as well as the small Dems cities of Galesburg,Kewanee and Monmouth. You could dump the GOP and very empty rural areas in another CD. Downstate without Rockford,Metro East and QC/Peoria is well, Iowa, maybe just 3 CD that you could pack in some exurban republicans in. So I really think it could be done . Will it? I will go with minimum 5 seat pick up and 7 with the right
map. Florida is a 50-50 state and was even last year but is 20-5 GOP. In 2012 with Obama at the top of the Ticket Illinois wont be 50-50
I must admit I thought I was nuts when I first came up with the figure but I posted it on an Illinois politics site and no said a thing.
Overall I am with you . The GOP maxed out not just in Texas but FL OH PA and WI . With California and Florida having independant commmisions and the really profound rural declines and Hispanic population growth it is going to be a wild remap year
Quote from: Adam Smith on February 18, 2011, 08:48:02 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on February 17, 2011, 09:13:48 PM
Texas data released (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/)
Five largest cities:
Houston, 2,099,451 (7.5%)
San Antonio, 1,327,407 (16%)
Dallas, 1,197,816 (.8%)
Austin, 790,390 (20.4%)
Fort Worth, 741,206 (38.6%)
Five largest counties:
Harris, 4,092,459 (20.3%)
Dallas, 2,368,139 (6.7%)
Tarrant, 1,809,034 (25.1%)
Bexar, 1,714,773 (23.1%)
Travis, 1,024,266 (26.1%)
I thought Dallas had a larger population than that. Maybe I'm thinking of the metro population for Dallas-Ft. Worth instead.
The metro is over six million strong now. At one time, Dallas was one of the fastest-growing major city in the country, but now it's growth has slowed to a trickle. I even wonder if this is leading to a population decrease.
The Chicago Tribune posted more graphics about the population change http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-0220-census-follow-gfx.eps-20110218,0,5740685.graphic
Next out: Alabama, Missouri, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii. Of the set Missouri is losing a seat, while Utah, Nevada, and Washington are gaining.
In base terms, very roughly, Utah and Nevada present unique districting, because both have the vast majority of their population in one place (Las Vegas and Salt Lake City metros) with huge unpopulated desert areas. Washington is the classic pattern on the west coast of a liberals on the coast and conservatives inland. It will be interesting.
The Chicago Tribune show by using the Google maps layout, the population change in Chicagoland except the parts located in Wisconsin and Indiana. http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/census-2010/population-change/index.html#41.76193891415895,-88.40730590820313,13
Edit: the USA Today posted an interactive map of the current states who devoiled their census
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/default.htm
Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon & Washington to be released tomorrow at 3pm EST (http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html)
A bit off-topic but I spotted these articles http://www.businessinsider.com/15-suburbs-that-are-turning-into-slums-2010-7#
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-02-16-1Acensuskids16_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Now released:
Colorado (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn39.html)
Oregon (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn43.html)
Washington (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn45.html)
In Colorado, Denver is the largest city at just a shade over 600K, while Colorado Springs is not too terribly far behind at over 416K. However, El Paso County (C-Springs) has surpassed Denver County (the same as the city of Denver) as the state's most populous county at 622,263 to Denver's 600,158.
In Oregon, Portland is still, by far, the largest city there, followed by Euege, Salem, Gresham and Hillsobor. Multnomah County is still the largest.
In Washington, Seattle surpassed the 600K mark and Spokane broke over 200K. King County (Seattle) by far is the largest with over 1.9M, followed by Pierce and Snohomish counties.
Washington:
Western Washington - 5,229,486
Eastern Washington - 1,495,044
Some metro populations:
Seattle/Tacoma - 4,082,411
-- Olympia - 252,264
Spokane - 471,221
Vancouver - 425,363
Tri-Cities - 253,340
Yakima - 243,231
Bellingham - 201,140
Mt. Vernon-Anacortes - 116,901
Wenatchee - 110,884
Longview - 102,410
Oregon:
Portland* - 2,214,943
Salem - 390,738
Eugene - 351,715
Medford-Ashland - 203,206
Corvallis-Albany - 202,151
Bend - 178,711
Roseburg - 107,667
* - including WA portions of metro area
Hawaii's numbers just came out. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn41.html
Kalawao County, Hawaii (2010 population 90), still has more people than Loving County, Texas (2010 population 82). However, Kalawao County's population is shrinking rapidly while Loving County's isn't, so Kalawao County should soon overtake Loving County for lowest county population in the U.S., unless when all the Census data are out some other county surprises us with an even lower 2010 population.
Honolulu County has over 70% of the state's population, more than twice that of all the "neighbor island" counties combined.
Since Oscar covered Hawaii, I'll post info for Alabama (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn47.html),
Missouri (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn49.html) and Nevada (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn51.html).
In Alabama, Montgomery is now within a stone's throw of taking over the top spot as the state's largest city with a population 205,764. Birmingham, at 212,237, is still the largest city but lost almost 13% of its 2000 population. Mobile had a small decrease, down to over 195K. Huntsville (the city I think will eventually be Alabama's largest) grew by almost 14% to 180K.
In Missouri, Kansas City widened its lead over St. Louis, thanks to a 4% increase and St. Louis' 8.3% decrease in population. I was surprised by St. Louis' drop (or at least how hard they dropped) because recent estimates seemed to indicate a reversal in the decline. Of course, estimates are just what they are--estimates.
Other Missouri highlights (or somewhat major towns on the highways):
* Branson: 10,520 (73.9%)
* Cape Girardeau: 37,941 (7.3%)
* Columbia: 108,500 (28.4%)
* Hannibal: 17,916 (0.9%)
* Jefferson City: 43,079 (8.7%)
* Joplin: 50,150 (10.2%)
* Lebanon: 14,474 (19.1%)
* Poplar Bluff: 17,023 (2.2%)
* St. Joesph: 76,780 (3.8%)
* Sedalia: 21,387 (5.2%)
* Sikeston: 16,318 (-4.0%)
* Springfield: 159,428 (5.2%)
* Warrensburg: 18,838 (15.3%)
(Edited to fix poor typing)
Where did you find the full Missouri numbers? I can't find them on the Census Bureau's site.
Somehow, we missed Utah (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/). Interesting stat about Utah: not a single county lost population!
Quote from: golden eagle on February 24, 2011, 07:24:21 PM
Where did you find the full Missouri numbers? I can't find them on the Census Bureau's site.
I've been going through the USA Today site via http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/[add state initials here]
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 24, 2011, 10:01:03 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on February 24, 2011, 07:24:21 PM
Where did you find the full Missouri numbers? I can't find them on the Census Bureau's site.
I've been going through the USA Today site via http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/[add state initials here]
Thanks!
Just for fun, I'm going to post the fastest-growing and fastest-disappearing cities for each state. It'll take a while to go through them, so it'll be a work in progress...
ALABAMA: Pike Road (1,643.9%), McMullen (-84.8%)
ARKANSAS: Centerton (343.4%), Reed (-48.7%)
COLORADO: Meridian (1514.1%), Lakeside (-60%)
HAWAII: Ewa Gentry (359.4%), Maunawili (-58.1%)
ILLINOIS: Pingree Grove (3,554.8%), Irving (-80.1%)
INDIANA: New Amsterdam (2,600%), Roseland (-65.2%)
IOWA: Waukee (169%), Oakville (-60.6%)
LOUISIANA: Varnado (327.2%), Cameron (-79.3%)
MARYLAND: Clarksburg (650.6%), North Laurel (-78.1)
MISSISSIPPI: Walls (1235.3%), French Camp (-55.7%)
MISSOURI: Biehle (336.4%), Florida and Lakeside (-100%)
NEVADA: Enterprise (639.2%), Nellis AFB (64.2%)
NEW JERSEY: Teterboro (272.2%), Tavistock (-79.2)
OKLAHOMA: Dotyville (494.1%), Pilcher (-98.8)
OREGON: Grand Ronde (512.9%), La Pine (-71.5)
SOUTH DAKOTA: Two Strike (533.3), White Rock (-83.3%)
TEXAS: Fate (1179.1%), Laredo Ranchettes (-98.8%)
VIRGINIA: Short Pump (13487.4% :wow:), Woodbridge (-87.3)
WASHINGTON: Snoqualmie (554.2%), North Marysville (-99.5)
UTAH: Saratoga Springs (1672.8%), Mexican Hat (-64.8)
VERMONT: Averill (200%), Warren's (60%)
Is Short Pump, VA the fastest-growing city/CDP in the history of the U.S.? Wow!
For Washington:
Snoqualmie: 1,631 to 10,670 (+9,039) 554.20%
Endicott: 621 to 289 (-332) -53.46%
A bit political, but a nice article on "natural decrease".
http://www.dailymail.com/News/201102221388 (http://www.dailymail.com/News/201102221388)
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 24, 2011, 10:01:03 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on February 24, 2011, 07:24:21 PM
Where did you find the full Missouri numbers? I can't find them on the Census Bureau's site.
I've been going through the USA Today site via http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/[add state initials here]
Thanks, but (trying New Jersey) I can't get it to show localities, only counties.
Quote from: golden eagle on February 24, 2011, 10:42:49 PM
Just for fun, I'm going to post the fastest-growing and fastest-disappearing cities for each state. It'll take a while to go through them, so it'll be a work in progress...
MISSISSIPPI: Walls (1235.3%), French Camp (-55.7%)
Walls must have gone from a population of 50 to 535.
According to Wikipedia:
The town of Walls, which has been a community since the early 1900s, was connected to the tiny village of Memphis which was incorporated in the early 1970s and was located just south of the Walls community. In 2003/2004, the village of Memphis was annexed, thereby giving the town of Walls the official status of a municipality. Today Walls is experiencing a population and economic resurgence under the leadership of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what Walls' population was in 2000, but the village of Memphis had 87 people before being annexed by Walls.
I spotted on Skyscraperpage forum, some graphics about St. Louis census.
Edit: I forgotted to post the url :banghead: here it is http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5178867&postcount=469
Quote from: Adam Smith on February 25, 2011, 12:25:29 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on February 24, 2011, 10:42:49 PM
Just for fun, I'm going to post the fastest-growing and fastest-disappearing cities for each state. It'll take a while to go through them, so it'll be a work in progress...
MISSISSIPPI: Walls (1235.3%), French Camp (-55.7%)
Walls must have gone from a population of 50 to 535.
Actually, it rose to 1,162. They had 87 people in 2000.
One thing I that just occurred to me is that Henderson, NV passed Reno as the state's second-largest city and that North Las Vegas is threatening to push Reno down to fourth place.
Quote from: golden eagle on February 24, 2011, 10:42:49 PM
IOWA: Waukee (169%), Oakville (-60.6%)
You can blame the flood of 2008 for Oakville's big population loss. It's right near the mouth of the Iowa River, which submerged the entire town during the flood.
I think it would make sense to have the House Rep districts be to a size of roughly 500,000 people. Currently the average pop size of each district is 750,000. Here is what i would do for the issue of physical room size. Expand the Capitol to where it is possible for each state to have 40 representatives.
Once a state reaches 40 representatives, looking at you California, that is it. No more.
Let me do some math and i will submit what the representation in the house would look like.
Below is the list of representation by pop for 2000 and 2010 census apportionment and what the new number would be if it was for every 500,000 people. If a number is in (), that is the total amount of reps if there is not a cap of 40 reps per state.
State 2010 Pop change 2000 App./2010 App./New System App.
AL 4,779,738 +7.5% 7 7 9
AK 710,231 +13.3% 1 1 1
AZ 6,392,017 +24.6% 8 9 13
AR 2,915,918 +9.1% 4 4 6
CA 37,253,956 +10.0% 53 53 40 (75)
CO 5,029,196 +16.9% 7 7 10
CT 3,574,097 +4.9% 5 5 7
DC 601,723 +5.2% 0 0 1*
DE 897,934 +14.6% 1 1 2
FL 18,801,310 +17.6% 25 27 38
GA 9,687,653 +18.3% 13 14 19
HI 1,360,301 +12.3% 2 2 3
ID 1,567,582 +21.1% 2 2 3
IL 12,830,632 +3.3% 19 18 26
IN 6,483,802 +6.6% 9 9 13
IA 3,046,355 +4.1% 5 4 6
KS 2,853,118 +6.1% 4 4 5
KY 4,339,367 +7.4% 6 6 9
LA 4,533,372 +1.4% 7 6 9
ME 1,328,361 +4.2% 2 2 3
MD 5,773,552 +9.0% 8 8 12
MA 6,547,629 +3.1% 10 9 13
MI 9,883,640 (-0.6%) 15 14 20
MN 5,303,925 +7.8% 8 8 11
MS 2,967,297 +4.3% 4 4 6
MO 5,988,927 +7.0% 9 8 12
MT 989,415 +9.7% 1 1 2
NE 1,826,341 +6.7% 3 3 3
NV 2,700,551 +35.1% 3 4 5
NH 1,316,470 +6.5% 2 2 3
NJ 8,791,894 +4.5% 13 12 18
NM 2,059,179 +13.2% 3 3 4
NY 19,378,102 +2.1% 29 27 39
NC 9,535,483 +18.5% 13 13 19
ND 672,591 +4.7% 1 1 1
OH 11,536,504 +1.6% 18 16 23
OK 3,751,351 +8.7% 5 5 8
OR 3,831,074 +12.0% 5 5 8
PA 12,702,379 +3.4% 19 18 25
RI 1,052,567 +0.4% 2 2 3
SC 4,625,364 +15.3% 6 7 9
SD 814,180 +7.9% 1 1 2
TN 6,346,105 +11.5% 9 9 13
TX 25,145,561 +20.6% 32 36 40 (50)
UT 2,763,885 +23.8% 3 4 6
VT 625,741 +2.8% 1 1 1
VA 8,001,024 +13.0% 11 11 16
WA 6,724,540 +14.1% 9 10 13
WV 1,852,984 +2.5% 3 3 4
WI 5,686,986 +6.0% 8 8 11
WY 563,626 +14.1% 1 1 1
PR 3,725,789 (-2.2%) 0 0 7*
Totals 308,745,538 +9.7% 435 435 580 (45)
Avg 646,952 710,767 500,000
* only if they became officially part of the United States as more than territories.
I think the 2008 Flood was also responsible for a big decline in Henderson county in Illinois across from Oakville
I am with you on the Cong Dist Size Hobsini. The only way to get any serious attention from a congrescritter looks to be your wallet
We are much larger than most other Western Democrracies.
The state districts are getting bad too esprecially the big states like IL and Calif.
I am so glad we arent like these Mideast countries with their dynasties.
Oh I just see Darin LaHood was appointed to an open state senate district(USDOT sec Ray LaHoods son)
Quote from: golden eagle on February 24, 2011, 10:42:49 PM
OKLAHOMA: Dotyville (494.1%), Pilcher (-98.8)
For Picher, this is unsurprising, as it was the site of a Superfund buyout. I think between the time of the Census and now, it has been disincorporated. Never heard of Dotyville before...
Quote
MISSOURI: Biehle (336.4%), Florida and Lakeside (-100%)
Florida only had a population of 9 in the 2000 census, so it's not surprising that it went the 100% population loss route. Lakeside had 37, so it's a bit more eyebrow-raising.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 26, 2011, 09:49:47 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on February 24, 2011, 10:42:49 PM
OKLAHOMA: Dotyville (494.1%), Pilcher (-98.8)
For Picher, this is unsurprising, as it was the site of a Superfund buyout. I think between the time of the Census and now, it has been disincorporated. Never heard of Dotyville before...
If I remember watching something on TV about Picher and how it was a prosperous mining town way back in the day. Also, a tornado destroyed much of the town a few years ago.
Dotyville is a census-designated place in Ottawa County, the same county where Picher is (or was). With Picher's evacuation, maybe that's the reason for Dotyville's growth?
Quote from: golden eagle on February 25, 2011, 06:46:06 PM
Quote from: Adam Smith on February 25, 2011, 12:25:29 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on February 24, 2011, 10:42:49 PM
Just for fun, I'm going to post the fastest-growing and fastest-disappearing cities for each state. It'll take a while to go through them, so it'll be a work in progress...
MISSISSIPPI: Walls (1235.3%), French Camp (-55.7%)
Walls must have gone from a population of 50 to 535.
Actually, it rose to 1,162. They had 87 people in 2000.
I've actually driven through Walls before (2003 I think), and passed it several times in my commutes between BR & C-bus. The 87, that was the old (black) town along old old 61. The other 1,000+, that's all the new subdivisions between US 61 and Horn Lake.
Since I did it for the cities, I'll post the list of fastest-growing and fastest-disappearing counties for each state. This is also a work in progress:
ALABAMA: Shelby (36.1%), Lowndes (-16.1%)
ARKANSAS: Benton (44.3%), Monroe (-20.5%)
COLORADO: Douglas (62.4%), Cheyenne (-17.7%)
HAWAII: Hawaii (24.4%), Kalawao (-38.8%)
ILLINOIS: Kendall (110.4%), Pulaski (-16.2%)
INDIANA: Hamilton (50.3%), Blackford (-9.1%)
IOWA: Dallas (62.3%), Pocahontas (-15.6%)
LOUISIANA: Ascension (39.9%), St. Bernard (-46.6%)
MARYLAND: St. Mary's (22%), city of Baltimore (-4.6%; no actual counties lost population)
MISSISSIPPI: Desoto (50.4%), Issaquena (38.2%)
MISSOURI: Christian (42.6%), Atchison (-11.6%)
NEVADA: Lyon (50.7%), Esmeralda (-19.4%)
NEW JERSEY: Gloucester (13.2%), Cape May (-4.9%)
OKLAHOMA: Canadian (31.8%), Cimarron (-21.4%)
OREGON: Deschutes (36.7%), Sherman (-8.7%)
SOUTH DAKOTA: Lincoln (85.8%), Campbell (-17.7%)
TEXAS: Rockwall (81.8%), Cottle (-21%)
UTAH: Wasatch (54.7%), Millard (.8%; no county lost population)
VERMONT: Chittenden (6.8%), Rutland (-2.8%)
VIRGINIA: Loudon (84.1%), Accomack (-13.4%)
Here's something I stumbled upon. It's the Buffalo Business First's population projections for all incorporated cities in the U.S. as of December 22, 2010. I looked at some cities and they've projected too high or too low for a number of locations and close to what the census is reporting for some. For instance, they had Houston at 2.3M, when Houston is just over 2m. They also had St. Louis at 355K, while the census showed 312K. Just click below and you can see what they have...
http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/datacenter/populations-of-13362-us-cities.html
Even better...projections from February 1, 2011 from the New Mexico Business Journal. Given that the numbers for some areas are already released, they're not the official numbers though.
http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/news/2011/02/01/us-counties-cities-abq-population.html
Nebraska census had been released, the population increased in urban aeras while the rural areas continue its decline http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-03-01-nebraska-census_N.htm
Does Lincoln not have suburbs? Out of the 285K-plus that live in Lancaster County, over 258K are in Lincoln.
Quote from: golden eagle on March 01, 2011, 08:39:39 PM
Does Lincoln not have suburbs? Out of the 285K-plus that live in Lancaster County, over 258K are in Lincoln.
No-that's one of the odd things about Lincoln. It's one of the largest cities I know of that has no suburbs. There are a bunch of small towns in Lancaster County-the largest of which is Waverly. Hickman is the only other one that even tops 1,000. Waverly is the closest city to Lincoln, and the closest thing to a suburb that Lincoln has, but there are about 3 miles between the city limits of Lincoln and the city limits of Waverly along US 6. The area in between is mostly farmland with a couple of large industrial plants(I-80 Exit 409 is also in between). Waverly is more of a bedroom community for Lincoln but it isn't really a suburb.
Seems like Lubbock, TX is the same way. It was well over 200K people, but not real suburbs. There are a number of towns in Lubbock County, but only one outside of Lubbock has over 3000 people.
Quote from: 3467 on February 26, 2011, 08:02:15 PM
I am so glad we arent like these Mideast countries with their dynasties.
Oh I just see Darin LaHood was appointed to an open state senate district(USDOT sec Ray LaHoods son)
Heh. We have dynasties a plenty in Illinois. All hail Dictator for Life Mike Madigan! :ded:
Quote from: Brandon on March 02, 2011, 12:45:49 PM
Heh. We have dynasties a plenty in Illinois. All hail Dictator for Life Mike Madigan! :ded:
and the reanimated corpse of Richard Daley.
A couple of interesting things I noticed about Nebraska's census numbers: Arthur County, the smallest county in the state and one of the smallest in the country, actually gained population. Also, the 11 largest cities in the state all retained their same ranking from 2000. That's especially amazing considering that the populations of #7, #8, and #9(Hastings, North Platte, and Norfolk) were within a range of no more than 700 in both 2000 and 2010. I wonder if there is any other state whose largest cities stayed so constant in ranking between the two censuses?
Delaware census info (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn59.html)
North Carolina info (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn61.html)
The one impressive thing about North Carolina's numbers is that all of the top five cities grew by at least 20%, with Raleigh growing by 46.3%! Wake County, Raleigh's county, grew 43.5%, outpacing Mecklenburg County (Charlotte), which grew 32.2%. In fact, Mecklenburg leads Wake by only 18,635 people. I believe Wake will end up becoming NC's most populated county before too long, despite Mecklenburg's rapid growth.
i would lay odds that Oshkosh WI is still right around 60K maybe up to 62K. It has been that ever since I left Oshkosh back in 1980.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 03, 2011, 02:57:05 PM
i would lay odds that Oshkosh WI is still right around 60K maybe up to 62K. It has been that ever since I left Oshkosh back in 1980.
We'll find out next. Wisconsin is on the list of states to be released next, along with AZ, CA, CT, ID, OH & PA
Kansas (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn63.html)
Wyoming (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn65.html)
For Kansas, Wichita is, by far, the largest city in Kansas, but its home county, Sedgwick, has been surpassed by Johnson County as the most populous county in the state. Olathe, in Johnson County, moved into fifth place among Kansas' largest cities and is in striking distance of Topeka for fourth place.
Quote from: golden eagle on March 03, 2011, 03:53:40 PM
We'll find out next. Wisconsin is on the list of states to be released next, along with AZ, CA, CT, ID, OH & PA
In terms of redistricting, PA and OH will be fun. Losing seats. Several powerful congressmen, including the Speaker, and the different areas of each state are not friendly with one another.
Wow, Gillette was supposed to pass Laramie. It almost did- if there's still methane up there in ten years it definitely will. Rock Springs is catching up too- and Cheyenne is finally pulling away from Casper. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rock Springs jump Laramie too to 3/4 depending on Gillette's situation by 2020.
Quote from: golden eagle on March 03, 2011, 04:41:31 PM
Kansas (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn63.html)
Wyoming (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn65.html)
For Kansas, Wichita is, by far, the largest city in Kansas, but its home county, Sedgwick, has been surpassed by Johnson County as the most populous county in the state. Olathe, in Johnson County, moved into fifth place among Kansas' largest cities and is in striking distance of Topeka for fourth place.
Fun fact: Kansas is the 11th state in which its most populous city is not located in its most populous county/parish. Louisiana also joined that list when the population of Orleans Parish (same as the city of New Orleans) fell below East Baton Rouge and Jefferson parishes. Alabama could join the list real soon if Montgomery gets past Birmingham and North Carolina, too, when Wake County surpasses Charlotte's Mecklenburg County. Keep in mind that since not all of the census info has been released, I'm using both current and estimated census info prior to 2020 in my figures. The currently could change when all state info is in, but so far, I've not seen anything to suggest that it would, but who knows. States currently on the list:
CO, FL, KS, LA, MD, MO, NJ, OH, SC, MA, VA
Maryland would not be on here if Baltimore were a part of Baltimore County. The city and county population combined would've put it well ahead of Montgomery County. In the future, more states may be added on or taken off, depending on population shifts. For instance, Ohio can be subtracted when Franklin County (Columbus, Ohio's largest city) gets behind the more populous Cuyahoga County (Cleveland). However, Tennessee may be added on when Nashville gets pass Memphis. Shelby County (Memphis) is currently larger than Davidson County (Nashville). Kentucky would've been on this list had Louisville not merged with Jefferson County. Otherwise, Lexington/Fayette County would've been larger than Louisville, but smaller than Jefferson County.
Quote from: golden eagle on March 03, 2011, 08:06:54 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on March 03, 2011, 04:41:31 PM
Kansas (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn63.html)
Wyoming (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn65.html)
For Kansas, Wichita is, by far, the largest city in Kansas, but its home county, Sedgwick, has been surpassed by Johnson County as the most populous county in the state. Olathe, in Johnson County, moved into fifth place among Kansas' largest cities and is in striking distance of Topeka for fourth place.
Fun fact: Kansas is the 11th state in which its most populous city is not located in its most populous county/parish. Louisiana also joined that list when the population of Orleans Parish (same as the city of New Orleans) fell below East Baton Rouge and Jefferson parishes. Alabama could join the list real soon if Montgomery gets past Birmingham and North Carolina, too, when Wake County surpasses Charlotte's Mecklenburg County. Keep in mind that since not all of the census info has been released, I'm using both current and estimated census info prior to 2020 in my figures. The currently could change when all state info is in, but so far, I've not seen anything to suggest that it would, but who knows. States currently on the list:
CO, FL, KS, LA, MD, MO, NJ, OH, SC, MA, VA
Maryland would not be on here if Baltimore were a part of Baltimore County. The city and county population combined would've put it well ahead of Montgomery County. In the future, more states may be added on or taken off, depending on population shifts. For instance, Ohio can be subtracted when Franklin County (Columbus, Ohio's largest city) gets behind the more populous Cuyahoga County (Cleveland). However, Tennessee may be added on when Nashville gets pass Memphis. Shelby County (Memphis) is currently larger than Davidson County (Nashville). Kentucky would've been on this list had Louisville not merged with Jefferson County. Otherwise, Lexington/Fayette County would've been larger than Louisville, but smaller than Jefferson County.
So does that mean New Orleans is still the largest city in Louisiana? Speculation since Katrina has been that Baton Rouge would be.
And I still haven't been able to get at municipal figures for any state. Where are they on the census site?
Quote from: Michael in Philly on March 04, 2011, 10:24:12 AM
Quote from: golden eagle on March 03, 2011, 08:06:54 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on March 03, 2011, 04:41:31 PM
Kansas (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn63.html)
Wyoming (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn65.html)
For Kansas, Wichita is, by far, the largest city in Kansas, but its home county, Sedgwick, has been surpassed by Johnson County as the most populous county in the state. Olathe, in Johnson County, moved into fifth place among Kansas' largest cities and is in striking distance of Topeka for fourth place.
Fun fact: Kansas is the 11th state in which its most populous city is not located in its most populous county/parish. Louisiana also joined that list when the population of Orleans Parish (same as the city of New Orleans) fell below East Baton Rouge and Jefferson parishes. Alabama could join the list real soon if Montgomery gets past Birmingham and North Carolina, too, when Wake County surpasses Charlotte's Mecklenburg County. Keep in mind that since not all of the census info has been released, I'm using both current and estimated census info prior to 2020 in my figures. The currently could change when all state info is in, but so far, I've not seen anything to suggest that it would, but who knows. States currently on the list:
CO, FL, KS, LA, MD, MO, NJ, OH, SC, MA, VA
Maryland would not be on here if Baltimore were a part of Baltimore County. The city and county population combined would've put it well ahead of Montgomery County. In the future, more states may be added on or taken off, depending on population shifts. For instance, Ohio can be subtracted when Franklin County (Columbus, Ohio's largest city) gets behind the more populous Cuyahoga County (Cleveland). However, Tennessee may be added on when Nashville gets pass Memphis. Shelby County (Memphis) is currently larger than Davidson County (Nashville). Kentucky would've been on this list had Louisville not merged with Jefferson County. Otherwise, Lexington/Fayette County would've been larger than Louisville, but smaller than Jefferson County.
So does that mean New Orleans is still the largest city in Louisiana? Speculation since Katrina has been that Baton Rouge would be.
And I still haven't been able to get at municipal figures for any state. Where are they on the census site?
I thought this was covered earlier in the thread, but I couldn't find anything. Anyways, Census estimates had New Orleans back ahead of Baton Rouge for population as early as 2007, and BR gave up fighting that claim by 2009 before the actual census count started in 2010.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on March 04, 2011, 10:24:12 AM
Quote from: golden eagle on March 03, 2011, 08:06:54 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on March 03, 2011, 04:41:31 PM
Kansas (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn63.html)
Wyoming (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn65.html)
For Kansas, Wichita is, by far, the largest city in Kansas, but its home county, Sedgwick, has been surpassed by Johnson County as the most populous county in the state. Olathe, in Johnson County, moved into fifth place among Kansas' largest cities and is in striking distance of Topeka for fourth place.
Fun fact: Kansas is the 11th state in which its most populous city is not located in its most populous county/parish. Louisiana also joined that list when the population of Orleans Parish (same as the city of New Orleans) fell below East Baton Rouge and Jefferson parishes. Alabama could join the list real soon if Montgomery gets past Birmingham and North Carolina, too, when Wake County surpasses Charlotte's Mecklenburg County. Keep in mind that since not all of the census info has been released, I'm using both current and estimated census info prior to 2020 in my figures. The currently could change when all state info is in, but so far, I've not seen anything to suggest that it would, but who knows. States currently on the list:
CO, FL, KS, LA, MD, MO, NJ, OH, SC, MA, VA
Maryland would not be on here if Baltimore were a part of Baltimore County. The city and county population combined would've put it well ahead of Montgomery County. In the future, more states may be added on or taken off, depending on population shifts. For instance, Ohio can be subtracted when Franklin County (Columbus, Ohio's largest city) gets behind the more populous Cuyahoga County (Cleveland). However, Tennessee may be added on when Nashville gets pass Memphis. Shelby County (Memphis) is currently larger than Davidson County (Nashville). Kentucky would've been on this list had Louisville not merged with Jefferson County. Otherwise, Lexington/Fayette County would've been larger than Louisville, but smaller than Jefferson County.
So does that mean New Orleans is still the largest city in Louisiana? Speculation since Katrina has been that Baton Rouge would be.
And I still haven't been able to get at municipal figures for any state. Where are they on the census site?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/default.htm
Yes, New Orleans is now larger than Baton Rouge. At one point just after Katrina, BR supposedly swelled to over 400k people. But now the population has gone down to a more normal level.
Quote from: golden eagle on February 24, 2011, 10:42:49 PM
WASHINGTON: Snoqualmie (554.2%), North Marysville (-99.5)
North Marysville was an unincorporated area annexed into Marysville. It actually grew like crazy over the last decade. I posted the correct answer for Washington below your initial post. Endicott was the fastest dying place in Washington.
Quote from: golden eagle on March 03, 2011, 04:41:31 PMFor Kansas, Wichita is, by far, the largest city in Kansas, but its home county, Sedgwick, has been surpassed by Johnson County as the most populous county in the state. Olathe, in Johnson County, moved into fifth place among Kansas' largest cities and is in striking distance of Topeka for fourth place.
It has long been anticipated--since the 1980's at least--that Johnson County would surpass Sedgwick County in population, so this data is confirmation. In 1900, Kansas had a population of 1.4 million, while Johnson and Sedgwick Counties had populations of 18,000 and 44,000 respectively. As of the 2010 Census, Kansas has a population of 2.8 million but Johnson and Sedgwick Counties have, respectively, 30 and 10 times their 1900 populations.
The Wichita
Eagle published a map this morning showing that rural counties in the US 54 corridor (with the exception of Kiowa County--scene of the Greensburg tornado in May 2007--and one or two others) have seen population growth. Moreover, Hispanics have displaced blacks as the largest minority group in Kansas. This shines light on a likely motivation for the present urgency to pass a voter ID law and Arizona SB 1070 clone, and to abolish in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.
Freeway improvements are currently in the pipeline for US 54 west of Wichita, including freeway bypasses of Kingman and Cunningham.
Aside from the obvious growth magnets, Shawnee, Riley, and Douglas Counties all saw population growth. KDOT is building the K-18 freeway in Riley County and the K-10 South Lawrence Trafficway is in the pipeline. (The latter has been true for almost three decades, but I am confident construction will actually happen.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 04, 2011, 05:25:22 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on March 03, 2011, 04:41:31 PMFor Kansas, Wichita is, by far, the largest city in Kansas, but its home county, Sedgwick, has been surpassed by Johnson County as the most populous county in the state. Olathe, in Johnson County, moved into fifth place among Kansas' largest cities and is in striking distance of Topeka for fourth place.
It has long been anticipated--since the 1980's at least--that Johnson County would surpass Sedgwick County in population, so this data is confirmation. In 1900, Kansas had a population of 1.4 million, while Johnson and Sedgwick Counties had populations of 18,000 and 44,000 respectively. As of the 2010 Census, Kansas has a population of 2.8 million but Johnson and Sedgwick Counties have, respectively, 30 and 10 times their 1900 populations.
The Wichita Eagle published a map this morning showing that rural counties in the US 54 corridor (with the exception of Kiowa County--scene of the Greensburg tornado in May 2007--and one or two others) have seen population growth. Moreover, Hispanics have displaced blacks as the largest minority group in Kansas. This shines light on a likely motivation for the present urgency to pass a voter ID law and Arizona SB 1070 clone, and to abolish in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.
Freeway improvements are currently in the pipeline for US 54 west of Wichita, including freeway bypasses of Kingman and Cunningham.
Aside from the obvious growth magnets, Shawnee, Riley, and Douglas Counties all saw population growth. KDOT is building the K-18 freeway in Riley County and the K-10 South Lawrence Trafficway is in the pipeline. (The latter has been true for almost three decades, but I am confident construction will actually happen.)
I stormchase in the springtime. Back in 2002, I was chasing a storm that produced several tornadoes along the 54 corridor from the 54/400 split to Pratt. We counted 11 different tornadoes including one that hit Mullinsville, one just north of Greensburg, and 2 that hit the north and west sides of Pratt. In 2006, we were on the first big Greensburg tornado. The second came through almost exactly a year later, that's the one you reference above.
I spotted an article about the exodus continuing at St. Louis
http://nextstl.com/urban-living/the-exodus-continues-city-of-st-louis-loses-29k-residents-2000-2010
California released (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/ca)
Five largest cities: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco and Fresno
Five largest counties: Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange, Riverside & San Bernardino.
Ohio census released (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn72.html)
Five largest cities:
1. Columbus 787,033
2. Cleveland 396,815
3. Cincinnati 296,943
4. Toledo 287,208
5. Akron 199,110
Five largest counties:
1. Cuyahoga 1,280,122
2. Franklin 1,163,414
3. Hamilton 802,374
4. Summit 541,781
5. Montgomery 535,153
Except for the Columbus area, all the major urban areas in Ohio experience a population loss. In Cleveland's case, the city fell below 400K. Except for St. Louis, I can't think of too many major cities that have fallen as much as Cleveland has.
Pennsylvania census info (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn74.html)
1. Philadelphia 1,526,006
2. Pittsburgh 305,704
3. Allentown 118,032;
4. Erie 101,786
5. Reading 88,082
The five largest counties:
1. Philadelphia 1,526,006
2. Allegheny 1,223,348
3. Montgomery 799,874
4. Bucks 625,249
5. Delaware 558,979
Philadelphia actually grew, albeit at .6%. Still, for a city whose population has been shrinking for decades, could this be signaling a turnaround for the City of Brotherly Love?
Forgot about Connecticut...
http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn70.html
More additionnals infos about California Census
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5193490&postcount=28
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5192858&postcount=603
but I spotted a interesting rant then I decided to quote
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5192915&postcount=606
QuoteThe old Grapes of Wrath in reverse so to speak.
Ohio and Pennsylvania are the two states I was looking for from a redistricting perspective. While it is almost normal, depending on how a state defines a city and county, for there to eventually be a fast growing ring of suburban counties and a decline in the core city and county, Pittsburgh and Cleveland have undergone something far different, and thus we will see a major shift in the maps of those states district. The "trick" IMHO, is not to look at some ex-farmland county that got subdivided and had some rediculous %age growth, but to look at those counties and the core county with the city in it and look at the totals. Pittsburgh and Cleveland, as regions, are in decline.
Pennsylvania is pretty stark. Western Pennsylvania is simply emptying out, while Philadelphia (as a region) is still growing and we are seeing the rolling farm land not that far from DC along I 81 and 83 develop and we are seeing sub sub suburban growth from NYC reach PA. If you divided PA into two states at the Eastern Continental Divide, W PA would be the nation's economic basketcase.
Ohio is similar. We see normal population growth in Appalachian SE Ohio, the least industrial part of the state. Then pretty much normal city to suburb shifting in Cincy and Dayton in SW Ohio. Columbus is growing because of the state government, a huge federal government presence, and OSU. Then you have Cleveland and Toledo. Wow is all you can say. While not as stark as W PA, an area in full decline.
Line drawing will be interesting.
As to the whole GOW idea and California, there really is something sort of to this idea, but not exactly. The Census is not showing the full picture, but California is losing its midde class. It is becoming a state of the very wealthy and the very poor.
Census: Western Pa. Population Down, but Outlook Up (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_726593.html)
Recent population estimates from the Census Bureau shows Western PA's population grew somewhat, not by much and not as much to offset earlier losses.
Allegheny County had some marginal gains, but the largest changes were in Butler (Cranberry) and Washington (Southpointe) Counties. Just as people are moving north out of Washington and Baltimore and west out of New Jersey for things like a lower cost of living and "more bang for the buck" for housing/property, so have people migrated north and south out of Taxegheny County.
Looking at the Keystone State numbers (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/pa), why are there so many locales listed more than once? Maybe townships or even more than one town with the same name but different counties?
There are a lot of duplicate names of villages, boroughs, and cities which are located in different counties.
I spotted a interesting post at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5196301&postcount=756 about Milwaukee, they have the smallest population since 1940 but it dropped of 1%, and they have an increase of Latino population.
I wonder if Wisconsin cities like Racine and Kenosha are turning slowly but surely as bedroom communities for people who work around Chicago?
Synopsis of Wisconsin - lots of people moved to cities. Milwaukee shrank a bit (as Stephane noted above), but suburbs grew. Madison grew 12%, Green Bay 1%. Many "flew" south.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on March 11, 2011, 07:53:01 AM
I spotted a interesting post at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5196301&postcount=756 about Milwaukee, they have the smallest population since 1940 but it dropped of 1%, and they have an increase of Latino population.
I wonder if Wisconsin cities like Racine and Kenosha are turning slowly but surely as bedroom communities for people who work around Chicago?
Actually, Kenosha County is an extension of the Chicago MSA, though it lies smack in the middle between Chicago and Milwaukee. I think Racine's too close to Milwaukee to be an extension of Chicago.
Arizona numbers less than expected:
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/031111_census_numbers
Also on the right side of that page are the county rankings and that of the 20 largest cities in the state. I'm going to watch that chart for years to come, especially when the economy picks back up and the housing market stabilizes and rebounds.
More census graphics on the table, this one about Philadelphia neighboorhoods http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5196612&postcount=761
Quote from: golden eagle on February 27, 2011, 01:32:32 PM
NEVADA: Lyon (50.7%), Esmeralda (-19.4%)
NEW JERSEY: Gloucester (13.2%), Cape May (-4.9%)
Nevada: I'm kind of shocked that Clark isn't the fastest growing county, or Washoe.
New Jersey: The only reason that Cape May is up there is because they were small to begin with. I would've thought that either Essex or Hudson would've been the ones to lose people. I'm also shocked that Gloucester is the fastest growing. I would've thought it would've been Ocean.
The Columbus Dispatch produced a similar graphic for Franklin County to what Stephane linked to for Philadelphia
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dispatch.com%2Flive%2Fexport-content%2Fsites%2Fdispatch%2Flocal_news%2Fstories%2F2011%2F03%2F11%2Fcensus-follow-art-glvbtvqo-10311gfx-census-folow-tracts-map-eps-large.jpg&hash=5929099b035add50d0e647f0b0903eb72889bfcc)
The Dispatch's take on this: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/11/census-shows-columbus-growth-was-uneven.html?sid=101
Does Columbus still have their policy of annexing land every year?
Well i was a bit off with my guess of Oshkosh, WI. Census Pop is 66,083. But i do find it interesting that my other grandmother's town lost almost 300 people for a town that was 1504 in 2000 down to 1214 in 2010. I know Princeton is a mostly elderly town but my gosh that's a lot to lose.
Quote from: golden eagle on March 09, 2011, 02:40:27 PM
Forgot about Connecticut...
http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn70.html
| Bridgeport | 144,229 |
| New Haven | 129,779 |
| Hartford | 124,775 |
| Stamford | 122,643 |
| Waterbury | 110,366 |
Everyone had been saying that Stamford was going to pass Hartford and by 2020 might even pass New Haven. Looks like that prediction fell a bit short...
So, revise it to: Stamford is going to pass Hartford by 2020.
Interestingly, New Haven, by the numbers, outpaced Stamford's growth from 2000-2010, although it's easy to guess why: it's because the rules changed. College students got counted at their school addresses rather than their home addresses this time around, so New Haven got a boost because of Yale.
Quote from: golden eagle on March 11, 2011, 09:47:41 PM
Does Columbus still have their policy of annexing land every year?
They can if they want, it's just that folks aren't so willing to have their land annexed into Columbus anymore.
Oakland CA, like in Chicago, have a big population change, the African-American move to suburbs, Stockton or even out of state
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5197148&postcount=46
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/11/MNO91I8F86.DTL&tsp=1
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17577468?nclick_check=1
Montana:
http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn85.html
New Mexico:
http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn87.html
Quote from: njroadhorse on March 11, 2011, 04:53:32 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on February 27, 2011, 01:32:32 PM
NEVADA: Lyon (50.7%), Esmeralda (-19.4%)
NEW JERSEY: Gloucester (13.2%), Cape May (-4.9%)
Nevada: I'm kind of shocked that Clark isn't the fastest growing county, or Washoe.
New Jersey: The only reason that Cape May is up there is because they were small to begin with. I would've thought that either Essex or Hudson would've been the ones to lose people. I'm also shocked that Gloucester is the fastest growing. I would've thought it would've been Ocean.
Not many counties in Nevada had anywhere remotely close to the population of Washoe or Clark. It's easy to have huge percentage increases when starting with a low population.
Tom Green County (county of San Angelo) has a total population of over 110,000. This is really a big jump from 2000. It's good to see increasing populations in Angelo too.
BigMatt
Tennessee:
http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn93.html
This link shows Nashville's population at over 626K, which would pull it to within almost 20K people of Memphis. However, this link (http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn93.html) has Nashville at just over 601K, when you take out all the independent communities of Davidson County. so, which is the actual population. That would put it 47K behind Memphis.
Minnesota's numbers was also released today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/mn). Minneapolis lost 40 people from its 2000 population, but still retains its spot as the largest city in Minneapolis. St. Paul lost a meager .7% of its population.
Georgia released:
http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn97.html
I think there may've been a serious undercount with Atlanta. I've seen estimates prior showing Atlanta having well over 500K. If I were in Atlanta leadership, I'd have the Census Bureau look at this again. Gwinnett County is poised to take over Fulton County, but I believe Fulton was undercounted, too.
Florida:
http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn95.html
Orlando is within earshot toppling St. Petersburg as the 4th largest city in the state. Otherwise, no real surprises here except that I though Miami would be over 400K.
North Dakota population growth, but at the expense of rural communities http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-03-16-north-dakota-census_N.htm
Quote from: golden eagle on March 17, 2011, 02:16:42 PM
Otherwise, no real surprises here except that I though Miami would be over 400K.
Technically, actual city of Miami is surrounded by many smaller towns, cities, and communities for which there is no more room for annexing any more land. The only way for the population of the city of Miami to truly increase is by building more skyscrapers (or space stations?); but the entire three-county "South Florida" MSA is at about 6 million people or so. The MSA is really just an unbroken swath of civilization from Homestead (to the south), to Jupiter (at the north end) along the US 1 corridor.
Michigan's census will be released next week, it might have a lost of population, however there an increase of hispanics
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/chart_growth_of_hispanic_popul.html
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/michigan_census_which_places_w.html
I wonder if Coleman A. Young might roll and spin in his grave? :-D :sombrero: :spin: :rofl:
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on March 19, 2011, 12:59:26 PM
Michigan's census will be released next week, it might have a lost of population, however there an increase of hispanics
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/chart_growth_of_hispanic_popul.html
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/michigan_census_which_places_w.html
I wonder if Coleman A. Young might roll and spin in his grave? :-D :sombrero: :spin: :rofl:
A quote from one of the links:
"But a July 2010 estimate by a regional planning agency placed the number closer to 772,419. That number was developed by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG)."
Are they saying Detroit fell that far down?
Quote from: golden eagle on March 19, 2011, 01:24:13 PM
"But a July 2010 estimate by a regional planning agency placed the number closer to 772,419. That number was developed by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG)."
Are they saying Detroit fell that far down?
Yes, from the peak in the early 1950s when Detroit got 1.8 millions to today, Detroit's population declined
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_profile_of_Detroit
The decline of white people in Detroit is even steeper. Only 116K+? And that was in 2000; I wonder what it is now.
Quote from: golden eagle on March 19, 2011, 02:58:35 PM
The decline of white people in Detroit is even steeper. Only 116K+? And that was in 2000; I wonder what it is now.
From what I read on City-Data and Skyscraperpage forum, we might see some small increase
http://www.city-data.com/forum/detroit/1095791-detroit-sees-rise-white-residents-after.html
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=185427
even Time magazine did posted a short post in their blogs http://detroit.blogs.time.com/2010/09/29/the-return-flight/
Blogger hopes Atlanta mayor sues Census Bureau for undercount (http://hatthief.blogspot.com/2011/03/atlanta-2010-census-population-seems-to.html)
I'm sure there are bloggers that want all sorts of things.
Suits over the Census have always been unsuccessful. For a good reason. Nobody has ever been able to prove any of the conspiracy theories surrounding "planned undercounts".
Quote from: golden eagle on March 19, 2011, 10:17:09 PM
Blogger hopes Atlanta mayor sues Census Bureau for undercount (http://hatthief.blogspot.com/2011/03/atlanta-2010-census-population-seems-to.html)
He is using the census estimates to bash the actual count? What a clown. Census estimates are usually poorly done. Here in Washington, the Office of Financial Management is always way closer to the actual count with their estimates.
Quote from: Landshark on March 04, 2011, 03:46:15 PM
Quote from: golden eagle on February 24, 2011, 10:42:49 PM
WASHINGTON: Snoqualmie (554.2%), North Marysville (-99.5)
North Marysville was an unincorporated area annexed into Marysville. It actually grew like crazy over the last decade. I posted the correct answer for Washington below your initial post. Endicott was the fastest dying place in Washington.
The Seattle Times has an article on Endicott, the fastest dying place in Washington:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014547169_censussmalltowns20m.html
Kentucky released their numbers http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-03-17-kentucky-census_N.htm
Relating Kentucky's numbers to roads policy, while KY stays at six congressman, its map will have to be redone greatly. Population losses, huge population losses, in many of the counties making up KY-5, the House Appropriations Chairman and a big advocate of road building, especially in KY-5. That district, created when KY lost a seat after the 1990 Census, is a very odd mix of 90-10 democrat coal counties, and 90-10 Republican rural farming counties who, as the saying goes, "vote the way their ancestors shot" in the Civil War. Protecting Rogers will be difficult without a major redraw of all of KY's districts.
Michigan's census results were released today (http://topics.mlive.com/tag/Census%202010/index.html), and while population overall declined, there were some areas of growth. Detroit lost 25% of its population from the 2000 census, with a 2010 count of 713,777.
There an article about Detroit lost of 25% of population
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-03-22-michigan-census_N.htm
and some reactions on other forums
http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?9404-713-000
http://www.city-data.com/forum/detroit/1232064-detroits-2010-population-released-week-2.html
People continue to wake up and get the hell out of Detroit.
The Louisiana special session on redistricting started Monday in Baton Rouge and it's getting ugly. Jindal and most Republicans want to leave the Shreveport- and Monroe-based congressional districts alone and get rid of Congressional newcomer Jeff Landry (a GOPer)'s seat, pitting him against fellow GOPer Charles Boustany. Other lawmakers want Shreveport and Monroe put in a new district.
Story:
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/03/talks_to_shape_new_legislative.html (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/03/talks_to_shape_new_legislative.html)
Here are the proposals:
* With north-south northern Louisiana districts:
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=733199 (http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=733199)
* One version with east-west oriented districts:
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=733207 (http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=733207)
* Another version with east-west districts:
http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Redistricting2011/Plans/Congress/Map_Gallot1A_0317011.pdf (http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Redistricting2011/Plans/Congress/Map_Gallot1A_0317011.pdf)
* And another one:
http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Redistricting2011/Plans/Congress/Map_Gallot1B_0317011.pdf (http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Redistricting2011/Plans/Congress/Map_Gallot1B_0317011.pdf)
* And yet another one:
http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Redistricting2011/Plans/Congress/Map_Gallot1C_0317011.pdf (http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Redistricting2011/Plans/Congress/Map_Gallot1C_0317011.pdf)
Quote from: brownpelican on March 23, 2011, 10:41:58 PMPeople continue to wake up and get the hell out of Detroit.
Kwame Kilpatrick has much to answer for. His failed attempt to cover up his sex texting cost every man, woman, and child in Detroit about nine dollars each.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 23, 2011, 10:59:52 PM
Kwame Kilpatrick has much to answer for. His failed attempt to cover up his sex texting cost every man, woman, and child in Detroit about nine dollars each.
really now? I elect to re-interpret this a different way. the fact that people care about whom Kwame K sex-texts has cost the population nine dollars each.
really, people - don't you have anything better to worry about???
West Virginia have some growth in the Eastern Panhandle from peoples from the Baltimore-Washington area who found a more reasonnable housing prices. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-03-24-WVirginia24_ST_N.htm
West Virginia redistricting is going to be brutal. Huge gains in the two counties that are becoming bedroom communities of DC, with gains of over 25% population. As USA Today say, much tied to becoming a DC suburb, also to one of WV's few enlightened tax laws, it does not tax warehouse inventories intended for reshipment, and lots of companies have clustered parts warehouses on I-81 for that reason. If you exclude those two counties, the rest of the state would have joined Michigan in losing population overall. Losses everywhere else, except Monongalia County (WVU) and a few mountain counties that never had much population to start with. The most stark maps of the year, IMHO are WV and MI.
Someone did a interesting map of the Chicago Ward Map http://robparal.com/ChicagoWards.html
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 24, 2011, 12:31:37 AM
really now? I elect to re-interpret this a different way. the fact that people care about whom Kwame K sex-texts has cost the population nine dollars each.
really, people - don't you have anything better to worry about???
If it were
just the sexting, I would tend to agree. However, in his attempts to conceal the facts around the firing of Gary Brown and the subsequent secret settlement paid by the city (i.e, the taxpayers), Kilpatrick testified in open court that he wasn't having a romantic relationship with his chief-of-staff Christine Beatty. As we all know, the text messages proved otherwise. But not only was there the perjury case, there's also his supposed involvement with interfering with the Tamara Greene murder investigation as well as federal charges for corruption and racketeering. I'd say the latter is far more serious and any Detroit taxpayer should be rightly concerned about how city contracts were awarded under Kwame's administration.
But to steer this back on topic, Detroit now has to worry about losing millions in revenue (http://www.freep.com/article/20110324/NEWS06/103240530/1001/NEWS/Lower-census-means-Detroit-may-lose-millions-dollars) because several special laws which were passed to cover cities with a population 750,000 or more obviously no longer apply.
Quote from: rawmustard on March 24, 2011, 08:39:41 AMBut to steer this back on topic, Detroit now has to worry about losing millions in revenue (http://www.freep.com/article/20110324/NEWS06/103240530/1001/NEWS/Lower-census-means-Detroit-may-lose-millions-dollars) because several special laws which were passed to cover cities with a population 750,000 or more obviously no longer apply.
The population threshold on those laws used to be 1,000,000 - I remember because this came up with the 1990 count.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 24, 2011, 12:31:37 AMreally now? I elect to re-interpret this a different way. the fact that people care about whom Kwame K sex-texts has cost the population nine dollars each.
Rawmustard has supplied the background, so I would just add that the issue was not really the sex texting (consenting adults and all that), but rather the coverup. The problem with coverups is that even if the motivation is later found to be entirely to conceal personal embarrassment, people still have to yank off the lid to make sure nothing else of genuine public interest is also being covered up. The same coverup that conceals an inappropriate relationship can easily extend to issues of genuine public interest such as graft, concealment of felonies, etc.
the murder investigation is indeed something else.
I just wish our society would evolve to the point where, in response to "have you been having a romantic relationship with your chief of staff?" the only polite and accepted answer would be "go fuck yourself".
I was having a discussion with an Atlanta resident on another message board and his reasoning for a much-lower Atlanta count was because Sandy Springs and Dunwoody may've been counted as part of Atlanta prior to their incorporations, despite that they were not part of the city itself. He said Sandy Springs residents paid Atlanta taxes, again, despite being an unincorporated area. Sandy Springs' population is over 80K, with Dunwoody around 40K. If you had them both, along with Atlanta's population, it would be equal to prior census estimations of Atlanta's population.
there some big demographics changes in Washington DC.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/dc-census-2010/
Edit: The NY Times also posted a map showing the 2010 Census in the entire country
http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp
California has now 36.5 million residents, a gain of 3 million, the slowest Cal. experienced in a century (1900-10). Its demographic changes shown not there's NO racial/ethnic majority, the Latino/Hispanic sector surpassed Anglo for the first time since statehood 160 years ago. About 40 percent claim Latino/Hispanic origin, compared to 38.5% of Anglo/European-American descent, while African-Americans continue to decline under 6% and Asian-Americans are at 9% sandwiched in between rapid-growing Latinos and Native Americans: whom are 2.5% of the state population of both Hispanic/Latin and North American origins. "Other" is estimated at 10% including Pacific Islander (1.8%) along with some Mexican-Americans used the "other" designation as a "race" though Hispanic/Latino is only an ethnic category based on nationality, culture and the Spanish language.
But most demographers don't believe Hispanics/Latinos in Cal. will become a majority anytime in the 21st century, due to other Latin American immigration patterns in other states of the union and US-born Latinos relocate to other states along with about 2-3 million Whites, Blacks in a higher percentage per ratio of their numbers and even Asians find new homes in other states in the time period left Cal. (1990-2010). Cal. is one of 4 or 5 states where White Anglos are a minority, as well "minority-majority" states, including Hawaii, New Mexico, followed by Texas (2005) and soon Florida. The 2010 census finds New York state will become the 4th most populated (at 16-18 million people), is losing that rank to Florida.
The black majority of Washington DC is in decline, due to shifts of blacks into suburban areas of Maryland and Virginia. Black communities in the urban Northeast and West coast are nearly gone or abandoned for nearby towns or counties, and a new "great migration" of middle-class African-Americans with family roots and lineage ties into the South/Southeastern states. The original "great migrations" of rural Southern blacks moving to the industrial urban North was a significant demographic event in the USA during the early half of the 20th century. But the USA experiences the repeat of large immigration, this time from the continents of Asia and Africa, and esp. the Americas other than exclusively from pre-WWII Europe.
Quote from: Mike D boy on August 07, 2011, 09:28:04 PM
The black majority of Washington DC is in decline, due to shifts of blacks into suburban areas of Maryland and Virginia. Black communities in the urban Northeast and West coast are nearly gone or abandoned for nearby towns or counties, and a new "great migration" of middle-class African-Americans with family roots and lineage ties into the South/Southeastern states. The original "great migrations" of rural Southern blacks moving to the industrial urban North was a significant demographic event in the USA during the early half of the 20th century. But the USA experiences the repeat of large immigration, this time from the continents of Asia and Africa, and esp. the Americas other than exclusively from pre-WWII Europe.
That reminds me of an article I saw at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodriguez-whitecities-20110725,0,7955238.column then someone at Skyscraperpage mentionned http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=5363322&postcount=1364
Quote from: SP Cook on March 20, 2011, 07:22:16 AM
I'm sure there are bloggers that want all sorts of things.
Suits over the Census have always been unsuccessful. For a good reason. Nobody has ever been able to prove any of the conspiracy theories surrounding "planned undercounts".
As an employee of the Census Bureau, I can assure you that there is little chance of any numbers getting fudged. First of all, only the Director of the CB is a political appointee and the rest are career statisticians, so among any small group of people with access to data, you are certain to have both Republicans and Democrats. Secondly, the data passes through a large number of people, making it very unlikely that any fudging could go undetected and/or kept secret.
Cabiness has a dream job (maybe I should get it before its gone...while it lasts due to federal budget job). LOL! Demographers like to watch cities grow.
California has a few communities with over 50,000 persons per square mile, usually located in the southeastern end of L.A. by the city limits, but also in Santa Ana of Orange County.
It is known for a fact that San Francisco, Santa Monica, Berkeley, Palm Springs and other most affluent communities have extremely low population growth rates, by factors such as a high percentage are singles (esp. retirees and senior widow/ers) and childless/ no children couples live in them. The "Gaying and Graying" is a phrase on the GLBT community made these communities their homes with near-majorities of some neighborhoods (i.e. Hillcrest in San Diego, West Hollywood and Castro District in San Francisco). The census doesn't collect data on sexual orientation, but there is data on how many registered married couples and non-married partnerships I think made it to the record.
Sorry for dusting-off this topic. ^^; I could call it the "census aftermath".
I spotted this article via the City-Data forums
http://www.city-data.com/forum/michigan/1468657-article-study-shows-people-moving-michigan.html
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/10/10080954-study-shows-people-are-moving-to-michigan
Quote
In the last year, more people relocating for jobs became Texans and Virginians than New Yorkers and Kansans.
At least those were the findings of a relocation study recently released by Atlas Van Lines, one of the nation's largest moving companies. Overall, the number of moves nationally, which were mainly due to new job placement, increased by 7 percent last year to 80,289, up from 74,541 a year ago.
"Our annual migration patterns study is an interesting gauge of the economy, where economic development is taking place and trends to follow throughout the upcoming year," said Jack Griffin, president and COO of Atlas World Group, which reviews moving patterns annually. "These new findings are especially promising, as we saw the number of moves increase yet again across North America."
Washington, D.C., had the highest percentage of inbound moves for the sixth year in a row, while Ohio continued to have the highest percentage of outbound migrators.
New 2011 state population estimates (http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2011/tables/NST-EST2011-01.csv)
I'll post the top ten (I rounded the numbers):
1. CA--37.7M
2. TX--25.7
3. NY--19.5
4. FL--19.1
5. IL--12.9
6. PA--12.7
7. OH--11.5
8. MI--9.88
9. GA--9.82
10. NC--9.66
As Michigan's population declines or stays relatively stagnant, both Georgia and North Carolina will surpass the Wolverine State within the next few years. Eventually, they'll get past OH, PA and even IL. It might two before decades that happens.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on January 31, 2012, 10:24:33 AM
Sorry for dusting-off this topic. ^^; I could call it the "census aftermath".
Its a great topic. And the Census does have an aftermath. It is called redistricting. Every congressional seat (except the 8 states with one represenative), every state senate and state assembly distict and, in most large cites, every ward, must be redrawn.
The national newsmedia only focuses on Congress, and only focuses on the gross change between states (Ohio lost 2 and Texas gained 4 and all of that) and not of the shift within states, and, armed with computer technology, the ability of legislatures to draw contorted districts for varrious purposes (a fundamentally different system than most western democracies, where districts are logical and compact, for the most part).
I urge people to pay attention to redistricting.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 12, 2012, 08:06:43 AM
(a fundamentally different system than most western democracies, where districts are logical and compact, for the most part)
Com'on, what's illogical about this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_296w%2FWashingtonPost%2FContent%2FBlogs%2Fthe-fix%2FStandingArt%2FPA-7.jpg%3Fuuid%3DIEx4MCp-EeGwMD_zmc8m8w&hash=f53eb467333080b18002e7cde0bb7648eeb39ae8)
at least they are roughly equal - in the UK they aren't - and while some effort has been made to remove the inherent bias in the system towards Scotland, Wales and the urban bits of the North of England and the centres of big cities, it was still the case that the Conservatives got a larger percentage of the national vote in 2010 (36%) than Labour did in 2005 (35%) - Labour had a sizable majority in the House of Commons post 2005, the Tories couldn't get a majority due their safe seats being about 10% larger in size (there's other factors too, like turnout, not to mention votes that don't lead to a seat).
The rather random pattern in American seats is, to some extent, to group areas with similar demographics together so their Congressman can better represent most voters in their district as the seats are fairly 'safe'. In the UK, despite 'compact and logical' (though I'd argue that they aren't that logical in a lot of places because of the attempts to balance out size, but ignoring the fact that the North, Scotland and Wales still have smaller seats) seats with no attempts to gerrymander, we end up with not that many seats are going to swing and change party - perhaps as many as a quarter are up for grabs - mostly affluent areas of inner London, parts of outer London, commuter belt areas around larger cities, and some middle-sized towns.
Of course safe seats have real problems - you can put a stick of celery as a candidate for MP around here and they would get in if they had a blue (Tory) rosette. Same with Labour candidates in places like Glasgow (though you'd have to deep fry the celery first, or they'd run a mile from it :P). That someone doesn't have to be good, just has to stand for the right party, to get in is a bad sign. Also, there's next to no debate in these areas as there's little point wasting energy.
I will try to relate the three 2010 redistricts to transportation policy.
West Virginia was unexpectedly easy. The state is quite gerrymandered and the legislature carried over the current map, moving only one county, Mason, from the 2nd (Capito) to the 3rd (Rahall). Rahall is the highest seniority minority member on Transportation (Capito is 9th among the Majority). The unfinished part of US 35 is in Putnam and Mason, so it would now theoretically have 2 higher ranking Transportation members working on it. Rahall is a congressman-for-life, and doesn't really need to pander, and, despite his status, has 100s of miles of unfinished projects already in his distict (King Coal, Coalfields Expressway, Tolsia Highway, WV 10). Capito, who had to run uphill everytime, took an actual interest in 35, and will now probably turn her attention to several projects in the eastern panhandle, increasingly the locus of her district.
Kentucky had a mess. While it did not lose a seat, its eastern Kentucky coalfields (90-10 democrat) bled population, as, to a lesser extent, did its democrat industrial core along the Ohio border, while its reflexivly 90-10 Republican rural non-coal mountains stayed even and its suburban and city areas grew. One of the most powerful men in Washington, Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers was protected, but the district will be a battleground between 90-10 counties in both directions when he (he is 75) retires. In all 400K Kentuckians were moved from one district to another. Rogers has been a tireless worker for Appalachian transportation projects, but really does not pick up any area with any pending projects, other than Corridor Q and the etherial I-66.
Ohio lost two seats, the only state to do so. Republican dominated, it adopted a convoluded map that, of course, protected the Speaker of the House. As to transportation, OH-6 was made more safe for the GOP, and that has traditionally been a transportation oriented seat, covering the canalized Ohio and the Appalachian part of Ohio.
meh.
fuck the census.
I distrust anyone who gives me credit just for existing.
You want to talk about gerrymandered. Look at the 12th district for NC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NC12_109.gif
It practically follows I-85, talk about off but on topic, they have been doing that for years. The only way to have true representation is to get rid of the Banksters that are controlling our government, both Repub and Dem and, electing through paper ballot non corporate, lawyer or banker reps. Limit terms of Congress Reps to 3 terms at any time, Senators to two terms at any time. No career politicans.
A bit off-topic, I spotted some interesting threads about the 2011 Canadian census
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=197671
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=197565