Exurbs Ain't What They Used to Be

Buyers' remorse strikes Prince William County in Virginia, home to the DC area's highest foreclosure rates and a situation that's left not-foreclosed-on homeowners with sinking property values and rising taxes.

The weird thing is that in the midst of these problems, county officials (and I suppose citizens) have decided that it would be smart for their local government to devote more time and resources to hounding illegal immigrants out of the county in a manner that's made it generally unpleasant for Hispanics of all stripes and immigrants both legal and illegal. One might think that under the circumstances you'd want as many residents as possible keeping homes occupied and patronizing local businesses, but there's no accounting for some folks' manias.

Comments

Totally. If the falling birth rate is really as perilous as conservatives claim, Mexican (and other Latino) immigration would seem to be a logical fix.

Alternatively, maybe we could develop an economy that didn't require endless expansion in order to maintain our standard of living--but dammit, private islands ain't gonna pay for themselves!

Posted by scythia | June 23, 2008 12:23 AM

One of the reasons some people moved to the exurbs was to get away from the multicultural diverse experience in the city and it's closer suburbs. You were expecting rational thought?

Posted by Adirondacker | June 23, 2008 12:26 AM

Agree with Adirondacker: if they weren't irrational, they wouldn't be way out in the boonies to begin with.

Posted by Michael | June 23, 2008 12:29 AM

I read that the one guy had a government job. In DC? I guess he isn't worried about high gas prices. Still, it makes you shake your head.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 23, 2008 1:57 AM

There are government jobs outside of DC: FDA in Rockville, NIH in Bethesda, etc. But that wouldn't be any better than DC, and I can't think of any agencies located in Virgina...

Posted by Lauren | June 23, 2008 2:21 AM

George Carlin died today in Santa Monica of heart failure. One of the 2 or 3 greatest stand-up comedians ever. A great rhetoritician, a great guy, a man who made lacerating nihilism roll over and die funny.

Posted by Trevor | June 23, 2008 2:28 AM

If you want understand one of the reasons we reached the current state, read

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_diversity_recession_or_how_affirmative_action_helped_cause_the_housing/

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 23, 2008 2:53 AM

It isn't simply a waste of resources to target immigrants; it's an incredibly short-sighted policy vis a vis the crumbling housing market, insofar as many of these new immigrants buy homes not long after they settle here. Right now, about half the cases in bankruptcy court here in Los Angeles (and close to 75% of my clients) involve immigrants who are trying to work within the system to save their homes by way of a Chapter 13.

By choking off the market for low-income home ownership, PG County is cutting the throat of every other resident who relies on the property taxes and the purchasing power these immigrants are bringing to the local economy. They are exacerbating the housing slump.

Posted by Steve Smith | June 23, 2008 2:54 AM

I can't think of any agencies located in Virgina...

The Pentagon? The CIA? The FBI?

Posted by rea | June 23, 2008 4:31 AM

. . . and along comes Sailer to explain that its all the fault of blacks, like everything else . . .

Why MY tolerates these vile racists posting on his site, I don't know.

Posted by rea | June 23, 2008 4:35 AM

A couple comments on parts of the article:

"The next wave of new residents are likely to find bargains, because overpriced houses are becoming more affordable. In May, the median price of a home in the county was $256,124, compared with $375,000 in May 2007, according to Metropolitan Regional Information Systems."

Whether that $256K counts as a "bargain" strikes me as dependent on whether you restrict your comparison to just other Washington metro neighborhoods, or also look around the country, particularly at post-industrial cities in the interior.

"Roughly two-thirds of its residents work outside the county. When it's time to shop or go out for an upscale meal, they get in their cars and drive to shopping centers in the region. What new residents want is an urban experience, with shopping and dining within the comforts of their suburban community, developers say."

Continuing the prior thought, I think one could find more "urban" neighborhoods (including walkable inner suburbs) much closer to local employment centers at or below that price point in many post-industrial interior cities.

"As their home values plummet and their taxes go up, some of the new arrivals, many of whom are 30-somethings with families, are beginning to sour on Prince William, which has the highest number of foreclosures in Virginia."

In light of all this, and as I have expressed here before, I do wonder if younger people are going to start putting pressure on employers to relocate some operations out of areas like Washington entirely and to less expensive cities. It just seems to me cities like Washington (meaning other expensive coastal cities) are going to continue to struggle to provide young people with the sort of lifestyles they expected to afford with their salaries, unless prices in the inner parts of the relevant metro areas come way down from their current levels. But so far those particular neighborhoods have largely remained at very high price levels even as the exurbs are crashing.

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 5:45 AM

Pogroms generally aren't known for their logic or ration.

Posted by Brendan | June 23, 2008 5:48 AM

I live in Prince William County and I can assure you its a vocal minority that has a problem with the Hispanics. These are the same people who were doing the white flight but they could not move any farther away. Their witch hunt has truly hurt this community but I guess if their not happy no one can be happy.

Posted by Lawrence | June 23, 2008 6:38 AM

I live in Prince William County and I can assure you its a vocal minority that has a problem with the Hispanics. These are the same people who were doing the white flight but they could not move any farther away. Their witch hunt has truly hurt this community but I guess if their not happy no one can be happy.

Posted by Lawrence | June 23, 2008 6:40 AM

I live in Prince William County and I can assure you its a vocal minority that has a problem with the Hispanics. These are the same people who were doing the white flight but they could not move any farther away. Their witch hunt has truly hurt this community but I guess if their not happy no one can be happy.

Posted by Lawrence | June 23, 2008 6:41 AM

"It isn't simply a waste of resources to target immigrants; it's an incredibly short-sighted policy..."

Yup, it would be. Good thing they're smart enough to target illegal immigrants, instead.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | June 23, 2008 6:52 AM

"The weird thing is....."

People are scared and angry, the policy makers in charge can do nothing to alleviate that fear, so they turn the anger against people who are different.

Weird? Sounds like the summation of human history to me.

Posted by hankest | June 23, 2008 7:21 AM

I don't know why you're surprised; when people run into economic difficulties, they blame others rather than themselves - because it's easier.

That kind of blame-casting is the entire rationale of the Democratic party though, so of all people, you shouldn't be surprised. The left has spent years telling various groups that they are victims and that they need help from outside; why should you be surprised when someone else wants to claim victim status?

When you search for answers to this kind of thing, go find a mirror.

Posted by James Robertson | June 23, 2008 7:28 AM

Steve Smith says:

"Right now, about half the cases in bankruptcy court here in Los Angeles (and close to 75% of my clients) involve immigrants"

And that's supposed to be a pro-immigration argument?

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 23, 2008 7:36 AM

There are government jobs outside of DC: FDA in Rockville, NIH in Bethesda, etc. But that wouldn't be any better than DC, and I can't think of any agencies located in Virgina...

Fort Belvoir has thousands of jobs at dozens of agencies (Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Contract Agency, Defense Threat Reduction Agency in one building alone, and various Army and DoD agencies spread throughout the base). Plus DoD plans on adding 18,000 jobs to Belvoir much to Fairfax's chagrin because the Army isn't planning on helpng with the roads or schools in the area, which are already critically over capacity.

At a minimum, they need to use the abandoned rr right of way to bring Metro from Springfield/Franconia to Belvoir.

PW County abuts Belvoir.

Plus, Quantico with thousands of jobs is IN PW county.

As for the immigrants - I dont want to stereotype, but people who buy McMansions in PW county tend to be large type pricks.

Posted by calipygian | June 23, 2008 7:41 AM

In my area of the nation (as everywhere else) are many "Tan Lands" or "Vanilla Villas" as I've dubbed them. Vast tracts of shoddy housing covered in tan and pewter vinyl siding. Six square feet of concrete out the back door. The next house close enough to spit and hit. Vinyl floors, pressboard cabinets, bottom-of-the-line everything else. You can watch these neighborhoods erected and within a decade see the inexorable creep of decay, homes falling apart at the seams, driveways buckling, various broken down vehicles strewn about the yards. The residents all aspired to home ownership, many before they were ready or able. They live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford to maintain or repair anything properly. This was the state of things before the current mortgage debacle. Now it's worse tenfold. Eventually it will fall on the cities (i.e. their taxpayers) to reclaim these neighborhoods. Neither the banks or recently departed residents will bear the cost. Instant slums. Squatters, drugs, theft and crime, decay and blight. Ghettos created in one tenth the time it took some inner cities to degrade to the same condition. I don't think there are policy choices to walk all this back. Your grandchildren will be able to view the same wreckage visible today.

Posted by steve duncan | June 23, 2008 7:47 AM

Good thing they're smart enough to target illegal immigrants, instead.

From the post:

hounding illegal immigrants out of the county in a manner that's made it generally unpleasant for Hispanics of all stripes and immigrants both legal and illegal.

So apparently they're no smarter than the racist trolls on this site.

And James Robertson, you were doing so well until you confused "you need help from outside" with "you need to beat up on these other folks." Almost everyone can use help -- it's got nothing to do with right-wing shibboleths about "the politics of victimization." Whipping up fury about brown people without actually helping anyone is more of a Republican ever since Nixon.

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 23, 2008 8:00 AM

you were doing so well until you confused "you need help from outside" with "you need to beat up on these other folks." nice.

Posted by prefabrik | June 23, 2008 8:13 AM

Vinyl floors, pressboard cabinets, bottom-of-the-line everything else.

Were there middle-class houses built in the last two decades?

I don't mean in price, neighborhood, and mortgageholder, but somewhere between the stuff Steve Duncan mentions, and the granite countertops, Sub Zero fridges and Viking ranges.

Posted by ThresherK | June 23, 2008 8:23 AM

Vinyl floors, pressboard cabinets, bottom-of-the-line everything else.

Were there any middle-class houses built in the last two decades?

I don't mean in price, neighborhood, and mortgageholder, but somewhere between the stuff Steve Duncan mentions, and the granite countertops, Sub Zero fridges and Viking ranges.

Posted by ThresherK | June 23, 2008 8:27 AM

Ugh--sorry about the double post. The first one (Firefox) never came back as "done" so I went to Opera and submitted again.

Posted by ThresherK | June 23, 2008 8:32 AM

If Peak Oil is a reality we might be more screwed than we think. Most of the hounsing construction since World War II has been in the auto suburbs. If you stay there, you will hit hard by the high cost of gas, and if you own the value of your property will fall. If you move to a place with good public transportation, they you will pay through the nose for housing.

We could easily see a situation where American cities turn into inner cities consisting of neighborhoods where the wealthy live, plus some slums made up legacy public housing projects, followed by still more slums in the suburbs, in a few more scenic wealthy areas in the countryside surrounded by rural poverty. No real place for the middle class to go, if one still survives this.

Posted by Ed | June 23, 2008 8:56 AM

Ed -

I can read the tea leaves. I'm interviewing for a variety of Washington DC based jobs. As a single, approaching middle-age man, I feel it is my duty to buy a house in South East DC, across the river in Anacostia. I figure it is a win-win situation: I am bringing in new money to the neighborhood, fixing up a property and I am getting a decent sized property for cheap which will obviously increase in value as the Peak Oil scenario plays out.

Some people may call it gentrification. I call it what needs to be done to survive the next 50 years, which I think will be very difficult for people who havn't heard of the term Peak Oil (I.E. 95% of the country).

We live in a country in the grips of mass delusion. More than half of the country believes in intelligent design and therefore are succeptible to believing that there is a big creamy nougat of renewable abiotic oil in the center of the Earth. Those who buy houses in Woodbridge are foolish. Those who buy houses in Anacostia are smart.

/patting self on back, smugly.

Posted by calipygian | June 23, 2008 9:21 AM

My impression, and I would like to hear more about it, is that major European cities reverse the typical pattern of the US. Inner Cities are for the wealthy; poor people live in suburbs. One can see this pattern emerging in some US cities now -- usually the ones with better public transit. Certainly true here in Boston.

Posted by Tom in MA | June 23, 2008 9:21 AM

Gee, they're not behaving like rational economic men whose pocketbook is the be all and end all of their existence. Stamp that out! Obviously enemies of progressivism.

Posted by j mct | June 23, 2008 9:28 AM

Ugh--sorry about the double post. The first one (Firefox) never came back as "done" so I went to Opera and submitted again.

Most comments in Firefox never come back as done here. All of them, however, actually do post. Don't submit comments twice!

Posted by John | June 23, 2008 9:31 AM

Ugh--sorry about the double post. The first one (Firefox) never came back as "done" so I went to Opera and submitted again.

Sometimes the hampsters in the spinning wheels that the Atlantic uses to power their website need a break and that will happen...

Posted by J.B. | June 23, 2008 9:37 AM

calipygian:
As a single, approaching middle-age man, I feel it is my duty to buy a house in South East DC, across the river in Anacostia. I figure it is a win-win situation: I am bringing in new money to the neighborhood, fixing up a property and I am getting a decent sized property for cheap which will obviously increase in value as the Peak Oil scenario plays out.

Some people may call it gentrification.

Including most of your new neighbors, I suspect.

You know, it IS gentrification. You really shouldn't kid yourself about that. You're maybe benefitting some there who can keep up with you financially, but you're helping to push out anyone else. Calling it win-win is stretching it.

I live in a gentrified urban neighborhood myself, but it is pretty obvious that one of the things that makes the neighborhood nicer than it used to be is that the people who used to live there are no longer there.

I drove around Anacostia a few months ago with my mom, who grew up there (Halley Terrace .. a nice street!), and ... it wasn't as bad as I had been raised to expect, except for the actual government housing projects. I was amazed at the number of nice cars parked on the streets.

Actually, in my mom's mind, we went from Washington Highlands, through Congress Heights, past the hospital, and down the hill, and THEN we got to Anacostia, but the whole thing's Anacostia in my mind, just like it is for most white Washington-area kids of my era.

Posted by BP Beckley | June 23, 2008 10:26 AM

"If the falling birth rate is really as perilous as conservatives claim, Mexican (and other Latino) immigration would seem to be a logical fix."

So, you're one of those who believe that "Mexicans and other Latino" breed like rabbits? Racist pig!

Posted by kafka | June 23, 2008 10:41 AM

"in a manner that's made it generally unpleasant for Hispanics of all stripes and immigrants both legal and illegal."

The same claim that's made every last time somebody tries to do ANYTHING about illegal immigration. Details, please: What exactly are they doing that "unpleasant" for legal immigrants?

Ok, we've got police checking if criminal suspects they arrest are legally here. Something with precisely zero effect on anybody who isn't an arrested criminal suspect. And I've got to think that if you ARE an arrested criminal suspect, you've got bigger worries than somebody checking whether you're really a citizen... unless you aren't.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | June 23, 2008 10:41 AM

I drove around Anacostia a few months ago with my mom, who grew up there (Halley Terrace .. a nice street!), and ... it wasn't as bad as I had been raised to expect, except for the actual government housing projects. I was amazed at the number of nice cars parked on the streets.

That is precisely the area that I am looking at. If I am working at Bolling AFB or Anacostia Navy Station, or even the Washington Navy Yard, which is a quick 10-15 minute bike ride across the bridge, why shouldn't I live there? Why shouldn't that be a neighborhood that people who work there would want to live in and raise kids in? Why does someone who works as a budget analyst at DIA have to live out in Prince William's? What a colossal waste.

I'm sure that the people who already live there would like to see the roads repaired (they are kind of crappy around there) as well as see an improvement in their schools. All of that can only happen with an increase in the tax base and that can only happen by attracting immigrants to the neighborhood. I am aware of the damage that can be done by people like me moving in, in terms of forcing long term residents out, but I can't help that an increase in land values around there can't do anything but help people who do want to stay/can stay.

I am conflicted. I also want to bike to work and live within walking distance of a mass transit.

Posted by calipygian | June 23, 2008 10:46 AM

The stereotype-fu is strong in this thread.

First, as others have pointed out, there are tens of thousands of government and government-related jobs in Northern Virginia. Fort Belvoir, Quantico, numerous military contractors in an arc from Sterling to Springfield, and a thick sprinkling of small federal installations all over the place.

WRT to Prince William county, just who do you think is being foreclosed on in the first place? My wife and I have been trying to buy a house in the $250,000-$350,000 range since the end of March. In the process we've been to scores of properties, mostly in the Lake Ridge area of Prince William County, and because of our price range, have been looking mostly at foreclosures and short sales. We long ago lost count of the number of flop-houses we entered, some still occupied by multiple (invariably Hispanic, and most likely illegal) families, and others which had obviously hosted them in the recent past, judging from the garbage left behind and the illegal, poorly-executed subdivisions of basements into dangerous, fetid, not-up-to-code "bedrooms." I suspect that, had we looked in Manassas, it would have been far worse. Don't believe me? Call a realtor. No, they can't tell you this, but they can show you.

One doesn't need to be a racist not to want to live next door to fifteen people in a house intended for five or six, with six beaten-up cars or vans out front taking all the street parking and lending an air of decay and shabbiness to one's neighborhood. One merely needs to be concerned with maintaining property values and quality of life. That these flophouses are quite likely to become foreclosures, which drag the neighborhood down even more, is all the more reason for the average Prince Williamite to support Mr. Stewart's crackdown. If it had happened five years ago, perhaps the real-estate situation now wouldn't be so bad.

My wife and I are concentrating on Fairfax now. Prince William appears hosed. Were we trust-fund scumbags, I'd go to Arlington, but we can't.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | June 23, 2008 10:47 AM

I am amused by the handwringing on this thread. With a few notable exceptions, most American cities have plenty of room for people to move back in. Cities like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Hartford, etc... have lost up to 50% of their peak population. There is plenty of room for infill development for middle class families, as long as the middle class gets over its fear of urban living and there is a concerted effort on the part of policy makers to make cities more attractive for these families.

Posted by Roman | June 23, 2008 10:58 AM

MW:
The weird thing is that in the midst of these problems, county officials (and I suppose citizens) have decided that it would be smart for their local government to devote more time and resources to hounding illegal immigrants out of the county in a manner that's made it generally unpleasant for Hispanics of all stripes and immigrants both legal and illegal. One might think that under the circumstances you'd want as many residents as possible keeping homes occupied and patronizing local businesses, but there's no accounting for some folks' manias.

Well, I don't remember the timing on this crackdown on immigrants in PW, but... the Washington area, including PW, was in a giant real estate bubble not long ago, yes? Empty homes and failing local businesses seemed massively unlikely then -- people were more worried that they wouldn't be able to continue to compete with everyone else for those homes, and that there would be more or more homes and more and more people forever. I'm not defending the crackdown, I'm just saying that people respond to the current situation and tend to act as if the current situation is going to last forever.

Joe Klein's Conscience:
I read that the one guy had a government job. In DC? I guess he isn't worried about high gas prices. Still, it makes you shake your head.

Uh, the PW suburbs (exurbs if you wish) are suburbs like any other, and people commute all over the place, and, in Washington, many of them have government jobs. Manassas or Woodbridge to downtown really doesn't seem that bizarre to me, though God knows I wouldn't sign up for it if I could avoid it. You can decry it, and point out the flaws, but, the fact is, most people in the Washington area live in a suburb of some kind and commute by car. I don't get why people on this thread are so shocked by this.

Anyway, gas wasn't $4/gal two years ago, remember?

Posted by BP Beckley | June 23, 2008 11:01 AM

I sympathize with your story up to a point, TOC, but I find it interesting to see where the finger of blame is pointing...

It doesn't seem to be pointed at the august financial institutions who bankrolled the construction of surplus subdivisions and loaned money to buy these houses to people with no credit history, including multi-family groups.

It doesn't seem to be pointed at the people who bought second houses as investments and then rented them, knowingly, to multiple immigrant families for use as flophouses with no regard to the quality of the neighborhood or their neighbors' property values, because it maximized their profit from a short-term, high-risk investment.

It doesn't seem to be pointed at the lack of, or lax enforcement of, residential zoning laws that forbid flophouses.

It's pointed at the people who live in these houses, who are assumed to be illegal. Keep those people out of the community, the thinking goes, and those problems wouldn't have happened.

But really, those people were just taking advantage of everyone else's greed, opposition to economic regulation, and desire to make a fast buck without concern for the well-being of the neighborhood. The invisible hand of the market steered these immigrants to PW County and patted them on the back. If you, like so many, have been cheerleading the economic growth of the past 15 years, it takes some chutzpah to turn around and blame "Hispanics, most likely illegal" for the decline of our exurban boomtowns instead of blaming our own hypocritical attitudes toward immigration and economic growth.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 23, 2008 11:36 AM

LaFollette -

To be fair, Manassas did pass an "occupancy law" and got pilloried for it:

The city of Manassas yesterday defended a new zoning ordinance that restricts households to immediate relatives, saying that the city acted within its limited right to control residential occupancy and that the new rule defining "family" was adopted in response to "broad-based community concerns about overcrowding."

The new rule, adopted by the City Council on Dec. 5, narrowed a definition of "family" in the city's zoning ordinance. The old definition was broad, allowing virtually any relatives to live in a single-family house, as long as the total did not exceed the occupancy limit.

The new definition restricts households to immediate relatives, plus one unrelated person, and excludes aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins and other members of the extended family. A family of seven that includes nieces and nephews is now illegal in Manassas, for instance, even if the occupancy limit is 10.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901410.html

Posted by calipygian | June 23, 2008 11:42 AM

Prince William and neighboring Stafford County are the last bastions of white-flight mentality in the DC suburbs of VA, and are classic cases of people getting the government they deserve.

Residents of these counties have elected state legislators (including the House speaker and newly elected chairman of the state GOP) who will spend this week blocking any meaningful fix to Northern Virginia's transportation mess, even though their constituents are among the principal victims.

Local politicians have been beating the anti-immigration drum - and now will loudly tout offshire drilling - to distract voters from the pro-sprawl, anti-tax agenda that's going to turn these places into some of the least desirable real estate in the state. Residents are stuck with the current crop of elected county officials until 2011.

Posted by allbetsareoff | June 23, 2008 12:01 PM

The ordinance referenced by calipygian was plainly unconstitutional, under a Supreme Court decision from 1977. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977).

Posted by roac | June 23, 2008 12:16 PM

LaFollette, there's plenty of blame to go around. The ostensible topic of this thread is the alleged racism of the citizens of Prince William County, and not the unethical practices of mortgage lenders, about which you have a very good point. Since I'm a one-and-a-half cheers for capitalism sort of guy, I'll take no offense your imputing to me the advocacy of growth uber alles. It's obviously not directed at me.

With that out of the way, while financial institutions and pro-growth politicians bear some blame, they are not the ones who made flophouses, or the ones who trashed them. "Those people" did. Give them some credit for self-actualization. A lot of chicanery goes on, but ultimately, the responsibility for being good neighbors lies with the people who live in a neighborhood, and not the shark who gave them a loan. The lender is risking foreclosures, but he's not strewing the yard with beer cans, introducing roaches and mice, subdividing the basement, and parking several beaten-up vans in front of the house.

It doesn't seem to be pointed at the august financial institutions who bankrolled the construction of surplus subdivisions and loaned money to buy these houses to people with no credit history, including multi-family groups.

A more common scenario seemed to be a rental situation, where someone bought a house, then rented it to multiple families, rather than where multiple families went in on a mortgage together. Small-scale slumlording, as it were. I wonder if someone has done a study, though.

It doesn't seem to be pointed at the lack of, or lax enforcement of, residential zoning laws that forbid flophouses.

This is a continual issue in the Northern Virginia area. My understanding is that code enforcement is pretty limited in authority. Even condo associations are. When I owned a condominium in Arlington, I could clearly see through an open bay window a neighbor who had subdivided his 740 square foot unit's living room into sleeping quarters with plywood, and so could lots of other residents, but apparently nothing could be done. Something tells me, though, that were the heavy hand of code enforcement to "disproportionately impact poor and minorities" you'd be complaining about the awful, awful racism of it all. Or maybe I, too, have the wrong guy.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | June 23, 2008 12:50 PM

We could always loan you Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a month or 3. His latest thing is to festoon the Sheriff vehicles with a report-the-illegals hotline number.

So far, the key to Sheriff Joe's popularity is not pulling over BMWs in Paradise Valley for speeding by 1 MPH, in order to round up white people and deport the illegal Russian immigrants.

Posted by Aatos | June 23, 2008 1:09 PM

MattY's idea of good public policy: a government seeking to profit from illegal activity.

As for the WaPo article, MattY does realize that they've been offering skewed reports for a while, right? In fact, the first thing I did was search for quotes from this shill, and - surprise! - they had a few from him.

I already started following the money on him, but there's even more I haven't covered.

Don't look to MattY for real reporting or in-depth analysis, he's just another shill.

Posted by TLB | June 23, 2008 1:12 PM

What exactly are they doing that "unpleasant" for legal immigrants?

Ok, we've got police checking if criminal suspects they arrest are legally here. Something with precisely zero effect on anybody who isn't an arrested criminal suspect. And I've got to think that if you ARE an arrested criminal suspect, you've got bigger worries than somebody checking whether you're really a citizen... unless you aren't.

Sounds pretty unpleasant to me if something that normally would have led to a fine or a 'sorry for the inconvenience, we detained the wrong person' leads to being hassled over immigration (not necessarily even deported, which is an actual legal procedure.)

Even worse if someone coming forward with information about a crime gets deported. Seems like a good way not to ensure no one talks to the cops.

And that's even without looking at bogus housing regulations, or the fact that regulations passed to make it tough on illegals always disproportionately affect legal immigrants.

Posted by Cala | June 23, 2008 1:19 PM

Those who buy houses in Woodbridge are foolish. Those who buy houses in Anacostia are smart.

True if you work downtown, but if you work in the suburbs or exurbs it's trickier. You can live in the city and reverse commute, or live close to work but have to drive for all of your shopping/errands/socializing. Economically it probably makes sense for most people to do the latter, but you have to sacrifice in terms of lifestyle, especially if you don't have kids.

Posted by Lauren | June 23, 2008 1:33 PM

"I am amused by the handwringing on this thread. With a few notable exceptions, most American cities have plenty of room for people to move back in. Cities like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Hartford, etc... have lost up to 50% of their peak population. There is plenty of room for infill development for middle class families, as long as the middle class gets over its fear of urban living and there is a concerted effort on the part of policy makers to make cities more attractive for these families."

Hmm - have you actually looked at the crime rates in those cities? Or - never mind Matt's fantasy post about the quality of urban schools - the quality of the schools in the cities you mention?

Then have a look at the housing stock left behind. In Baltimore, much of the abandoned housing would have to be leveled, as it's completely undesirable - some of it actually dates to the 19th century (and not in a good way). Take the train from BWI up to NYC sometime, and stare out the windows as you pass through Baltimore and Philly. You'll start to see what I'm talking about.

Posted by James Robertson | June 23, 2008 1:42 PM

James Robertson, I can't speak to Baltimore or Philly but in Pittsburgh, the crime rate is fairly low, good affordable houses are available, and there are some good schools, e.g. Taylor Allderdice.

Posted by Lauren | June 23, 2008 1:54 PM

Have to call out TOC for sheer hypocrisy. The illegal latinos that make those neighborhoods so undeseriable are the same people who build those affordable houses in the first place. It is quite possible (if not likely) the 2,000 square foot house you're looking for wouldn't exist in your price range without the use of cheap, illegal labor.

Hmm - have you actually looked at the crime rates in those cities? Or - never mind Matt's fantasy post about the quality of urban schools - the quality of the schools in the cities you mention?

I live in Philadelphia and happen to be a product of the public school system, so I'm quite familiar with these issues. First of all, the housing stock in many of these cities is quite spectacular. Some of the more rundown neighborhoods around Center City used to be wealthy enclaves (streetcar suburbs if you will) and they're already starting to be rehabbed. I know Pittsburgh and Hartford also have some spectacular architecture. Perhaps you need to get off the train and walk around a little bit, before jumping to conclusions.

The crime issue is very real, but that doesn't mean it's irreversible. Compare NYC in the 1970s to what it is now. Not saying every city can replicate that, but it goes to show what an emphasis on urban policy and competent local government can accomplish.

Posted by Roman | June 23, 2008 1:56 PM

Well, Baltimore has been a cesspool since I moved here in the late 80's - maybe it's possible to fix it, but probably not so long as the state of Maryland is stuck on single party government. And no, that's not specifically a slam on Democrats - when one party holds a monopoly on power at some level for a long time (doesn't matter which one), things get more and more corrupt. Baltimore reached that level a long while back, and the state itself has been sliding that way.

Sure, there are decent parts of Baltimore (the downtown area, Locust Point come to mind). The problem is that the rest of the city - in particular, the areas that could be "infilled" - suck. A lot.

Posted by James Robertson | June 23, 2008 2:08 PM

Hmm - have you actually looked at the crime rates in those cities? Or - never mind Matt's fantasy post about the quality of urban schools - the quality of the schools in the cities you mention?

What Lauren said and what Roman said. Allderdice is a great school, in a fantastic neighborhood. It happens to be my (and the late, great Mr. Rogers) neighborhood. James, you live between to two of the worst examples of urbanity America has to offer. I sympathize with your position, but most cities are not like Baltimore or DC. Crime is pretty compartmentalized, as are the lousy schools. The same is true of most American cities.

Posted by RoboticGhost | June 23, 2008 2:08 PM

Actually, the violent crime rates in many post-industrial interior cities like Pittsburgh and Cleveland are not particularly high. Moreover, statistically car accidents are a much greater physical threat to young people than crimes (particularly if you exclude crimes committed by family members).

As for housing stock, it depends a bit on the city, but in my post-industrial interior city there are plenty of solid homes in inner neighborhoods undergoing renovation as we speak. And then there is infill--there also people redeveloping former industrial and commercial spaces into more residential housing.

The upshot is that not only is it possible for people to make use of excess capacity in these post-industrial cities, but it is actually happening already. Indeed, again to use my city as an example, the latest estimates are that the city proper is gaining population, particularly among young adults, even as the surrounding county has been losing population.

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 2:10 PM

DTM,

Whatever small-scale and localized increases in density may be occurring in particular cities, the long-standing trend in the nation as a whole is toward lower densities. The "city proper" is losing market share to the suburb and exurb.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 2:18 PM

Mixner,

The thing is my city was perfectly typical up until the early 2000s (meaning the post-WWII trend up until that time was the surrounding county gaining population relative to the city proper). So, it may be that my city has suddenly become an outlier, but the other possibility is that your analysis has become outdated due to recent developments.

But we shall see.

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 2:37 PM

Well, Baltimore has been a cesspool since I moved here in the late 80's - maybe it's possible to fix it, but probably not so long as the state of Maryland is stuck on single party government. And no, that's not specifically a slam on Democrats - when one party holds a monopoly on power at some level for a long time (doesn't matter which one), things get more and more corrupt. Baltimore reached that level a long while back, and the state itself has been sliding that way.

Sure, there are decent parts of Baltimore (the downtown area, Locust Point come to mind). The problem is that the rest of the city - in particular, the areas that could be "infilled" - suck. A lot
I agree with you on one party rule, my city has suffered for it quite a bit. Also, I could see how living in (near?) Baltimore can skew one's perspective. Having an insanely high homicide rate year after year can make urban issues seem intractable.

Whatever small-scale and localized increases in density may be occurring in particular cities, the long-standing trend in the nation as a whole is toward lower densities. The "city proper" is losing market share to the suburb and exurb.

Trends evolve over time, do they not? High energy prices certainly seem to be pushing people to seek alternatives to the current trend. The era of sprawl is coming to an end, whether everyone realizes it or not. Smart cities will most certainly capitalize on the new reality of high energy prices.

Posted by Roman | June 23, 2008 2:38 PM

DTM,

Many American cities started to redevelop their inner and downtown areas in the 1990s, adding new residential, retail and cultural amenities. But new housing in inner cities is simply dwarfed by new suburban and exurban developments. New housing in inner cities caters to small, niche markets--yuppies, the wealthy, some empty-nesters--not the general population.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 2:49 PM

The era of sprawl is coming to an end,

The evidence contradicts this claim.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 2:51 PM

Actually, crime is getting less compartmentalized in middling sized urban areas. There's a great article on this in the latest "Atlantic" (the July/August issue).

I wish it were only Baltimore and DC that sucked this way, but it's not.

Posted by James Robertson | June 23, 2008 2:59 PM

The evidence contradicts this claim.

How updated is this evidence, though? Do these studies accurately take into consideration today's much higher energy costs, and do they allow for the possibility of still higher costs tomorrow? It seems to me the viability of lower density communities depends on cheap energy.

I have no doubt most Americans -- very probably the vast majority -- prefer a 3000 SF house and a big back yard to a smallish condo on a crowded city street -- even when the former requires a longer commute -- provided they can afford it. But can they afford it at $4.50/gallon gasoline? What about at $9/gallon gasoline?

Posted by Toll Brothers | June 23, 2008 3:01 PM

I remembered seeing a story in the Post that didn't seem to support Mixner's position. I searched their archives, and here is a condensation of an article from April, reporting on 2007 data:

Housing prices declined across Northern Virginia last year, with the outer suburbs leading the drop. The median sales price in Loudoun County plummeted 8 percent, the largest dip in the Washington region, while Prince William County prices fell 5 percent, according to a Washington Post analysis of government data on the sale of single-family houses and townhouses. . . . But just as prices in the outer-ring suburbs fell, houses in Arlington, just across the Potomac from the District, gained 2.7 percent in 2007, the only Northern Virginia county to show a gain. . . . At the same time, median house prices in the District rose by 6.7 percent, with the lowest-priced neighborhoods east of the Anacostia seeing the largest gains.

Looking forward to Mixner's interpretation of these data.

Posted by roac | June 23, 2008 3:18 PM

Have to call out TOC for sheer hypocrisy. The illegal latinos that make those neighborhoods so undeseriable are the same people who build those affordable houses in the first place. It is quite possible (if not likely) the 2,000 square foot house you're looking for wouldn't exist in your price range without the use of cheap, illegal labor.

At least you can spell hypocrisy correctly.

Northern Virginia isn't California. At least, it wasn't always, though the differences grow less each day. Having lived here since 1984, I can remember when Herndon was out of the way, and when single-income families could actually afford to live in Arlington and Fairfax. In any event, the 20 and 30 year old houses we looked at in eastern Prince William County weren't built by illegal immigrants in the 1970s and 1980s. The illegals hadn't yet taken over the building trade by then. By the 1990s and 2000s, sure, but this is a relatively new development, which is why there's some resistance to it.

The flood of the DC area with immigrants hasn't coincided with an increase in affordable housing. Quite the opposite, in fact. Their arrival en masse has coincided with, if not simply caused, the middle class squeeze that liberals used to protest, but which they mostly prefer now to blame on the stupid middle class who refuse to embrace new urbanism and diversity like they, the bobo elite, do. How easy to pass judgment when you don't have kids and don't cook at home.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | June 23, 2008 3:28 PM

Mixner,

First, you just shifted to talking about new housing as opposed to densities. I know that in my city, while some of the new residents are in infill housing, a lot are also renovating homes. Indeed, in my neighborhood there are lots of four, five, or more bedroom houses which are being sold by the one or two retirees living there to young families. That is how population densities can increase with no new housing being built, even holding aside vacant properties being reoccupied.

Second, there are plenty of homes in these neighborhoods selling at middle class prices, and to families. I suspect you are being misled on the demographics by what has been going on in expensive coastal cities, and are unaware of the fact that the inner parts of many post-industrial interior cities are still quite affordable even after their recent increase in popularity.

But again, we shall see.

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 3:34 PM

Do these studies accurately take into consideration today's much higher energy costs, and do they allow for the possibility of still higher costs tomorrow?

Yes. Since transit is at best only marginally more energy-efficient than car travel, and unlikely to be more energy-efficient than the typical car of 10 or 20 years from now, higher energy costs are likely to favor cars over transit.

I have no doubt most Americans -- very probably the vast majority -- prefer a 3000 SF house and a big back yard to a smallish condo on a crowded city street -- even when the former requires a longer commute -- provided they can afford it. But can they afford it at $4.50/gallon gasoline? What about at $9/gallon gasoline?

Most likely, yes. Nominal gas prices aren't terribly meaningful with respect to long-term trends. You have to adjust the price for inflation, look at it in the broader context of transportation fuel cost as a share of total income, and factor in likely future increases in fuel efficiency. It's a lot easier to trade your car in for a smaller vehicle or a hybrid than to radically change your lifestyle with respect to housing and employment.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 3:35 PM

DTM,

Yes, population densities "can" increase by the sale of houses occupied by one or two retirees to families with children. That doesn't seem to be happening, though. Your impressionistic eyeballing of what is happening in your neighborhood is not a reliable indicator of large-scale trends. Anecdotes are not evidence.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 3:42 PM

Mixner,

How do you know that isn't currently happening in more cities than my own (which again has been quite typical up to now)? Again, how recent is your population data?

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 3:52 PM

So, you're one of those who believe that "Mexicans and other Latino" breed like rabbits? Racist pig!

Am I supposed to take that seriously? FTR, what I meant was that immigration is another method to maintain a steady population increase, outside of birth rates.

But somehow, I'm guessing the poster himself was racist, and just wanted to snarkily include me in a broad racist consensus to justify his own world view. Sorry, pa: na ga ha pa.

Posted by scythia | June 23, 2008 3:53 PM

At least you can spell hypocrisy correctly.
Northern Virginia isn't California. At least, it wasn't always, though the differences grow less each day. Having lived here since 1984, I can remember when Herndon was out of the way, and when single-income families could actually afford to live in Arlington and Fairfax. In any event, the 20 and 30 year old houses we looked at in eastern Prince William County weren't built by illegal immigrants in the 1970s and 1980s. The illegals hadn't yet taken over the building trade by then. By the 1990s and 2000s, sure, but this is a relatively new development, which is why there's some resistance to it.

The flood of the DC area with immigrants hasn't coincided with an increase in affordable housing. Quite the opposite, in fact. Their arrival en masse has coincided with, if not simply caused, the middle class squeeze that liberals used to protest, but which they mostly prefer now to blame on the stupid middle class who refuse to embrace new urbanism and diversity like they, the bobo elite, do. How easy to pass judgment when you don't have kids and don't cook at home.
While I sympathize with your predicament, how in the world can you lay the blame at the feet of the "liberals"? Now I'm not an expert on NoVa, so please feel free to correct me if I get any of my facts wrong. It's my understanding that the area has seen an explosion of population growth in the past decade and a half. It is also my understanding that most of the population growth has resulted in development of the sprawling variety (house and a yard, American dream and all that). Lastly, it's my understanding that a good chunk of the construction jobs created in this sprawl went to illegal aliens in order to keep the costs down and the profits up. I'm guessing that the developers weren't to keen on enforcement then, were they, free market right? Which part of this are the liberals responsible for?

All those construction workers have to live somewhere, do they not? Since they're not making alot of money (by our standards), you have the resulting flop-houses. Housing prices are the result of supply and demand it seems. So if the demand for the type of housing they have in Arlington is high, well then the prices will have to correspond. Why didn't they built developments that replicate what makes Arlington so attractive? You're obviously free to embrace whatever lifestyle works for you, but if that's out of reach due or no longer affordable due to market forces, how exactly is that the fault of the liberals?

Posted by Roman | June 23, 2008 3:54 PM

Mixner has posted twice since my 3:18 without taking note of the information therein. Maybe he didn't see it.

Some personal data: I moved from DC and bought a house in Arlington in 1981, and traded up to a bigger one (2000 sf) three years later, in between the births of my two kids. I live in a single-family house with a yard. I work near the White House, and commute by bus. It's a 20-minute ride, and costs $2.50 a day.

When I bought, I made a conscious decision to pay more money for less house than I could have gotten in an area from which I would have had to drive to work. Money was not the issue; time was.

The appraised value of my house has quintupled since I bought it. I believe that this is because there are a lot of people like me who are not prepared to spend two hours or more of every workday sitting in traffic. Since the supply of close-in housing is inherently limited, the price has been bid up. This is hard on people like TheOtherCyrus, and I feel bad when I think about their situation, but to say that immigration has something to do with it is just nutty.

Posted by roac | June 23, 2008 4:03 PM

New housing in inner cities caters to small, niche markets--yuppies, the wealthy, some empty-nesters--not the general population.

Downtown housing growth in cities does market to these demographics. First. One the market is established, development for a broader constituency follows. There are a couple of developments in downtown Pittsburgh right now aimed at people making $30,000-$45,000 a year.

But as DTM points out, new urban development isn't always a flashy project that makes the papers. Its usually somebody taking an old home and fixing it up. Which makes more sense in the city than it does in the suburbs for a great many reasons.

Old school construction from prewar urban America beats the daylights out of the prefab garbage thrown up out in the boonies. Ask any contractor. If you are buying in the suburbs today and not buying a brand spanking new house, chances are you are buying an old goldfish.

Same deal for neighborhood infrastructure. Schools, sewers, etc... are aging in the suburbs, where they weren't really built all that well in the first place. The Market Ghost ain't gonna fix 'em either.

Posted by RoboticGhost | June 23, 2008 4:04 PM

roac,

I saw it. What about it?

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 4:06 PM

Do you think it supports your thesis that Americans just love their two-hour commutes to death?

Posted by roac | June 23, 2008 4:16 PM

Robotic,

There are a couple of developments in downtown Pittsburgh right now aimed at people making $30,000-$45,000 a year.

The Census Bureau reports that the population of Pittsburgh declined by 1.5% between 1990 and 2000. Like many other old rust-belt cities, it is losing population to the new, sprawling cities of the south and west. In contrast, Phoenix--an archetypal example of sprawl--grew dramatically over the same period. And the vast majority of those new Phoenicians did not move into downtown loft conversions or renovated houses in historic neighborhoods. They moved into big new McMansions in the sprawling suburbs.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 4:18 PM

Mixner,

According to the data I have seen, it appears the City of Pittsburgh itself has started to regain population since 2000.

Again, I think you might be using outdated data.

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 5:13 PM

DTM,

For 2003, the most recent year for which it reports data, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates the population of Pittsburgh at 325,337. This is a decline of 2.8% from the 2000 population (334,563)

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 6:29 PM

Mixner,

The American Community Survey conducted by the Census Bureau now provides yearly population estimates for many cities, including Pittsburgh. Note it gives systematically lower estimates than some other methods because it excludes people in group quarters (student dormitories, prisons, nursing homes, and so on).

Anyway, in 2003 the ACS estimated the City of Pittsburgh population at 276517. In 2006 (the last year reported) it has the Pittsburgh population back up to 297061.

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 10:06 PM

Incidentally, I just spot-checked a few other cities to see if Pittsburgh's gains from 2003 to 2006 was an outlier. It would appear not. Here are the results for all four cities I checked (2003 to 2006):

Minneapolis: 329099 to 369051
St. Paul: 268533 to 272217
St. Louis: 321566 to 347181
Milwaukee: 559843 to 563079

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 10:15 PM

DTM,

As usual, you provide no links to support your assertions. Please do so.

Here is the ACS fact sheet for the city of Pittsburgh. As you can see, the ACS reports the household population of Pittsburgh as follows:

2000: 311,749
2006: 275,675

That's a huge decline.

Consistent with the fall in population, total housing units also declined, from 163,366 in 2000 to 159,075 in 2006. The number of workers also declined.

I also checked Milwaukee. The ACS data again contradicts your claim above. The population of Milwaukee declined from 580,571 in 2000 to 545,823 in 2006.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 10:54 PM

DTM,

I just checked Minneapolis, too. The population in that city also declined from 2000 to 2006, according to the ACS.

And here is another Census Bureau population table, for all of Pennsylvania. It reports a large decline in total population for Pittsburgh:

July 1, 2000: 333,804
July 1, 2006: 312,819.

Nor has there been any change in the downward trend. Pittsburgh lost more people every year between 2000 and 2006.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's other old, dense, transit-oriented city, and the largest city in the state, also lost population. It declined from 1,513,655 in 2000 to 1,448,394 in 2006. And again, this is an unbroken string of year-on-year declines.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 11:15 PM

Mixner,

The ACS data I cited is available on the Census website, under Data Sets, American Community Survey. Unfortunately you have to manually search for the relevant tables in the relevant years, so I can't link to a particular page.

And by the way, you swapped 2000 for 2003 (and swapped household population for total population) in claiming those factsheets "contradicted" what I reported above. And while it does appear that the population decline in the City of Pittsburgh continued from 2000 to approximately 2003, Pittsburgh apparently has since started regaining population. But you lost that information by swapping 2000 for 2003.

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 11:15 PM

DTM,

The ACS data I cited is available on the Census website, under Data Sets, American Community Survey. Unfortunately you have to manually search for the relevant tables in the relevant years, so I can't link to a particular page.

Then give me a link to the page where you did the search from.

And by the way, you swapped 2000 for 2003

No, I didn't. You said: "it appears the City of Pittsburgh itself has started to regain population since 2000." The data I linked to above contradicts your claim. It also contradicts the claim that the population has increased since 2003. It hasn't. The data shows that the population has declined every year from 2000 to 2006.

(and swapped household population for total population)

Household population is the only population number for which the fact sheet data provide figures for both 2000 and 2006. But the table I linked to in my post of 11:15pm does report total population, and it also shows a big decline.

And while it does appear that the population decline in the City of Pittsburgh continued from 2000 to approximately 2003, Pittsburgh apparently has since started regaining population.

No it hasn't. Again, the state table shows a decline in the total population of Pittsburgh between 2003 and 2006 also:

2003: 325,075
2006: 312,819

All of the numbers contradict your claims for all of the cities I have checked.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 11:31 PM

DTM,

Just checked St. Paul. You're wrong about that city too, just like all the others I checked:

2000: 286,681
2003: 280,332
2006: 273,535

Another big decline.

Posted by Mixner | June 23, 2008 11:45 PM

Mixner,

First, by "since 2000" I just meant "at some point after 2000", not "starting immediately after 2000". I apologize for any resulting confusion.

Second, here is where you can get the tables:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=sess_on

Again, you have to manually look up the relevant tables. I wish it were easier for you, but it isn't.

Third, you can't use the non-ACS Census estimates for this purpose. From their methodology explanation for subcounty population estimates, here is why:

"The assumption implicit in this method is that changes in the occupancy rate and/or the PPH are measured by the updated county population estimate and that the rate of change in the occupancy rate and/or PPH is uniform within counties."

But as the ACS data indicates, the City of Pittsburgh and surrounding county (Allegheny) have diverged recently. Hence, the non-ACS methodology is based on an implicit assumption which turns out to be false.

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 11:53 PM

Mixner,

You may find this helpful:

http://nullspace2.blogspot.com/2007/04/correction.html

Someone else did the work of pulling population information from the ACS comparing 2005 to 2003 for Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, and Allegheny County net of Pittsburgh, all broken down by age. You have to add it back up to get the total population numbers, and it is for 2005 not 2006, but at least it is all one page.

Posted by DTM | June 24, 2008 12:02 AM

DTM,

First, by "since 2000" I just meant "at some point after 2000", not "starting immediately after 2000". I apologize for any resulting confusion.

You're wrong anyway, even if we charitably assume that's what you meant. The ACS data shows that the population of Pittsburgh has declined EVERY YEAR between 2000 and 2006.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=sess_on
Again, you have to manually look up the relevant tables. I wish it were easier for you, but it isn't.

Sorry, you're still evading the question. Describe the procedure you went through from the link you give above to get the alleged population numbers you gave earlier. I've given you direct links to all my sources. You need to explain how you obtained the numbers you gave.

Third, you can't use the non-ACS Census estimates for this purpose. From their methodology explanation for subcounty population estimates, here is why: "The assumption implicit in this method is that changes in the occupancy rate and/or the PPH are measured by the updated county population estimate and that the rate of change in the occupancy rate and/or PPH is uniform within counties." But as the ACS data indicates, the City of Pittsburgh and surrounding county (Allegheny) have diverged recently. Hence, the non-ACS methodology is based on an implicit assumption which turns out to be false.

This is completely irrelevant. The population data I gave above are for the City of Pittsburgh itself, not for Allegheny County. The Census Bureau explicitly states that the data in the state tables I linked to above are its "official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns". And that data unequivocally contradicts your assertions about changes in population. Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, St Paul and Milwaukee have all lost population since 2000 and since 2003.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 12:14 AM

Mixner,

The procedure for looking up the relevant tables in the ACS data sets is this:

Click on the relevant year

Click on "List all tables"

Find the "Total Population" table on the list and click on that, then click "Next"

Select Geographic Type ... Place

Select the relevant state

Select the relevant city, and click "Add"

Click "Show result"

Note you can add a bunch of cities first and check them all at once. Do this for the relevant years and cities and you get the numbers I reported above.

As for the Census estimates, again the methodology section explained the problem with using that data for this purpose. Bold whatever you like, it won't change the methodology to make it suitable.

Posted by DTM | June 24, 2008 12:24 AM

DTM,

Someone else did the work of pulling population information from the ACS comparing 2005 to 2003 for Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, and Allegheny County net of Pittsburgh, all broken down by age.

Whatever "work" the author of that blog post did (he provides no links), it's irrelevant. I just gave you a direct link to the Census Bureau's official population estimates for cities and counties in Pennsylvania, on the Census Bureau's own web site.

Scroll down to the table row for "Pittsburgh city." It's about two-thirds of the way down the page. You will find the following population data:

2000: 333,804
2001: 330,576
2002: 327,458
2003: 325,075
2004: 320,402
2005: 316,299
2006: 312,819

Notice the trend? Your claim that the population of Pittsburgh has increased since either 2000 or 2003 is flatly contradicted by this data.

Ditto for the other cities in your list.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 12:27 AM

Mixner,

I already went over why that is the wrong data set for this purpose. But I gather that methodological point went over your head, so we are done here.

Posted by DTM | June 24, 2008 12:34 AM

My great-granpa knew that horseshit was the future in 1900, and I'm following in his footsteps!

Posted by Dixner | June 24, 2008 12:41 AM

DTM,

The procedure for looking up the relevant tables in the ACS data sets is this:

You're looking at exactly the data the Census Bureau explicitly warns you is INCOMPLETE, you fool. Didn't you notice the warning:

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties.

If you click on the link titled "official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns," select "Cities and Towns within a State" and the state "Pennsylvania" from the drop-down box, it will take you to the table of official population estimates I just gave you a direct link to. The table that completely contradicts your claim.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 12:44 AM

DTM,

I already went over why that is the wrong data set for this purpose.

It's not the wrong data, you idiot. It's the Census Bureau's official population estimates for the city of Pittsburgh.

You do know what the words "official estimate" mean, don't you?

The numbers you gave above are the "wrong data" because as the page clearly states they do not include "population living in institutions, college dormitories, and other group quarters." You even seemed to realize that earlier, but have apparently forgotten it since.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 12:52 AM