Official US 2010 Census Results
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:38:53 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Official US 2010 Census Results
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 26
Author Topic: Official US 2010 Census Results  (Read 227437 times)
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #300 on: February 20, 2011, 11:52:18 PM »

muon2, in the suburban/urban areas of Houston, DFW and San Antonio, in order to draw more 50% Hispanic VAP CDs, you'll have to dilute the inner Hispanic urban core, as the suburbs are filled with far too many 10%-30% Hispanic VTD.  Even then, I'll be lucky to get 2, maybe 3 more CDs.  And no one's gonna like that, as you'll marginalize the present Dem CDs and the new ones.

Sam, I think that the best plan is first to look at how districts perform at electing candidates of choice, probably by regression analysis of voting patterns. However, once suitably performing districts are drawn then, if there is not a roughly proportional number of districts for the minority, additional majority minority districts would be drawn where possible. That would eliminate the dilution problem in the urban core, yet still provide some level of VRA protection for additional population so that the remainder is not easily cracked.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #301 on: February 21, 2011, 12:45:39 AM »
« Edited: February 21, 2011, 12:48:11 AM by Sam Spade »

muon2, in the suburban/urban areas of Houston, DFW and San Antonio, in order to draw more 50% Hispanic VAP CDs, you'll have to dilute the inner Hispanic urban core, as the suburbs are filled with far too many 10%-30% Hispanic VTD.  Even then, I'll be lucky to get 2, maybe 3 more CDs.  And no one's gonna like that, as you'll marginalize the present Dem CDs and the new ones.

Sam, I think that the best plan is first to look at how districts perform at electing candidates of choice, probably by regression analysis of voting patterns. However, once suitably performing districts are drawn then, if there is not a roughly proportional number of districts for the minority, additional majority minority districts would be drawn where possible. That would eliminate the dilution problem in the urban core, yet still provide some level of VRA protection for additional population so that the remainder is not easily cracked.

And I'm just telling you that you're going to end up coming to my conclusion.  You almost don't need regression analysis when you know most of these areas personally.  Smiley  But let me extrapolate.

By my maths, by VAP numbers, it says that we should aim for 12/36 Hispanic majority-minority (50%) CDs under the VRA (33.6% VAP/36 CDs).  Now, the CDs in El Paso and along the border/South Texas are just going to have more than 50% VAP by their nature, and, furthermore, you're going to require more like 55% VAP (and maybe more) to ensure in these areas that they don't vote the "wrong way" all the time (they still may anyway, if present trends continue, which is, of course, a giant if), so there's going to be some slippage based on this factor alone which is probably worth at least one CD, maybe two.

Meanwhile, in the cities I mentioned, as I'm sure you realize - in Houston, it's going to be hard enough to draw two majority-minority Hispanic CDs.  But maybe the DOJ forces it on them - Al Green won't be happy, but that's his problem.  I don't really see how you do more, because all of the rest of the big Hispanic numbers (i.e. over 40%) are locked within blacks, or impossible to get without diluting blacks (I know the f-ing geography too well) or are, surprise, surprise, voting Republican, less than the other areas, but enough to cause dilution problems.

In DFW, one Hispanic district will be drawn, and can be, but I don't see how you do another.  Just look and see how many 20%-30% Hispanic VTDs there are in the DFW area and how impossible they are to unlock without screwing up other places.

In Austin, no one's ever figured out how to unlock the Hispanics, and there's really only one answer - combine them with the other half of San Antonio Hispanics, but I already proposed that as something that may well be done.  The liberal whites will get screwed then, but they already are.  I would try to combine the other half of San Antonio Hispanics with somewhere, but I then just get another marginal Hispanic majority CD.  Ugh.

So that leaves us with 9 majority-minority CDs, one lost because of normal population inequalities and the Hispanic undervote, and at least two others lost because of the damn spread out nature of the Texas Hispanic population (do I need to mention how many Hispanics are lost in west Texas - they don't really vote the right way, so no one cares that much - and I tried unlocking them but Lewis told me it was illegal...  Sad).  

Maybe you can figure out a way to create an Austin Hispanic majority-minority CD without attaching it to San Antonio - that's about the only other way I can think of to get another minority-majority CD, but the surrounding areas are simply not that favorable to the task - I'll reexamine Williamson and Hays when the new numbers come out.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #302 on: February 21, 2011, 07:45:49 AM »

I made myself a little excel table of Native population change in South Dakota. Smiley

And?  Anything stick out other than the Ziebach County anomoly?  Pennington County?
Native increases in Yankton and Bon Homme Counties are certainly puzzling.
Aw hell, here's the table. Despite excel always looking terrible on the forum. All counties with Native (only) population over 5% or over 500 in 2010 listed.

County   2010 pop   2010 native   2010 share   2000 pop   2000 native   2000 share   pop change   native ch   non change   
Bennett   3431   2072   60,39%   3574   1826   51,09%   -4,00%   13,47%   -22,25%   borders Pine Ridge & Rosebud
Bon Homme   7070   494   6,99%   7260   214   2,95%   -2,62%   130,84%   -6,67%   borders Yankton
Brown   36531   1078   2,95%   35460   954   2,69%   3,02%   13,00%   2,74%   Aberdeen
Brule   5255   425   8,09%   5364   436   8,13%   -2,03%   -2,52%   -1,99%   borders Crow Creek
Buffalo   1912   1575   82,37%   2032   1640   80,71%   -5,91%   -3,96%   -14,03%   includes bulk of Crow Creek
Charles Mix   9128   2830   31,00%   9350   2561   27,39%   -2,37%   10,50%   -7,23%   includes Yankton
Codington   27227   512   1,88%   25897   361   1,39%   5,14%   41,83%   4,62%   small portion of Lake Traverse
Corson   4050   2635   65,06%   4181   2471   59,10%   -3,13%   6,64%   -17,25%   SD portion of Standing Rock
Day   5710   535   9,37%   6267   456   7,28%   -8,89%   17,32%   -10,94%   includes part of Lake Traverse
Dewey   5301   3914   73,84%   5972   4390   73,51%   -11,24%   -10,84%   -12,33%   part of Cheyenne River
Fall River   7094   474   6,68%   7453   448   6,01%   -4,82%   5,80%   -5,50%   Black Hills
Gregory   4271   312   7,31%   4792   267   5,57%   -10,87%   16,85%   -12,51%   borders Rosebud
Hughes   17022   1728   10,15%   16481   1398   8,48%   3,28%   23,61%   1,40%   Pierre, part of Crow Creek
Hyde   1420   113   7,96%   1671   129   7,72%   -15,02%   -12,40%   -15,24%   part of Crow Creek
Jackson   3031   1547   51,04%   2930   1398   47,71%   3,45%   10,66%   -3,13%   includes part of Pine Ridge
Lyman   3755   1420   37,82%   3895   1292   33,17%   -3,59%   9,91%   -10,30%   includes most of Lower Brule
Marshall   4656   343   7,37%   4576   282   6,16%   1,75%   21,63%   0,44%   small portion of Lake Traverse
Meade   25434   563   2,21%   24253   475   1,96%   4,87%   18,53%   4,60%   borders Cheyenne River
Mellette   2048   1092   53,32%   2083   1068   51,27%   -1,68%   2,25%   -5,81%   borders Rosebud & Pine Ridge
Minnehaha   169468   3933   2,32%   148281   2678   1,81%   14,29%   46,86%   13,69%   Sioux Falls
Moody   6486   889   13,71%   6595   778   11,80%   -1,65%   14,27%   -3,78%   includes Flandreau
Pennington   100948   9042   8,96%   88565   6773   7,65%   13,98%   33,50%   12,37%   Rapid City
Roberts   10149   3458   34,07%   10016   2956   29,51%   1,33%   16,98%   -5,23%   includes part of Lake Traverse
Shannon   13586   12784   94,10%   12466   11608   93,12%   8,98%   10,13%   -6,53%   bulk of Pine Ridge
Stanley   2966   196   6,61%   2772   135   4,87%   7,00%   45,19%   5,04%   small portion of Lower Brule, borders Cheyenne River
Todd   9612   8297   86,32%   9050   7642   84,44%   6,21%   8,57%   -6,61%   Rosebud
Tripp   5644   769   13,63%   6430   691   10,75%   -12,22%   11,29%   -15,05%   borders Rosebud
Walworth   5438   769   14,14%   5974   690   11,55%   -8,97%   11,45%   -11,64%   borders Cheyenne River, Standing Rock
Yankton   22438   537   2,39%   21652   342   1,58%   3,63%   57,02%   2,77%   Yankton (city)
Ziebach   2801   2023   72,22%   2519   1801   71,50%   11,19%   12,33%   8,36%   part of Cheyenne River
State   814180   69476   8,53%   754844   60988   8,08%   7,86%   13,92%   7,33%   
35 counties   290298   3117   1,07%   267033   2828   1,06%   8,71%   10,22%   8,70%   

I did a sort-of-similar table for Oklahoma, too.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #303 on: February 21, 2011, 11:07:21 AM »

muon2, in the suburban/urban areas of Houston, DFW and San Antonio, in order to draw more 50% Hispanic VAP CDs, you'll have to dilute the inner Hispanic urban core, as the suburbs are filled with far too many 10%-30% Hispanic VTD.  Even then, I'll be lucky to get 2, maybe 3 more CDs.  And no one's gonna like that, as you'll marginalize the present Dem CDs and the new ones.

Sam, I think that the best plan is first to look at how districts perform at electing candidates of choice, probably by regression analysis of voting patterns. However, once suitably performing districts are drawn then, if there is not a roughly proportional number of districts for the minority, additional majority minority districts would be drawn where possible. That would eliminate the dilution problem in the urban core, yet still provide some level of VRA protection for additional population so that the remainder is not easily cracked.

And I'm just telling you that you're going to end up coming to my conclusion.  You almost don't need regression analysis when you know most of these areas personally.  Smiley  But let me extrapolate.

By my maths, by VAP numbers, it says that we should aim for 12/36 Hispanic majority-minority (50%) CDs under the VRA (33.6% VAP/36 CDs).  Now, the CDs in El Paso and along the border/South Texas are just going to have more than 50% VAP by their nature, and, furthermore, you're going to require more like 55% VAP (and maybe more) to ensure in these areas that they don't vote the "wrong way" all the time (they still may anyway, if present trends continue, which is, of course, a giant if), so there's going to be some slippage based on this factor alone which is probably worth at least one CD, maybe two.

Meanwhile, in the cities I mentioned, as I'm sure you realize - in Houston, it's going to be hard enough to draw two majority-minority Hispanic CDs.  But maybe the DOJ forces it on them - Al Green won't be happy, but that's his problem.  I don't really see how you do more, because all of the rest of the big Hispanic numbers (i.e. over 40%) are locked within blacks, or impossible to get without diluting blacks (I know the f-ing geography too well) or are, surprise, surprise, voting Republican, less than the other areas, but enough to cause dilution problems.

In DFW, one Hispanic district will be drawn, and can be, but I don't see how you do another.  Just look and see how many 20%-30% Hispanic VTDs there are in the DFW area and how impossible they are to unlock without screwing up other places.

In Austin, no one's ever figured out how to unlock the Hispanics, and there's really only one answer - combine them with the other half of San Antonio Hispanics, but I already proposed that as something that may well be done.  The liberal whites will get screwed then, but they already are.  I would try to combine the other half of San Antonio Hispanics with somewhere, but I then just get another marginal Hispanic majority CD.  Ugh.

So that leaves us with 9 majority-minority CDs, one lost because of normal population inequalities and the Hispanic undervote, and at least two others lost because of the damn spread out nature of the Texas Hispanic population (do I need to mention how many Hispanics are lost in west Texas - they don't really vote the right way, so no one cares that much - and I tried unlocking them but Lewis told me it was illegal...  Sad).  

Maybe you can figure out a way to create an Austin Hispanic majority-minority CD without attaching it to San Antonio - that's about the only other way I can think of to get another minority-majority CD, but the surrounding areas are simply not that favorable to the task - I'll reexamine Williamson and Hays when the new numbers come out.

I think we aren't so far apart. I have no doubt that reaching 12 Hispanic CDs in TX is nigh impossible. That's the target, however, and one should make a good effort to reach that without diluting other districts so much that they cease to be opportunities.

For instance, since one is still under the goal one looks at areas like Harris Co for 2 districts rather than one. For the Latinos there it's a matter of having two opportunities, rather than zero or one. I posted that one on the TX thread back in Jan, and your comments suggest that the map may well go that way, especially as it doesn't impact the GOP districts there.

In DFW I agree that there is only one district, precisely because you can't draw two at over 50% VAP. And I too will be curious to see the actual numbers in central TX.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #304 on: February 21, 2011, 11:45:51 AM »

I think we aren't so far apart. I have no doubt that reaching 12 Hispanic CDs in TX is nigh impossible. That's the target, however, and one should make a good effort to reach that without diluting other districts so much that they cease to be opportunities.

Unfortunately, the truth is that reaching 11 CDs is nigh impossible too because of the spread out nature of things.  Certainly if its CVAP, but almost certainly VAP. 

Which leaves us the question of whether 10 is possible - it's only possible if you can draw an Austin-centered Hispanic district while avoiding San Antonio, the new numbers will tell us on that front.  Otherwise, you have to draw the Austin-San Antonio district to get enough Hispanics by reaching into the barrio (which means you have to go through non-Hispanic areas) and you're not going to get 10 CDs (the border has not grown fast enough, Corpus Christi lost population!, as I'm sure the south side barrio in Bexar did too).  And I'm sure certain people will insist that the present situation should stay intact, as there should be just an Austin-centered district based on some other logic.

On Houston, the Hispanic district will be drawn if it makes sense (and the numbers are there - I think they will be).  But expect the blacks to complain to high heaven - knowing the Texas GOP, I would expect them to do things for the Hispanics, but who knows.  As I said before, it really doesn't make that much difference to the Republicans, vote-wise.

Lastly, I can tell you that the Hispanics outside the Houston, DFW and Austin metros are going to demand 50% CVAP - otherwise it's too easy to design districts that will vote Republican.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #305 on: February 21, 2011, 12:20:25 PM »


Lastly, I can tell you that the Hispanics outside the Houston, DFW and Austin metros are going to demand 50% CVAP - otherwise it's too easy to design districts that will vote Republican.

In the last round CVAP could be easily surmised from the long form data. That leaves only the ACS which has much less statistical reliability than the long form data. Also, the Census Bureau acknowledges that the 2009 ACS citizenship data doesn't always match up well with the new 2010 census block groups, since it used 2000 geography. The 2010 ACS with the new geography will be out probably late this year, so where does that leave states like TX and IL that have to create maps rather early?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #306 on: February 21, 2011, 12:25:24 PM »
« Edited: February 21, 2011, 12:36:15 PM by Torie »

With such poor data, I just don't think SCOTUS will sign off on CVAP (I kind of doubt they would even with good data actually). Every map would be litigated to death, over a factual issue, with whore experts on each side. It would be a nightmare. In fact, I would be kind of surprised if a SCOTUS vote tanking CVAP did not secure in excess of five votes.

But, to the extent one can avoid the legal risk, without undue partisan cost, just do it obviously.

CVAP will still be in play however due to the dilution issue, but I suspect the standard will be high to toss a map out because the minority VAP percentage is too high, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the VAP percentage was pushed up considerably beyond the percentage necessary for the minority to elect a candidate of their choice, and that was animated by partisan - or to bleach out the congressional delegation - motives.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #307 on: February 21, 2011, 12:26:54 PM »

So we' ve just uncovered why the Census Bureau implemented the thing in the first place?
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #308 on: February 21, 2011, 02:28:10 PM »

Native increases in Yankton and Bon Homme Counties are certainly puzzling.
Aw hell, here's the table. Despite excel always looking terrible on the forum. All counties with Native (only) population over 5% or over 500 in 2010 listed.

The Yankton and Bon Homme increases could be people moving from and/or marrying and having kids with Native Americans from the Yankton reservation in nearby Charles Mix County.  Yankton is the closest larger-sized market town to the reservation, so it makes some sense that rural folks looking for better economic opportunities might move there.

Thanks for the chart.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #309 on: February 22, 2011, 02:38:19 AM »

Aw hell, here's the table. Despite excel always looking terrible on the forum.
Do something like  concat(a1.rept(" ",20-len(a1)))  to left justify and fill with trailing blanks.
and concat(rept(" ",8-len(b1)),b1) to right justify with leading blanks.  Set the values of 20 and 8 based on the column content.   Then concat(I1:m1) or whatever to merge all the formatted columns.  Then paste that to the forum, and surround with tt tags to get fixed pitch spacing.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #310 on: February 22, 2011, 05:57:58 PM »

Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington were shipped to state legislators today.  They will likely be released to the public tomorrow.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #311 on: February 23, 2011, 03:19:43 PM »

New states are out! Smiley
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #312 on: February 23, 2011, 03:33:45 PM »
« Edited: February 23, 2011, 03:41:36 PM by cinyc »

Colorado, Oregon and Washington were just released.

El Paso County (Colorado Springs) is now the largest county in Colorado, surpassing Denver County and Jefferson Counties.  Jefferson County grew by an anemic 1.4%, and is now in fourth, behind those two and Arapahoe.

Colorado grew by 16.9%, with the non-Hispanic White population growing by 9.9%.

In Oregon, Deschutes County (Bend) was the fastest-growing, at 36.7%.  Multnomah County (Portland) grew at about the statewide average (11.3% vs. 12.0%); Portland-suburban Washington County grew faster than that, at 18.9%.  Redmond (94%), Grant's Pass (50%),  Bend (47%) and Hillsboro (31%) were the fastest-growing cities in the state.

Oregon's non-Hispanic White population grew by 5.2%.

In Washington, Franklin County (Pasco/Tri-Cities) grew the most - by 58.4%, followed by Clark (Portland Suburbs) at 23.2%, Benton (Richland/Kennewick/Tri-Cities) at 23.0%, Mason (north of Olympia) at 22.9% and Thurston (Olympia) at 21.7%.  King and Pierce Counties grew slightly less than the state as a whole (11.2 and 13.5% vs. 14.1%).

The city of Seattle grew by 8% - far less rapidly than suburban Seattle areas like Marysville (137%),  Renton (82%) and Auburn (78%) or interior cities like Pasco (86%), Kennewick (35%) and Yakima (27%).  Spokane (7%) and Tacoma (3%) grew even slower than Seattle.

The non-Hispanic white population grew by 4.8%.

Hawaii hasn't been released yet.  It might take an additional day to get in touch with their legislative leaders, given the time difference.

------------------------------------------------------
Note that the fastest growing is of the 20 largest counties ranked by the census bureau.

Only two Washington counties lost population, both on the Oregon border - Pacific and Garfield.  Most counties in Eastern Oregon lost population, save a few on the Columbia River.  In Colorado, most counties bordering Kansas lost population, as did a few bordering New Mexico and Wyoming, as well as Lake and Clear Creek counties in the Rockies.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #313 on: February 23, 2011, 03:47:40 PM »

far less rapidly than suburban Seattle areas like Marysville (137%)

I'm sorry, but I find that idea hilarious. Tongue
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #314 on: February 23, 2011, 03:57:41 PM »
« Edited: February 23, 2011, 04:09:02 PM by cinyc »

far less rapidly than suburban Seattle areas like Marysville (137%)

I'm sorry, but I find that idea hilarious. Tongue

Which idea is hilarious?  Marysville is the fastest-growing city in the state in percentage terms.  Granted, its 2000 base population was much lower than most - but even so, it picked up more residents than any city except Seattle and Renton.  It jumped from the state's 36th largest city to its 15th.

Snohomish County (17.7%) grew at a faster rate than King, Pierce or the state as a whole.

You can classify a city that is 35 miles away from the metro's main city along its main highway and rail line in one of its major suburban counties as whatever you like - suburban, exurban, suburban Everett or whatever.  It's in the Seattle metro.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #315 on: February 23, 2011, 04:12:01 PM »

far less rapidly than suburban Seattle areas like Marysville (137%)

I'm sorry, but I find that idea hilarious. Tongue

Which idea is hilarious?  Marysville is the fastest-growing city in the state in percentage terms.  Granted, its 2000 base population was much lower than most - but even so, it picked up more residents than any city except Seattle and Renton.  It jumped from the state's 36th largest city to its 15th.

Snohomish County (17.7%) grew at a faster rate than King, Pierce or the state as a whole.

No, no. I don’t doubt you. I’ve just lived in or near Marysville (about 15 minutes west of) for most of my life, and my dad used to work for the City of Marysville as their finance director once upon a time, and the notion that Marysville is a Seattle suburb is a strange one to me. If anything, it's a suburb (sorta, it's complicated) of Everett.

Also, on the population growth, a good chunk of that growth in Marysville was from annexations of surrounding suburban areas that were previously unincorporated. It did grow, and quite a bit, don’t get me wrong, it’s just a bit inflated.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #316 on: February 23, 2011, 04:25:48 PM »

far less rapidly than suburban Seattle areas like Marysville (137%)

I'm sorry, but I find that idea hilarious. Tongue

Which idea is hilarious?  Marysville is the fastest-growing city in the state in percentage terms.  Granted, its 2000 base population was much lower than most - but even so, it picked up more residents than any city except Seattle and Renton.  It jumped from the state's 36th largest city to its 15th.

Snohomish County (17.7%) grew at a faster rate than King, Pierce or the state as a whole.

No, no. I don’t doubt you. I’ve just lived in or near Marysville (about 15 minutes west of) for most of my life, and my dad used to work for the City of Marysville as their finance director once upon a time, and the notion that Marysville is a Seattle suburb is a strange one to me. If anything, it's a suburb (sorta, it's complicated) of Everett.

Also, on the population growth, a good chunk of that growth in Marysville was from annexations of surrounding suburban areas that were previously unincorporated. It did grow, and quite a bit, don’t get me wrong, it’s just a bit inflated.


Growth due to annexations is one thing that takes further analysis to unravel.  The census bureau does not differentiate between growth in the old city area or growth in annexed areas.

It does make sense that Marysville would have seen explosive growth in the past decade, as the Seattle-Tacoma metro area raced up the I-5 corridor.  Auburn is another area at the fringes of the highway system where one would have expected to see explosive growth, too.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #317 on: February 23, 2011, 06:45:04 PM »

I think Alabama, Missouri, Nevada and Utah shipped to legislative leaders today.  We might get those states plus Hawaii tomorrow afternoon.
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,144


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #318 on: February 23, 2011, 08:55:16 PM »

Question for the northwesterners: why is Deschutes county (Bend, OR) growing so fast?
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #319 on: February 23, 2011, 09:04:45 PM »

Question for the northwesterners: why is Deschutes county (Bend, OR) growing so fast?

I'm not an expert on Bend, but I believe it's a combination of it being the big town near the Mt. Bachelor ski resort area and because it's seen a jump in retirees settling in.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #320 on: February 23, 2011, 09:55:30 PM »
« Edited: February 23, 2011, 10:26:50 PM by cinyc »

Question for the northwesterners: why is Deschutes county (Bend, OR) growing so fast?

I think you're seeing the same type of thing that partially drove growth in places like Montrose, Grand Junction and Eagle County, Colorado.  Bend is an outdoorsy lifestyle town that attracts both retirees and outdoor enthusiasts.  Tourism is its number one industry.  (Grand Junction also had a bit of an oil and gas play, though).

Also, its 2000 base population isn't as high as someplace like Portland, which makes the percentage growth higher than it would otherwise be.  But the city did have the second-highest population increase after Portland, and the county the third-highest after the two largest Portland-area counties.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #321 on: February 23, 2011, 10:46:50 PM »

Question for the northwesterners: why is Deschutes county (Bend, OR) growing so fast?

I think you're seeing the same type of thing that partially drove growth in places like Montrose, Grand Junction and Eagle County, Colorado.  Bend is an outdoorsy lifestyle town that attracts both retirees and outdoor enthusiasts.  Tourism is its number one industry.  (Grand Junction also had a bit of an oil and gas play, though).

Also, its 2000 base population isn't as high as someplace like Portland, which makes the percentage growth higher than it would otherwise be.  But the city did have the second-highest population increase after Portland, and the county the third-highest after the two largest Portland-area counties.

That's pretty much my interpretation on the matter.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #322 on: February 24, 2011, 08:56:38 AM »

I think Bend also experienced growth the same way Las Vegas and Phoenix did--it was a low-cost housing market of a certain size convenient to some wealthy, high-cost housing markets.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #323 on: February 24, 2011, 09:02:03 AM »
« Edited: February 24, 2011, 09:03:40 AM by Torie »

Bend has a good climate. It's drier. If you want to live east of the Cascades in Oregon, Bend is by far the best game in town as to amenities, and has good airline connections to Portland and SF. My dentist decamped to there. He is deliriously happy so I'm told. He bought a nice little estate on the river, and sold his house at the top of the market in Coto de Caza for about 3 million.  That must have made him even happier. Smiley
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #324 on: February 24, 2011, 01:15:46 PM »
« Edited: February 24, 2011, 01:20:03 PM by cinyc »

I think Bend also experienced growth the same way Las Vegas and Phoenix did--it was a low-cost housing market of a certain size convenient to some wealthy, high-cost housing markets.

Well, Bend had, at one time, one of the most overvalued housing markets in the country, according to Forbes.  But home prices were probably still lower than comparable housing in denser West Coast urban areas.

If I were to liken Bend to any southern Mountain West town, it would be St. George, Utah in Utah's Dixie - another town that we're likely to see experienced extremely high growth when Utah's numbers are released this afternoon.  It's a desert town a few hours from a major city (Las Vegas) that is near recreational opportunities in the nearby mountains.  Retirees flocked there over the past decade, and others followed.  
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 26  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.083 seconds with 12 queries.