bostonbubble.com

[gmoogle]

Hi,

Great site here - i just wanted to add a little bit of information i recently found:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/12/10/were_losers___no_wait_were_winners/

We're Losers - No, Wait, We're Winners!
Might the newly revised census numbers make us feel better but act badly?

By Tom Keane | December 10, 2006

So, new data from the US Census Bureau now suggest that Boston and the rest of the state aren't losing population after all. Holy Chicken Little – the sky isn't falling! It seems almost a shame. The alleged departure of residents for other climes had made for a great story and was a terrific opportunity for over-the-top angst. Pundits, politicians, and think tanks all cranked up their worry-o-meters, and now, thousands of anguished words later, the crisis that preoccupied their time appears to have been an illusion.

Still, while it lasted, the calamity did seem to energize us, and we certainly came up with great ideas for solving it. Now that it's over, the whole thing has the feel of a false alarm. The firefighters have shown up, and they're ready to go. Yeah, it turns out the building isn't burning. But why not hose it down anyway?

The alleged crisis had its genesis earlier this year. Boston's population, the Census Bureau estimated, had fallen by 5.1 percent – from 589,141 in 2000 to 559,034 in 2005. And as goes Boston, apparently, so goes the state: After climbing to nearly 6.42 million in 2003, the Census Bureau estimated, Massachusetts lost almost 19,000 residents in the next two years. The criticocracy went wild. People were moving out of Boston at the rate of 27 a day! (Actually, more like 16, but in moments like these, hyperbole trumps accuracy.) We heard about "Hub snubbers" and "the incredible shrinking city." Boston had "lost its groove," declared one pundit. Scholars feared for our "long-term economic vitality." Plenty of local think tanks weighed in, fretting about brain drains and the loss of talented workers to other states. Governor Mitt Romney tried to blame the weather; others blamed him. The reasons advanced for the departures were many: the cost of living, the flight of high-tech jobs to other states, our high-tax, business-inhospitable politics, and, of course, our "smug and unfriendly" culture. Indeed, the Census Bureau's numbers served as fodder for almost everyone who had something negative to say about Boston. They became the ultimate proof that something was deeply wrong, evidence that our leaders and our politics had failed us.

A few raised doubts, the most prominent of whom was Boston's mayor. Tom Menino couldn't understand why people so readily bought the demise-of-the-city story. The reports of an exodus were at odds with his day-to-day experience. The city was humming, residential construction was proceeding apace, and the streets were crowded. For his protestations, however, he was mocked as being "in denial." If the Census Bureau said it was true, it must be, right?

Wrong. This fall, the Census Bureau conceded that Menino's gut had been better than the number crunchers' computers, and the agency revised its 2005 numbers. Instead of a decline, a new estimate now puts Boston up by more than 7,000 citizens since 2000. Oops. Question, Mr. Mayor: Has anyone called to say sorry for the trash talking? "I haven't heard from any of them," Menino tells me. That's not a surprise. Critiques come easily. Apologies less so.

Apologies aside, one good thing emerged from the crisis: More of us, it seemed, began to care about the future of the Commonwealth. We started thinking about what worked and what didn't work. The crisis became a motivating force behind the gubernatorial election, with voters overwhelmingly rejecting a tired 16-year political formula. And all of the things people identified as problems – costly housing, too-long commutes, an unbalanced economy, an insider-dominated establishment – still remain real issues, though population figures now seem to be trending upward. Even the complaints about our surly disposition have merit. Who could argue against efforts to teach us to lighten up and be more polite?

Nevertheless, there is no fire burning out of control here. "The city's doing well," Menino says. "Do we have issues? Sure. But we're managing them." He's right. In Massachusetts, employment is up, incomes are high, and our kids are among the smartest in the nation. Still, we could be better. Even though the apocalypse isn't nigh, wouldn't it be nice if we could keep the enthusiasm we had when we thought it was?

Tom Keane, a Boston-based freelance writer, contributes regularly to the Globe Magazine. E-mail him at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.

[admin]

As far as I am aware, it is only the population of Boston Proper which has been revised upward to a positive change, and at the expense of the Greater Boston Area at that as Menino convinced the Census Bureau to redistribute the declines to the rest of Suffolk County. There are more details at http://www.bostonbubble.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=162 If you are aware of revised numbers for the state, please post them - Massachusetts was still estimated to be losing population the last I read.

- admin

[Condo]

Now it appears MA is not losing population overall? Has everyone been in an uproar over misinformation?

"Census data reveal population boomlet in Worcester County: Plymouth, Bristol also show growth" - B Globe 3/22/07

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/22/census_data_reveal_population_boomlet_in_worcester_county/


A statement within this article parallels a position I represent: "Certainly, people are being pushed by housing costs to the fringes of the Boston region," said Paul S. Grogan , president and chief executive of the nonprofit Boston Foundation.

[admin]

[admin]

Correction: the article I linked to was from 2005 rather than 2006, and at that point there had only been 1 year of declines, I believe. I think that the declines continued for the next year as well, but I don't have a reference handy for that at the moment - feel free to post a yearly breakdown, if you have one. My point still stands, though, that the reported declines were for more recent years and get muted in the average when you start the date range back in 2000.

- admin

[Condo]

The article you reference is fifteen months old (12/23/05). This new report was released today (3/22/07). Stating:

".... from 2000 to 2006 its (Worcester County) population jumped by 34,029 people, more than any other Massachusetts county in terms of both raw numbers and percentages. Just behind were two southeastern counties: Plymouth, up by 20,801, and Bristol, up by 10,701."

"Overall, the state's population increased by about 88,000 to about 6.4 million between the 2000 Census and July 1, 2006. Those three high-growth counties accounted for most of the jump, while the population of the rest of the state has been essentially steady."

"Of the 14 counties in Massachusetts, only two recorded population declines between 2000 and 2006: Berkshire, which lost 3,836 people, and Suffolk, which fell by 2,197."

[admin]

I was trying to emphasize the following:

"Overall, the state's population increased by about 88,000 to about 6.4 million between the 2000 Census and July 1, 2006. Those three high-growth counties accounted for most of the jump, while the population of the rest of the state has been essentially steady."

There is nothing here that indicates that the numbers from the article I referenced for July 1, 2004 - July 1, 2005 were wrong. The point being, declines have been recent relative to the start of that date range (2000).

- admin

[Condo]

Understood.

You could interpret today's report as positive for MA. That the overall populating is growing, and mass exodus is simply not occuring..unless more than 88,000 people have left MA since July, 2006.

I'm not certain what figures are accurate, not sure anyone has their arms around it, and that's a problem .....

[admin]

Hopefully this will clear things up. As of March 22, 2007, direct from the US Census Bureau at:

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2005-01.xls

• July 1, 2005 - 6,398,743
  
• July 1, 2004 - 6,407,382
  
• July 1, 2003 - 6,417,565
  
• July 1, 2002 - 6,411,568
  
• July 1, 2001 - 6,394,750
  
• July 1, 2000 - 6,362,132
  
• Estimates base - 6,349,105
  
• Census - 6,349,097
  

Based on this data, which is possibly the most up to date "official" data available given that it was linked to directly from the Census Bureau's Massachusetts QuickLinks page, the population of Massachusetts has declined for a least two years. That would be the period between July 1, 2003 and July 1, 2005. Data for 2006 does not yet appear on the given page or other readily identifiable pages.

- admin

[admin]

Well, maybe they do have more up-to-date numbers. I just replaced "2005" with "2006" in that Census Bureau URL, and lo and behold:

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2006-01.xls

The numbers are now:

• July 1, 2006 - 6,437,193
  
• July 1, 2005 - 6,433,367
  
• July 1, 2004 - 6,435,995
  
• July 1, 2003 - 6,439,592
  
• July 1, 2002 - 6,431,247
  
• July 1, 2001 - 6,406,727
  
• July 1, 2000 - 6,362,604
  
• Estimates Base - 6,349,105
  
• Census - 6,349,097
  

So, it looks like the state's population fell from July 1, 2003 - July 1, 2005 and then increased a little by July 1, 2006.

- admin

[Dorchester grandma]

Boston's population is probably changing rather than decreasing. Could it be that would be that many less wealthy first time homebuyers are indeed leaving MA due to lack of affordable housing and buying opportunities? Boston has become a city of the rich and the very poor who live in housing projects and subsidized housing. (Then there is also Boston's immigrant population which manages to pay high rents and buy homes by pooling their resources).

Look at Brookline, an extreme case of gentrification. Brookline used to have a working class. Neighborhoods like Brookline Village were relatively affordable. Now EVERYONE is educated and affluent except those living in the projects.

Dorchester? If anything good has come from the recent rash of murders here it is that gentrification seems to be slowing down. Well to do young professionals are being scared away. Investors are giving up.

[Guest]

With the wall board (dry Wall) hangers , and the nail bangers (framers)
getting ready to leave,
due to the slow down in new housing starts .

greater boston's population will continue to decline .

In case you don't know whom i am talking about ,
I am talking about the immigrant Brazilians .

there has to be 100,000 illegal Brazilians inside the
highway 495 belt