I knew it wasn't as bad as the Census Bureau first estimated, but I had no idea it would be this good.  From the fastest loser to the slowest gainer.

 

City shrinking? Not really

Census agrees city didn't lose population

BY DAN KLEPAL AND GREGORY KORTE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITERS

 

Forget everything you heard about the shrinking Cincinnati. Forget everything you heard about it losing population faster than any major U.S. city.  In a stunning reversal of previous estimates, the U.S. Census Bureau will post new estimates today that have the city gaining population this decade - by 27 residents.

 

The new population estimate for Cincinnati is 331,310, replacing the July estimate of 308,728. The revision is the result of a challenge by city officials who said the July numbers undercounted new housing units.  Cincinnati joins Columbus as the only big cities in Ohio estimated to have gained population between 2000 and 2005.  Cincinnati is now the 56th largest city in the country - up from 58th - and has jumped over Pittsburgh and Tampa.

 

Read full article here:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090216/NEWS01/902160326/1055/NEWS

Does this mean Hamilton county is not shrinking too? and does this mean the MSA and CSA gained 30k?

I hope this article doesn't get lost in this thread, it might deserve its own thread because this is such great news.  I logged into my computer this morning from Norfolk, Virginia and went to Cincinnati.com to check the morning news and saw the headline.  At first I thought I was dreaming, did the Enquirer actually post a positive article?

 

The article made me feel like Cincinnati was a convicted felon, wrongly imprisoned and then found not guilty.  While it is great news, it doesn't make up for the previous news that ripped Cincinnati apart and probably reversed the gain by instilling fear of the local residents to sell their house and move to the suburbs.  I don't think the Census bureau realizes how much damage they do to the perception of the city when the release flawed data that shows such a negative decline.

 

The reason I initially checked Cincinnati.com this morning was because I believe Morgan Quinto released their annual “Most Dangerous Cities” with St. Louis #1 again in crime.  I expected some negative headline about Cincinnati somewhere on that list.  Needless to say it was refreshing that the Enquirer decided to push a positive story about the city.

 

yr in luck... 700wlw led the 7:30 am newz with the “Most Dangerous Cities”  just now

This certainly is excellent news. I'm writing a thank you note to Dev Saggar at the Dept of Community Development & Planning and copying his boss; he just did the city a great service and deserves some recognition.

 

dev.saggar at cincinnati-oh.gov and margaret.wuerstle at cincinnati-oh.gov if anyone would like to as well.

I just knew that those initial numbers were wrong!!!  Great news!!!

Before I start a word to ColDayMan. Don't think this is a Cincinnati vs. Cleveland thing...because I've had the same debate with DC people when their numbers were revised upward.

 

The press really screws these stories up. I actually have a few friends that work for the US Census Bureau. They've told me that it dosen't mean a city with revised numbers "grew", it means that they have undercounted these cities for years. Cincy probably had a population closer to 350,000 at the turn of the millenia, not 330,000. The only reason they can't redo 2000 and decades earlier is because the manpower/money spent to figure out correct numbers isn't worth it, and cities could in turn go to Congress and demand "back payment" for Fed funds on projects.

 

When I them asked about DC numbers and the fact that it "grew" this decade, they told me with a good amount of certainty this new baseline would begin shrinking immediately and that the city still had lost population since 2000, even though technically it grew.

 

While it is certainly good news for the Queen City that the city is larger than previously thought...I would wait for 2010 before making a judgement on how much population was lost or gained this decade. But it will certainly leave Cincy out of the #1 ranking of population lost this decade.

 

Again just some food for thought, and again not a bash on Cincy. Just throwing in what little tidbits I know.

 

This is great news and agree with Monte that despite being good news, it doesn't make up for all the negative press.  I wonder if this figure will put Cincy out of the top 20 crime cities since the rankings are calculated per capita.

 

From following this board and the news in general, it really does seem that Cincy is headed in the right direction and I'm looking forward to potentially moving there from my beloved NYC. Crimeseems to be down in areas like OTR and there is a lot of building going on, which is always good to see.

You make a good point but when it comes to liquor licenses we need all of the population we can prove we have.

You make a good point but when it comes to liquor licenses we need all of the population we can prove we have.

 

LOL, I hear that.

 

DC's largest employer is the Federal Govt. followed by the liquor industry. But #2 is making a run at #1. ;)

Before I start a word to ColDayMan. Don't think this is a Cincinnati vs. Cleveland thing...because I've had the same debate with DC people when their numbers were revised upward.

 

The press really screws these stories up. I actually have a few friends that work for the US Census Bureau. They've told me that it dosen't mean a city with revised numbers "grew", it means that they have undercounted these cities for years. Cincy probably had a population closer to 350,000 at the turn of the millenia, not 330,000. The only reason they can't redo 2000 and decades earlier is because the manpower/money spent to figure out correct numbers isn't worth it, and cities could in turn go to Congress and demand "back payment" for Fed funds on projects.

 

When I them asked about DC numbers and the fact that it "grew" this decade, they told me with a good amount of certainty this new baseline would begin shrinking immediately and that the city still had lost population since 2000, even though technically it grew.

 

While it is certainly good news for the Queen City that the city is larger than previously thought...I would wait for 2010 before making a judgement on how much population was lost or gained this decade. But it will certainly leave Cincy out of the #1 ranking of population lost this decade.

 

Again just some food for thought, and again not a bash on Cincy. Just throwing in what little tidbits I know.

 

 

What the heck does ColDayMan have to do with this?

 

ANYWHO, good job, Cincinnati.  I didn't think it was practical for it to lose that much population in such a short time span. 

You make a good point but when it comes to liquor licenses we need all of the population we can prove we have.

 

LOL, I hear that.

 

DC's largest employer is the Federal Govt. followed by the liquor industry. But #2 is making a run at #1. ;)

 

I wish all liquor licenses were made equal--those arab corner stores could be shut down so easily and we could EASSILLYY solve the liquor license problem--one I know of in OTR, the dumbass that runs it always has an open styrofoam cup full of irish rose on his counter... They sell crackpipes and half the merchandise they sell is stolen. Top it off with the fact that they have no problem selling alcohol and cigs to underage kids. These stores are perpetuating the decline in these communities and people don't even realize the major role they play.

Wooohooo!

You make a good point but when it comes to liquor licenses we need all of the population we can prove we have.

 

LOL, I hear that.

 

DC's largest employer is the Federal Govt. followed by the liquor industry. But #2 is making a run at #1. ;)

 

I wish all liquor licenses were made equal--those arab corner stores could be shut down so easily and we could EASSILLYY solve the liquor license problem--one I know of in OTR, the dumbass that runs it always has an open styrofoam cup full of irish rose on his counter... They sell crackpipes and half the merchandise they sell is stolen. Top it off with the fact that they have no problem selling alcohol and cigs to underage kids. These stores are perpetuating the decline in these communities and people don't even realize the major role they play.

 

Agreed. But you see the same crap in Cincy, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, DC, Philly, Brooklyn, Boston, Chicago, etc. It's easy money for the city where other economic development looks poor (in their opinion).

>I know of in OTR, the dumbass that runs it always has an open styrofoam cup full of irish rose on his counter... They sell crackpipes and half the merchandise they sell is stolen. Top it off with the fact that they have no problem selling alcohol and cigs to underage kids. These stores are perpetuating the decline in these communities and people don't even realize the major role they play.

 

And you wonder why Cincinnati Police didn't want Hamilton County patroling OTR?  All over the country there are conflicts between city and county police because one or the other has control of the drug trade. 

 

 

>I know of in OTR, the dumbass that runs it always has an open styrofoam cup full of irish rose on his counter... They sell crackpipes and half the merchandise they sell is stolen. Top it off with the fact that they have no problem selling alcohol and cigs to underage kids. These stores are perpetuating the decline in these communities and people don't even realize the major role they play.

 

And you wonder why Cincinnati Police didn't want Hamilton County patroling OTR?  All over the country there are conflicts between city and county police because one or the other has control of the drug trade.

 

This sounds like SuperTroopers to me  :laugh:

Great to see some new numbers!

 

This sounds like SuperTroopers to me

 

Great movie BTW, get going meow!

Unless you are highly educated in urban statistics related stuff, the thought of avg house size decreasing would probably never cross your mind.

Unless you are highly educated in urban statistics related stuff, the thought of avg house size decreasing would probably never cross your mind.

 

I totally diagree. I hear common folk discussing this constantly.

I totally diagree. I hear common folk discussing this constantly.

 

You must be kidding...or you just talk with the atypical person.  I know many of the people I know even disreguard the fact that average household size has much to do with population trends.  ie during all of the population loss articles written how many times did they mention that homes aren't sitting vacant, but rather only have 2 occupants where 5-6 previously resided.

 

This is a major issue with inner cities, especially midwest/east coast cities.  The decline has looked bad for these markets over the past ten years, but I would not expect this trend to continue since most of the houses have been converted over already...the initial population damage has been done, and now the housing market is going to begin to level out, and we will see some more accurate population trends/predictions over the next couple of census'.

Well, I am more in touch with the conservative/religious community, who is greatly disturbed by the changes in family makeup, etc.,...but, no, I'm not kidding. I hear people talking about smaller households often, just not in the same context of population statistics.

This is a major issue with inner cities, especially midwest/east coast cities.  The decline has looked bad for these markets over the past ten years, but I would not expect this trend to continue since most of the houses have been converted over already...the initial population damage has been done, and now the housing market is going to begin to level out, and we will see some more accurate population trends/predictions over the next couple of census'.

 

To expand further on this, I bet you it has been or is now affecting first and second ring suburbs to a great extent.

Unless you are highly educated in urban statistics related stuff, the thought of avg house size decreasing would probably never cross your mind.

 

It's been my experience that this thought rarely crosses a journalist's mind. A lot of them are total idiots...

 

Hey, I used to be a journalist!!!

 

Of course, if I wrote this story, I probably would make a mistake, too, especially if I weren't visiting this forum. I took a statistics class when I was in college, and the professor ripped into us journalism majors because of all the faulty studies journalists write about. That always stuck with me. I hardly pay attention to the bogus studies and "X may cause Y" stories. That's sad.

 

Also, to stay on topic a bit, I saw that Boston got its population bumped, too. That story pointed out something important, though. When the population of Boston "shrunk," people said it was because people were fleeing expensive housing prices. Reporters wrote stories as if this was a proven trend when it I guess it's not so proven!

Great news for Cincinnati!  Although I was in Barnes and Noble this past weekend looking at a Midwestern Travel Book; it actually showed Cincinnati's population as a couple thousand people LESS than Toledo.........

 

Who knows!  But I'd take the Census Bureau's info over a travel book's info anyway!

 

Anyway, congrats Cincinnati!

 

Now if only Cleveland could grow :)

This is good news - I wonder if every time the Enquirer prints an article on population trends it will mention that Cincinnati is one on only two cities in Ohio to gain population from 2000-2005.  I have no idea what the exact methods are, but they do mention missing new housing in the article. 

 

As a bonus the crime rate will also go down.  All in all this should be a perception changer at some level.

^Most importantly it will help greatly in terms of federal funding (population is king), and as discussed earlier the liqour license issue that is also facing the city.

C-Dawg - the Fountain Square thread has the liquor license discussion, I believe.

Hey C-Dawg, is there ever a Cincinnati thread you post in where you don't comment on Toledo?  You are a broken record man.  Seriously, keep Toledo out of Cincinnati threads and stop trolling.

Good news all around, although I think there has to be some way to work around the liquor license issue with the "entertainment districts".  Also, it would be interesting to learn more about the other classifications of liquor licenses - I mean at a ratio of 2000:1, Norwood would have 11 of the highest level (whatever it was called) and we all know there is a bar on every corner.

 

This is probably another topic, but it would be interesting to do an analysis of cities that have not changed boundaries by annexing since 1950.  Even with the old number of 308K, Cincy was still 60% of its peak while many are less than half and some approaching a third.  I would think this could be applied even to the old boundaries of those that did annex.  Of course we did not hear about 50 years of history, only the last 5 when we did the worst.

 

^Most importantly it will help greatly in terms of federal funding (population is king), and as discussed earlier the liqour license issue that is also facing the city.

Census Bureau To Revise Cincinnati's Population Report

Sarah Christian & Candice Terrell 10/30/2006

 

City leaders have asked the Census Bureau for the revision because they knew projects like City West were bringing more people back into the city.  Leaders said new condominium projects and private home subdivisions have helped Cincinnati keep its population fairly stable and have actually attracted new residents.

 

This past summer, the Anderson Building on Culvert Street was converted into a residential complex, bringing another 77 housing units into the city.  Downtown Cincinnati, Incorporated representatives said more than 4500 people now live in downtown Cincinnati.  An additional 400 downtown housing units are either under construction or are in the planning stages.

 

Read full article here:

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2006/local/10/30/census.html

This past summer, the Anderson Building on Culvert Street was converted into a residential complex, bringing another 77 housing units into the city.

 

So they got the name of the building right (who knew that building even had a name), but they somehow missed the fact that there insn't actually any residential in there yet. They do need to do a better job of checking their facts. 

>This sounds like SuperTroopers to me

>Great movie BTW, get going meow!

 

This movie had Cincinnati native Joey Kern in it as "College Boy #2".  I was in the same humble production of Fiddler on the Roof as him in 1994.  Read all about it: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0449466

 

 

 

>It worries a lot of people. It's the main reason Ohio cities are still shrinking and/or stagnating. All you have to do is look at the foreign-born percentage of a city to know if it's growing or not (hence why Columbus is posting gains). People who have been in America a while are not having many babies, particularly white folks have shown the most drastic decline. Europe is in a worse situation than we are, because most European countries (except France in recent years) do not have many immigrants. America still lets in many immigrants, but if that stops, our nationwide population should begin receeding in due time.

 

Actually France has a much higher birthrate than Germany.  The current doomsday prediction for Germany is a reduction in population from its current 80 million to 20 million by 2100. Meanwhile, many countries around the world already have populations larger than the largest countries in Europe, obviously if they are ever able to turn things around it will accellerate Europe's descent into economic and cultural irrelevance. 

 

China - 1,306,313,812

India - 1,080,264,388

United States - 295,734,134

Indonesia - 241,973,879

Brazil - 186,112,794

Pakistan - 162,419,946

Bangladesh - 144,319,628

Russia - 143,420,309

Nigeria - 128,765,768

Japan - 127,417,244

Mexico - 106,202,903

Philippines - 87,857,473

Vietnam - 83,535,576

Germany - 82,431,390

Egypt - 77,505,756

Ethiopia - 73,053,286

Turkey - 69,660,559

Iran - 68,017,860

Thailand - 64,185,502

Democratic Republic of the Congo - 60,764,490

France - 60,656,178

United Kingdom - 60,441,457

Italy - 58,103,033

 

 

 

Population figures cut crime rate

A little math shifts perception

BY GREGORY KORTE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

Cincinnati on Monday was much the same city as it was on Sunday, with the same issues most cities face - crime, education, housing.  But the U.S. Census Bureau's revised estimate of the city's 2005 population - up 22,582 from the initial estimate in June - suddenly puts those challenges in a more optimistic light, city officials say.

 

One example: the crime rate.  When the Census Bureau reported in June that Cincinnati was losing population faster than any other big city in the country, everyone - City Hall, the media, and more than a few Cincinnati expatriates - identified crime as the culprit.

 

Read full article here:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061031/NEWS01/610310394

Mallory had a hunch, XU intern helped prove it

BY DAN KLEPAL | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

The guy who made Cincinnati's challenge to the U.S. Census Bureau population estimate possible couldn't stick around very long after a Monday morning press conference, announcing the city has gained population over the past five years instead of losing more than 22,000 residents.

 

He had to go to class.  Mark Manning, a 20-year-old unpaid intern in Mayor Mark Mallory's office and a junior at Xavier University, is the person who discovered that the U.S. Census Bureau allows challenges to its annual population estimates, and researched how often and how successful other cities have been in their challenges.

 

Read full article here:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061031/NEWS01/610310395

>It worries a lot of people. It's the main reason Ohio cities are still shrinking and/or stagnating. All you have to do is look at the foreign-born percentage of a city to know if it's growing or not (hence why Columbus is posting gains). People who have been in America a while are not having many babies, particularly white folks have shown the most drastic decline. Europe is in a worse situation than we are, because most European countries (except France in recent years) do not have many immigrants. America still lets in many immigrants, but if that stops, our nationwide population should begin receeding in due time.

 

Actually France has a much higher birthrate than Germany.  The current doomsday prediction for Germany is a reduction in population from its current 80 million to 20 million by 2100. Meanwhile, many countries around the world already have populations larger than the largest countries in Europe, obviously if they are ever able to turn things around it will accellerate Europe's descent into economic and cultural irrelevance. 

 

China - 1,306,313,812

India - 1,080,264,388

United States - 295,734,134

Indonesia - 241,973,879

Brazil - 186,112,794

Pakistan - 162,419,946

Bangladesh - 144,319,628

Russia - 143,420,309

Nigeria - 128,765,768

Japan - 127,417,244

Mexico - 106,202,903

Philippines - 87,857,473

Vietnam - 83,535,576

Germany - 82,431,390

Egypt - 77,505,756

Ethiopia - 73,053,286

Turkey - 69,660,559

Iran - 68,017,860

Thailand - 64,185,502

Democratic Republic of the Congo - 60,764,490

France - 60,656,178

United Kingdom - 60,441,457

Italy - 58,103,033

 

 

 

 

mecklenberg, immigration is a huge huge problem in Europe mainly from Northern Africa and Albania. While you make some valid points about population growth or decline, it really is only a problem among  country natives.  Immigrants are more than making the difference up.  Europe will be an entirely different place in 50 years i.e. likely more muslims than Catholics in many countries by that time.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061031/NEWS01/610310394

 

I can't believe it - the article by Gregory Korte could have been written by someone on urbanohio, especially the Apples to Apples section.  Whatever the real numbers are, I hope the Enquirer's readers begin to understand that there are some nuances to comparing city information, and that many of the "growing" cities in the Midwest are those that have annexed or merged with the county.  Also, by adding the newer areas and adding population the cities tend to dilute the urbanity, lowering the crime rate.

^ I agree for the 24th largest metro area (we're around 24th) to have the 121st highest murder rate is a pretty big accomplishment, but everyone out in the suburbs believes that cincinnati is this festering pit of crime.

^ I agree for the 24th largest metro area (we're around 24th) to have the 121st highest murder rate is a pretty big accomplishment, but everyone out in the suburbs believes that cincinnati is this festering pit of crime.

 

Whatever their methodology is, it's applied to every city and I'd be willing to bet that almost every other city is actually a lot higher in population. Even cities like Seattle and San Francisco were supposedly declining in population.

 

Atleast it makes the city look good though.

Actually, France already could argue it's hands down the most diverse place on the planet...

 

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

 

Which "France" are you talking about?  The one that's still 85% Catholic, 2% Protestant, maybe 10% Muslim at most?  The one that's 90%+ white and European?

 

Or maybe you mean the France in Fremont county, Idaho, which is only around 87% white?

 

Yes, Europe is going to end up a Muslim continent (something I think will be a good thing) - but I'm gonna ask for a citation or an explanation on the "most diverse place on earth" thing...maybe someday, but not today.

 

This does mean that cincinnati has reversed a 40-50 year population loss, now all we need to do is add 170k people to get back up to our old high.

Well, it sounds like it means we probably continued to lose people, but instead of 330K dropping to 310K, it was more like 340K dropping to 330K or so...but regardless, it sure ain't the hemorrhaging it seemed like it was!

That research led to Mallory ordering up a challenge of Cincinnati's 2005 population estimate that had the Queen City losing 6.8 percent of its population since 2000 - which, had it been correct, would have been the most of any major U.S. city

 

Ahh, not entirely true…  Cincinnati tied with Detroit for most percentage lost but Detroit lost quite a bit more population.  While it might be semantics, the local news will find a way to beat their drum anyway they can.

Before I start a word to ColDayMan. Don't think this is a Cincinnati vs. Cleveland thing...because I've had the same debate with DC people when their numbers were revised upward.

 

The press really screws these stories up. I actually have a few friends that work for the US Census Bureau. They've told me that it dosen't mean a city with revised numbers "grew", it means that they have undercounted these cities for years. Cincy probably had a population closer to 350,000 at the turn of the millenia, not 330,000. The only reason they can't redo 2000 and decades earlier is because the manpower/money spent to figure out correct numbers isn't worth it, and cities could in turn go to Congress and demand "back payment" for Fed funds on projects.

 

When I them asked about DC numbers and the fact that it "grew" this decade, they told me with a good amount of certainty this new baseline would begin shrinking immediately and that the city still had lost population since 2000, even though technically it grew.

 

While it is certainly good news for the Queen City that the city is larger than previously thought...I would wait for 2010 before making a judgement on how much population was lost or gained this decade. But it will certainly leave Cincy out of the #1 ranking of population lost this decade.

 

Again just some food for thought, and again not a bash on Cincy. Just throwing in what little tidbits I know.

 

 

Excellent points.  I hope ColDayMan thinks long and hard about what you said.

 

 

Anyways... great news for Cincy.  I will feel much safer when I visit knowing that its "dangerous" quotient is reduced by this unexpected surge in population. 

 

I wonder why Cleveland doesn't challenge the Census Estimate? 

^ I wonder the same thing! 

  I am going out on a limb here, but I think Cleveland has a lot more public housing and/or below poverty level residents compared to other big cities in the state.  I am assuming that this may make it harder to get an accurate count on how many people live in this city due to the fact that many people may not answer the census packets, and may not be entirely truthful about how many people may be living in a dwelling.  ( ie:relatives from out of the city or state that may just decide to stay)  The population in Cleveland could very well be close to 400K or may be as high as 500K or more....it just seems like such an inaccurate science.

Because Cincinnati had more of a reason to look into it. Don't expect them to do that unless they're pretty much forced to.

Before I start a word to ColDayMan. Don't think this is a Cincinnati vs. Cleveland thing...because I've had the same debate with DC people when their numbers were revised upward.

 

The press really screws these stories up. I actually have a few friends that work for the US Census Bureau. They've told me that it dosen't mean a city with revised numbers "grew", it means that they have undercounted these cities for years. Cincy probably had a population closer to 350,000 at the turn of the millenia, not 330,000. The only reason they can't redo 2000 and decades earlier is because the manpower/money spent to figure out correct numbers isn't worth it, and cities could in turn go to Congress and demand "back payment" for Fed funds on projects.

 

When I them asked about DC numbers and the fact that it "grew" this decade, they told me with a good amount of certainty this new baseline would begin shrinking immediately and that the city still had lost population since 2000, even though technically it grew.

 

While it is certainly good news for the Queen City that the city is larger than previously thought...I would wait for 2010 before making a judgement on how much population was lost or gained this decade. But it will certainly leave Cincy out of the #1 ranking of population lost this decade.

 

Again just some food for thought, and again not a bash on Cincy. Just throwing in what little tidbits I know.

 

 

Excellent points.  I hope ColDayMan thinks long and hard about what you said.

 

 

I have.  *Thinks*

 

Next.

I am amused by all the posts warning Cincinnatians not to get too excited about the new numbers.  No one knows how they arrived at the new numbers and can say for certain if the city actually grew or was undercounted 5, 10, or 20 years ago.  The important thing here is that according to the Census Bureau, the city will show as having grown from 2000-2005.  Two days in a row, the god-damned Cincinnati Enquirer had front page stories stating the city has grown since 2000.  This is quite a reversal of fortune, and this is now fact to all the same people who took as fact that the city lost the highest percentage of population of any major city. 

 

If the city was simply undercounted in 2000 and continues to lose, we will see that in the 2006 estimate and 2010 Census (although I am not sure how much faith I would have if they were 22,000 off in 2000).  I am sure it will be discussed then.  Anyway, I think we all realize there are flaws in the system (and I think it is likely we have less people today than 2000), but today people who live in Greater Cincinnati are getting a different view of the city.  And people who use Census data will no longer see Cincinnati as a city that lost population at the mid-point of the decade.

Personally, I'd prefer having real numbers and dealing with the truth...unfortunately, that simply isn't possible at this point.  Given that, I guess I prefer that the garbage numbers favor the city's image, but I ain't all that excited by it either...well, check that - I'm excited that it's on the record that we didn't drop 7% in five years...

^ I agree completely - I wish we could get the real numbers so we knew with certainty what the population was.  At the very least it seems that Cincinnati was not the leader in population loss from 2000-2005, and we will not have to hear anti-city voices go on about this every other day.  I thought the Census was pretty detailed and dependable, but the more I learn the more it seems to be based on estimates and assumptions.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  With Federal dollars riding on these numbers you would think they would push for better accuracy as this seemingly would expose them to some lawsuits.