http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=SMU3917140000000001&data_tool=%2522EaG%2522

^That's a solid trendline.

Get ready for the annual "Cincinnati protests the Census estimates" headlines.  You can believe if the estimates were telling people they wanted to hear, they wouldn't be complaining.

 

Cincinnati is the most Census protesting city I've ever seen.  I think this reflects an essential part of its character in that its residents just can't accept the fact that the rest of the world doesn't think they are as great as they think they are.  Cincinnati still thinks this is the 1840's for some reason.  There's an incredible solipsism in the local environment that's not healthy.

 

Also, let's assume Cincinnati is right for the sake of the argument.  The Census is vastly undercounting their population.  Ok.  Now, let's ask ourselves, why would Cincinnati be the only city that was a victim of this?  If the Census methods are poor, you'd think they more or less affect every city equally.  What this would mean is that if Cincy's population is really higher, then Columbus' is higher as well, Kansas City's, etc.  Thus Cincinnati's relative standing in the world would be unchanged by revisions to the estimates.

 

Query: How did Hamilton County and Cincinnati's population vary in the actual 2000 Census versus the previous estimates?  Was there a large increase?  I won't discount the possibility.  For example, Marion County, Indiana (Indianapolis) saw some crazy 50K or thereabouts increase in its population that hadn't been reflected in the estimates.

 

 

^That's a solid trendline.

 

Yep, we gained over 7,000 jobs between '06 and '07 ... that's another reason that I doubt these numbers.

Get ready for the annual "Cincinnati protests the Census estimates" headlines.  You can believe if the estimates were telling people they wanted to hear, they wouldn't be complaining.

 

Cincinnati is the most Census protesting city I've ever seen.  I think this reflects an essential part of its character in that its residents just can't accept the fact that the rest of the world doesn't think they are as great as they think they are.  Cincinnati still thinks this is the 1840's for some reason.  There's an incredible solipsism in the local environment that's not healthy.

 

Oh arenn, get off your damn soapbox. In every post you make, you make it sound like Cincinnati was some chick that dumped you for another guy in high school.

At least I don't try to deny the facts.

 

If it bothers you so much why comment, and why do focus so much on this topic.  Cincinnati is actually  pretty new to the whole challenge thing - look at St. Louis, who has been doing this for a long time.  Why not relax and wait for the 2010 census, which could quite possibly result in the Cincinnati-Dayton metroplex? 

 

If Indy is so great why was there a need to expand the city limits to the county to boost population - does that also seem unhealthy by trying to present an image that is not completely accurate?  Was it to say the city was bigger than other cities that it is clearly not?   

 

I do not see them challenging this year as the restated number already has the metro at 2,133,000 for 2007 - personally I suspect it is closer to 2,113,000 or slightly higher.

 

Get ready for the annual "Cincinnati protests the Census estimates" headlines.  You can believe if the estimates were telling people they wanted to hear, they wouldn't be complaining.

 

Cincinnati is the most Census protesting city I've ever seen.  I think this reflects an essential part of its character in that its residents just can't accept the fact that the rest of the world doesn't think they are as great as they think they are.  Cincinnati still thinks this is the 1840's for some reason.  There's an incredible solipsism in the local environment that's not healthy.

 

 

Not really sure if this video fits in here, but I'm YouTubin until my laundry is done, but I found this.  I am not sure what the air date of this video is, but it showcases people living downtown. 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqGKrmBtB9o

If Indy is so great why was there a need to expand the city limits to the county to boost population - does that also seem unhealthy by trying to present an image that is not completely accurate?  Was it to say the city was bigger than other cities that it is clearly not?

 

Did I say Indy was great?  I did not.  I merely cited a Census stat, and one that could be seen as supporting Cincinnati's claim to be under-counted.  Indy has its own set of challenges, and they are very big indeed.

 

^ Fair enough - I misinterpreted that part of your post.

Get ready for the annual "Cincinnati protests the Census estimates" headlines.  You can believe if the estimates were telling people they wanted to hear, they wouldn't be complaining.

 

Cincinnati is the most Census protesting city I've ever seen.  I think this reflects an essential part of its character in that its residents just can't accept the fact that the rest of the world doesn't think they are as great as they think they are.  Cincinnati still thinks this is the 1840's for some reason.  There's an incredible solipsism in the local environment that's not healthy.

 

Also, let's assume Cincinnati is right for the sake of the argument.  The Census is vastly undercounting their population.  Ok.  Now, let's ask ourselves, why would Cincinnati be the only city that was a victim of this?  If the Census methods are poor, you'd think they more or less affect every city equally.  What this would mean is that if Cincy's population is really higher, then Columbus' is higher as well, Kansas City's, etc.  Thus Cincinnati's relative standing in the world would be unchanged by revisions to the estimates.

 

Query: How did Hamilton County and Cincinnati's population vary in the actual 2000 Census versus the previous estimates?  Was there a large increase?  I won't discount the possibility.  For example, Marion County, Indiana (Indianapolis) saw some crazy 50K or thereabouts increase in its population that hadn't been reflected in the estimates.

 

 

 

First of all, Cincinnati is hardly the only city that the Census undercounts, and it is certainly not the only city that challenges census results.  I know off hand that St. Louis and Detroit both have challenged census numbers in the past.

 

Secondly, the reason for challenging is not to really impact outsiders' opinion of the city, seeing that most people have no clue how big most mid size American cities are, but rather it is to change the views of locals.  If locals see that the city is growing, it leads them to believe in the city again, and be more prone to reinvesting in the core.  Also, federal funding is distributed based on the populations of cities, so obviously a city would want their population to be higher so they could get more money.  Personally, I think it's kind of nice to know that when Cincinnati's population is counted, you know that those are all urban dwellers, unlike Indy, Louisville, and Columbus who count large areas of the suburbs in their city pops.

Personally, I think it's kind of nice to know that when Cincinnati's population is counted, you know that those are all urban dwellers, unlike Indy, Louisville, and Columbus who count large areas of the suburbs in their city pops.

 

Which is, of course, BS since:

 

1). Cincinnati would do the same thing if not for the provincial suburban realm outside of the city limits (re: Elmwood Place).

 

2). There are urban dwellers in Indy, Louisville, and Columbus thus the arguement of Cincinnati "just" counting urban dwellers is really stretching it.  Old Columbus (51 sq mi) has about 250,000 people that are "urban dwellers" with about 80,000 more living in streetcar-suburban areas i.e. Clintonville (i.e. Bond Hill, Oakley, Westwood).

 

Ugh, people, back to the TOPIC PLEASE!

Didn't Columbus get much of their annexation through water service - or the lack thereof?  Just clarifying as it was not like there was a bunch of suburban communities who felt they had to be part of the city.  I am not saying this was not a smart move.

Columbus basically threatened to shut off the water unless they joined in the initial days and then began to annex surrounding land around suburbs (thus the city looks like a gigantic spider).  And thus, Cincinnati would wish it could've done that but instead has provincial, smallish 1800's suburbs still trying to retain their identity (re: Lockland?!?!  Norwood?!? Hello!) without considering consolidation.  Louisville has these little, worthless communities and Jefferson County went "Oh hell, let's just become one city" and bam, history.

I think this points out one of the major differences - Columbus got much of the land before it was developed when it could, and some by power-play.  If it has not gotten the land then it will not now (e.g. Bexley).  Cincinnati developed much earlier and cities incorporated before this notion of annexing to the extent that some "home" cities do today.

 

I actually knew someone at the Cincinnati Water Works and asked about using water service as a tool for getting more area annexed to the city.  He basically said that is not a tactic they wanted to take.  Probably noble in a sense, but also frustrating.

I'm sure it was harder for Cincy and Cleveland.  First off, they grew larger in a different era.  Also, when you're next to a major body of water such as the Ohio River or Lake Erie, it makes it much easier for people to get their own water without relying on the central city.

 

 

I think this points out one of the major differences - Columbus got much of the land before it was developed when it could, and some by power-play.  If it has not gotten the land then it will not now (e.g. Bexley).  Cincinnati developed much earlier and cities incorporated before this notion of annexing to the extent that some "home" cities do today.

 

I actually knew someone at the Cincinnati Water Works and asked about using water service as a tool for getting more area annexed to the city.  He basically said that is not a tactic they wanted to take.  Probably noble in a sense, but also frustrating.

 

Oh, there's no question that Cincinnati has had a much tougher situation due to (again) a historical provincial suburban inner-ring versus Columbus' stunted growth until the 70's.  That's why I said "Cincinnati wishes it had it" blah blah.

"We happen to be blessed," Dixon said, pointing to West Chester, Fairfield and Liberty townships as some of the fast-changing areas in Butler County.

 

"We're on the I-275 loop. We're close to (Interstate) 75. We don't have any of the old infrastructure. Everything is fairly new, and I think that's really what's driving us right now."

 

Yeah, except the cities of Hamilton and Middletown and Oxford.  Butler County was "blessed" by having been flatened during the last ice age and its situation between two urban counties.  It didn't do jack-diddle-do-dat to attract this growth other than simply be there.  Hell, Miami University only ended up there because John Cleves Symmes illegally sold off the part of Hamilton County where it was chartered back around 1792.   

 

 

The recent commercial boom and development growth is part of what keeps the county's population numbers afloat, said Don Dixon, a Butler County commissioner.

 

That and the hordes of people clamoring to move into Hamilton and Middletown city limits. 

 

Oh, there's no question that Cincinnati has had a much tougher situation due to (again) a historical provincial suburban inner-ring versus Columbus' stunted growth until the 70's.  That's why I said "Cincinnati wishes it had it" blah blah.

 

Overall, I guess it is just important to realize there are differences as a result.  Plenty of other cities are in the same situation.  We know the usual suspects, but even great cities like Boston and Washington are locked in and have both gone from over 800,000 at their peaks to the 500's.  We all want to promote the core city, but it is why I always make the distinction and consider the metro to be a more accurate measure of a market than the city.  The metro at least has some economic patterns behind it versus arbitrary boundaries.

Certainly, but I think that's almost common knowledge on this forum.  I was simply stating the poster's justification for Cincinnati just having "urban dwellers" versus Columbus/Indy/L'ville was incorrect as the other three also have "urban dwellers" while Cincinnati has "suburban" areas (re: Westwood, Carthage) as well.

There is an argument out there that sprawl and gentrification (de-densification of the historic core) are all apart of the same process. That taking apartments in places in like OTR and Mt. Adams that once housed 4-6 member families and replaced them with singles or couples contributes every bit as much to the sprawl as building in Butler Cty. FWIW

Certainly, but I think that's almost common knowledge on this forum.  I was simply stating the poster's justification for Cincinnati just having "urban dwellers" versus Columbus/Indy/L'ville was incorrect as the other three also have "urban dwellers" while Cincinnati has "suburban" areas (re: Westwood, Carthage) as well.

 

Of course Indy, Columbus, and Louisville have urban dwellers just the same as Cincinnati and Cleveland.  I was never arguing that they didn't,  nor did I say that the whole city was made of suburbs.  What I meant was that when you see Columbus's population as being 700,000 or whatever it is, the number is grossly higher than the number of actual urban dwellers (you say 250,000--lets go with that).  In Cincinnati and Cleveland though, you get a 340,000 or 420,000 (rounding off roughly) count of people that are generally all in urban neighborhoods.  Thus, when you see Cincy or Cleveland's numbers, you get the real city populations, not the city plus the suburbs they annexed populations. 

 

While it's true that some of Cincinnati's neighborhoods can be suburban in spots (you point to Carthage which I would say is actually fairly urban, but parts of Mt. Washington would qualify), these are not large swaths of the city, and there are urban areas that could be counted in the city pop but aren't because of the archaic suburban municipalities (Norwood, Elmwood Place, Lockland, Lincoln Heights).

^ It's also important to note that "Cincinnati" has another 65,000+ "urban dwellers" that it can't claim, living directly across the river in Covington, Newport, & Bellevue.  They're in another state, so no amount of clever reorganization would get them into the census count, but they're still within walking distance of downtown so it's a shame that the state line exists where it does.  Obviously, that doesn't begin to account for the total populations of the 3 NKY counties, which are definitely part of the Cincinnati metro area. 

 

 

There is an argument out there that sprawl and gentrification (de-densification of the historic core) are all apart of the same process. That taking apartments in places in like OTR and Mt. Adams that once housed 4-6 member families and replaced them with singles or couples contributes every bit as much to the sprawl as building in Butler Cty. FWIW

 

Agreed, but that argument would be a lot stronger if so much of OTR wasn't vacant.  As it stands, if you could somehow fill 90% of the residential space, even with singles/couples, it would be a step in the right direction.

There is an argument out there that sprawl and gentrification (de-densification of the historic core) are all apart of the same process. That taking apartments in places in like OTR and Mt. Adams that once housed 4-6 member families and replaced them with singles or couples contributes every bit as much to the sprawl as building in Butler Cty. FWIW

 

Actually, that's an explaination for population decrease in a built-out urban district... but it does not explain sprawl.  Demand for housing brought on by decreasing household size can be satiated through increasing density of established districts, spatial expansion of the urbanized area or infill in previously vacant areas within the urbanized area (esp. brownfields, demolished areas, etc.).  Sprawl is probably correlated with the trend of decreasing household size... but it's not necessarily an inevitable cause-and-effect.  Additionally, spatial expansion of the urbanized area does not have to take the form of sprawl, which is a very specific type of "urban" growth based on personal automobile transportation monoculture, rigid seperation of uses, low-density settlement, degraded civic realm, etc. 

the best example of how demographic changes affect a city's population in this area is deer park.  they have the exact same housing stock since 1960, still solidly middle class Catholic (although probably not for much longer, deer park is really just golf manor but 10-15 years newer) but the current population is about 60% of the 1960s peak, why? catholics started family planning in greater numbers

Certainly, but I think that's almost common knowledge on this forum.  I was simply stating the poster's justification for Cincinnati just having "urban dwellers" versus Columbus/Indy/L'ville was incorrect as the other three also have "urban dwellers" while Cincinnati has "suburban" areas (re: Westwood, Carthage) as well.

 

Of course Indy, Columbus, and Louisville have urban dwellers just the same as Cincinnati and Cleveland.  I was never arguing that they didn't,  nor did I say that the whole city was made of suburbs.  What I meant was that when you see Columbus's population as being 700,000 or whatever it is, the number is grossly higher than the number of actual urban dwellers (you say 250,000--lets go with that).  In Cincinnati and Cleveland though, you get a 340,000 or 420,000 (rounding off roughly) count of people that are generally all in urban neighborhoods.  Thus, when you see Cincy or Cleveland's numbers, you get the real city populations, not the city plus the suburbs they annexed populations. 

 

While it's true that some of Cincinnati's neighborhoods can be suburban in spots (you point to Carthage which I would say is actually fairly urban, but parts of Mt. Washington would qualify), these are not large swaths of the city, and there are urban areas that could be counted in the city pop but aren't because of the archaic suburban municipalities (Norwood, Elmwood Place, Lockland, Lincoln Heights).

 

The numbers game of counting urban suburbs versus suburban city is pointless, as anyone can point to Cleveland Heights & Lakewood and say "see, if we were like Columbus, we'd have blah blah!" or If Columbus de-annexed itself and kept Clintonville and included Grandview Heights, then Columbus would be a "legit" city in Cincinnatians and Clevelanders' eyes.  It's rather silly.  And while I get your point, it still seems irrelevant to say that due to city constraints, it's rather "cool" to have a more definitive number of "urban dwellers" versus an annexed-out CMH/IND/LOU as, again, it's a numbers game.

 

I just say stop comparing Columbus/Indianapolis/Louisville with Cincinnati/Cleveland (not you specifically, edale, I just mean generally) as they function completely different.

 

Though perhaps Louisville could be a model for Cin/Clev, as they two suffered with smaller city limits and inner-city decline and somehow managed to just annex the whole county.

Though perhaps Louisville could be a model for Cin/Clev, as they two suffered with smaller city limits and inner-city decline and somehow managed to just annex the whole county.

 

The Louisville situation is really not applicable to Ohio, and maybe other places, due to a few things:

 

1) Early merger of some basic services:

a) sewers (Metropolitan Sewer District formed in the 1940s)

b) planning & zoning (city/county planning & zoning board and compr. planning, established in the late 1940s)

c) water ("Louisville Water Company", really a quango with 100% of "company stock" held by the city, expanded out to the suburbs so there was in effect a countywide water system)

d) parks: "Metro Parks" really is a merger of the city park system and county parks, happened in the 1950s or 1960s)

e) schools.  City and County schools merged in the 1970s via court order, but a countywide school system prior to that followed southern precedent, rather than the fragmented school districts of the midwest (legacy of civil townships?)

 

2. Incorporated suburbs in most cases being microburbs (KY statute has a low pop threshold for incorporation)...really just incorporated subdivisions... that don't provide full range of services.

 

3. Lack of civil townships means the county assumed what would be township functions in Ohio in unincorporated areas, and functioned similar to a large incoprorated government ("County Judge/Executive" office equivilant to "mayor of the county")

 

4. Merger exempted incorporated suburbs, but they are still represented in metro government via metro council districts as sort of an overlay, similar the way they were represented by fiscal court (equivilant to a Ohio county govt), via district elections (not via at-large county commission elections in Ohio)

 

So there where a lot of specific preconditions that happened to set the stage for merger.  I think the early merged services back in the 1940s & 1950s might have been done with eventual merger in mind, as there were early plans in that era to do a city/county merger.  The circumstances & politics of mergerwere somewhat specific to Louisville, but an interesting angle was that many in the city were more opposed than the suburbs, due to fear of diluted political power.

 

@@@@

 

Getting back to census population counts, one has to wonder if the Census is going to rework their estimate methodology if they are being challenged as much as they are. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e)

After thinking about this, something with the MSA population did not seem right so I looked at information on the Census website.  Although they have not given the official metro count, they have all the changes in rates per thousand per county so you can do the calculations.  There might be some discrepancies, but this should be close.  For the metro I show these numbers:

 

Births    Deaths    US Migration    International Migration

30011    18042      -1768            2365

 

This nets out to an increase of 12,566, so if you use 822,596 for Hamilton County and 2,104,000 for the metro in 2006 we are around 2,116,500 in 2007.  If the bump to the county of 25,000 was truly incorporated the metro should be  2,141,500 so I cannot figure out where the 2,133,678 number is coming from.  I am still inclined to assume we are closer to the lower one.

 

2006

822,596

 

2007

842,369

 

The MSA is at 2,133,678.

The metro information is out - it will be interesting to see how this is covered in other areas.  The numbers still seem off a little, but this is the final total.  It's amazing how much Ikea has done for the area (it's a fine store, but that is sarcarsm).  I do like the overall positive tone, which seems rare these days.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080327/NEWS01/803270372

 

Metro area now Ohio's biggest

BY TONY LANG | [email protected]

E-mail    |    Print    |    digg us!    |    del.icio.us!    |    Click-2-Listen

 

The 15-county Cincinnati metropolitan area, which includes seven counties in Northern Kentucky and three in Southeast Indiana, now ranks as Ohio's largest metropolitan area. Census estimates released today show the area has overtaken metro Cleveland in total population the last two years.

 

Dallas-Fort Worth led all metros in one-year gain, adding 162,250 people to its rolls. Even Hurricane Katrina-ravaged New Orleans ranked as the eighth-fastest-growing metro area in percentage growth with a 4 percent population gain.

 

But Greater Cincinnati added 12,550 people to rank 24th in population. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor slipped to 25th, with a loss of 8,808.

"Ikea located here," Moorman said. "They didn't pick Cleveland. And it's not only for our great transportation system. There are more people here."

 

 

Whaaaa??? ... *cough* bullshit *cough* ...

 

 

Other than that, good news.

That's a very positive article for Cincinnati!  However, they count SEVEN KY counties?  I live in KY, and I even would have only counted the northernmost three.  Oh well, I'm not an expert I suppose.

 

Also, what's up with this:   "They didn't pick Cleveland. And it's not only for our great transportation system."

 

What transportation system is he referring to?  The expressway?  I love Cincinnati, but our transportation system (or lack thereof) is my biggest gripe about the region.

Does the Census Bureau go back and retroactively change previous years' estimates?  I swear this year is the first time Metro Cincy has been bigger than Metro Cleveland... yet the latest Census Estimate information shows their estimates for 2006 also had a larger population for Metro Cincy than Metro Cleveland. 

"They didn't pick Cleveland. And it's not only for our great transportation system."

 

 

 

I just fell out of my chair laughing!!    Is that suppose to be a joke?

There is a heck of a lot of positive spin in that Cincinnati article, which should cheer up those of you who think the media always focuses on the negative.

Yeah... if we have a "great transportation system," Cleveland must be in constant gridlock, no rail period, and the roads are nearly deteriorated. Can I get some of what this guy is smoking?!

Apparently they did restate the numbers as population was added to Hamilton County last year.  It looks like Cleveland was also restated in 2006, from 2,114,000 to 2,105,000 - I had not heard of that change.

 

Does the Census Bureau go back and retroactively change previous years' estimates?  I swear this year is the first time Metro Cincy has been bigger than Metro Cleveland... yet the latest Census Estimate information shows their estimates for 2006 also had a larger population for Metro Cincy than Metro Cleveland. 

Mallory pushes better census count

BY JANE PRENDERGAST | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

April 3, 2008

 

CINCINNATI - Whether Cincinnati is a growing city or a declining one matters for a lot of reasons – political clout, federal aid and community pride.

 

That’s why Mayor Mark Mallory will announce Friday the beginning of what he predicts will be an extraordinary effort to count Cincinnatians in 2010, the next U.S. Census.

If I'm not mistaken it still doesn't note if the city is growing or not.  The important thing would be to have historical numbers using the Social Compact methodology to prove that a trend towards growth is occuring.  For example if you challenge the more recent census numbers then it's possible that while the actual count may be inaccurate the trend itself is still accurate.  Perhaps in 1990 Cincinnati had a population using Social Compact's numbers, of 384,000 or perhaps in 1980 Cincinnati had a population of 394,000.  I don't know but does anyone else have any details on this topic?

I don't know why anyone would think the Social Compact methodology is better than the Census Bureau, particularly as they are an advocacy group with a point of view to promote.

 

The key is to focus on getting everyone properly counted in 2010.  This is a person by person count and it is critical not to miss anyone.

 

I don't know why anyone would think the Social Compact methodology is better than the Census Bureau, particularly as they are an advocacy group with a point of view to promote.

 

The key is to focus on getting everyone properly counted in 2010.  This is a person by person count and it is critical not to miss anyone.

 

 

It's because the Census Bureau is a joke, especially as of late. They have been ridiculed on different news outlets for the past week because of their change to go back to pencil and paper because they're 1) lazy 2) don't know how to use PDA's. Idiots.

 

From the Washington Post ...

 

 

 

Counting Countdown

 

Remember the story about how the census in 2010 might have to rely on paper -- Holy Moly! -- because of an apparently botched $624 million contract for handheld data collection devices?

 

The overall budget for the census was originally set at about $12 billion. That was before cost overruns because of problems related to the troubled device, which is under development by the Harris Corporation of Melbourne, Fla.

 

Anyway, the Government Accountability Office is now placing the deal on on its "High Risk" list of projects vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse.

 

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/government-inc/2008/03/counting_countdown.html

 

 

I don't know why anyone would think the Social Compact methodology is better than the Census Bureau

 

 

Problems with census PDAs could prompt a return to pencil and paper

 

"Harris Corp. may have nothing but good things to say about the HTC-made PDAs it's planning to supply for use in the 2010 census, but it looks like the handhelds are already starting to cause plenty of headaches for census officials, who are reportedly even considering a return to pencil and paper if things can't be resolved. As the AP reports, the problems start with the contract for the devices, which originally clocked in at $596 million, has since grown to $647 million, and could eventually balloon to as much as $2 billion. As if that wasn't enough, the handheld has also apparently proven to be "too complex" for some of the temporary census workers that took part in a test last year, and the device was reportedly "not initially programmed to transmit the large amounts of data necessary." As a result, census officials are now said to be considering a number of different options to scale back the use of the devices, only one of which apparently actually has the headcounters entering data into 'em as they go door-to-door."

 

 

 

Census Bureau goes forward with plans to ditch PDAs

 

"While it doesn't exactly come as a surprise given recent developments, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez has now told a House subcommittee that the Census Bureau will in fact be ditching its much-ballyhooed PDAs in favor of paper and pencil for the 2010 census. According to the AP, that fairly drastic move comes as part of a package of changes that will ultimately add as much as $3 billion to the cost of the census, bringing the total cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $14 billion. Among other things, Gutierrez said that a "lack of effective communication with one of our key contractors" was one of the factors that "significantly contributed to the challenges." The handhelds will apparently still see some use during the census, however, although only for verifying street addresses using the PDA's GPS functionality. For its part, Harris Corp. (which had the contract to provide the PDAs) put the best spin on things, saying that it was "encouraged that automation and the adoption of new technology is moving forward, even if in a more narrowly focused fashion." Of course, it's still getting its $600 million+, so it can't really complain all that much."

 

http://www.engadget.com/tag/census

 

 

 

Does this answer your question? ;) ... The government f'ckd up, now they are trying to remedy the situation at the cost of miscounts by cities and metros across the board.

 

... another entertaining article. Enjoy! ;)

 

I don't know why anyone would think the Social Compact methodology is better than the Census Bureau

 

 

GAO adds 2010 census to list of high-risk programs

By ELISE CASTELLI

March 06, 2008

The 2010 census is so troubled the Government Accountability Office is adding it to its high-risk list, which tracks federal management areas in need of close attention to prevent waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement.

 

Shortcomings in Census Bureau management of information technology that will be used to gather and store census data, as well as weak performance of the technology in field tests, contributed to GAO’s decision to add the census to its watch list. Cancellation of several dress rehearsals and uncertainty of cost estimates for the headcount also raised concerns at GAO, according to a March 6 news release.

 

The census, which is estimated to cost $11 billion, could see those costs increase by $600 million to $2 billion, David Powner, GAO director for information technology management issues, told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on March 5.

 

http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3409466

Very interesting news, but not overly shocking if you ask me.

Add higher than expected enrollment, at CPS, to the list of indicators supporting Cincy's claims.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/NEWS0102/805060354/1058/NEWS01

I'm guessing the decline in the charter schools + weakness in the Catholic schools + new schools with often better programs = more stable enrollment. It is great news, but CPS has probably 3 or 4 years after the opening of a new school to keep some of the students. If the entirety of the school is better than what CPS used to offer then the students and family are probably with district for the long haul (or longer haul), if the old CPS shows (poor discipline, lackluster educational advancement) creeps back then the families are probably lost for good and will head out or to the Catholic schools. Pleasant Ridge is having quite a run-up in interest from young families simply in anticipation of the new PRidge Montessori.

That's great news!!

Mallory holds Census talk

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080709/NEWS0108/807090393/1169/NEWS

The population estimate is going to be released tomorrow at 12:01 am.  Any guesses?

 

Mine is 333,412

756,987  :wink2:

332,500