Another "list"...

 

Cleveland is No. 2 big city in annual poverty ranking

Posted by Robert L. Smith August 26, 2008 10:52AM

Categories: Breaking News, News Impact

 

CLEVELAND -- Ohio is again the only state in America with two big cities ranked among the nation's poorest, indicating that the state's principle cities continue to struggle in the new economy...

 

www.cleveland.com

 

Despite rising poverty, Cleveland household income grows

Posted by Robert L. Smith and Olivera Perkins August 26, 2008 23:00PM

Categories: News Impact

 

Like many Americans, you likely made a little more money last year but sacrificed more to do it, maybe leaving the kids alone at home so that you could work.

 

A new report from the U.S. Census Bureau hints at strong new currents shaping the American economy and the American family...

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/pdgraphics/2008/08/medium_27CGCENSUS2.jpg

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/pdgraphics/2008/08/large_27CGCENSUS.jpg

 

These articles let the State of Ohio off the hook entirely. Sure, the economy isn't helping but decades of remarkably anti-urban policy making are taking an obvious toll as well.

These articles let the State of Ohio off the hook entirely. Sure, the economy isn't helping but decades of remarkably anti-urban policy making are taking an obvious toll as well.

 

So true. Just like decades of township supported mania and no state requirement for Comprehensive Planning. I wonder if the news will ever finally print an article about the real problem? Township laws are sucking the life out of the urban cities. Just like sprawl and the lack of mass transit are some of the main causes of our oil issues.

^But reporting such facts might make readers uncomfortable with their lifestyle.

Township laws are sucking the life out of the urban cities.

 

Could you provide more information about this?

These 2 "news" posts aren't "news", so therefore, why did you re-hash the PD garbage here on Urbanohio? I think a fine line needs to be drawn: Urbanohio is smarter and better than the PD.

These 2 "news" posts aren't "news", so therefore, why did you re-hash the PD garbage here on Urbanohio? I think a fine line needs to be drawn: Urbanohio is smarter and better than the PD.

 

To be fair, the article about us being 2nd in poverty is from the U.S. Census Bureau.  While the PD reported it, so did a lot of other news outlets, it was on the AP.

But is this "news" since we already know how damned poor Cleveland is, since the PD reminds us every week? I think I have read 20 times this year alone how poor, dangerous, deadly, dying, and rotting Cleveland is. Shrinking populations, unemployment rates, dying cities, polluted cities, dirty cities, poorest cities, lowest per capita, homicide rates, deadly cities. It's week after week of the same garbage. It's not news. There is so much in the national news spotlight to write about, but if you want local news, where is a report on the Ingenuity Festival, on the status of the Euclid Corridor, on the latest with the county corruption probe, or the status of the Flats East Bank. No, instead, that is not news, but another "Cleveland's poor list" is the news AGAIN. Every article that Steve Litt writes includes a mentioning of this stuff. Every week we get a huge news headline about how bad off Cleveland is. Why don't they talk about how homicides are down 30% in 2008. Because that's not news... The poverty rate increasing .5% is more important.

You hit it on the head when you said "because that's not news."  There's your answer.

 

I understand how you feel.  I learned about this report last night while volunteering at the cleveland food bank - channel 5 had been out there interviewing earlier in the day, and it makes me really angry.  I think the part that makes me angriest is only the people who live here know how many great things we have going on here, and half of our residents don't realize what's great that's happening and contribute even more to the badmouthing. 

 

I had a fantasy last night of making a short movie about what is going on here that is great.  Video of our ethnic festivals, a ride through the metroparks, the fans at our sports games and concerts, younger kids out clubbing, older diners out enjoying fantastic food, pictures of beautiful homes and their list prices, which would be AMAZING to much of the rest of the larger cities in the US, our parks and community groups and volunteer groups and video of many of our great live theater productions, of all the vibrancy around various construction projects, of the nightlife happening in OC, Tremont, E 4th, Warehouse, people dancing at Touch supper club or going to see a show at pickwick & frolic, all the bowling leagues and book clubs and church groups and car wash fundraisers, the AIDS walk, the MS walk, the race for the cure, parade the circle, the west side market, the cleveland orchestra, the video could go on for like an hour solid and it would be so very wonderful and impressive.

 

If only someone had the means, motive and equipment to make it and market it.

I can't blame them for reporting this.  When the new list comes out every year, it is news imo, though it is news we already knew pretty much from the results last year, and the year before.  What is journalistically lazy is when they put this statistic into every article, whether or not it is relevant. 

 

Also, what does seem like some interesting news to me is that Ohio's per capita income growth outpaced the US, Northeast Ohio outpaced Ohio, and Cleveland outpaced NEO (see the first pdf, not the article which of course doesn't mention it).  This is exactly the opposite of what we are conditioned to expect.

^That is a true sign of younger, more well off people moving back into the city.  Of course that takes a thought process to look deeper into the facts, which apparently is something the pd can't comprehend.

But is this "news" since we already know how damned poor Cleveland is, since the PD reminds us every week? I think I have read 20 times this year alone how poor, dangerous, deadly, dying, and rotting Cleveland is. Shrinking populations, unemployment rates, dying cities, polluted cities, dirty cities, poorest cities, lowest per capita, homicide rates, deadly cities. It's week after week of the same garbage. It's not news. There is so much in the national news spotlight to write about, but if you want local news, where is a report on the Ingenuity Festival, on the status of the Euclid Corridor, on the latest with the county corruption probe, or the status of the Flats East Bank. No, instead, that is not news, but another "Cleveland's poor list" is the news AGAIN. Every article that Steve Litt writes includes a mentioning of this stuff. Every week we get a huge news headline about how bad off Cleveland is. Why don't they talk about how homicides are down 30% in 2008. Because that's not news... The poverty rate increasing .5% is more important.

 

I truly feel your pain.  I truly do.  I really dislike the PD and their constant never-ending bashing of our city.  I agree that this is not news (C-Town has been near the top of the list for years before we actually hit #1), but how do we collectively address the issue of poverty in our city?  No single program will do it, and poverty will not magically decreased overnight, even with the mayor's initiatives (especially since part of the main reason for our city's poverty status is the decades loss of manufacturing jobs in the region). 

 

The truth of the matter is, a large portion of the population of our city is either:

1) Undereducated

2) From lead-based paint homes

3) Near brownfield sites

4) From single-parent households

5) Have no positive male role-models.

6) From a home where one or more role models were on drugs

7) Were physically or mentally abused

8 ) Etc.

 

How does a city deal with all of these factors?  The $1 million in college scholarships to Tri-C are a start, but we all know that most "good" jobs require at least a four year degree.  How much of our young population is willing to wait that long, especially when our youths believe money can be made on the street so easily?   

 

These problems need a real solution, which is something that our news media have completely forgotten about.  We all know the story, but we need to develop a real solution.

 

That's BS that cincy made the list. Top 50 maybe?  top 10?  what a joke.

Are they making these list to tell citizens they should do something about it or telling everyone else how bad a city is doing? Since most of the section 8 housing are inside the city it only lower there rankings and since very little are located in in rich suburbs it only make their numbers look better.

This should really be called..."Top Ten Cities Keepin' It Real"

That's BS that cincy made the list. Top 50 maybe? top 10? what a joke.

 

This info is from the census so it's about as accurate as it's going to get. For one thing, look how small the city boundaries are. Cincinnati's suburbs do a good job in keeping the poor out.

While the poverty problem is very real.. when doing these "comparative rankings"... it's important to remember the vast discrepancies in scales of municipal boundaries across the U.S.  Notice that the "Top Poverty" cities are all underbounded cities with tiny boundaries that don't reflect the reality of today's urban areas (except for Memphis and El Paso... which should be truly damning for those places).  The "Lowest Poverty" list are all overbounded cities (except San Fran)... that have huge corporate boundaries including huge swaths of wealthy suburban areas.  Virginia Beach?  It's just a massive agglomeration of suburbia... take 30 small suburban municipalities east of Cleveland and you can form a Virginia Beach.  Colorado Springs?  Barely qualifies as a city. 

 

 

...

 

 

This is not to take away from the pressing need for solutions to the poverty problems in so many cities... but I feel like these lists can be counter-productive and damaging when people fail to look at the issue of corporate boundaries. 

 

Hell, you can be making 30k in Toledo and living the dream life.

 

C-Dawg, I'm not picking on you, but 30k/year works out to be about $810 per 2 week paycheck, and that's with a low-cost insurance which probably is wishful thinking.  therefore, I wouldn't exactly call it living the dream life.  A 100k home with property taxes and homeowners would run about $900/month.  Throw a 401k contributiion in there and your pretty much busted.  Is it livable, absolutely.  Is it the dream life...depends on your definition of that.  Coarse, most of your photo's show you and your buddies drinking Natural Light, so maybe it would work out. 

While the poverty problem is very real.. when doing these "comparative rankings"... it's important to remember the vast discrepancies in scales of municipal boundaries across the U.S. Notice that the "Top Poverty" cities are all underbounded cities with tiny boundaries that don't reflect the reality of today's urban areas (except for Memphis and El Paso... which should be truly damning for those places). The "Lowest Poverty" list are all overbounded cities (except San Fran)... that have huge corporate boundaries including huge swaths of wealthy suburban areas. Virginia Beach? It's just a massive agglomeration of suburbia... take 30 small suburban municipalities east of Cleveland and you can form a Virginia Beach. Colorado Springs? Barely qualifies as a city.

 

 

...

 

 

This is not to take away from the pressing need for solutions to the poverty problems in so many cities... but I feel like these lists can be counter-productive and damaging when people fail to look at the issue of corporate boundaries.

 

Very true.  That's why it's important to read the line that says Cuyahoga County didn't even show up on the list for high ranking poverty counties

This should really be called..."Top Ten Cities Keepin' It Real"

 

That is fantastic. I'm going to send your suggestion to City Hall so they can put some positive spin on the situation.

Dayton isn't on a top 10 poverty list?

 

What went wrong?

Because Dayton has rich people ;)

I remember, although I haven't been able to find it YET, a study from 1 or 2 years ago right after the poverty rankings rated Cincy the 3rd and Cleveland the 4th poorest city. The study showed how the cost of living factored into the equation and both Cleveland and Cincy were not on the top 10 list. I can't find the exact study but here is one based on older numbers explaining how cost of living could change things around. This is just a small excerpt from the article...

 

Adjusting for Living Costs Reverses Poverty Rates

 

The data used in this article are the 2001 cost-of-living index and the 1992-2003 March Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS). CPS data are the basis for the official U.S. poverty estimates and, in more recent years, provide information on more than 80,000 families in each year. The sample represents the civilian, noninstitutionalized population and members of the Armed Forces living either off base or with their families on base. The reference period for income-related questions is the preceding calendar year; therefore, the 1992-2003 CPS data provide poverty estimates for 1991 through 2002.

 

Income, following the Federal definition of poverty, includes all pre-tax income but does not include capital gains or noncash benefits, such as public housing, Medicaid, or food stamps. A person is poor if this measure of income is less than thresholds set by the U.S. Government. Poverty thresholds account for differences in need by setting different thresholds for families of varying sizes. So, for example, in 2001, a three-person family consisting of two adults and one child was poor if its family income was less than $14,255.

 

One way to account for cost-of-living differences is to adjust the poverty threshold by the cost-of-living index. For example, the index for metro Illinois is 1.08, which means that the three-person family threshold of $14,255 would be increased by 8 percent to $15,395. The index for nonmetro Florida is 0.90 which means that the three-person poverty threshold would decline to $12,830.

 

Following the official definition of poverty, 11.1 percent of the metro population was poor in 2001. For nonmetro areas, the poverty rate was 14.2 percent—about 28 percent higher. Once the poverty thresholds are adjusted using the cost-of-living index, this ranking reverses. The adjusted nonmetro poverty rate drops to 10.5 percent, and the adjusted metro rate increases to 12.0 percent. Where the official poverty rate indicates that the incidence of poverty is 28 percent higher in nonmetro areas, the poverty rate that is adjusted for cost-of-living differences suggests that the incidence of poverty is 12 percent lower in nonmetro areas.

 

The reversal of poverty rankings is not unique to 2001. Using the 2001 cost-of-living index for multiple years indicates that the reversal holds for every year considered (1991-2002). The use of the 2001 index assumes that the geographic variation in prices over the last decade has been somewhat stable. (This assumption is found to be reasonable from examining earlier years of FMR data.) In most of the years considered, the official nonmetro poverty rate has been more than 15 percent higher than the metro poverty rate. When adjusted for cost-of-living differences, the nonmetro poverty estimates are 10-25 percent less than the metro estimates.

 

If anyone can find the study from last year that had the poverty rates in accordance with the cost of living it would be great.

 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/November06/Features/Adjusting.htm

Dayton isn't on a top 10 poverty list?

 

What went wrong?

 

This list is for municipalities over 250,000.  There is also a list for municipalities between 65,000 and 249,999 people.

Toledo might have a lower rate than Akron because the municipality of Toledo is somewhat "overbounded" in comparison to the municipality of Akron. 

In many ways, this study has the same challenges that studies on crime have, especially in the larger metros with very small city boundaries.  These will always favor cities that have annexed or combined with the home county (or newer cities that decided to start with large boundaries), especially when compared to cities that have many true urbanized areas within the city limits.  Regardless, I  am happy to see Cincinnati take a significant drop - the variability of the past few years makes me question the validity but it seems from historical numbers this year is more feasible. 

 

An interesting study, similar to population patterns, would be to see how the enhanced cities would fare under the original boundaries.  I also wonder if the Columbus number can possibly be right - 21% seems very high for a city that has such a large area with many of them being suburban.

Part of the situation in Toledo is that it never fully escaped the downturn of the 80s. It is a city and population accustomed to planing for a crappy economy.

 

I'm not sure about 'ghetto' suburbs . . . but Greater Cincinnati and Cbus (the two I've explored most) have plenty of downwardly mobile suburbs. Most of the Princeton, Mt. Healthy, and Winton Woods school districts are downwardly mobile. Colerain and Delhi barely have their heads above water.  The SE side of Cbus is a total mess besides Bexley - appalling so.

 

I'd add that the presence of large urban Appalachian communities in Cincy, Cbus, and Dayton (and maybe Akron?) mask the levels of poverty in the region as they are far more successful at passing than the entrenched poverty seen in the minority communities.

Dayton annexed a lot of open land in the early 1970s as part of the NewFields New Town plan.  The balance was annexations north and east for wellfield protection and aquifer recharge.  So the annexed land area has a lot of unbuilt land, or land that does not have housing.

 

 

Annex areas have nothing to do with poverty.

 

I disagree as the areas you normally annex are more suburban (I also don't see much of a Democratic stronghold on the suburbs...) or open for new development.  Also the point you seem to overlook with Toledo is that for a metro of only 600K (or whatever it is), it's city area is relatively large and probably has a suburban quality in parts.  Also, for cities that are large in area that still have high rates of poverty I would say they are in more trouble than some cities that show up on the list.  What is the cut off for "incredibly concentrated poverty" - Toledo was at 22.6% across a relatively large area for the metro, and my guess is it is even higher in the 38 square mile 1950 boundary.

 

I will try to make it simple to clarify my point.  For an apples to apples comparison - what are today's population numbers and poverty rates for all of the cities on this list at the 1950 boundaries?  Cleveland and Cincinnati are basically unchanged so we already know those numbers.  There are many factors for the numbers (such as housing stock), but these boundaries are probably what would be considered urbanized at that point.

 

City Limits 1950

 

1. Cleveland: 914,808 in 75.0 square miles

2. Cincinnati: 503,998 in 75.1 square miles

3. Columbus: 375,901 in 39.4 square miles

4. Toledo: 303,616 in 38.30 square miles

5. Akron: 274,605 in 53.7 square miles

6. Dayton: 243,872 in 25.0 square miles

 

City Limits 2000

 

1. Columbus: ?

2. Cleveland: 478,403 in 77.6 square miles (gained land since 1970)

3. Cincinnati: 331,285 in 78.0 square miles (same as 1970)

4. Toledo: ?

5. Akron: ?

6. Dayton: ?

 

Very late I noticed the information on the other thread - if only you could get the poverty infomation.  Here are percentage population losses by city from 1950 and 1970 (for those available), given the 1950 boundaries:

 

City              Percent loss from 1950          From 1970

Cleveland      48.7                                  36.3

Cincinnati      34.3                                  26.8

Columbus        35.0                                  30.1

Toledo            32.5                                  ?

gotribe, Did I ever tell you you're my hero??

gotribe, Did I ever tell you you're my hero??

 

Why, what did I do  :wtf:.  I didn't even say anything.  But, yeah, I knew you thought that  :wink:.

Sorry. This was posted much earlier in the thread. I should've quoted the text like this....

 

 

Hell, you can be making 30k in Toledo and living the dream life.

 

C-Dawg, I'm not picking on you, but 30k/year works out to be about $810 per 2 week paycheck, and that's with a low-cost insurance which probably is wishful thinking.  therefore, I wouldn't exactly call it living the dream life.  A 100k home with property taxes and homeowners would run about $900/month.  Throw a 401k contributiion in there and your pretty much busted.  Is it livable, absolutely.  Is it the dream life...depends on your definition of that.  Coarse, most of your photo's show you and your buddies drinking Natural Light, so maybe it would work out. 

 

Outstanding!

 

 

It seems you are mentioning exceptions, and Memphis is the outlier.  I still say that the rule is in general, income will go up, and poverty and crime will go down in cities that have extended boundaries.  I agree that a true apples to apples comparison would be to have consistent boundaries.  All population, poverty, crime, wealth etc. statistics should be done at 5, 10, 15, 20 etc. mile radii intervals from the population and/or geographic center.  That would be a little more scientific in my mind.

Also, notice the big drop in Cincinnati's poverty rate from last year. Cincinnati went from 27.8% to 23.5%! Cincinnati improved a ton, so be happy that it's only ranked tenth! That's remarkable change in just a year. That's probably one of the largest drops in poverty in modern Ohio history, and also consider how bad our state's economy is right now. I don't know what exactly caused such a significant drop in Cincinnati, but it's good news for them.

 

The reason for the drop is likely the size of the survey sample.  I believe I pointed the same thing out last year- these poverty rankings are based on small population surveys, so the reported rate can vary dramatically from year to year.  It is indeed a remarkable change for one year- and also improbable.  This is likely due to the fact that the 2007 poverty ranking was probably unrealistically high to begin with. 

 

A truer picture of poverty and every other demographic category will be available after the 2010 Census.  I hate that so many people, especially the media, latch on to these rankings like they're gospel.

Again, Dayton's annexed areas are mostly watershed, parks, or simply unused.  Very few housing was built on the annexed land (as Jeffrey pointed out earlier).

Right, and Dayton's undeveloped areas are generally "off-limits" since most of it is watershed or parks, unlike Columbus' annexed areas which fuel growth.