On 3/20/2023 at 10:49 AM, Dougal said:

Have the numbers finally turned positive?

 

Baiju R. Shah on Twitter: "Greater Cleveland continues to grow. Not new news, just a reminder. Data below from @Redfin for the last 3 months. @GCPartnership @JobsOhio @TeamNEO @TheCLE @cleveleads @EngageCleveland @GlobalCleveland https://t.co/5X6HxAbzmM" / Twitter

 

 

Crain's apparently went with that as well. And someone wrote and called them on it:

 

"The March 6, 2023, Crain's Cleveland Business "report" of the Greater Cleveland Partnership's benchmarking is of interest. It would be more useful if it were put in context....The article quotes Baiju Shah's comment about Cleveland's regional population growth from 2010-20 and 2019-22. In actual fact, Cuyahoga County's population in 2019 was identical to that reported in 2023. That is not growth. According to cleveland.com, since 2010, "Cuyahoga County lost about 15,000 people." According to the city of Cleveland's website, from 2010 to 2020 the city lost 6% of its people, compared with a 17% decrease from 2000 to 2010. Shah's assertion that our population is growing is disingenuous.....

 

The 2018 Forbes' Best Cities for Jobs listing ranked Cleveland 71st out of America's 71 most populous cities due to declining population, poor education and weak transit spending..."

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/opinion/personal-view-put-northeast-ohios-economic-numbers-proper-context

The opinion piece above complained about cherry picking numbers and then committed the same offense. No one is saying that Cleveland was rivaling Columbus in job/population growth but outside of a slowdown in job growth between 2015-2017, job growth was much closer to peer cities until 2020. Population growth also occurred in many of Cuyahoga county suburbs which was a reversal of the 2000-2010 years and the adult population in Cleveland grew 2010-2020 if memory serves correctly. 

Edited March 28, 20232 yr by bwheats

Can we just a population number that includes CBD and all surrounding Cleveland neighborhoods, projects come up left and right and fill with a fair amount of people from out of state. It’s hard to imagine this number hasn’t been reflecting growing population


Using 44114 as many of these studies do is such a bad metric and equally as deceptive imo is using cuyahoga county as a metric, really want to see Cleveland CBD + it’s neighborhoods over time

14 hours ago, BoomerangCleRes said:

Can we just a population number that includes CBD and all surrounding Cleveland neighborhoods, projects come up left and right and fill with a fair amount of people from out of state. It’s hard to imagine this number hasn’t been reflecting growing population


Using 44114 as many of these studies do is such a bad metric and equally as deceptive imo is using cuyahoga county as a metric, really want to see Cleveland CBD + it’s neighborhoods over time

 

Wouldn't that just be cherrypicking to get the specific result you want? Cleveland does have growing neighborhoods, and I do think its population loss is slowing, but saying studies or rankings should only look at the best-performing neighborhoods to determine if the city is growing seems dishonest to me. 

My point is the opinion piece clearly cherry picked data to support his contentions when that was far from the whole picture. Basically labor force and employment languished from 2000-2016 in Cleveland and started to take off after that until the pandemic. I think recovery is slower than we would like but Cleveland’s workforce (like Pittsburgh) is slightly older than its peers and probably had greater rates of drop out from the workforce. Based off of highly accurate data (county employment quarterly rather than wildly off monthly data) Cleveland outgained Cincy, Columbus and Pittsburgh in information or tech job growth. Hope that trend continues.

 
Wouldn't that just be cherrypicking to get the specific result you want? Cleveland does have growing neighborhoods, and I do think its population loss is slowing, but saying studies or rankings should only look at the best-performing neighborhoods to determine if the city is growing seems dishonest to me. 

And that’s where I disagree they’re neighborhoods OF Cleveland they’re not separate cities so why should they not be included. Also 44114 doesn’t even include all the districts of downtown so how does that feel like an honest reflection of the city

Also I don’t believe it’s cherry picking if we’re including all Cleveland neighborhoods, not like I said let’s just add OHC and Tremont

https://www.cleveland.com/data/2023/03/cuyahoga-county-continues-to-have-greatest-population-loss-in-ohio-new-census-estimates.html

5 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

https://www.cleveland.com/data/2023/03/cuyahoga-county-continues-to-have-greatest-population-loss-in-ohio-new-census-estimates.html

The top 3 counties were Delaware,, Franklin and Warren.......I'll be curious to see if Licking makes the top 3 list in the coming years with everything going on with Intel/tech there now.

The appeal of living in a sprawling desert like Maricopa County will always be unfathomable to me. 

On 3/29/2023 at 6:54 AM, BoomerangCleRes said:

And that’s where I disagree they’re neighborhoods OF Cleveland they’re not separate cities so why should they not be included. Also 44114 doesn’t even include all the districts of downtown so how does that feel like an honest reflection of the city

Also I don’t believe it’s cherry picking if we’re including all Cleveland neighborhoods, not like I said let’s just add OHC and Tremont

 

What I mean is that you have to look at all neighborhoods, not just some, if we're measuring full city growth or loss. It seemed that you were saying that the question of whether Cleveland overall is growing or not should be entirely decided on the trends of its fastest-growing neighborhoods, but maybe I misunderstood you.

I think the biggest issue is to stabilize the East Side or at least do a dramatic slowdown of population loss. It doesn’t matter how fast the West Side is growing if the East Side is bleeding faster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point! A city shouldn't be less dense than its suburbs! 

 

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Good point! A city shouldn't be less dense than its suburbs! 

 

 

Those two are pretty misleading. The Tremont census tract includes the Scranton peninsula and the industrial flats past west 3rd. The main Ohio City census tract includes everything all the way to the Lake, including all of Whiskey Island but not including Lakeview Terrace. Both of those tracts are less than half habitable. Context certainly matters here.

Edited April 11, 20232 yr by bumsquare

1 hour ago, bumsquare said:

Those two are pretty misleading. The Tremont census tract includes the Scranton peninsula and the industrial flats past west 3rd. The main Ohio City census tract includes everything all the way to the Lake, including all of Whiskey Island but not including Lakeview Terrace. Both of those tracts are less than half habitable. Context certainly matters here.

 

It's misleading because it includes tracks of land that are underutilized and have low to no density? Isn't that exactly what the statistic is capturing? Cleveland Heights includes the large estates to the South that have huge lots and low density. It also includes Cain park and forrest hill park as well as a number of commercial districts where no one lives. The same could be said for all of the other places on the list. 

47 minutes ago, Balkmusic said:

 

It's misleading because it includes tracks of land that are underutilized and have low to no density? Isn't that exactly what the statistic is capturing? Cleveland Heights includes the large estates to the South that have huge lots and low density. It also includes Cain park and forrest hill park as well as a number of commercial districts where no one lives. The same could be said for all of the other places on the list. 

 

It's misleading because it's giving a measure of residential density, while including large non-residential areas.  The problem is that the City's neighborhood planning areas are meant to cover the entire city for planning purposes, but the fact that Whiskey Island doesn't have any residents doesn't make Ohio City (the actual neighborhood where people actually live) any less dense.

 

Ideally, these sorts of comparisons would dig down to the census block or block group.  It's not like we don't have computers to do all that math!

55 minutes ago, Balkmusic said:

 

It's misleading because it includes tracks of land that are underutilized and have low to no density? Isn't that exactly what the statistic is capturing? Cleveland Heights includes the large estates to the South that have huge lots and low density. It also includes Cain park and forrest hill park as well as a number of commercial districts where no one lives. The same could be said for all of the other places on the list. 

It's also misleading because the average person isn't aware of the precise neighborhood boundaries. When he or she hears Ohio City / Tremont They're thinking about W25 / Professor. Not the vast majority of the neighborhood which isn't nearly so "hot", or may even be uninhabited. 

 

(Not saying the hot areas of OC / Tremont are too built up, they aren't, just pointing out how it's misleading).

It's not an accounting of population in residential areas. It's an accounting of population in Statistical Planning Areas. Many neighborhoods are SPAs but not all. Some neighborhoods are more residential than commercial. Some are more commercial than residential. Here is a list of Cleveland SPAs with their population density at left, SPA square miles in the middle, and overall populations at right. Note that as some neighborhoods see more investment and get wealthier, their population density goes down as more doubles are turned into singles and more single homes that were owned by big, lower-income families are bought by young professionals who have only one or two people in their household. Remember that in 1940 Central's peak population was just over 100,000 or nearly 43,000 people per square mile and Hough's peak population was in 1960 at 76,000 people or nearly 38,000 people per square mile...

 

 

 

 

 

On 4/11/2023 at 7:58 AM, bumsquare said:

Those two are pretty misleading. The Tremont census tract includes the Scranton peninsula and the industrial flats past west 3rd. The main Ohio City census tract includes everything all the way to the Lake, including all of Whiskey Island but not including Lakeview Terrace. Both of those tracts are less than half habitable. Context certainly matters here.

 

It's not really misleading though. @KJPis comparing those neighborhoods to suburbs. Each of the suburbs also has large areas that aren't built up at all (e.g. vacant, parks) or that are dedicated to non-residential uses (e.g. Severance Town Center in Cleveland Heights).

 

Additionally, the fact that areas like the Scranton Peninsula aren't built up actually does make each area less dense. I strongly suspect the rest of Tremont would have noticeable more pedestrian and vehicle traffic if the Scranton Peninsula were fully built up.

 

Also, Wendy Park and Whiskey Island together probably make up 15-20% of Ohio City. Take them out, and you still have a population density comparable to Cleveland Heights.

I'm sharing someone else's comparison, which I consider interesting and valid enough to share here.

Unrelated to the above discussion--

 

Yesterday I indulged my occasional hobby of checking who bought a house recently in Cleveland Heights using Zillow and Myplace Cuyahoga. Of the reasonably move-in ready houses (i.e. purchase price above $170,000 or so) every single one was purchased by a real person, not an investment LLC. The purchasers appeared to be roughly 2/3 folks who were from the area and 1/3 folks who were from elsewhere. The cheaper dilapidated houses, on the other hand, were mostly being bought up by LLCs. This to me suggests a very healthy housing market, as you have investors who are buying houses to fix them at the low end, but at the high end the houses are being bought by people who plan to live in them, not by speculators.

 

Also, the recent Redfin migration estimates look pretty good, with inflows exceeding outflows.

 

https://www.redfin.com/city/4145/OH/Cleveland/housing-market

 

Some times I feel so much optimism about this city. It's taken the metro about 20 years to climb back to where it was in the year 2000 economically. But the outflows seem much more stabilized now. All we need is a few more big players to invest and create new jobs here, and you'll start getting the virtuous cycles that will make this place what it deserves to be.

not cle or even usa really, but very noteworthy:

 

 

 

India will surpass China as world’s most populous country by mid-year, UN says

 

By Manveena Suri, Diksha Madhok and Eliza Mackintosh, CNN

 

Updated 1:51 PM EDT, Wed April 19, 2023

 

 

New Delhi, IndiaCNN — 

 

India is set to surpass China as the world’s most populous nation, with almost 3 million more people by the middle of this year, data released by the United Nations on Wednesday showed.

Based on the projections, India’s population by mid-year will reach 1.4286 billion, compared to China’s 1.4257 billion – 2.9 million fewer – according to the United Nations Population Fund’s (UNFPA) “State of World Population Report” for 2023.

 

UN officials have said it is not possible to determine the exact date for the shift, due to “uncertainty” about the data coming from China and India. India’s last census was in 2011 and most recent, scheduled in 2021, was delayed during the Covid-19 pandemic.

 

The United States is a very distant third, with an estimated population of 340 million, the data, which reflects information available as of February, showed.

 

 

more:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/asia/india-china-population-intl/index.html

New population numbers, I think? Shows through 2022 not sure if this data has been published for long

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-counties-total.html

Some real estate developers from out of town have called me in recent weeks to ask me about certain areas to develop in and what to develop. I need to start my own consultancy! But I asked them, why the interest in Cleveland? Most said the economy seems to have changed for the better since about 2015 or so, and they like the income-to-population numbers they're seeing. Perhaps this is what they saw? This is from today's New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/15/upshot/migrations-college-super-cities.html

 

6 hours ago, KJP said:

Some real estate developers from out of town have called me in recent weeks to ask me about certain areas to develop in and what to develop. I need to start my own consultancy! But I asked them, why the interest in Cleveland? Most said the economy seems to have changed for the better since about 2015 or so, and they like the income-to-population numbers they're seeing. Perhaps this is what they saw? This is from today's New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/15/upshot/migrations-college-super-cities.html

 

What did you tell them?!

9 minutes ago, Silent Matt said:

What did you tell them?!

 

Yes, let us buy there first!

The usual hotspots. But there's some certain addresses within those hotspots that I think would make for great development sites, especially for high-rises.

This is some real Facebook/Reddit/College freshman-level reasoning here lol. Does the NYT not know about the economics of supply and demand? 

 

From the NYT The Morning:

 

By David Leonhardt

Good morning. Housing has become so expensive that college graduates are leaving New York, Los Angeles and other expensive cities.

...

 

“Many smaller and more affordable cities are simply more desirable than they used to be,” said my colleague Emily Badger, who did the new analysis along with Robert Gebeloff and Josh Katz. “There’s good Indian and Thai food to be found in more places. There are growing tech-worker scenes outside of the Bay Area. Many midsize cities have redeveloped their downtowns over the last 20 years.”

 

At the same time, the pattern highlights a major problem in many large U.S. metro areas: Housing has become so expensive that even professionals with relative high salaries are choosing to leave. Emily calls it “a pretty grim indictment of these places.” It is arguably the Democratic Party’s biggest failure at the local and state levels, given that the most expensive regions tend to be run by Democrats.

1 hour ago, surfohio said:

This is some real Facebook/Reddit/College freshman-level reasoning here lol. Does the NYT not know about the economics of supply and demand? 

 

From the NYT The Morning:

 

By David Leonhardt

Good morning. Housing has become so expensive that college graduates are leaving New York, Los Angeles and other expensive cities.

...

 

“Many smaller and more affordable cities are simply more desirable than they used to be,” said my colleague Emily Badger, who did the new analysis along with Robert Gebeloff and Josh Katz. “There’s good Indian and Thai food to be found in more places. There are growing tech-worker scenes outside of the Bay Area. Many midsize cities have redeveloped their downtowns over the last 20 years.”

 

At the same time, the pattern highlights a major problem in many large U.S. metro areas: Housing has become so expensive that even professionals with relative high salaries are choosing to leave. Emily calls it “a pretty grim indictment of these places.” It is arguably the Democratic Party’s biggest failure at the local and state levels, given that the most expensive regions tend to be run by Democrats.

 

Poorly worded on her part but if she means it is an indictment of their housing policies then yes she is 100% correct.

1 hour ago, surfohio said:

This is some real Facebook/Reddit/College freshman-level reasoning here lol. Does the NYT not know about the economics of supply and demand? 

 

From the NYT The Morning:

 

By David Leonhardt

Good morning. Housing has become so expensive that college graduates are leaving New York, Los Angeles and other expensive cities.

...

 

“Many smaller and more affordable cities are simply more desirable than they used to be,” said my colleague Emily Badger, who did the new analysis along with Robert Gebeloff and Josh Katz. “There’s good Indian and Thai food to be found in more places. There are growing tech-worker scenes outside of the Bay Area. Many midsize cities have redeveloped their downtowns over the last 20 years.”

 

At the same time, the pattern highlights a major problem in many large U.S. metro areas: Housing has become so expensive that even professionals with relative high salaries are choosing to leave. Emily calls it “a pretty grim indictment of these places.” It is arguably the Democratic Party’s biggest failure at the local and state levels, given that the most expensive regions tend to be run by Democrats.

 

 

Nobody was talking about "housing" ten years ago.  Then it became a popular Twitter/Reddit subject, and tons of people without any background knowledge in the history of American cities (especially those outside of the Top 10) or how loans work or how the U.S. birthrate rose 25% between the 1970s and the 1990s started piling into the subject.  

 

I'm just baffled at how we're solidly five years into the "housing" era of social media combat but the coastal people still don't really seem to understand it.  They were unwilling to recognize reality at a young age and shape their lives to it.  Instead, they're either a)somehow still genuinely confused by it all or b)inherited money and get to live in the Big City but keep complaining out loud about "housing" even though they're living comfortably.  

 

 

35 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Poorly worded on her part but if she means it is an indictment of their housing policies then yes she is 100% correct.

 

I could definitely see NIMBY zoning contributing to the problem in some places (San Diego). But how do these denser cities like NYC, SF and Chicago make housing more affordable? Eventually a place becomes so desirable it simply doesn't seem plausible to subsidize a large percentage of housing. 

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

Nobody was talking about "housing" ten years ago.  Then it became a popular Twitter/Reddit subject, and tons of people without any background knowledge in the history of American cities (especially those outside of the Top 10) or how loans work or how the U.S. birthrate rose 25% between the 1970s and the 1990s started piling into the subject.  

 

I'm just baffled at how we're solidly five years into the "housing" era of social media combat but the coastal people still don't really seem to understand it.  They were unwilling to recognize reality at a young age and shape their lives to it.  Instead, they're either a)somehow still genuinely confused by it all or b)inherited money and get to live in the Big City but keep complaining out loud about "housing" even though they're living comfortably.  

 

 

I've got to be honest. I don't understand your post or its point. Housing has always been a hot topic, probably since the New Amsterdam days, coastal cities have been ludriciously expensive for decades, and, frankly, I don't get the criticism about "coastal people". Are you chiding them for supposedly not knowing those cities are pricey? I'm pretty sure they're aware of that. 

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

Nobody was talking about "housing" ten years ago.  Then it became a popular Twitter/Reddit subject, and tons of people without any background knowledge in the history of American cities (especially those outside of the Top 10) or how loans work or how the U.S. birthrate rose 25% between the 1970s and the 1990s started piling into the subject.  

 

I'm just baffled at how we're solidly five years into the "housing" era of social media combat but the coastal people still don't really seem to understand it.  They were unwilling to recognize reality at a young age and shape their lives to it.  Instead, they're either a)somehow still genuinely confused by it all or b)inherited money and get to live in the Big City but keep complaining out loud about "housing" even though they're living comfortably.  

 

 

People have actually been living in “housing” since before the 1970s

A local angle to the NYT story

 

 

Cleveland is seeing ‘brain gain’ – for a change

By Ken Prendergast / May 16, 2023

 

For decades, Greater Cleveland has suffered from the loss of its college-educated citizens primarily to star-studded cities on the East and West Coasts. Now, for a change, this former industrial powerhouse on the North Coast is enjoying a net in-migration of more brain than brawn. And while the region is still seeing net outmigration of those without college degrees, the results are at worst uneven.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/05/16/cleveland-is-seeing-brain-gain-for-a-change/

From the Times article cited above:  "Housing has become so expensive that even professionals with relative high salaries are choosing to leave."

 

It's not just housing expense; it's a lack of decent ambience - when even minor things become an ordeal. An acquaintance of mine, upon making partner at a white-shoe law firm, said, "Now that I can afford to live well in New York, it's not possible to live well in New York."  He moved out of the city to one of the branch offices at some cost in compensation.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

A local angle to the NYT story

 

 

Cleveland is seeing ‘brain gain’ – for a change

By Ken Prendergast / May 16, 2023

 

For decades, Greater Cleveland has suffered from the loss of its college-educated citizens primarily to star-studded cities on the East and West Coasts. Now, for a change, this former industrial powerhouse on the North Coast is enjoying a net in-migration of more brain than brawn. And while the region is still seeing net outmigration of those without college degrees, the results are at worst uneven.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2023/05/16/cleveland-is-seeing-brain-gain-for-a-change/

 

Good to see, but I thought we had been seeing net out-migration of less educated population and net in-migration of more educated people for over a decade.

3 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

I could definitely see NIMBY zoning contributing to the problem in some places (San Diego). But how do these denser cities like NYC, SF and Chicago make housing more affordable? Eventually a place becomes so desirable it simply doesn't seem plausible to subsidize a large percentage of housing. 

 

There's lots of NIMBY zoning in big cities too. It's illegal to build at higher densities in much of Manhattan, not to mention the outer boroughs. One of the reasons Jersey City has grown so fast is because they have relatively relaxed zoning. And rents are low for the area as a result. The area around Golden Gate Park is all low rise single family. There's no reason that should be the case. 

Today I again played my favorite game of "let's see who just bought a house in Cleveland Heights." 

 

Once again, virtually every house above roughly $170,000 in asking price was bought by individuals, typically young or middle aged professionals. Of those buyers I could positively identify via LinkedIn, a large percentage, but probably less than half, appear to be from other parts of the country.

 

I think Cleveland and the inner ring suburbs have a massive advantage in this real estate environment, because (pre-covid) we had a pretty large inventory of dilapidated and unoccupied homes. I've personally witnessed several houses within a block of my house that had been vacant and moderately run down get remodeled and sold off to a young couple. Supply is still very tight because nobody who has a 3% mortgage and a choice would sell right now and be forced to move to a new home with an 8% mortgage. And so it's a huge advantage that we have lots of moderately distressed properties that can be rehabbed and then sold for less than the cost of brand new construction.

 

It's also still surprisingly cheap to get a house here. I know lots of young people from the area experience sticker shock, because they're used to seeing move-in ready starter houses go for $120,000, and the same house now probably goes for $200,000. But the best comparison point for me is Columbus, which I know is not a very expensive metro. But homes in Franklin County are on average in the range of 30-60% more expensive than comparable homes here.

2 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

It's also still surprisingly cheap to get a house here. I know lots of young people from the area experience sticker shock, because they're used to seeing move-in ready starter houses go for $120,000, and the same house now probably goes for $200,000. But the best comparison point for me is Columbus, which I know is not a very expensive metro. But homes in Franklin County are on average in the range of 30-60% more expensive than comparable homes here.

 

I think the big thing w/Cleveland Heights' (and to an extent Shaker) homes being cheaper are the high taxes. You'll pay back that cheaper home in taxes sooner than you think. 

 

Here's a tax rate table for Cuyahoga County: https://www.reveretitle.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Cuyahoga-county-2020-payable-2021-tax-rates-Revere-No-sales.pdf

 

And from my group/for a deeper dive, scroll down to the Parcel Valuation and Tax Distribution map to see where those taxes are going: https://fiscalgishub.cuyahogacounty.us/pages/value-information-site

30 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

I think the big thing w/Cleveland Heights' (and to an extent Shaker) homes being cheaper are the high taxes. You'll pay back that cheaper home in taxes sooner than you think. 

 

Wondering how those new out-of-state buyers feel about paying for a new Browns stadium  ;-) 

Edited May 17, 20232 yr by surfohio
spelling not good

29 minutes ago, GISguy said:

 

I think the big thing w/Cleveland Heights' (and to an extent Shaker) homes being cheaper are the high taxes. You'll pay back that cheaper home in taxes sooner than you think. 

 

Here's a tax rate table for Cuyahoga County: https://www.reveretitle.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Cuyahoga-county-2020-payable-2021-tax-rates-Revere-No-sales.pdf

 

And from my group/for a deeper dive, scroll down to the Parcel Valuation and Tax Distribution map to see where those taxes are going: https://fiscalgishub.cuyahogacounty.us/pages/value-information-site

I'll be interested to see the effective real rate in 2023. The low property values / high property taxes thing is like a chicken/egg scenario. It's a self-reinforcing cycle in any event. I strongly suspect that overall effective tax rates will go down as property prices go up.

When I take calls from out-of-state investors, one of their concerns about investing in the urban core is the property taxes. But I remind them that new construction and renovations are eligible for property tax abatement, which seems to calm them.

 

A friend of mine is moving here from Albany to be closer to his family after his wife died. He also was concerned about the property taxes but he's a disabled military veteran and over the age of 65 so I expect his property taxes will be next to nothing.

 

26 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

Wondering how those new out-of-state buyers feel about paying for a new Browns stadium  ;-) 

 

You're always paying for a new or rehabbed sports facility. The sin taxes are never going to go away.

26 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I'll be interested to see the effective real rate in 2023. The low property values / high property taxes thing is like a chicken/egg scenario. It's a self-reinforcing cycle in any event. I strongly suspect that overall effective tax rates will go down as property prices go up.

It already has changed a decent amount.  Compare the one GIS posted to this one which was the year after the reppraisals.

 

https://clevelandhometitle.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/CHT-Cuyahoga-County-2021-Tax-Rates.pdf

2 hours ago, cle_guy90 said:

It already has changed a decent amount.  Compare the one GIS posted to this one which was the year after the reppraisals.

 

https://clevelandhometitle.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/CHT-Cuyahoga-County-2021-Tax-Rates.pdf

 

Yeaaah, I realized after the fact that it was off by a couple years. Here's the official report/breakdown for each taxing district (it links to Bay, but this covers all areas): https://fiscalgishub.cuyahogacounty.us/documents/fe3ccb349a1c4894958956e3149a068d/explore

 

Also a reminder that 2024 is a sexennial appraisal year - if values hold it'll make for a substantial increase in valuations and collections.

Edited May 17, 20232 yr by GISguy

Cleveland’s population dips again, but census estimates show a smaller loss in 2022

 

Paywalled but we've lost people again. The article doesn't give a detailed breakdown of anything though such as demographic changes etc. 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/data/2023/05/clevelands-population-dips-again-but-census-estimates-show-a-smaller-loss-in-2022.html

4 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

Cleveland’s population dips again, but census estimates show a smaller loss in 2022

 

Paywalled but we've lost people again. The article doesn't give a detailed breakdown of anything though such as demographic changes etc. 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/data/2023/05/clevelands-population-dips-again-but-census-estimates-show-a-smaller-loss-in-2022.html

I feel like we’ve been seeing this for a while now where Cleveland still loses population, but it’s not as much. What the heck is going to actually fix this? Continue to build?

Cleveland is CLOSE to breaking even (finally). We will see growth by 2025.

 

The City itself had statistics from a few years ago expecting growth by 2024.  

Cleveland is CLOSE to breaking even (finally). We will see growth by 2025.
 
The City itself had statistics from a few years ago expecting growth by 2024.  

Boy I hope you're right but the city was so far off from official census estimates in the past that I won't hold my breath, I'd probably pass out.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

I find it mind boggling that Cleveland is still shrinking despite all the new residential units that have been added over the last couple decades.  How much longer before we actually see growth?  We have been hearing about it for at least 30 years, but it hasn't happened.  And what about all the NY and other out-of-state license plates that were being spotting here during the pandemic - did they all go back to their home states?

 

Edited May 18, 20232 yr by LibertyBlvd

4 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

I find it mind boggling that Cleveland is still shrinking despite all the new residential units that have been added over the last couple decades.  How much longer before we actually see growth?  We have been hearing that for at least 30 years.

First it was people leaving the city, now it's a dramatic change in household sizes. For example, Lakewood lost population while adding units. 

2 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

First it was people leaving the city, now it's a dramatic change in household sizes. For example, Lakewood lost population while adding units. 

Aren't household sizes changing everywhere?