I think I am still registered in Cuyahoga county although I have not lived there for years.  I think if you move out of state, it is hard for election officials to track.

 

I never thought of unregistering

 

You live and pay taxes as a resident of Chicago.  Why no voice your opinion in the city you live and pay taxes in?

I am registered in Chicago, but my Mom told me I am still on the books in Euclid

I am registered in Chicago, but my Mom told me I am still on the books in Euclid

Oh Ok.

But if I wanted my vote to count, I probably should drive to Euclid (just kidding government spies)

My personal opinion is that it's a combination of people still being registered even though they now live elsewhere (frequently in neighboring counties,) and the Census Bureau severely overestimating Cuyahoga Co.'s population loss.  The county lost about 19,000 people between 1990 and 2000, but the Bureau apparently has estimated that we've lost around 100,000 since '00.  Yeah, right.

But if I wanted my vote to count, I probably should drive to Euclid (just kidding government spies)

 

But if you want your vote to count twice, stay in Chicago. :)

Ok I have a question if anyone can help me out with this one. This isn't really Cleveland population trend as it is Cuyahoga but the latest Plaindealer on the 16th of October stated there were 1,110,061 registered voters exceeding Census estimates that 990,000 voting-aged people live in the county. Now even if you consider EVERYONE including the people under 18 years old that would put our registered voters at 85.5% based on the census for the county. There is obviously something wrong here with the Census, which is probably true, or a LOT of duplicate or fake ballots. Also if you actually look at the 2006 estimates then it suggests only 974,111 people should be elgible to vote which is an even bigger discrepancy.

 

Or Maybe I just don't understand how they count these registered voters because technically you have to live in the county right? Having an address in the county would mean that you would have been counted in the census count wouldn't it. I mean I'm a college student for the last 4 years and if the Census had conducted their survey at this time even though I am registered in Cuyahoga County would they still have counted me living there by the Census if I was a full time student on a college campus or would I have been counted as living in the county where my college is located or counted at all?

 

It just seems like something is very wrong and not by a small number either based on these registrations and the Census estimates of the county.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2008/10/the_number_of_registered_voter.html

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/39035.html

from www.zazzle.com

I mean I'm a college student for the last 4 years and if the Census had conducted their survey at this time even though I am registered in Cuyahoga County would they still have counted me living there by the Census if I was a full time student on a college campus or would I have been counted as living in the county where my college is located or counted at all?

 

I don't believe the Census counts college students as residents of the municipality where the college is located.  You're still supposed to be a resident at your permanent address, wherever that is.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/resid_rules.html

 

 

STUDENTS

Boarding school students - Counted at their parental home rather than at the boarding school.

 

College students living away from home while attending college - Counted where they are living at college.

 

College students living at their parental home while attending college - Counted at their parental home.

 

Hey, you know what the folks at the Cook County Board of Elections in Chicago suggested when they discovered voter turnout was way down?

 

"Build more cemeteries!"

 

OK, now that I've had my fun, back to Cleveland population trends, please.

Cleveland lost nearly 10 percent of its population this decade, census data shows

Posted by Robert L. Smith/Plain Dealer Reporter July 01, 2009 04:00AM

 

 

Some cities will be toasting the decennial census next year, celebrating population gains and a bright future. But it's likely there will be no champagne corks popping in Cleveland City Hall. The city is losing people at an alarming, trend-setting pace.

 

More at cleveland.com

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/07/cleveland_lost_nearly_10_perce.html

 

 

 

 

I really hated reading this

The city is only now discussing welcome centers? I'm tired of reading articles where the city seems to be behind on just about everything. Eveyone else has a game plan to combat population decline.

I have to ask if you'd even heard of welcome centers till this article?  And if you knew they were such a fundamentally good idea, why hadn't you suggested before?

ALl i ever hear is people moving here.

I've heard of welcome centers before this article. What concerns me is that the city doesn't seem to have a solid plan. Granted, this has been going one for fifty years, and there is a lot more going on than not having welcome centers.

It's easy to say, "we need a solid plan".  It's not so easy to say what should be in that plan and how to pay for it all.  If you figure that out, then let someone know, because I don't know anyone who really does.  I know an awful lot of people that say that they do.

Well, just think of the pure ecstatic joy the editors of the PD had when they had solidly bad news to splash on the cover of the paper.

 

I think Mayor Jackson's administration is doing a lot to entice immigration.  They have been pursing international companies to set up shop here.  That may be drops in a bucket, but at least it is a start, and you have to start somewhere.

 

Also, downtown and the near West Side are growing, and soon so will Univerity Circle (Uptown  :|) so the seeds of growth are there, we just have to continue to nurture them.

 

 

This number is representative of Cleveland proper - correct? What about the metro area - what are the numbers for that?

 

 

Its in the article.  Most people on this forum (IMO) will consider the county part of Greater Cleveland.  Once you go to the 7 county "metro area"  it just becomes a story about sprawl.

Read the article just before I left for work.  Wow, did that put me in a bad mood.  It seems 90% of people are rooting for grand, old cities to fail:  those that move to the suburbs, those that move to the Sunbelt, and those that like to bask in the glory of having bad news to write about and exaggerate for dramatic effect (mostly PD reporters).

I guess I am confused. So the number 433,748 is the metro area, and not the city proper?

 

Well in a month and a half I will be moving there (from Boston) so it will be 433,749 :)

No the 433,748 is just the city of Cleveland.  In Cuyahoga County there's a little over 2million.  In the 7 county metro there's somewhere between 3.5-4 mil I think. 

433,748 is the city proper.  the local paper likes to pick and choose when they refer to the city as the metro area and when they want to isolate the city for doom and gloom stats.

No the 433,748 is just the city of Cleveland.  In Cuyahoga County there's a little over 2million.  In the 7 county metro there's somewhere between 3.5-4 mil I think. 

 

No, Cuyahoga county is between 1.3 and 1.4 million.  The MSA (5 counties) is 2.1 million, and the CSA (8 counties) is 2.9 million.  The "7 county metro area" is just about 2.8 million, because the 8th county in the CSA is Ashtabula County, which doesn't add much population (around 100,000).

It's no suprise to me to see that the city lost 10% of its population.  To be truthful, I'm expecting more than a loss of 10% by the time the census is completed.  Do we see what is going on in the neighborhoods and inner-ring burbs?  Due to the foreclosure crisis, East Cleveland lost over 1,400 homes to foreclosure between 2006 and 2008.  Euclid- lost over 1,700 in the same time period.  Garfield Heights- over 1,300, Cleveland Heights- over 1,300, South Broadway- over 1,300, Parma- close to 400, Buckeye- over 1,100, Union-Miles- close to 1,100... North Collinwood- over 800, Forest Hills- 950, South Broadway- over 1,300, Old Brooklyn- close to 750... and the list goes on.  That's only the amount of homes lost between 2006 and 2008, and we're not out of this mess yet (though we're doing better).

 

The city and region HAS NOT focused on immigration as part of the solution to our ongoing problem.  Immigration is what helped make the City of Cleveland great... and the lack of focus on immigration is breaking the region's back. Who is replacing the droves of people lured to other regions, most notably the sun-belt?  In Cleveland, NO ONE.  This trend has been going on for the last 50 years.  It frustrates me to no end, because I WANT to see this region succeed. 

 

I'm hoping that these numbers, when they are finally counted next year, will wake this region up.  Changes in governance need to be made.  We need to focus on immigration as one of the keys needed to turn the perpetual decline around.  And we need to do it now.

Frank Jackson has come out against immigration, so his removal might be a necessary fix.  He openly adheres to the worldview mocked in South Park's famous "they took our jobs!" episode.

We do also need to try to attract people from other parts of the country (especially those who moved away).  I personally know a handful of people who moved to the Sunbelt, and most eventually came back.  Those who haven't come back hope to some day.  I don't think this Sunbelt migration pattern is permanent.  I feel it is just a passing trend and we need to push to reverse it (and make sure those coming back come back to Cleveland).

^Frank's only part of the problem.  I might be wrong, but I don't see the GCP or Positively Cleveland as being effective in the attraction of immigrants.  This is not a problem regarding only the City of Cleveland, but the region as well.  The region needs to cohesively attract immigrants.  This hasn't been happening.

We do also need to try to attract people from other parts of the country (especially those who moved away). I personally know a handful of people who moved to the Sunbelt, and most eventually came back. Those who haven't come back hope to some day. I don't think this Sunbelt migration pattern is permanent. I feel it is just a passing trend and we need to push to reverse it (and make sure those coming back come back to Cleveland).

 

It's good to hear you know folks moving back to this region from the sunbelt.  I think NEO has a lot to offer (professional sports teams, metro parks, the lake).

 

Wasn't the State of Ohio going to start a marketing campaign trying to lure ex-pats back to NEO?  I remember hearing something about that many months ago, but haven't heard anything since.

Wasn't the State of Ohio going to start a marketing campaign trying to lure ex-pats back to NEO?  I remember hearing something about that many months ago, but haven't heard anything since.

 

How bout this one:  "Ohio+"  The plus stands for Detroit, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

 

What I mean by that is I agree with Oldmanladyluck.  The people or groups charged with attracting population here aren't getting it done.  Downtown, however, is a notable success... which we could be doing more to promote. 

The article fails to mention (big suprise) that Cleveland is still, by a clear margin, the most densely populated major city in Ohio.  And its inner ring suburbs, such as Lakewood, Euclid and Cleveland Heights are among the most dense smaller cities in Ohio.

 

The small geographical size of Cleveland proper (77 sq mi) makes it unfair to compare it to a city the size of Columbus (210 sq mi).  In fact, if Cleveland was as large (in terms of land-mass) as Columbus and had the same density, its population would be 1.2 mill.

 

If you simply add the inner-ring suburbs (which would still leave it a far cry from the geographical size of C-bus and which are way more urban than most "booming" US Cities could ever hope to be), the City would be approaching 700,000.

 

The same can be said for Cincinnati, whose population with a comparable land-mass to Columbus would be close to 900,000.

^True, but that doesn't help the fact that this region has been stagnate for decades.  Cuyahoga County hasn't grown since 1970, when the total population of the county was 1,700,000+ (and more densely populated within the city and inner-ring). The county has been in decline ever since.

 

Saying we're the most densely populated city with the most densely populated suburbs is great and all, but we're still a city that has been in decline for going on 60 years, densely populated or not.  Many of the inner-ring suburbs saw population peaks in the 60s and 70s; the ongoing perpetual decline has followed ever since.  Now I'm all for looking at the glass half full, and truly love this city and region.  But lets face it- we need changes in government and immigration views in order to turn this ship around. 

No new info, but interesting info and projections.

 

It looks better at the link: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_research05d5_sup

 

 

Metro Area Factsheet: Cleveland-Akron, Ohio CMSA

 

 

 

Summary Metro Area Data (and Source)

Population (2005 CB est.): 2,931,775

Population (2000 Census): 2,945,831

Foreign-born Population (2005 FAIR est.): 152,025

 

Foreign-born Population (2000 Census): 135,397

 

Share Foreign Born (2005 FAIR est.): 5.2%

 

Share Foreign Born (2000 Census): 4.6%

 

Immigrant Stock (2000 CPS): 334,000

 

Share Immigrant Stock (2000 est.): 10.8%

 

Immigrant Settlement 1991-98 (INS): 27,518

 

Population Projection 2025 (FAIR): 3,172,000

 

 

 

This is from earlier in the thread

Here's the raw numbers, plus an old, great graphic someone posted in the "Cleveland Propaganda" thread in the urbanbar...

 

1860 -  43,417

1870 -  92,829

1880 - 158,207

1890 - 261,353

1900 - 381,768

1910 - 560,663

1920 - 762,026

1930 - 900,529

1940 - 878,336

1950 - 914,808

1960 - 876,050

1970 - 750,903

 

data mining the thread

The article fails to mention (big suprise) that Cleveland is still, by a clear margin, the most densely populated major city in Ohio.  And its inner ring suburbs, such as Lakewood, Euclid and Cleveland Heights are among the most dense smaller cities in Ohio.

 

The small geographical size of Cleveland proper (77 sq mi) makes it unfair to compare it to a city the size of Columbus (210 sq mi).  In fact, if Cleveland was as large (in terms of land-mass) as Columbus and had the same density, its population would be 1.2 mill.

 

If you simply add the inner-ring suburbs (which would still leave it a far cry from the geographical size of C-bus and which are way more urban than most "booming" US Cities could ever hope to be), the City would be approaching 700,000.

 

The same can be said for Cincinnati, whose population with a comparable land-mass to Columbus would be close to 900,000.

 

I'm sorry but continuing to justify ourselves with respect to Columbus or any other average American city is part of the reason things aren't changing as quickly or drastically as we'd like. 

 

Patting ourselves on our backs and claiming every superlative between NYC and Chicago will only get us so far. 

How do we even know these stats for 2009 in the peedee are accurate?  I thought the census wasn't until 2010.  Is it done yearly now?

One thing to remember is that they are estimates.  They will not be accurate, until the partially accurate census is done next year.  Accurate or not, my point is that we can't continue to ignore the numbers.  The city has been declining in population for years.  The inner-ring suburbs have been declining in population for years. We're a stagnate region, and have been for a while.  How do we address this?

 

The way we shouldn't address these issues, is by ignoring them as our region becomes less and less relevant.

I don't think that anyone would advocate ignoring the situation.  However, PD-type doom and gloom coverage, which does nothing for the morale of the community, is not the answer either.  The problem in Greater Cleveland is not so much the government, but the attitude of the people towards their region.  We need more advocates.  We already have more than enough pessimists.

We need more advocates. We already have more than enough pessimists.

 

The quote of the day -- I like it.

Jobs.  All about jobs.  I lived in Dallas, TX for 5.5 years immediately following college.  I was friends with a high volume of people from Ohio.  After 4 years of living there, I was ready to come home.  It took me another year and a half to find a job where I could make that happen.  Most all of the Ohio-ex pats I knew wanted to come back, Ohio just didn't have opportunity for them.

 

I agree their is a percetion problem among locals, but at the end of the day people are sheep.  We need better leaders both locally in Cleveland and at the state level in Columbus to lead them in the right direction.

^I think you're 100% percent right. People follow jobs and opportunity. It doesn't matter where they are.

^Cleveland Clinic/UH and the soon to be up and running Medical Mart which I strongly feel will pull in medical device makers are all jobs generators.

 

The people who care about the community, nearly everyone on this board for example, are striving to make a healthy city.  Look at most of the talked about projects, E. 4th, Detroit Shoreway, UC Museums and housing developments are all things that contribute to this. 

To get people to move here they have to want to stay here.  Cleveland is on the right track.  We have to keep doing what is working and develop new statagies to make the city healthy again.  If you build it, they will come.

We were a "One trick pony" for almost 100 years. We've may have finally bottomed out in terms of our manufacturing base, so I expect things to get better over the next decade. It wasn't like the area attracted immigrants because our leaders implemented progressive policies. It was because we had a large amounts of manufacturing jobs. This, however, doesn't mean we can't market the city to immigrants. We can't discount the fact our region has lost thousands of decent-paying job. There is hope. I always think about my grandfather who left the south in 1947 looking for a job. Now, my generation is looking for jobs in the south.

As mentioned above, this all comes back on itself.  Jobs bring people but people bring jobs.  Why open a store where no one lives, or has money?  Why live somewhere that has no stores?  Why open anything else, like a factory or HQ, in a dead area?  We need to chip away at all these issues simultaneously.  It's no good doing them in sequence because they're interdependent. 

 

It seems like we've been going hardcore after population growth, and to some degree industry and tech, while letting retail and services stagnate.  That doesn't work, and Exhibit A is this thread.  Despite all the civic improvements since 1990, and despite all these costly residential subsidies, which are given primarily (if not exclusively) to people who can already afford expensive housing, we really haven't turned the city around what-so-ever.  At what point do we dump this plan and try something else?

 

I say now.  We need to keep what works and scrap the rest.  Subsidies that get older buildings renovated, even if only to benefit the hi-rent and condos crowd, is a good thing.  But we don't need any more mushroom houses built, whether on E40th or in Tremont with a hot tub.  Why sacrifice schools and police to pay for that?  Why sacrifice other development opportunities when we now have a bunch of that, and not all of it is selling so well?  The biggest problems people cite here are schools and crime, not a lack of housing.  Time for a reappraisal.

 

The next most common complaint, the one I hear constantly everywhere but this website, is lack of retail.  That aspect of redevelopment has not kept up with the rest, in fact it's worse now than 20 years ago.  When you're thinking "yeah, but Steelyard" you should know something's wrong.  I can talk people around the crime and the grime, but there's nothing I can say to "Where the hell would I shop?  The same places I do now, after I drive five times as far."

 

There is one clear way to reverse our population trend:  Attack this retail deficiency the same way we've attacked mid-upper class residential.  I beseech thee.  Sooooo many people who might consider moving here are turned off by the current situation.  Bribing more people with abatements won't fix the schools, while less abatements could actually help that problem.  If we can find a way to work the same mojo with retail growth, while getting our state and federal friends to help with transit and police... we'll be growing again.  I promise you.

Jobs.  All about jobs.  I lived in Dallas, TX for 5.5 years immediately following college.  I was friends with a high volume of people from Ohio.  After 4 years of living there, I was ready to come home.  It took me another year and a half to find a job where I could make that happen.  Most all of the Ohio-ex pats I knew wanted to come back, Ohio just didn't have opportunity for them.

 

Bingo, bingo, bingo.

 

I also agree.  Having worked in the south and met many people down here who moved from Cleveland, Pittsburgh, NYC, Detroit, Cincy, Buffalo, etc many say they would prefer to go home, but there isn't a job for them.

 

With that said, these are not the only people Ohio is struggling with.  We're losing our young people like it's our freaking job.  Why?  Well we aren't continuing to build the great cities we once had.  Talented young professionals are often choosing locations before jobs and figuring out the economics later.  Those people are going to Portland, Seattle, DC, Boston, Chicago, NYC, Austin, SF, Atlanta and a few others.  We're getting beat by these cities at creating dynamic cities that appeal to the most talented and educated professionals.

^And the frustrating part about this is cities like Cincy, Cleveland and Pittsburgh have the pieces to compete. Atlanta is cool, but I was pretty disappointed after spending sometime there.

Here's my reflections for today...

 

The number one factor for Cleveland fixing itself is:

 

SCHOOLS

 

There are families moving to the area that would prefer to live in an urban environment, but the lack of (perception maybe) quality schools steers them to the suburbs immediately.

 

Other factors would fix themselves over time with families moving in...crime, property values, city image, people downtown.

 

Now how to fix it ...unfortunately I have no idea....regionalize, privatize, open enrollment, forced busing (j/k!!!!)....but if the city schools were deemed good or even "ok,"  we would see drastic changes overnight in some neighborhoods.

^ Unfortunately, I think fixing Cleveland Public schools may be the hardest thing to fix. It's not about money, its about changing the culture within these schools. I don't want to go too far off topic, but there are a lot of underlying cultural issues holding these schools back.

The number one factor for Cleveland fixing itself is:

 

SCHOOLS

 

There are families moving to the area that would prefer to live in an urban environment, but the lack of (perception maybe) quality schools steers them to the suburbs immediately.

 

Other factors would fix themselves over time with families moving in...crime, property values, city image, people downtown.

 

Now how to fix it ...unfortunately I have no idea....regionalize, privatize, open enrollment, forced busing (j/k!!!!)....but if the city schools were deemed good or even "ok,"  we would see drastic changes overnight in some neighborhoods.

^ Unfortunately, I think fixing Cleveland Public schools may be the hardest thing to fix. It's not about money, its about changing the culture within these schools. I don't want to go too far off topic, but there are a lot of underlying cultural issues holding these schools back.

 

Bussing needs to end.  The entirity of the Cleveland School System won't be fixed at once.  But if you could lure families into neighborhoods knowing the people of that neighborhood - and that neighborhood only - will constitute the school system, it could be a start.  Chip away at the school systems one neighborhood at a time. 

 

West Park, for example, has decent elemetery and middle schools because, well, West Park is a good neighborhood and and the K-6/8 schools are made up of kids in the neighborhood.  But as soon as those kids get to high school, private school it is.  And if you've ever rode the red line from Tower City to the west side during school hours, you know why.