Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Is Cincinnati Booming or Busting?

Posted by Michael Earl Patton

Photo courtesy of here.

Mayor Mark Mallory declared at a press conference Monday that the city’s population is 46,007 more than what the U.S. Census Bureau estimates, or 378,259.  In addition, the city’s average household income is said to be $54,083, not the $43,992 reported by the 2000 Census.  The claim is based on a study financed by several banks (Fifth Third, USBank, KeyBank, Huntington Bank, PNC Bank), the United Way of Greater Cincinnati, Duke Energy, First American Real Estate Information Services, SAS Insititue, ESRI, and the City of Cincinnati.  This analysis is based on 27 different sources of information but not, however, the declining enrollment at public schools.

The 2000 Census counted 330,662 people in Cincinnati, which continues a decline since 1960 when the population was 502,550.  For 2005 the Census Bureau initially estimated the population to be 308,728, a number which was later challenged by the City of Cincinnati.  The difference between that number and the new study is 69,531, or more than a fifth of the 2000 population count.

The estimate for 2005 was challenged based on a claimed decrease in vacant housing, large increase in new housing, and no major decrease in existing housing stock.  The estimate was revised based on information provided by the city.

Besides raw population and income figures, the analysis presents a much more optimistic view of the city than the 2000 Census or conventional wisdom.  For instance, 72% of residential buildings are owner occupied, compared to the 2000 Census finding of 39%.  Part of the difference appears to be due to methodology—the new study counts a building as owner-occupied if the tax bill goes to the building address.

The claimed increase in population appears to be at variance with the decline in enrollment in public schools.  For the 2000/2001 school year the enrollment in Cincinnati Public Schools was 42,514.  For the 2006/2007 school year it was just 34,099.  Most of the decrease was absorbed by charter schools, which according to data from CPS saw their numbers climb from 332 to 5,208.  But this is still an 8% decline from the 2000/2001 school year.  (The number enrolled in private and parochial schools is unknown, but is not thought to have greatly increased.) This decrease is consistent with the earlier estimate by the U.S. Census Bureau for the city’s population in 2005; an estimate that is no longer used.

When asked about this at the press conference, John Talmage, who helped do the study, stated that the 2000 Census could have also undercounted the population by a large amount.  If so, this present study does not answer the question as to whether the city’s population is increasing or decreasing, let alone by how much.

More information as to the study can be found at the City of Cincinnati website.

Boom, bust, or someplace in-between.  Cincinnati will probably have to wait until the next census to be certain.

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

JFD says:
03 Jul 2007  at  08:02 am | #

There are just too many variables involved in school attendance to use it to torture the population numbers.

1) People are having fewer children.
2) People are waiting longer before they have children.
3) The number of kids in private schools is unknown.
4) People with no children are moving into the city, possibly in larger numbers, (empty nesters).

The Mayors initiative to address the population count, is probably the only worthwhile endeavor, he has engaged in during his stint in office; and the revised numbers reflect the trends I’ve seen as a 25 yr resident of the City.  The only way to get a much more accurate count, is to count each head one by one, and I don’t want to stand in line that long.

librariangrrl says:
03 Jul 2007  at  09:49 am | #

Thanks for writing this article, I’ve wondered where Mallory is getting his statistical information from for quite sometime....

Especially considering the fact that the information I have regarding population trends ironically notes a pretty steady decline in Cincinnati’s population since 1998.

I am equally concerned about Mallory’s statement regarding
income.  Especially considering that the median income and mean income reported by the US Census Bureau are so very different. 

The difference is striking.  The mean income reported by the census bureau is 42,645 per household.  However the median per household income has been reported as 29,554.
I guess it would sound better to report the higher number to the public, which is what Mallory has been doing, in addition to inflating it per his own implementation of statistical methodology.

But is the mean really a true representation of the average household income in Cincinnati? A few incredibly wealthy people and a significant poor poulation could easly skew the mean.

Since the meadian and mean are so different, can you really trust either one of these numbers as a true average?  being that I am more inclined to side with the meadian in this instance the only thing these statistics represent to me is the existance of a ridiculous gap between the classes.

http://factfinder.census.gov/

says:
03 Jul 2007  at  10:33 am | #

There are just too many variables involved in school attendance to use it to torture the population numbers. —from JFD, #1

There are indeed a lot of variables, but the number is found by counting heads.  The data given out by the mayor was based on factors other than counting heads.

One also has to consider the soft real estate market.  If Cincinnati is booming, then why is the real estate market so soft?  The number given implies a population growth of about 2% per year, and housing has to be provided for them.

If the discrepancy is due to emptly nesters, then it would seem that there are fewer people per household.  That again implies that the real estate market should be booming because to house the same number of people one needs more dwelling units.

I do not have the number of children in private schools, but I haven’t heard of any new private or parochial schools being built.  On the other hand, I have heard about several public schools being closed.

Where are the data that imply the number of people in Cincinnati is growing?  Did they provide grocery store sales growth data?  No.  Did they provide newspaper circulation growth data?  No.  Did they provide voter registration numbers?  No.  Did they provide the change in the number of abandoned buildings?  No.  About they only piece of hard data that they did provide was the number of new residential units completed in Cincinnati between 2002 and 2006: 7,450.  That in itself, at 2.15 people per household (the 2000 census number) implies a gain of only 16,000.  But how many housing units were lost since the 2000 census?  Don’t know.

There are plenty of reasons to question the numbers given out at the press conference, and whether or not the population is increasing at all.

says:
03 Jul 2007  at  11:38 am | #

Especially considering the fact that the information I have regarding population trends ironically notes a pretty steady decline in Cincinnati’s population since 1998—from librariangrrl, #2

Considering your handle, are you basing this on library usage?

Your point about the difference between the mean and the median income is well-taken.  The new study shows less of a difference ($54,083 mean, $39,893 median), but it’s not at all clear as to how they arrived at those numbers.  I think the median is the better number to determine how the average person is doing.  The mean, as you pointed out, can be distorted upwards if just a few very high-income people live in the area.  The median, on the other hand, tells one that at least half the households earn at least that amount of money.

The other problem, of course, is determining how many people are in the household in order to make that amount of money.  Median income will go up if two people are in the labor force as opposed to just one.  But with more adults living singly nowadays, an increase in the median income could mean 1) an increase in per person income, or 2) more two-income households.  The first implies a healthier economy than the second.

The study, to me, seemed aimed at getting more businesses to invest in Cincinnati.  The study seems aimed at large, outside businesses to come.  I don’t read it as trying to get smaller, local businesses to expand.  They already have their sales data and know the business climate here.

Quim says:
03 Jul 2007  at  11:44 am | #

"the new study counts a building as owner-occupied if the tax bill goes to the building address.”
That’s a bad plan. In the past, I have looked up vacant properties to see who owns them only to find out the owner claims to live there (the tax bill is sent there).

JFD says:
03 Jul 2007  at  02:27 pm | #

I think the real estate market is soft because the national market is soft and we have a glut of housing.  I don’t recall anyone saying that Cincinnati is booming, the contention is that it’s not as bad as the census numbers say.

And just to reiterate, I didn’t say the touted numbers were correct (completely accurate); I said that school attendance figures, had too many variables, to use them as a means to dispute the new numbers.

funnelcake says:
03 Jul 2007  at  03:23 pm | #

The link to the study is here:
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/mayor/downloads/mayor_pdf16564.pdf

A first look at it suggests that much of it is bullshit.  I might dig into it a little later.

But with that having been said, I think Mark Mallory is doing a good thing for the city.  Bumping up the population statistics draws in more State & Federal dollars.  By selling the city as a great place for new businesses, he might be successful in bringing in new business & jobs.  Perception becomes reality.

All in all, I suspect it should be a good thing for this city.

Anon says:
04 Jul 2007  at  08:20 pm | #

What is the agenda behind the study? Who paid for it and who benefits? Is this intended to bring in employees to populate the retail positions that are being created? Ask any employee doing the work in any of the corporate chain establishments if they make a living wage. We are slaves they call comsumers. We live in a make believe world and someone else is writing our story.

If we want business growth then the city must become business friendly, and stop extorting fees from the small business owners so we can fund another corporate welfare program. Invest in our people. Encourage community businesses and stop stepping on entrepreneurs. Jobs are created, not by corporations(here anyway), but by small community businesses that grow. We need to encourage people to “start something” and stop waiting for the corporate master to show up and take care of us.  If we had the will we could become a vibrant town in very little time. If we reapply our resources to places they will do the most good and stop the theft at the top Cincinnati could change completely within a year. But, alas, we have politicians that have lost respect for the people they represent and they must be corrected or removed.

Anon says:
04 Jul 2007  at  09:09 pm | #

Government problem solving at its finest.

First take problem X

Call it problem Y

You now have no more problem X

Promotions are in order.

We don’t like the census numbers

commission a study that supplies evidence to support the desired conclusion.

Declare the census inaccurate and tell the lie often when speaking and in print.

We only thought we were losing jobs and people.

REJOICE!

CONFUSED says:
04 Jul 2007  at  10:35 pm | #

MEP, what is your opinion on the effect the proposed mega social service campus, CityLink will have on Cincinnati’s population? The growth of the surrounding neighborhoods will be stopped. Hundreds of taxpaying homeowners will suffer property value decreases and leave the City. The CityLink model is to help as many in need as possible. Bringing hundreds or possibly thousands of new people from the tri-state region into our City seeking free social services. This is population growth, but at the expense of urban citizens quality of life. To date, this is no concern for the suburban CityLink backers who could care less about residual consequences for our downtown basin. Mayor Mallory has refused to take a stand on the CityLink project. Why bother worrying about census and median income statistics if you aren’t going to go to bat for your existing neighborhoods and their residents. In the future the Mayor can go on the road and sell our City as the home of the LARGEST privately run social service facility in the country. Now that will attract some domestic and international businesses. What am I missing, MEP?

says:
05 Jul 2007  at  11:47 am | #

MEP, what is your opinion on the effect the proposed mega social service campus, CityLink will have on Cincinnati’s population?—from CONFUSED, #10

I haven’t followed this in about a year.  I looked on-line to find recent information and couldn’t find much.  But ...

As I have mentioned before, I do volunteer work for an affordable housing group in the West End.  The city has targeted one of the houses for demolition, using false “hazards” as a justification—uneven brick sidewalk, non-existing cracks, etc.  I am a professional engineer, licensed in the state of Ohio (No. E-52904) and the city inspector could not find the cracks when I asked to see them.  But they have two witnesses who will swear they are there, and that is good enough.

Earler, the city’s housing authority said they wanted it for a major development, but then said they ran out of money.  This was a couple of years before anyone on the outside had heard of CityLink.  It seems that this development, whatever it is, is on again.  This area is about two blocks from the CityLink site.

So there is something else going on than just CityLink.  I’ll reserve further comments for now.

says:
05 Jul 2007  at  11:56 am | #

A first look at it suggests that much of it is bullshit.... But with that having been said, I think Mark Mallory is doing a good thing for the city.... By selling the city as a great place for new businesses, he might be successful in bringing in new business & jobs.  Perception becomes reality.[—from funnelcake, #7/quote]

Maybe.  But this is a double or nothing bet.  If it fails, then the problems become bigger and it becomes even harder to solve them.

I think it’s much better to acknowledge the problems and try to solve them now.

JFD says:
06 Jul 2007  at  06:54 am | #

MEP#11: “The city has targeted one of the houses for demolition, using false “hazards” as a justification”

What were the orders the City levied on the property; were thy demolition or repair?

confused says:
06 Jul 2007  at  08:14 am | #

Mr.Patton, The CityLink nightmare is also alive and well. The oral arguements have been set for September 12 in the 1st District Appeals Court. Hope to see you at the WestEnd Community Council meeting it has been awhile.

says:
06 Jul 2007  at  08:16 am | #

What were the orders the City levied on the property; were thy demolition or repair?—from JFD, #13

They were repair, but they wouldn’t state exactly what needed to be repaired until the demolition orders came in.  Example: they said the building needed painting.  Now this is a brick building and the wood trim had been painted.  But they said it needing painting.  I brought pictures with me to the condemnation hearing and they could not point out what needed to be painted.  After the condemnation orders came out they said it was a couple of wooden coverings for the second floor windows.  Because these were not painted, that was part of the grounds for condemnation.

The “cracks” are another thing.  There are no cracks, therefore we cannot point to a repair.  Therefore we never fulfilled the orders.  I know this sounds like a scene from Alice in Wonderland, but that is exactly what happened. 

Then they said that no appeal was possible because it had already been condemned.  One can appeal a condemnation (and I was told this directly) only if there hasn’t been a condemnation order.  We asked a couple lawyers, and to go to court over this would cost us over $10,000 just to start.  It is clear the fix is in, and we decided not to go to court.

The fix is in.  There is a big project coming.  The city will steal from those who have little and give to those who have a lot.

confused says:
06 Jul 2007  at  08:51 am | #

Mr.Patton, Can’t you circumvent the condemnation orders by filing for and being issued a building permit.It will cost some dollars to prepare plans and pay for the permit, but if the structure is worth renovating it should stop the wrecking ball. Work would have to begin within a reasonable time frame, but I have had success with this approach.

JFD says:
06 Jul 2007  at  09:29 am | #

There is brick storefront at the corner of Warner and Stratford that was condemned; after it was condemned, the repairs were made and it is now off of the condemned list.  Did you try asking the West End Council for assistance?

says:
06 Jul 2007  at  08:49 pm | #

Did you try asking the West End Council for assistance?—from JFD, #17

Not yet, but we will.  But we really don’t expect anything to help.  For months this has been a story about Buildings and Inspections telling us one thing and then springing a surprise.  They have even told us the building would not be condemned right away, saying they’ll point out the faults first, but then turned around and signed the condemnation order.

Mr.Patton, Can’t you circumvent the condemnation orders by filing for and being issued a building permit—from confused, #16

Buildings and Inspections has told us point blank that there is no way we can save the building unless we get a court order.  But to do that we have to hire a lawyer and put up $9,000 so that B&I has the money at hand to tear it down if we don’t get the order or it is later successfully challenged.  We have checked this with two lawyers who have told us the same thing.

There is nothing that requires a building permit.  We have done a lot to the building already, even before they said it was condemned.  Look, this was the building that they said should be condemned because of an uneven brick sidewalk.  They later dropped that demand, but are now fixated on the severe cracks that no one else can see.  What does that say to you?  How can I fix cracks that aren’t there, even if I get a work permit?  They say they have two guys willing to swear that the cracks are there. 

(In any event, the bricks were never a trip hazard.  Even if they were, that’s no reason to condemn the whole building.  They were desparate to find a reason to condemn it.  They clearly have their orders to tear down the building.)

Another thing was the downspouts.  Someone stole a couple, we replaced, they were stolen again before B&I got around to re-inspecting.  They said TOUGH.  It was our fault.  (We eventually located some PVC ones, but B&I says now it doesn’t matter.  Even if we replace them again, the building will still be torn down.  Yes, a missing downspout is grounds for tearing down the whole building.  They were very clear about that.)

I have talked with others, of course, but so far to no avail.  I will name names later.

anon says:
22 Aug 2008  at  07:41 am | #

cincinnati public schools arnt what they claim to be, they build new buildings that claim to help the children learn better but what does a new building do other than making us tax payers pay more for thier mistakes when they could have just fixed up the old schools , for example , The river view east accademy the school on stilts that was a waste of tax dollars right there. what kind of an idiot would put a school that close to a river knowing that possibly it could get flooded. and i dont think its handicaped accesible as far as people in wheel chairs no wheel chair ramps every thing about that school is climbing a bunch of stairs , and people that cant walk up those stairs due to a lung condition ,you have to obtain a card to get in downstairs from the board of education and they wont even give you a pass.