Another Mass Exodus!!

[castevens]

US finds big drop in Hub population

By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff | June 21, 2006

Boston lost 30,107 residents in the first half of this decade, a precipitous drop that ranked the city among the biggest population losers of any major municipality in the country, according to US Census Bureau estimates to be released today.

The loss represented a 5.1 percent fall from the city's population of 589,141 residents in 2000, the bureau said. It was the seventh highest percentage decrease among large US cities; Cincinnati had the steepest drop from 2000 to 2005, losing 6.8 percent, followed by Detroit, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Flint, Mich.

The population figures drew a sharp reaction from Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who disputed the estimates, but also alarmed some outside observers.

``If we don't grow, we're going to become increasingly small and marginal in the world economy," said Edward L. Glaeser, a professor of economics at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. ``It may be that we become more of a boutique town catering to a smaller number of elites. I don't like that vision, but it's not a vision I think everyone despises."

In Massachusetts, Boston lost the most population of any municipality. After Boston, the municipalities to lose the most residents in Massachusetts from 2000 to 2005 were Somerville, which lost 2,642; Chelsea, which lost 2,562; Medford, which lost 2,115; and Lowell, which lost 2,056.

During the same period, however, Massachusetts gained a total of 49,638 residents, inching up to nearly 6.4 million residents, the Census Bureau said. Earlier this year, the Census reported that between 2000 and 2004, Massachusetts experienced an average annual exodus of 42,402 people. That figure is in part offset by new migrants and births, so that the net population actually increased in the first half of the decade.

Worcester gained the most of any Bay State community, adding 3,250 residents. Plymouth gained the second most, adding 3,222, followed by Peabody, which added 3,110, and Quincy, which added 2,225.

Menino challenged the Census Bureau's methodology, saying its estimates vastly undercount immigrants, people living in public housing, and students living in dormitories. He cited figures that he said showed a city on the rise: Between 2000 and 2004, Boston built 2,900 new housing units, he said, and had 3,600 more units under construction last year. The vacancy rate for downtown office space is now 9.8 percent, the lowest rate since 2002, he said.

``I don't see any doom and gloom in this city," Menino said in an interview yesterday. ``I see all upward growth. I see new jobs being created, so I don't know where they get the doom and gloom coming out of the census department. . . . There's a lot of flexibility in those numbers, and the census always has a history of undercounting."

Annual census estimates are different from the door-to-door count that is conducted every 10 years.

The estimates begin with an estimate of a county's population, based on birth and death records, change of address forms from IRS tax records, an annual mail-in survey intended in part to count immigrants, and tallies of a county's housing units built and demolished, according to Greg Harper, a Census Bureau demographer. Then the figures are divided by city and town. In 2000, the estimates for municipalities of more than 100,000 people differed only about 4 percent from the door-to-door census conducted that year.

``We do believe that the estimates are as best as they can be with the data out," Harper said.

But Boston officials insisted that the way the Census Bureau estimates the number of housing units, in particular, fails to take into account that the city rehabilitates many of its old buildings, rather than demolish them. In an example cited in a Boston Redevelopment Authority memo faulting Census Bureau methodology, the agency said the census estimates would, for example, fail to note the recent conversion of an old Stop and Shop bakery on Causeway Street into 108 units of new housing.

``Boston, in particular, is especially vulnerable to these technical or methodological errors," said Michael D. Goodman, director of economic and public policy research at the Donahue Institute at the University of Massachusetts, who has independently researched census estimates. ``This is an issue that may well be overstating the decline in Greater Boston."

The data released yesterday also showed population changes between July 1, 2004 and July 1, 2005. Boston lost 8,626 people during that period, the most of any municipality in Massachusetts. Peabody gained the most of any community in the state, adding 975 residents. Overall, the state lost 8,639 residents during that year, the Census Bureau said.

In May, a Globe survey of 524 people who left Massachusetts last year showed the top reasons people gave for moving was a better job, followed by the cost of housing, family ties, and the weather. A majority of those surveyed also reported they were very satisfied with life in their new state and would not move back.

Economists said that the high cost of housing in Boston, compared with other US regions, is one of the main reasons people are leaving the city for more affordable housing outside the state.

At the same time, in a less widely noted trend, the costs appear to be pushing some residents from Boston, Somerville, and Chelsea into communities around Worcester, where housing is cheaper and easier to build.

``Here's an area which is close to Boston, it has great attractions, and it's cheaper," said Barry Bluestone, director of the Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University.

Mayor Timothy P. Murray of Worcester attributed his city's estimated population gain to three changes that he said make the city more affordable and attractive to Boston-area workers. The number of housing permits in Worcester has gone up recently, a new road opened from the Massachusetts Turnpike to the city's downtown, and the number of commuter rail trips to Boston has increased from six to 10. The city now has enough demand to support 12 to 15 round trips, he said.





http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...ub_population/

[TheBostonian]

If the mayor is in such denial about the problem, I won't expect him to confront it.

[KentXie]

Well at least Boston shows currently a lot of desires to build residential towers. Hopefully the housing market will lower due to this.

[statler]

I read an interesting post about the methodology of this 'count' over at SSP.

Originally Posted by Crawford

The annual numbers use sampling methodology that even the Census admits is unreliable. For instance, they track vehicle registrations as a proxy for population growth and they assume the older the housing stock, the more outflow(!) This means places like Boston's Back Bay, NYC's Greenwich Village and DC's Georgetown will always register declines in the annual estimates.

Plus, I think a lot of the loss is families moving out and singles and young couples moving in. Hence the continuing high demand for housing.

[callahan]

Originally Posted by TheBostonian

If the mayor is in such denial about the problem, I won't expect him to confront it.

I don't think he's truly in denial. I think he's in damage control mode. Remember, a few years back he tried to reinstate a form of rent control but it never went through.

The bottom line is that this city, and many others across the nation, are becoming places for the elite to reside. That's not what I want. I think it's really sad. But I'm sure there are people who couldn't be happier.

[PaulC]

Show me the empty building if we are losing so many people.

I friend of mine came by last month he lives in MA most of the year. He has a home in Florida so he 'homesteads' in Florida and is counted as a Florida resident not a MA resident. He's only 51.

I would guess that there are thousands like him. Look at all the Florida plates you see in MA in the summer. Add to this the student population and the illegal immigrants and I would bet there has been a major increase in our population.

I know families are getting smaller but I still think our population has increased

[LeTaureau]

These statistics don't concern me. San Francisco also lost population during the same time frame, about 4.8%, and probably for the same reasons as Boston. Both cities are growing, and jobs are stable or increasing. It just seems that families are moving out. Do these statistics support Kotkin's ephemeral city argument?

[Ron Newman]

If the city is shrinking, we should be seeking more immigrants to replace the people leaving. Romney's proposal to use the state police to harass immigrants is a step in exactly the wrong direction. Make Massachusetts a sanctuary state, a haven for immigrants.

[callahan]

Originally Posted by Ron Newman

If the city is shrinking, we should be seeking more immigrants to replace the people leaving. Romney's proposal to use the state police to harass immigrants is a step in exactly the wrong direction. Make Massachusetts a sanctuary state, a haven for immigrants.

Thank you. And why is it so hard to believe that most people can't afford to live here? Tell me, where in Boston can a family live who makes under $50,000 and has two children? Roxbury or Dorchester? Yes, maybe. But there isn't that much housing left in those areas either.

[Benhamin]

Go Worcester!

[ablarc]

Originally Posted by callahan

Tell me, where in Boston can a family live who makes under $50,000 and has two children? Roxbury or Dorchester? Yes, maybe. But there isn't that much housing left in those areas either.

And yet the very people who live there whittle every proposed development down to paltry size. Own worst enemies.

[BostonSkyGuy]

Originally Posted by Ron Newman

If the city is shrinking, we should be seeking more immigrants to replace the people leaving. Romney's proposal to use the state police to harass immigrants is a step in exactly the wrong direction. Make Massachusetts a sanctuary state, a haven for immigrants.

I'm sorry but this is so far off from what needs to happen, it's not even funny. I don't want to sound harsh, but we should be looking out for our own before looking to bring in others just so Boston can grow.

People are leaving Boston because it's not affordable, not because it's a horrible place to live. So instead of bringing in immigrants who will most likely not have a lot of money, why not take care of the people who live here now and are forced to leave because they themselves have no money.

There is such a demand for housing in the city and that demand itself is pricing people out. There are very few places in the city a couple making minimum wage or little more can sustain a family, that's the problem. I don't see how bringing in more people from other countries is going to solve the problem that housing prices are ridiculous and building a few shiny residential high rises isn't going to help.

Now don't take this the wrong way, I'm not bashing immigrants. I'm for legal immigrants 100%. America was built on immigrants. But I get your line of thinking is, lure some illegals from places like Mexico to Boston to rebuild the population. That's not going to solve anything. You know why these illegals don't come to Boston, besides it's geographical location? It's too damn expensive. You can't come over from another country with nothing, especially no education as many ilegals have and expect to thrive in a city like this. Minimum wage is a lot compared to other states but the housing prices would negate that. The idea of these people immigrating is to make their lives better, moving to this area isn't going to necessarily do that.

[Patrick]

First, Boston as a city may have lost residents, but metro boston has grown, im sure...meaning the "area" will never become marginal in the world economy. If i recall correctly, at one time boston was around 800,000 people, which is significantly more than it has now, but the city has continued to grow even as those people left. in my mind, population has little to do with importance of a place, though it is indirectly related. look at hartford, ct, which is a job center where no one lives as a case in point. very important in the business world, but very low population too. it matters how many people live in the metro area, not the city, and within that metro, how well the city performs in terms of attracting commuters. as a guage of how well beantown is doing, look at estimates of its daytime population, not night-time population. im sure that has grown in the first half of this decade, and im sure it will also continue to grow.

and menino is right, immigrants are never calculated in accurately. Using my own city as an example, i can tell you that many of them appear to share living quarters beyond what is allowed by law, which might lead to an unofficial population much higher than the census would think.

and bostonskyguy i dont want to start an argument cause i see where you are coming from, but consider the fact that many immigrants, though not wealthy, are highly educated and motivated and may be just what boston needs. not necessarily mexicans, but somalians etc. most of them speak half a dozen languages, have or are working to attain college degrees, work for low wages, and eventually open up their own businesses. Just a thought on how ron might be on to something. I DO NOT want to make it seem like bringing in thousands of immigrants is the key to anybody's woes, but it might not be as bad as some would think.

[BostonSkyGuy]

Originally Posted by Patrick

and bostonskyguy i dont want to start an argument cause i see where you are coming from, but consider the fact that many immigrants, though not wealthy, are highly educated and motivated and may be just what boston needs. not necessarily mexicans, but somalians etc. most of them speak half a dozen languages, have or are working to attain college degrees, work for low wages, and eventually open up their own businesses. Just a thought on how ron might be on to something. I DO NOT want to make it seem like bringing in thousands of immigrants is the key to anybody's woes, but it might not be as bad as some would think.

It's a discussion board, discussions inevitably lead to disagreements. I don't take it personal. I'm going to "argue" with you, but agree at the same time. Here goes.

I'm not saying that there aren't immigrants legal or not that are highly educated. That would be a stupid thing to think because infact a lot of the legal immigrants who apply for citizenship are highly intelligent and come here for school or for work in a field they've already managed to get a degree in.

My problem with the immigrant idea is your statement about "have or are working to attain college degrees, work for low wages, and eventually open up their own businesses. " This is EXACTLY what we need from immigrants. Then why you ask could I have a problem with it? It's not that idea that's the problem, it's attaining it. The housing prices in the area pretty much kill any chance of someone doing a labor job at minimum wage to live and save up enough money to open their own place or to use to pay for higher education. THAT is the problem, not the immigrants themselves, or their intentions or their education status.

If I took every possession save a few items of clothing maybe, and threw you into the city of Boston and said "okay, go find any job with whatever skills you have, and a place to live". That's not an easy task anywhere, but when you have housing prices as high as they are, it's a near impossible task. Even if I said you could keep your college degree (you just graduated Patrick, correct?) you'd still be struggling to find a job that pays enough to live in the city, much less make enough to live and save to further your education (assuming you didn't have a college degree) and/or open your open place of business with skills you naturally possess or learned to possess.

That's the problem. It's not immigrants I'm against, it's just saying "let's open up Massachusetts to be an immigrant haven". That's not going to benefit the immigrants and it's not going to benefit the state or the city of Boston. We're all so enamored with these high rises popping up in the city that we don't think about the real issue in Boston development: housing costs.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by BostonSkyGuy

It's a discussion board, discussions inevitably lead to disagreements. I don't take it personal.

Ok thats good, I dont like when people take things personal, especially when I agree with them most of the time.

Originally Posted by BostonSkyGuy

My problem with the immigrant idea is your statement about "have or are working to attain college degrees, work for low wages, and eventually open up their own businesses. " This is EXACTLY what we need from immigrants. Then why you ask could I have a problem with it? It's not that idea that's the problem, it's attaining it. The housing prices in the area pretty much kill any chance of someone doing a labor job at minimum wage to live and save up enough money to open their own place or to use to pay for higher education. THAT is the problem, not the immigrants themselves, or their intentions or their education status.

If I took every possession save a few items of clothing maybe, and threw you into the city of Boston and said "okay, go find any job with whatever skills you have, and a place to live". That's not an easy task anywhere, but when you have housing prices as high as they are, it's a near impossible task. Even if I said you could keep your college degree (you just graduated Patrick, correct?) you'd still be struggling to find a job that pays enough to live in the city, much less make enough to live and save to further your education (assuming you didn't have a college degree) and/or open your open place of business with skills you naturally possess or learned to possess.

That's the problem. It's not immigrants I'm against, it's just saying "let's open up Massachusetts to be an immigrant haven". That's not going to benefit the immigrants and it's not going to benefit the state or the city of Boston. We're all so enamored with these high rises popping up in the city that we don't think about the real issue in Boston development: housing costs.

Yeah, you make all good points. I really don't knwo enough about Boston's situation to make intelligent comments about what would or would not work there, and when you explain it a bit more I think you are probably right. In portland the situation is different (manual labor jobs and low rents work perfectly for many immigrants). I assumed there would be at least some parts of boston where this would work too, but come to think about it i am remembering plenty of discussions on here about how expensive housing has gotten and the struggles that inevitably are associated with that fact. You are right, it seems like it would benefit neither the immigrants nor the state of mass/city of boston. Some people think immigrants are bad no matter what the situation, and i have never understood that, but you have made it clear that it is not them you are against, but rather it is the idea of them trying to make it in an environment where people who are US residents can barely make it. in that case you make a lot of sense, and i retract my previous comment as would apply to boston.

[BostonSkyGuy]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Ok thats good, I dont like when people take things personal, especially when I agree with them most of the time.

Nah, I'm not one to take it personal when people disagree with me. I actually like when people do, it allows me to see things from another view and vice versa.

Besides, you're one of the forumers who I agree with on most subjects and we've had good disucssions in the past, I didn't think this would get into one of those 'personal attack' debates. It's all good.

In portland the situation is different (manual labor jobs and low rents work perfectly for many immigrants). I assumed there would be at least some parts of boston where this would work too, but come to think about it i am remembering plenty of discussions on here about how expensive housing has gotten and the struggles that inevitably are associated with that fact. You are right, it seems like it would benefit neither the immigrants nor the state of mass/city of boston.

Well that's the problem. There used to be a lot of areas where people who were doing manual labor jobs and other jobs that are lower on the pay scale, could live in the city. Now there's not a whole lot of places like that left in the city.

Another reason the population is decline is because they're taking these areas that are affordable, and sometimes could be even characterized as "ghettos" and leveling them making condos so you're losing buildings with 1000+ people and in the same space getting 50 condos where maybe 100 people live.

Like you said, there is a lot of ill-will (for lack of a better term) towards immigrants nowadays. I just didn't think it'd be a good fit for the city or the immigrants themselves.

[Patrick]

I know what you mean about leveling working class family neighborhoods and turning them into condos...what a terrible thing to do. the life of a city is in its families...condos can be built anywhere just about, but family-oriented neighborhoods, since they are not planned, dont just reappear once they are demolished.

So, where are all of these people going? places like NH but still working in boston or are they leaving the metro for good do you think?

[ChunkyMonkey]

Don't believe what your read, the media likes to play up negative news to sell papers. These estimates are pretty unreliable. I read somewhere that the estimates and actual count between 1999 and 2000 was over 100,000 in Philadelphia. The estimates undercounted many people.

[BostonSkyGuy]

Originally Posted by Patrick

I know what you mean about leveling working class family neighborhoods and turning them into condos...what a terrible thing to do. the life of a city is in its families...condos can be built anywhere just about, but family-oriented neighborhoods, since they are not planned, dont just reappear once they are demolished.

So, where are all of these people going? places like NH but still working in boston or are they leaving the metro for good do you think?

I think the metro numbers actually show growth. So I'm not sure that most of these people are leaving the state/immediate area, but I definately believe the numbers that people are leaving the city.

I agree, I don't like when a city loses it's neighborhoods either. I don't think this is a serious problem in Boston, the city itself is still really a cluster of neighborhoods. It's just really becoming harder and harder for the people who grew up in these neighborhoods to live there because of the prices. That's really what the sad part is, people can't even afford to remain where they grew up due to the skyrocketing prices of houses/apartments in the city.

[prescott]

An article by Spaulding and Slye in the Globe contains an interesting response the exodus hype. The article points out many flaws in the study, or at least in the "Boston's in Big Trouble" garbage the media spewed as result.

My personal opinion is that the census study shows evidence of population shifts within the region and domestic out migration (nothing new there), but it's not that relevant when judging the health of Boston.

To single out one flaw, lets look at students and dorms. With somewhere on the order of 350,000 college students in the Boston area, students have quite an impact on population and housing.

Think about the recent real estate investment cycle in the urban core. Super-crappy housing, at least some of it previously occupied by students, has been renovated and converted to upscale condos. A reduction in density in these areas should be expected by this and does not represent a crisis of people leaving, but instead a potentially positive reduction in over-crowded housing in those areas, affordability issues aside.

As an example, take a chopped up two-family student housing dump, with the obligatory illegal, fire-trap "in-law" apartment in the basement. It might have seven, eight, maybe more, people living in it. Now renovate it to two high-quality condos occupied by professionals, empty-nesters, or whoever. Think there are still eight people in that house? I doubt it. Did enrollment drop in area colleges during the study period to offset the reduced density in that house? No. Did places like Somerville permit an equivalent increase in new residential units to offset the displaced former residents? Hardly. So where did the students go? They moved out of housing measured by the study (i.e. our previously lead-paint filled, asbestos laden, student ghetto house) and moved into housing that was not measured (perhaps to some of the 1,000s of new dorm rooms built in the last 5 years).

Ask anyone working in some of the industries supporting Boston's economy, Bio-Tech, Engineering, Medicine, etc. if they have a co-worker from somewhere other than the US. Why aren't these important contributors to Boston's economy included? They're here buying houses, spending wages, and contributing to the local economy right?

Here's a link to the article: http://www.spauldslye.com/news/2006.05.27_bgoped.html