Chicago shrinks by over 200,000 in the 2000's Part II (Harvey: middle-class, sales)

[linicx]

Chicago shrinks by over 200,000 in the 2000's Part I is officially closed. Part II is now open.

[CHICAGOLAND92]

While it is sad Chicago's population has been decreasing, I am not all that surprised with the results.

1. Taxes - Chicago has some of the highest taxes in the nation, while not offering some of the best quality of life throughout the city. People generally will pay more in taxes if it is worth it. Unless you're living downtown or up north, the taxes don't justify life in the rest of Chicago. Furthermore, most of the Fortune 500 companies are located outside of the city. This may be due to Chicago's business taxes as well. I don't think it bodes well for a city to have a lot of major employers located in the suburbs.

2. Crime - While it is not as bad as it was in the latter part of the 1990s and the early 2000s (according to statistics), Chicago is still pretty dangerous (again, aside from the desirable areas). My first actual experience with crime happened in Chicago on 79th and Evans in 2010. No one wants to feel scared in their own neighborhood.

3. Schools - CPS has bright spots such as the magnet schools, but overall public education does not compare to the suburban areas. Bad schools might not matter to older residents and young professionals (yet), but families--which make up an essential part of any municipality--are concerned with their children's education (or at least should be). News of schools not even being safe for children to be around does not bode well for the families of Chicago, and I can't blame them for leaving.

4. Jobs - This sort of touches on the taxes topic. With a substantial amount of professional jobs located in the suburbs, it's only rational for people to live closer to the place of their employment.

5. Transportation - A lot of the roads are in dire shape. CTA is shutting down train stops and raising fares. Why pay more for less? And don't even get me started on the ridiculous price of gas in Chicago.

We can argue as much as we want about the population possibly being undercounted, people not returning their census forms, etc. That may be true, but that does not take away from the fact that Chicago overall is once again on the decline. There are real issues that are not being addressed, and while the politicians may not be doing anything, residents are doing something-- by leaving the city and sometimes even the region altogether.

We can boast about the growth in the suburban areas and how the overall region is still growing, but how much are these growing areas actually connected to Chicago? Most of their growth is due to their own progress, not Chicago's. While we are far from the Detroit metro areas, I cannot help but compare suburban growth at the expense of the city's decline. A city cannot thrive on upper-class professionals and desolate lower-class residents with no true middle class.

One reason people don't see Chicago's problems is due to the vibrancy of downtown. As one can see from the map, it is one of the few places in the city that has solid growth. Most people don't come to Chicago to go shopping on 87th by Chatham Ridge or to eat at Maxwell's on Independence Boulevard, but these are also places that make up part of the city. Neglecting where the population is for downtown only polarizes the city even more.

If you're not living in Chicago, why aren't you? I'm sure many people will have similar answers to this question.

[SmartGXL]

^^ChicagoLand, good post.

When you say that people come here to shop downtown, and not in Chatham, I agree. And, I have told people before, that when you hear someone (especially a transplant) say, "I LOVE CHICAGO!!!", they USUALLY mean, "I LOVE LINCOLN PARK-LAKEVIEW-WICKER PARK-GOLD COAST AND THE LOOP!" They are usually referring to the cluster of "fun" neighborhoods. Most people who live in those hoods never ever go to the south side, which is a shame, because there are some really interesting places to visit in the south side.

[emathias]

1. Taxes - Chicago has some of the highest taxes in the nation,

No it doesn't. Sales tax is high (though not the highest) but looking at overall taxation, it's not even close to being as high as many other places. Quit listening to scaremongers and do your own research, and you'd know that. I really wish people would stop spreading false information about Chicago taxes.

If you really hate Chicago, why spend time talking about it?

If you claim to love Chicago, how true can that love be if you can't even be bothered to get the facts right?

Chicago is still pretty dangerous

Crime is improving. It could be better, it could be a lot worse, too. I don't know what else to say. I've never witnessed a violent crime here, and the only time I was burglarized was in 1995. I think sometimes people get proximity to crime confused with actually being victims of crime.

News of schools not even being safe for children to be around does not bode well for the families of Chicago, and I can't blame them for leaving.

Statistically CPS does as good a job educating students as most other large districts, and most other districts in Illinois. It has demographic skew issues. Student safety is not as bad as some people would have you believe. Part of the issues is middle-class parents not wanting their kids to be exposed to lower-class kids which has always been the case. Economic diversity is often harder to achieve and maintain than even racial diversity.

Jobs - This sort of touches on the taxes topic. With a substantial amount of professional jobs located in the suburbs, it's only rational for people to live closer to the place of their employment.

This is certainly at least partly true, however historically the jobs followed the people to the suburbs. If the City can attract people back into the city, jobs will follow. The Loop continues to add office space and jobs, the City mainly needs to attract more working-class jobs. I think one of the biggest limitations to this is actually EPA and other environmental regulations that make reusing brownfield sites difficult and expensive, driving new businesses to greenfield sites in the suburbs. I think it's worse than just ironic that these laws meant to protect people and the environment actually contribute to the development of previously undeveloped land. This isn't somthing Chicago has power to change on its own.

CTA is shutting down train stops and raising fares. Why pay more for less?

Again with the falsehoods caused by your own lack of research. The CTA is not currently planning to close any stations. In fact, within the next year they will OPEN two new stations (on the Green Line and the Yellow Line). And the CTA hasn't raised fares in two years now, and continues to have fares far lower than most international cities have.

Chicago overall is once again on the decline. There are real issues that are not being addressed,

You unfortunately illustrate one of what I think is the biggest issues - people who are incapable of actually knowing fact from fiction. At least two of your points were based on false information, and the others were incomplete in their facts.

People who are defeatist and whiny don't help Chicago - they hurt Chicago quite a bit. Chicago and big cities in general aren't for everyone. If you can't make a go of it, it's only deflecting blame to blame the city.

but how much are these growing areas actually connected to Chicago?

It varies, but most of them couldn't be what they are today without Chicago. Some could, true, but most couldn't. Even if they never came into Chicago, Chicago provides gravity and resources that most small towns don't have access to.

Most of their growth is due to their own progress, not Chicago's.

Simply not true.

A city cannot thrive on upper-class professionals and desolate lower-class residents with no true middle class.

You may not like to hear this, but sure a city can. In fact most cities do. Cities that don't are actually kind of the exception to the rule.

One reason people don't see Chicago's problems is due to the vibrancy of downtown. As one can see from the map, it is one of the few places in the city that has solid growth. Most people don't come to Chicago to go shopping on 87th by Chatham Ridge or to eat at Maxwell's on Independence Boulevard, but these are also places that make up part of the city. Neglecting where the population is for downtown only polarizes the city even more.

First you say most people don't come to Chicago for the neighborhoods, then you say the City shouldn't spend money on where people DO come to Chicago for. You aren't making any rational sense.

If you're not living in Chicago, why aren't you? I'm sure many people will have similar answers to this question.

I am living in Chicago, and have been now for over 15 years.

[Caldus]

I'm new to the city and I'm rather confused about all of the complaining about taxes here. Yes, sales taxes are noticeably higher than what I'm used to, sure. As far as income tax goes, even with the recent increase to 5%, I'm still paying about the same amount of income tax as I did with my old job in St. Louis, Missouri. They are on a bracket system based on your income. Since I was above average income, I was paying around 4.5% income tax there. So paying 5% here means hardly anything to me. Plus I lived in the St. Louis city area and they had an additional 1% earnings tax which is not present here. So I'm actually paying less income tax in total. However, yes, the sales tax is a lot higher here so in the end it is more costly to live here. The thing is, what does St. Louis offer and what does Chicago offer for entertainment and things to do? I think we all know the winner there.

My complaint about this city is that the politicians don't seem to have a good plan for attacking the giant deficit they have. Increasing taxes slightly is fine (since they were low to begin with), but it also needs to be combined with a lot of deep spending cuts that have to be done. They are too scared to do what must be done because it will **** off certain groups of people and they will defend the programs and defame the politicians as much as possible if they try to take their cut.

[Chicagoland60426]

After thinking it over, the census numbers are probably close to accurate sadly. Census bureau make strong efforts to get an accuracy. They don't just send forms to homes and only count the 66% of people who return their form on time. They send enumerators to get some info on the other 34%. Enumerators have 5-6 times to come into contact with a resident of the household or get in touch the with a proxy(neighbor or someone who knows the block well) for that 6th visit. I was an enumerator for Harvey and what I did if the person refuses to let me interview them, then I just ask them how many people live in the residency and usually they at least give me that. If they don't even give me that, I go to a proxy or use my own "guesstimates". Looking back, I was able to get a number for 95% of the residencies(excluding vacants) on my list. And usually if enumerators were unable to the 100% of the job, then someone of a higher position will visit these homes. Unfortunately Harvey still counted 4,700 people fewer compared to 2000. I think that number is close to accurate seeing the vacancies.


It looks like the majority of that 200,000 lost came from the black population. From some comments I read on here and on skyscraperpage, there is the impression that many black Chicagoans(like those in other Northern cities) moved to the south, which is not even half true by evidence given from the census. According to the census, only 10,000 blacks fewer in Illinois than in 2000. I think people are overlooking Chicago suburbs. I know for a fact that theres been an influx of former black city residents to the south suburbs. Homewood's black population has doubled in the last 10 years and several south suburban communities have experienced a significant increased, mostly from African-Americans moving in. I say at least one-third of the 180,000 blacks fewer that Chicago counted for the census went to the south suburbs, while the rest went to other suburban regions in the MSA and several thousand probably left state. I know from talking to a few cousins who left the southside for the south burbs got seek of the violence in Chicago's inner city and although some south burbs have a rep for being crime-ridden, they find it safer out here than in say Englewood or Roseland.

[CHICAGOLAND92]

Originally Posted by emathias

No it doesn't. Sales tax is high (though not the highest) but looking at overall taxation, it's not even close to being as high as many other places. Quit listening to scaremongers and do your own research, and you'd know that. I really wish people would stop spreading false information about Chicago taxes.

If you really hate Chicago, why spend time talking about it?

If you claim to love Chicago, how true can that love be if you can't even be bothered to get the facts right?

Maybe YOU should bother to get the facts right. I never said I hated Chicago, nor did I say I loved Chicago. And who says I listen to scaremongerers?

I guess I should have clarified.. Chicago has one of the highest SALES taxes in the nation. My apologies.

Originally Posted by emathias

Crime is improving. It could be better, it could be a lot worse, too. I don't know what else to say. I've never witnessed a violent crime here, and the only time I was burglarized was in 1995. I think sometimes people get proximity to crime confused with actually being victims of crime.

I think people know the difference of being around crime and actually being a victim. Well, at least I would hope.

Originally Posted by emathias

Statistically CPS does as good a job educating students as most other large districts, and most other districts in Illinois. It has demographic skew issues. Student safety is not as bad as some people would have you believe. Part of the issues is middle-class parents not wanting their kids to be exposed to lower-class kids which has always been the case. Economic diversity is often harder to achieve and maintain than even racial diversity.

I agree with your last statement. Economic segregation is much more prevalent in general than racial segregation.

Originally Posted by emathias

This is certainly at least partly true, however historically the jobs followed the people to the suburbs. If the City can attract people back into the city, jobs will follow. The Loop continues to add office space and jobs, the City mainly needs to attract more working-class jobs. I think one of the biggest limitations to this is actually EPA and other environmental regulations that make reusing brownfield sites difficult and expensive, driving new businesses to greenfield sites in the suburbs. I think it's worse than just ironic that these laws meant to protect people and the environment actually contribute to the development of previously undeveloped land. This isn't somthing Chicago has power to change on its own.

This is true too, and something I did not think about.

Originally Posted by emathias

Again with the falsehoods caused by your own lack of research. The CTA is not currently planning to close any stations. In fact, within the next year they will OPEN two new stations (on the Green Line and the Yellow Line). And the CTA hasn't raised fares in two years now, and continues to have fares far lower than most international cities have.

My apologies again.

Originally Posted by emathias

You unfortunately illustrate one of what I think is the biggest issues - people who are incapable of actually knowing fact from fiction. At least two of your points were based on false information, and the others were incomplete in their facts.

People who are defeatist and whiny don't help Chicago - they hurt Chicago quite a bit. Chicago and big cities in general aren't for everyone. If you can't make a go of it, it's only deflecting blame to blame the city.

And you unfortunately illustrate another big issue - people who downplay problems! You can say it's not that bad, but Chicago has 200,000 fewer people than in 2000. Yes, every city has it's problems, but just because Chicago's problems aren't AS BAD as other places doesn't mean everything is fine and rosy here. I don't think it's defeatist if people see greener pastures elsewhere and then give reasons as to why they left. It is what it is.

I am actually quite capable of knowing fact from fiction. I'm not going to lie; I didn't research everything I posted. So I was wrong in that aspect. Nonetheless, it is a FACT that Chicago's population has declined. You can downplay it and say it is due to black mobility, but they wouldn't be leaving if they were content.

Originally Posted by emathias

It varies, but most of them couldn't be what they are today without Chicago. Some could, true, but most couldn't. Even if they never came into Chicago, Chicago provides gravity and resources that most small towns don't have access to.

As suburban areas grow, their gravitational level and resource level increase as well. The suburban areas constitute the majority of the metro area. They hold their own (as a whole) when it comes to resources. Chicago undoubtedly holds everything together, of course.

Originally Posted by emathias

Simply not true.

Why are these areas progressing, then? No doubt they're located in the Chicago area, but they're not exactly inner ring suburbs. They have their own substantial amount of sustainability. They're not entirely dependent on the central city.

Originally Posted by emathias

You may not like to hear this, but sure a city can. In fact most cities do. Cities that don't are actually kind of the exception to the rule.

Where is one successful city that does not have a middle class?

Originally Posted by emathias

First you say most people don't come to Chicago for the neighborhoods, then you say the City shouldn't spend money on where people DO come to Chicago for. You aren't making any rational sense.

The point was to allocate money to areas BESIDES where most people come. To invest in NEW areas that don't receive much attention in order for these areas to improve and generate money. Chicago isn't just downtown and trendy areas up north.

Originally Posted by emathias

I am living in Chicago, and have been now for over 15 years.

Great!

[Savoir Faire]

Originally Posted by CHICAGOLAND92

While it is sad Chicago's population has been decreasing, I am not all that surprised with the results.

1. Taxes - Chicago has some of the highest taxes in the nation, while not offering some of the best quality of life throughout the city. People generally will pay more in taxes if it is worth it. Unless you're living downtown or up north, the taxes don't justify life in the rest of Chicago. Furthermore, most of the Fortune 500 companies are located outside of the city. This may be due to Chicago's business taxes as well. I don't think it bodes well for a city to have a lot of major employers located in the suburbs.

2. Crime - While it is not as bad as it was in the latter part of the 1990s and the early 2000s (according to statistics), Chicago is still pretty dangerous (again, aside from the desirable areas). My first actual experience with crime happened in Chicago on 79th and Evans in 2010. No one wants to feel scared in their own neighborhood.

3. Schools - CPS has bright spots such as the magnet schools, but overall public education does not compare to the suburban areas. Bad schools might not matter to older residents and young professionals (yet), but families--which make up an essential part of any municipality--are concerned with their children's education (or at least should be). News of schools not even being safe for children to be around does not bode well for the families of Chicago, and I can't blame them for leaving.

4. Jobs - This sort of touches on the taxes topic. With a substantial amount of professional jobs located in the suburbs, it's only rational for people to live closer to the place of their employment.

5. Transportation - A lot of the roads are in dire shape. CTA is shutting down train stops and raising fares. Why pay more for less? And don't even get me started on the ridiculous price of gas in Chicago.

We can argue as much as we want about the population possibly being undercounted, people not returning their census forms, etc. That may be true, but that does not take away from the fact that Chicago overall is once again on the decline. There are real issues that are not being addressed, and while the politicians may not be doing anything, residents are doing something-- by leaving the city and sometimes even the region altogether.

We can boast about the growth in the suburban areas and how the overall region is still growing, but how much are these growing areas actually connected to Chicago? Most of their growth is due to their own progress, not Chicago's. While we are far from the Detroit metro areas, I cannot help but compare suburban growth at the expense of the city's decline. A city cannot thrive on upper-class professionals and desolate lower-class residents with no true middle class.

One reason people don't see Chicago's problems is due to the vibrancy of downtown. As one can see from the map, it is one of the few places in the city that has solid growth. Most people don't come to Chicago to go shopping on 87th by Chatham Ridge or to eat at Maxwell's on Independence Boulevard, but these are also places that make up part of the city. Neglecting where the population is for downtown only polarizes the city even more.

If you're not living in Chicago, why aren't you? I'm sure many people will have similar answers to this question.

The vast majority of people who left the city were from the poorest neighborhoods. I agree with the reasons, but It seems as though you are under the assumption that majority of people who left were middle class.

1. Taxes - true, poor people are less equipped to deal with an increase in taxes
2. Crime - poor people often deal with it more often than middle class, at the same time, how many of the people were involved in crime
3. Schools - poor people tend to have crappier schools, however many people in these areas don't value education
4. Jobs - I doubt the majority of the people that left secured professional positions in the burbs.
5. Transportation - CTA did make big cuts to poor service. As bad as the CTA is, it's much better than the virtually non existent mass transit in the suburbs

[Humboldt1]

Savoir,

I have eaten at Maxwells on Independence. I used to collect rent from my Itasca renter there as his family went to church just south of there.

There are large parts of the city that should just be turned into parks or preserves. East Garfiled Park is filled with empty lots and buildings. Instead of throwing good money after bad and building new housing, these areas are better off being made into parkland.

If you question this ask yourself this:

When has having a bickerdike or low income housing project made an area better?

If most of the people leaving Chicago are poor, non-working, non-productive people I say good riddance.

[Steve-o]

The population is down 200K because people are sick and tired of paying up the butt for everything, its not worth it. They can move to the suburbs, be taxed less, deal with less traffic, far less crime, have cleaner air, and better schools. Unless you truly adore urban living and cannot live w/o it, what reason is there to stay in Chicago? The suburbs will continue to act like a vacuum, sucking more and more people out of Chicago.