U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-14-2011, 08:11 AM
 
Location: Dallas, Texas
2,970 posts, read 4,342,097 times
Reputation: 2010

Advertisements

Chicago will still be the 3rd largest metro area in the nation for a long time. metro numbers are what really matter anyway. Plus Chicagos importance will remain regardless. The city of Chicago could do a better job keep up with the Jones' though when it comes to cleaning it up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2011, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,285,896 times
Reputation: 3827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio248 View Post

And now the City of Chicago is considering implementing a massive city income tax.
I've heard nothing about this. Do you have a link?

If/when Houston overtakes Chicago in population, the only thing that will happen is a few Chicago bashers will become even more insufferable. Since it's easy enough to avoid city data forums, this will have no major impact on my life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 8,313,140 times
Reputation: 4270
How is Houston going to do this? Annex? Go vertical?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 12:12 PM
 
11,172 posts, read 22,369,908 times
Reputation: 10919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio248 View Post
Illinois just passed a gigantic income tax increase that will drive hundreds of thousands out-of-state.

They also passed a huge corporate tax increase that changes Illinois from one of the lowest tax states for corporations to worst in the nation.

And now the City of Chicago is considering implementing a massive city income tax.

BTW, Illinois already has the highest sales taxes in the nation.

Long story short- Illinois will be in a world of hurt, especially Chicagoland.

Keep in mind that Chicago has had the largest population loss of any city in the nation from 2000-2010, and that was when taxes were relatively low. Now taxes are skyrocketing, and I guarantee the outflow will be soaring.

So it's really WHEN, not IF, Dallas and Houston surpass Chicago.
WTF? Income taxes went from 3% to 5%, which is a large increase in itself - but still far below other states as far as how much the state is actually taking.

Corporate income taxes are taking us from #11 to #4, although it's a bit misleading since over 2/3 of businesses get subsidies and don't pay anything.

Where are you hearing about this city income tax? I think you're probably just making that up in the heat of the moment. Absolutely no word on that happening.

Illinois has sales taxes of 6.25%, which is in the upper half - but not the top. Chicago has a higher sales tax rate of 9.75%, but again that's in line with a lot of large cities, and it's not higher than say LA's rate.

Chicago (city) lost 1.5% of its population since 2000 according to estimates. Certainly nowhere near as bad as other cities. If anything, Chicago has been drifting around the same population for quite awhile now - since it stopped dropping back aruond 1994. The metro is up around 400,000 people.

I still don't get why you're so morbidly obsessed with Chicago, and why you have this unrational hatred for the city. Who from Chicago wronged you so bad?

I love how everything you say always has some truth in it - but then you always go just a bit too far and disqualify all your statements. Just stop while you're ahead instead of throwing it into foul territory and people would probably listen to you here and there. The whole "worst corporate taxes in the nation", "massive city income tax", "Illinois sales taxes highest in the nation". Statements like that where people can prove them as false immediately. Like the "run for the hills - Illinois has lost 70,000 jobs this year!!". All you have to do is google and you find the state gained 54,000 since January.

Not trying to beat a dead horse and respond to all this again as in other threads - it's just so tempting and easy!

Last edited by Chicago60614; 01-14-2011 at 12:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 12:14 PM
 
11,172 posts, read 22,369,908 times
Reputation: 10919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
How is Houston going to do this? Annex? Go vertical?
Annexing land for new houses - as they (and every city at some point) have been doing. Basically where the new housing is going up, which accounts for a large majority of a metro's growth, in Chicago is in the suburbs since the city is penned in by all the suburbs. Houston city is still able to increase its physical land area, so what would be "suburban" population growth in many areas is actually growth within the central city of Houston. It's all how you define the area, and what boundries your cities have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,160,729 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnutella View Post
Houston has a long way to go in order to catch Chicago, both city- and metro-wise.
Not really. Chicago is not really that far ahead of Houston Citywise, metrowise yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
You think the city of Houston is going to grow by over 600,000 people in the next 10 years?
well Houston grew by 400k in the last decade 600k in the upcoming one is definitely possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
How is Houston going to do this? Annex? Go vertical?
it can do it by either.

They have thus far declined to annex the Katy area even though that area has melded into Houston, but if they did there goes the gap between Houston and Chicago.

The city itself has been seeing tremendous infill, The change in density is rapidly increasing. Harris County (the county that Houston is in increased by 700 000 people in the last decade. citywise, Houston and Chicago are not that far apart in population. In terms of Metro it is gonna take about 35 years
I predict by 2040 both should be about 12.5M
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,160,729 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
Annexing land for new houses - as they (and every city at some point) have been doing. Basically where the new housing is going up, which accounts for a large majority of a metro's growth, in Chicago is in the suburbs since the city is penned in by all the suburbs. Houston city is still able to increase its physical land area, so what would be "suburban" population growth in many areas is actually growth within the central city of Houston. It's all how you define the area, and what boundries your cities have.
that is a bold-faced lie. Houston has not been annexing land for new houses. They have been annexing areas around highways and stuff.

The last time we annexed was in 1996, 15 years ago. and that was an already established community.

Houston annexes to increase its tax base, not for new houses. that is just flat out stupid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 8,313,140 times
Reputation: 4270
^okay fine, then how is Houston going to grow without annexation if most of the land is already developed? I don't buy that the city will gain 500K residents or so by building apartments and condos, especially since that type of construction usually occurs with higher land values, and one of the main draws to Texas in general, including Houston, are its lower housing and land costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 12:36 PM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,148,414 times
Reputation: 7738
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
Not really. Chicago is not really that far ahead of Houston Citywise, metrowise yes.


well Houston grew by 400k in the last decade 600k in the upcoming one is definitely possible.
it can do it by either.

They have thus far declined to annex the Katy area even though that area has melded into Houston, but if they did there goes the gap between Houston and Chicago.

The city itself has been seeing tremendous infill, The change in density is rapidly increasing. Harris County (the county that Houston is in increased by 700 000 people in the last decade. citywise, Houston and Chicago are not that far apart in population. In terms of Metro it is gonna take about 35 years
I predict by 2040 both should be about 12.5M
You really think Houston will double in that time frame - where, unless there is significant infill I really do not see that coming, that would be growth only experience on that size in two current US metros in our whole history - so you think either twice the density or continued growth from the core? Is this realistic, seriously?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,160,729 times
Reputation: 7598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
^okay fine, then how is Houston going to grow without annexation if most of the land is already developed? I don't buy that the city will gain 500K residents or so by building apartments and condos, especially since that type of construction usually occurs with higher land values, and one of the main draws to Texas in general, including Houston, are its lower housing and land costs.
you very clearly don't know Houston. Houston developed in pockets. There are miles and miles of open pockets all over the city.

where do you think the 400K extra people over the last ten years went to?

we have vast areas withing the city limits that have yet to be developed. The only area of the city that is more than 50 percent developed is the western portion, and even there there is still room.

I would advise you to learn more before you make blanket assumptions
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top