Why is Omaha so much more progressive then Lincoln politically? (Lawrence: property taxes, travel)

[Rawlings]

Originally Posted by MattDen

Ironic that I looked up the numbers where Lakewood is and the population above 18 years of age is 76.6% compared to the national average of 74.6%. So evidently people in Lakewood are not having large numbers of babies.

I would agree that Southern Arapahoe, Douglas Counties tend to have higher amounts of large families then the rest of the metro area. I am sure they have alot of large families going to church in Colorado but its mainly Littleton, Highlands Ranch, Briargate in Colorado Springs and Weld County its not as widespread all over the area like Lincoln.

Pueblo has an aging population 75.3% above age 18 vs. 74.6% national average

Denver 75.2% above age 18 vs. 74.6% national average.

Pueblo, Denver and Jefferson County all have higher pecentage of residents above 18 then the national average, thus they have a smaller percentage of school-age children and besides they have more students going to private schools which is great.

Anyway, I just think the demographics of Lincoln are changing and its birth-rate's as of late as starting to close-in on Grand Island and Lexington. Either that or the rural migration into Lincoln is increasing the number of babies people have. Becuase no matter where I go in Lincoln I see lots of large families.

I have no problem with people who have lots of babies as long as they send them to private schools, I just have a problem with their agenda to raise property taxes that would otherwise go to making a city better and improving infrastructure.

Matt, you're being disengenuous about Colorado's demographics. Colorado's population pyramid is oddly shaped because we have not only high birthrates--but we also have the highest per capita number of baby boomers in the country. So basically you've got some old folks, tons of baby boomers, a good helping of gen-xers, and LOTS of kids. In other words, the pryamid looks a lot like the national one but with exaggerated marks of baby boomeres and children.

Colorado has 7.3% of it's population under three--Nebraska is 7.0--above the national norm. Colorado has only 10 percent above 65--way below the norm--while Nebraska has a whopping 13.3 percent--above the norm.

The reason the Denver County has such a high birthrate for an urban county, is the Latino population--nearing 50%. But if you look at our other highly populated counties--Jefferson, Douglas, El Paso, and the quickly growing Weld--you see the same numbers--just of a different ethnic group. In other words, ethnicity is not a factor when it comes to Colorado's high birthrates--it's a baby factory either way.

How about our fine neighbors in Nebraska?

First, of course, Nebraska has a smaller youth population than Colorado. In fact, in Lincoln county the under-5 population and under-18 population are both under 7 percent--the nebraska state average. The over-65 population is a massive 15 percent--soaring above the national average. The college population gives the city of lincoln slightly younger numbers--but not markedly so.

Now Omaha. Thurston County has an under 18 and under 5 population HIGHER THAN UTAH'S! Whatever you've got in the water there in Omaha--Viagra, maybe?--is giving metro Omaha a remarkably high birth rate.

So your entire thesis--that Omaha is more progressive than Lincoln because Lincoln has too many kids--is unfounded and actually quite the opposite. By your rational--that having more kids makes you less progressive--Omaha is a conservative backwater.

For the record, Omaha did lean more towards Kerry in the last election than Lincoln County (I don't have city of Lincoln numbers)--but any real difference is marginal. I would say that Lincoln is a lot like Omaha--just more rural.

The end story is that you decry Lincoln's birthrates when Omaha is an even bigger kid-factory. And you fallaciously state that Colorado is holding back on the children--when in fact Colorado is going through an unfettered phase of natural population growth due to seriously high birthrates!

There is a Baby Belt of sorts--running from Utah through Nebraska--it seems--and, friend, you're just livin' in it. Fortunately, Ohio is not a terribly fecund state.

[mattpoulsen]

Rawlings,

Well put! I've said time and time again the only difference between Omaha and Lincoln is the overall population difference. Demographics, politics, cost of living, and income are nearly identical across the board. Mattden never did respond to the fact that Lincoln repeatedly elects Democrats to city offices (mayor and city council). Omaha obviously has more to do, but its a city with about 3 times the population, so that should seem obvious.

[GraniteStater]

Nebraska might have fairly high percentages of people under 18 and under 5, but Colorado is on course to take on the population demographic characteristics of Utah. Many counties on the Front Range have an extremely high birth rate and lots of suburban sprawl everywhere. This has created quite a few problems. First, Denver has been buying up rural water rights from farmers and ranchers just to secure an adequete water supply for the city. Most people forget that Denver only gets 10-15 inches of precipitation a year. Second, climate change is already starting to affect the time period when the snowpack in the mountians melts. This is also a key factor in the available water supply for Denver. Third, Kansas has been in a legal battle for years against Colorado because of the Arkansas River. Colorado has been accused of taking more than its allocated amount of water from the river, leaving portions of the river in Kansas dry. Fourth, the citizens of Kansas are outraged that proposed power plants in the western portion of the state will be built, and cheap electricity will be sent to the SPRAWLING front range while Kansas only will get 10% of the electricity. Their are good reasons why Colorado and Kansas do NOT get along very well. Kansas should not have to pay for the Front Range sprawl because a tri-state electric cooperative company says that more power plants needs to be allowed in Kansas, even while western Kansas has seen huge population declines, and electricity growth there is fairly low quite a few areas.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Rawlings

Matt, you're being disengenuous about Colorado's demographics. Colorado's population pyramid is oddly shaped because we have not only high birthrates--but we also have the highest per capita number of baby boomers in the country. So basically you've got some old folks, tons of baby boomers, a good helping of gen-xers, and LOTS of kids. In other words, the pryamid looks a lot like the national one but with exaggerated marks of baby boomeres and children.

Colorado has 7.3% of it's population under three--Nebraska is 7.0--above the national norm. Colorado has only 10 percent above 65--way below the norm--while Nebraska has a whopping 13.3 percent--above the norm.

The reason the Denver County has such a high birthrate for an urban county, is the Latino population--nearing 50%. But if you look at our other highly populated counties--Jefferson, Douglas, El Paso, and the quickly growing Weld--you see the same numbers--just of a different ethnic group. In other words, ethnicity is not a factor when it comes to Colorado's high birthrates--it's a baby factory either way.

How about our fine neighbors in Nebraska?

First, of course, Nebraska has a smaller youth population than Colorado. In fact, in Lincoln county the under-5 population and under-18 population are both under 7 percent--the nebraska state average. The over-65 population is a massive 15 percent--soaring above the national average. The college population gives the city of lincoln slightly younger numbers--but not markedly so.

Now Omaha. Thurston County has an under 18 and under 5 population HIGHER THAN UTAH'S! Whatever you've got in the water there in Omaha--Viagra, maybe?--is giving metro Omaha a remarkably high birth rate.

So your entire thesis--that Omaha is more progressive than Lincoln because Lincoln has too many kids--is unfounded and actually quite the opposite. By your rational--that having more kids makes you less progressive--Omaha is a conservative backwater.

For the record, Omaha did lean more towards Kerry in the last election than Lincoln County (I don't have city of Lincoln numbers)--but any real difference is marginal. I would say that Lincoln is a lot like Omaha--just more rural.

The end story is that you decry Lincoln's birthrates when Omaha is an even bigger kid-factory. And you fallaciously state that Colorado is holding back on the children--when in fact Colorado is going through an unfettered phase of natural population growth due to seriously high birthrates!

There is a Baby Belt of sorts--running from Utah through Nebraska--it seems--and, friend, you're just livin' in it. Fortunately, Ohio is not a terribly fecund state.

Wrong. Thurston County is not anywhere close to Omaha. This is one of the few counties in Nebraska that contains an Indian Reservation. The Omaha metro area consists of Douglas County, Sarpy County, Cass County etc.

[Rawlings]

Originally Posted by Plains10

Wrong. Thurston County is not anywhere close to Omaha. This is one of the few counties in Nebraska that contains an Indian Reservation. The Omaha metro area consists of Douglas County, Sarpy County, Cass County etc.

Whoops. I bear my ignorance for all to see.

Nevertheless, Doulas and Sarpy counties do have exceptionally high rates of under-5s--7.6 and 8.1 respectively. Metro Omaha is still more fecund that Lincoln--smashing Matt's point to the ground.

And you're right about Colorado. Water issues are huge here, too. Colorado is the only state with all water sources flowing OUT of the state with none flowing in. So the water hogs in Vegas and Phoenix are effectively sapping our growing community dry of water resources. Thanksfully it was a fertile winter and spring and we've got plenty of water. But the recent drought really left us dry.

And you're also right about Colorado demography. The Utah-esque birthrates continue to accelerate right along with Front Range growth. This trend is particularly true among the increasing conservative and evangelical coohort in the state. We've had a bit of a housing slump recently which is just now showing signs of turning around.

I wonder if it's true that a lot of Plains staters are moving west to Denver...I've never noticed that being true. I would assume that local cities like Omaha, Minneapolis, or Chicago would be greater magnets than ol' Denver. But, then again, Denver culture and politics are probably most representative of Heartland Values compared to the above--and quite liberal--cities (save Omaha--the notable exception). I think the Rockies really do act as the great divider between 'western' and 'midwestern' culture. Once you go up into the hills you get a lot of either the mountain men or Aspen yuppie culture. But down on most of the Front Range it is fundamentally Heartland--faith, family, country, etc. For what it's worth I think it's probably a good thing that Denverites look east for values and culture. I wonder if Omahans typically look to Denver or Chicago or if they even bother looking at all!

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Rawlings

Whoops. I bear my ignorance for all to see.

Nevertheless, Doulas and Sarpy counties do have exceptionally high rates of under-5s--7.6 and 8.1 respectively. Metro Omaha is still more fecund that Lincoln--smashing Matt's point to the ground.

And you're right about Colorado. Water issues are huge here, too. Colorado is the only state with all water sources flowing OUT of the state with none flowing in. So the water hogs in Vegas and Phoenix are effectively sapping our growing community dry of water resources. Thanksfully it was a fertile winter and spring and we've got plenty of water. But the recent drought really left us dry.

And you're also right about Colorado demography. The Utah-esque birthrates continue to accelerate right along with Front Range growth. This trend is particularly true among the increasing conservative and evangelical coohort in the state. We've had a bit of a housing slump recently which is just now showing signs of turning around.

I wonder if it's true that a lot of Plains staters are moving west to Denver...I've never noticed that being true. I would assume that local cities like Omaha, Minneapolis, or Chicago would be greater magnets than ol' Denver. But, then again, Denver culture and politics are probably most representative of Heartland Values compared to the above--and quite liberal--cities (save Omaha--the notable exception). I think the Rockies really do act as the great divider between 'western' and 'midwestern' culture. Once you go up into the hills you get a lot of either the mountain men or Aspen yuppie culture. But down on most of the Front Range it is fundamentally Heartland--faith, family, country, etc. For what it's worth I think it's probably a good thing that Denverites look east for values and culture. I wonder if Omahans typically look to Denver or Chicago or if they even bother looking at all!

Omaha has a large sphere of influence because it is the biggest metro area in a large radius. This metro generally has people migrating in from rural sections of Nebraska, portions of Iowa, portions of Kansas, and other regions. Its economy is more stable as well.
Minneapolis has a large sphere of influence in the Upper Midwest region. The metro generally has large influences on the rest of Minnesota, northern Iowa, all of the Dakotas and areas of Wisconsin as well. Technically, this city is known as a gateway city because it is by far the biggest metro in the region in the area.
Chicago has a large sphere of influence in the Great Lakes states area. This includes southern Wisconsin, portions of Indiana, most of Michigan, and Iowa as well. Many College graduates from Iowa end up in the Chicago metro because of the good paying jobs.
Denver has a sphere of influence that encompases a large rural area of the central plains, high plains, southwest, and intermountain west. The in-migration into the city from other parts of the country is very strong compared with Omaha, Minneapolis, and Chicago. I would assume that many residents who live in the area are from other parts of the country.

If you want to see first hand evidence of the population growth from the extremely high birth rates in Utah, go visit Utah County. They have now got massive traffic problems, air pollution problems, lack affordable housing, and do not have enough non-farm jobs to keep up with the massive growth. Another problem is that their has been massive population growth in a constricted Wasatch front that is surrounded by mountains and national forests on several sides. I predict large-scale problems in the future because their is only one major interstate that runs through the area. The only hope for the area is if they develop a high speed mass transit system that runs along the length of the Wasatch front to eliminate the massive traffic congestion that is likely to get much worse.

[MattDen]

The fact is on Colorado birth rates though that Douglas County, South Arapahoe, Weld and Adams have a high concentration of people who have children and also a higher birth rate.

The difference is though that the people living in mansions in North Douglas County and large homes in South Arapahoe County can afford to have lots of babies, while the people who live in the area just North and East of the university of Nebraska-Lincoln where alot of people live in shacks are way, way too poor to have babies and should not have them.

Besides the issue is that Lincoln, Nebraska is very, very radical when it comes to encouraging poor people to have babies the public schools give people backpacks of food to encourage the poor people with babies to have more of them and additionally as was discussed before they offer free-baby care to high-schoolers who have babies.
I wouldnt have a problem with backpacks of food the schools give, but around here in Lincoln most will just factor that into a decision to have yet another baby that they can not afford. They will say to themselves well since a backpack of food coming from the public school system they can have more for baby formula and baby food so why not have another baby!.

I am sure that if a poll was taken and the question was asked "should local government encourage the very poor to have more babies" that a vast majority of people would say "NO" but in Lincoln they say "YES" in their actions. Just another example of the extremeist values that Lincolnites have that are not even in the mainstream.

Douglas County, Colorado residents can afford lots of babies after all they are one of the most affluent counties in the country ditto for the southern Arapahoe County. I have no problem with that what so ever especially since they have alot of people who go to religious schools and keep the property taxes down.

Big difference between someone in a large mansion in Greenwood Village, Colorado having a baby over someone in a 3 room shack near University of Nebraska Lincoln having a baby.

With Lincoln they might not have as many overall as the southern Denver suburbs, but Lincoln has a very large population of very poor people who have lots of babies the demographics change amongst the middle-class though in Lincoln where they have an average amount of babies. But Lincoln just seems to have alot of very poor people who have way too many babies.

The solution to this is to cut the budget in half for Lincoln Public Schools they should have the half the budget they have now and double the class sizes. Bad public schools are good because then students leave and property taxes can go to more important things such as city infrastructure. I mean seriously it doesnt matter how bad the primary schools are in a city but its infrastructure that counts.

Many, many cities with horrible public school systems are thriving because the students leave and whats left is lots of property taxes that can go to city infrastructure.

Anyway, I guess maybe my personal experience with the areas around Lincoln was a bit different I was on the census site and I noticed that they have a large number of neighborhoods in the South-eastern part of Lincoln that have a much older demographic.

Likewise, the people living in West Omaha can afford to have lots of babies while in alot of the neighborhoods of Lincoln where they have alot of them they can not.

As I have said before I have no problem with the affluent having babies, but poor people should not have them and cities should do all they can to alienate that demographic that is poor but has babies anyway into moving.

The fact of the matter remains that the people who have babies in Highlands Ranch, Castle Rock and South-east Aurora can afford to do so. But the people who live in the areas just to the east and north of University of Nebraska can not afford to have them.

[Rawlings]

Originally Posted by MattDen

The fact is on Colorado birth rates though that Douglas County, South Arapahoe, Weld and Adams have a high concentration of people who have children and also a higher birth rate.

The difference is though that the people living in mansions in North Douglas County and large homes in South Arapahoe County can afford to have lots of babies, while the people who live in the area just North and East of the university of Nebraska-Lincoln where alot of people live in shacks are way, way too poor to have babies and should not have them.

Besides the issue is that Lincoln, Nebraska is very, very radical when it comes to encouraging poor people to have babies the public schools give people backpacks of food to encourage the poor people with babies to have more of them and additionally as was discussed before they offer free-baby care to high-schoolers who have babies.
I wouldnt have a problem with backpacks of food the schools give, but around here in Lincoln most will just factor that into a decision to have yet another baby that they can not afford. They will say to themselves well since a backpack of food coming from the public school system they can have more for baby formula and baby food so why not have another baby!.

I am sure that if a poll was taken and the question was asked "should local government encourage the very poor to have more babies" that a vast majority of people would say "NO" but in Lincoln they say "YES" in their actions. Just another example of the extremeist values that Lincolnites have that are not even in the mainstream.

Douglas County, Colorado residents can afford lots of babies after all they are one of the most affluent counties in the country ditto for the southern Arapahoe County. I have no problem with that what so ever especially since they have alot of people who go to religious schools and keep the property taxes down.

Big difference between someone in a large mansion in Greenwood Village, Colorado having a baby over someone in a 3 room shack near University of Nebraska Lincoln having a baby.

With Lincoln they might not have as many overall as the southern Denver suburbs, but Lincoln has a very large population of very poor people who have lots of babies the demographics change amongst the middle-class though in Lincoln where they have an average amount of babies. But Lincoln just seems to have alot of very poor people who have way too many babies.

The solution to this is to cut the budget in half for Lincoln Public Schools they should have the half the budget they have now and double the class sizes. Bad public schools are good because then students leave and property taxes can go to more important things such as city infrastructure. I mean seriously it doesnt matter how bad the primary schools are in a city but its infrastructure that counts.

Many, many cities with horrible public school systems are thriving because the students leave and whats left is lots of property taxes that can go to city infrastructure.

Anyway, I guess maybe my personal experience with the areas around Lincoln was a bit different I was on the census site and I noticed that they have a large number of neighborhoods in the South-eastern part of Lincoln that have a much older demographic.

Likewise, the people living in West Omaha can afford to have lots of babies while in alot of the neighborhoods of Lincoln where they have alot of them they can not.

As I have said before I have no problem with the affluent having babies, but poor people should not have them and cities should do all they can to alienate that demographic that is poor but has babies anyway into moving.

The fact of the matter remains that the people who have babies in Highlands Ranch, Castle Rock and South-east Aurora can afford to do so. But the people who live in the areas just to the east and north of University of Nebraska can not afford to have them.

Okay. I understand your point. I don't know how true it is but it certainly makes sense. I thought Lincoln was pretty nice, though, are you saying that it's full of welfare mommas?

I see no problem in encouraging people to have lots of kids--of course as long as they can afford it. High birthrates are great--unless it's widening the poverty rates.

[GraniteStater]

I posted a new topic in the Kansas forum about extremely fast declining populations in the rural counties. Consolidation of counties into one or two bigger counties would make sense considering many of these counties have lost more than 25% of the population in the last 20 years. Schools also need to be consolidated in far flung rural counties because their are very few students left. The reason is that nearly all of the younger residents go to a state university or college and DO NOT ever return to the rural county. To stop the constant cycle of decay I would suggest combining several counties in northwest Kansas or several counties in rural Nebraska into much larger counties with a regional nodal center. Nebraska already has several very large counties in rural areas such as Lincoln County and Cherry County. North Platte and Valentine serve as regional centers in the semi-arid plains. That way, businesses, schools, and industry can be consolidated into a more central location in a large rural area with very low populations. It makes no sense to have all of these individual rural counties that need services, infrastructure, and schools when 25% of the population is over 65. The rural economies of far flung rural counties would do better if resources were concentrated and centralized around the biggest town in the area.

[Rawlings]

Originally Posted by Plains10

I posted a new topic in the Kansas forum about extremely fast declining populations in the rural counties. Consolidation of counties into one or two bigger counties would make sense considering many of these counties have lost more than 25% of the population in the last 20 years. Schools also need to be consolidated in far flung rural counties because their are very few students left. The reason is that nearly all of the younger residents go to a state university or college and DO NOT ever return to the rural county. To stop the constant cycle of decay I would suggest combining several counties in northwest Kansas or several counties in rural Nebraska into much larger counties with a regional nodal center. Nebraska already has several very large counties in rural areas such as Lincoln County and Cherry County. North Platte and Valentine serve as regional centers in the semi-arid plains. That way, businesses, schools, and industry can be consolidated into a more central location in a large rural area with very low populations. It makes no sense to have all of these individual rural counties that need services, infrastructure, and schools when 25% of the population is over 65. The rural economies of far flung rural counties would do better if resources were concentrated and centralized around the biggest town in the area.

Did you see the article Thursday in the Wall Street Journal about Youngstown, OH? It basically noted how they've got a 10-year plan there to tear down old homes, beautify neighborhoods, and give the town a more rural feel. It's so hard for me to imagine--coming from baby-crazy Colorado--but it's probably the best plan.