Why is Omaha so much more progressive then Lincoln politically? (Grand Island: property taxes, housing)

[Rawlings]

Originally Posted by MattDen

Anyway, I am not stereotyping all of Lincoln they have many exceptions to the rule. They do have nice middle-class family neighborhoods but Lincoln has an unusually high amount of people in alot of its neighborhoods who live in small shacks and trailer-parks and have lots of babies. I have never seen anything like it before actually.

The fact I live blocks from a 20,000 student college campus and its alot of large families speaks volumes on Lincoln. Most colleges such as Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh and University of Colorado-Boulder along with the University of Minnesota are mainly college students and people in their 20s who are single living in the neighborhoods adjacent to the university. With Lincoln the large family areas start just outside of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus. And the thing with Lincoln the absoluteist high concentration of very large families doesnt level off much until one leaves the Lincoln city limits.

I am sure the Colorado rate of 7.3% might be because of the San Luis Valley and Weld County. The city of Denver has been closing primary schools for years. Colorado Springs just closed a school down because of low enrollment and Pueblo has a very low birth-rate because its an aging city. Alot of the South-central Colorado have lots of women having lots of babies that they cant take care of but in Colorado at least the attitude of the majority of people like that is we dont want them there. In Nebraska they seem to embrace it by things such as the LPS baby-care for women who have made very, very bad choices.

On the other hand, Lincoln had to pass 250 million dollar bond issue last year just to keep up with the surging out-of control birth-rate. The public schools in Lincoln cant even keep up with the amount of babies people have here thats why they have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of schools for capital projects. And if the 250 million dollar bond issue wasnt enough to keep up with demand, the Lincoln Public school board passed a tax increase another 10+ million dollars just a few weeks ago because enrollment projections are surging to astronomical levels for a city of this size.

7.1% is rather high considering that so many counties in this state are aging so a few counties like Lancaster, Dawson and Hall county have to make up for it by having lots and lots of babies.

I remember seeing what the school enrollment was in proportion to the population in Lexington and was completely shocked. It was around 25% which is incredible. Many cities are below 10% on public school enrollment as a percentage of the population.

I intend on looking up some more school enrollments as a pecentage of population, I remember being startled by how high enrollment is in Lincoln compared to larger cities like Pittsburgh, PA and Toledo, OH. Lincoln is also closing in Minneapolis 33,000 vs. 36,000 Minneapolis

Lincoln actually has higher public school enrollment then Pittsburgh which is a larger city which is amazing when you think of it.

Matt, what are you talking about? Colorado has one of the highest birth rates in the country--#8, I think, according to the 2005 census. Colorado is a baby-making machine! In fact, Colorado's birth rate is considerably higher than Nebraska's. Consider the following NYT article specifically about suburban Denver...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/op...fe6d2e&ei=5090

Colorado's schools are bursting at the seams--especially in Pueblo and other heavily Latino districts. In my hometown district of Jefferson County they can't build enough schools to keep up with the growing kid-population. Colorado Springs has one of the highest fertility rates in America! There's lots of conservative, evangelical families having like 5 kids a piece. They're actually creating new school districts to keep up with the growing 'demand.'

By the way, the San Luis Valley and Weld County make up a teeny-tiny proportion of Colorado's total population. Let's say those Latina mommas are having like 6 kids each at, oh, 9% of the state's total population. Even then this would only make up for about 27% of all babies in Colorado. But we know that they are not having 6 kids. In fact, it is the educated, white, wealthy families who are having the kids in Colorado! You can slander Weld County and San Luis Valley as a bunch of welfare moms or whatever--I think it's tasteless--but those areas are actually emptying out as more and more people leave the rural areas for the cities.

I think Colorado is a lot more like Nebraska than you might want to admit. You've got the same ethos running the show. I don't know first hand what's going on in Lincoln with teen mothers or whatever--but I can tell you that in Colorado we look at having kids as a can of pringles--once you pop you can't, you can't, you just can't stop. It's the northeastern liberals and poor midwestern towns that are only have a kid or two leaving a giant vacuum in the cities. There was an article about Youngstown, Ohio in the Wall Street Journal the other day about how they're trying to manage the shrinking population.

Not so in Colorado--and apparently Nebraska. I'm guessing that Denver/Colorado Springs is a whole lot like Omaha/Lincoln. I can't believe you think that Coloradans--both white and Latino--have stopped having babies! You can't go through a grocery store in this state without having to maneuver past a gaggle of kids. Go to a church here sometime and watch the spectacle that is a family getting out of their SUV. First it's the mom, then the dad, then big sister, then another kid, then another, then another ad infinitum! You'd think they were fleeing for Canada or something. I'm a younger guy--married--three kids--wife and I are planning on having three more, by the way. And I find that, while that's certainly more than most have, in Colorado I'm becoming part of a large minority of families with at least 4 kids.

[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.

[Plains10]

Originally Posted by Rawlings

Matt, what are you talking about? Colorado has one of the highest birth rates in the country--#8, I think, according to the 2005 census. Colorado is a baby-making machine! In fact, Colorado's birth rate is considerably higher than Nebraska's. Consider the following NYT article specifically about suburban Denver...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/op...fe6d2e&ei=5090

Colorado's schools are bursting at the seams--especially in Pueblo and other heavily Latino districts. In my hometown district of Jefferson County they can't build enough schools to keep up with the growing kid-population. Colorado Springs has one of the highest fertility rates in America! There's lots of conservative, evangelical families having like 5 kids a piece. They're actually creating new school districts to keep up with the growing 'demand.'

By the way, the San Luis Valley and Weld County make up a teeny-tiny proportion of Colorado's total population. Let's say those Latina mommas are having like 6 kids each at, oh, 9% of the state's total population. Even then this would only make up for about 27% of all babies in Colorado. But we know that they are not having 6 kids. In fact, it is the educated, white, wealthy families who are having the kids in Colorado! You can slander Weld County and San Luis Valley as a bunch of welfare moms or whatever--I think it's tasteless--but those areas are actually emptying out as more and more people leave the rural areas for the cities.

I think Colorado is a lot more like Nebraska than you might want to admit. You've got the same ethos running the show. I don't know first hand what's going on in Lincoln with teen mothers or whatever--but I can tell you that in Colorado we look at having kids as a can of pringles--once you pop you can't, you can't, you just can't stop. It's the northeastern liberals and poor midwestern towns that are only have a kid or two leaving a giant vacuum in the cities. There was an article about Youngstown, Ohio in the Wall Street Journal the other day about how they're trying to manage the shrinking population.

Not so in Colorado--and apparently Nebraska. I'm guessing that Denver/Colorado Springs is a whole lot like Omaha/Lincoln. I can't believe you think that Coloradans--both white and Latino--have stopped having babies! You can't go through a grocery store in this state without having to maneuver past a gaggle of kids. Go to a church here sometime and watch the spectacle that is a family getting out of their SUV. First it's the mom, then the dad, then big sister, then another kid, then another, then another ad infinitum! You'd think they were fleeing for Canada or something. I'm a younger guy--married--three kids--wife and I are planning on having three more, by the way. And I find that, while that's certainly more than most have, in Colorado I'm becoming part of a large minority of families with at least 4 kids.

I read the article. I find it interesting how stark the regional differences are in terms of the demograhpic divide. The Front Range of Colorado has A LOT of cultural and religious similarities with the Great Plains region. It also is true that large numbers of College graduates from the Great Plains are migrating toward urban areas like Denver for higher paying jobs. Conservatives also seem to have more kids than liberals as a rule. The counties with the highest concentration of the population under 18 would be Douglas County, Adams County, and Weld County. Denver County now has over 9% of the population under the age of 5. That is an unbelievably high number for an urban county with a large population. I think that Colorado may be turning even more conservative in the future as well which is an idea that is a little frightening.
Also, I do not like the idea of increasing property taxes to pay for even more funding for school district expansions. The taxpayers have to foot the bill for all the additional infrastructure that comes from having such a large percentage of the population under 18.
It also seems that their are greater concentrations of conservatives and Republicans in sunbelt areas or sunnier locations. If you look at the political map most of the blue states have fairly cloudy or cold climates.
In the Great Plains their is constant decline and hopelesness among many residents because of the massive brain drain that is occuring. Many young adults leave to go to a state University or College and never return to the rural county. Therefore, the rural counties experience constant decline because of the lack of higher paying jobs, and career fields that attract college graduates.
Some people may really like to live in the Front Range, but it does not appeal to me at all. First, it is a very dry climate with only 10-15 inches of rain a year. If you plant trees they take forever to grow because of the harsh climate of the plains. Whenver, I visited Denver I always noticed how brown many things looked. Also, I-70 west out of Denver can be very congested whenever you want to actually enjoy the scenic mountain areas. Denver has more of a plains flavor than I was expecting for sure.

[MattDen]

Well, Denver might have 9% of population under 5 but its below the national average for school-aged (under 18) 24.8 Denver vs. 25.4 National

Ah well, I guess rather then spending so much property taxes on schools that it's going into light-rail and urban expansions which benefit the entire metropolitan area and not the political special interest group that has babies.

[Plains10]

Originally Posted by Rawlings

Matt, what are you talking about? Colorado has one of the highest birth rates in the country--#8, I think, according to the 2005 census. Colorado is a baby-making machine! In fact, Colorado's birth rate is considerably higher than Nebraska's. Consider the following NYT article specifically about suburban Denver...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/op...fe6d2e&ei=5090

Colorado's schools are bursting at the seams--especially in Pueblo and other heavily Latino districts. In my hometown district of Jefferson County they can't build enough schools to keep up with the growing kid-population. Colorado Springs has one of the highest fertility rates in America! There's lots of conservative, evangelical families having like 5 kids a piece. They're actually creating new school districts to keep up with the growing 'demand.'

By the way, the San Luis Valley and Weld County make up a teeny-tiny proportion of Colorado's total population. Let's say those Latina mommas are having like 6 kids each at, oh, 9% of the state's total population. Even then this would only make up for about 27% of all babies in Colorado. But we know that they are not having 6 kids. In fact, it is the educated, white, wealthy families who are having the kids in Colorado! You can slander Weld County and San Luis Valley as a bunch of welfare moms or whatever--I think it's tasteless--but those areas are actually emptying out as more and more people leave the rural areas for the cities.

I think Colorado is a lot more like Nebraska than you might want to admit. You've got the same ethos running the show. I don't know first hand what's going on in Lincoln with teen mothers or whatever--but I can tell you that in Colorado we look at having kids as a can of pringles--once you pop you can't, you can't, you just can't stop. It's the northeastern liberals and poor midwestern towns that are only have a kid or two leaving a giant vacuum in the cities. There was an article about Youngstown, Ohio in the Wall Street Journal the other day about how they're trying to manage the shrinking population.

Not so in Colorado--and apparently Nebraska. I'm guessing that Denver/Colorado Springs is a whole lot like Omaha/Lincoln. I can't believe you think that Coloradans--both white and Latino--have stopped having babies! You can't go through a grocery store in this state without having to maneuver past a gaggle of kids. Go to a church here sometime and watch the spectacle that is a family getting out of their SUV. First it's the mom, then the dad, then big sister, then another kid, then another, then another ad infinitum! You'd think they were fleeing for Canada or something. I'm a younger guy--married--three kids--wife and I are planning on having three more, by the way. And I find that, while that's certainly more than most have, in Colorado I'm becoming part of a large minority of families with at least 4 kids.

MattDen,
I posted earlier about some of the calculations I came up regarding the percentage of the population under 18 in Lancaster, Douglas, and Sarpy Counties. I projected the numbers and it looks like all of these counties are going to see increases in the total percentage of the population that is under 18, excluding out-migration and in-migration into the counties. I used the under 5 percentage number and projected it out 13 years, so the percentages would be based for the year 2020 given the current percentages of the under 5 population for the counties.

[Plains10]

Originally Posted by MattDen

Well, Denver might have 9% of population under 5 but its below the national average for school-aged (under 18) 24.8 Denver vs. 25.4 National

Ah well, I guess rather then spending so much property taxes on schools that it's going into light-rail and urban expansions which benefit the entire metropolitan area and not the political special interest group that has babies.

Yes, but Denver County now has 9.2% of the population that is under 5 as of 2005. This is in stark contrast to the lower 24.8% of the current population under 18 as of 2005. If the 9.2% rate continued for the next 13 years then their would be 32.2% of the total population of Denver County under the age of 18 by the year 2020 if you exclude in-migration and out-migration into or out of the county. The whole Front Range is starting to mirror the demographics of Utah.

[mattpoulsen]

Mattden,

...and not the political special interest group that has babies.


He he! Are you kidding? What "political special interest" are you talking about. You mean people?? People have babies...its kind of a necessity. There is no special interest for "people". By definintion, a special interest group is a group that is cooperating together to achieve certain political goals that they could not achieve on their own. To suggest that families belong to one big special interest group is pretty ridiculous because nearly the entire population at one point or another would belong to this mythical special interest group.

You are obviously bitter and hold some sort of serious grudge towards families. I'm not sure why. But, with Lincoln, you possess a significant disdain and hatred.

I have no problem whatsoever with you disagreeing with policies enacted or decisions made by different leaders, but the things you are accusing Lincoln of are just imaginary. You are just making the stuff up, so you can insult an entire city's people, which you clearly dislike.

[mattpoulsen]

Anyway, I am not stereotyping all of Lincoln they have many exceptions to the rule. They do have nice middle-class family neighborhoods but Lincoln has an unusually high amount of people in alot of its neighborhoods who live in small shacks and trailer-parks and have lots of babies. I have never seen anything like it before actually.

Yes, you are stereotyping Lincoln. And your "image" of Lincoln is not the rule IT IS the exception. The "rule" in Lincoln is a middle class family with 2.5 kids and a 175,000 home. You are applying a small minority of the population's economic condition to the entire city. And its because you live in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Lincoln. Try looking at the statistics. If your model is correct the average family in Lincoln should be having about 6 kids per family...they are not. They, just like the rest of the U.S., are having there good 'ol 2.5 kids/family.

The fact I live blocks from a 20,000 student college campus and its alot of large families speaks volumes on Lincoln. Most colleges such as Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh and University of Colorado-Boulder along with the University of Minnesota are mainly college students and people in their 20s who are single living in the neighborhoods adjacent to the university.

What does this have to do with anything?? You can find many many colleges across the U.S. who have a poor neighborhood d adjacent to them. Just because you can list 3 that don't is completely irrelevant. Homes around college campuses are not traditionally prime real estate!! The small poor neighborhood next to UNL's campus is not indicative of all Lincoln...period. Its less than 1% of the city. You inferring otherwise is just completely dishonest and anyone who has every been to Lincoln knows this with absolute certainty.

With Lincoln the large family areas start just outside of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus. And the thing with Lincoln the absoluteist high concentration of very large families doesnt level off much until one leaves the Lincoln city limits.

Seriously Matt. Come on! You know you're just making this up! The area of town you are talking about is one of the worst areas of town! Its the oldest most run down area there is! It also represents an extremely small area.

People who haven't been to Lincoln, this area is literally about 2 square miles large. Its tiny!! Mattden happens to live in the area and tries to claim all of Lincoln is like that. Its just a complete lie. I'm not really sure how else to put it. His suggestions are really just unbelievable and I think its just completely mean spirited.

[MattDen]

Imagining what??

Its not a tiny area. The poor areas with very high concentrations of big Nebraska families are not just there.
South Lincoln from 10th to 19th and south of the Capitol to Washington street has tons of women pushing old baby strollers down the street day in and day out and by the looks of the strollers they are mainly 2nd hand. Also basically from 17th to 33rd and from O to Cornhusker is the same lots of large families who cant afford to raise of their babies correctly. Additionally, NW Lincoln near the airport has very high concentration of very large families. Also 27th to 60th from Cornhusker to Fletcher has large areas in those boundries that have lots of people living in small homes with very large households that they cant afford.

A good 1/4 to 1/3 of Lincoln is very blighted and in very bad condition overall. 1/2 the city is more middle-class with decent areas but a good percentage of Lincoln is very blighted with large poor families being raised in shacks, trailer parks.

I have no problem with people having a baby or even large families as long as they send them to private schools so that less property taxes goes to education. At the very least people should have good jobs before they have babies!

I dont doubt they have many families with 2 and 3 kids but they seem to have alot of very large households here also especially in the areas just adjacent to the university except to the area to the south.

Anyway, I looked it up and the facts and enrollment say Lincoln has 33,000 students at LPS and the population is 240,000 people

Minneapolis public schools has 36,000 students for 370,000 people.

Obviously, since Lincoln has a much larger pecentage of students going to public schools then alot of other cities then I am not imagining that Lincoln has alot of very large families.

[Katiana]

Population projection is always tricky. When my DH and I moved into our present house 18 yrs ago, most of the families in this neighborhood had small children, early elementary-school age and younger. Now, most of the families have late high school to college age kids. And there are a few empty nesters. Most of the original residents are still here. The houses that have been sold have generally been bought by young families, but there is not the preponderance of small children there was 18 or even 15 years ago.

A preponderance of births in Lincoln may not mean a huge population increase. Then again, if most of the people having babies are grad students, that group will always be there as long as UNL is there. The grad students will get jobs and move away, to be replaced by more grad students having babies.