Anybody want out? (Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati: leases, tax, live)

[14thandYou]

OK, after today's earthquake, Columbus is suddenly MUCH more attractive. Like I said, perspective.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Kamms

What goes up must come down...

Does that apply to all the multitude of other cities mentioned in the thread that are apparently doing so much better than Columbus? Or is this just wishful thinking on your part?

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

I'm honestly not certain where you're going with this--I didn't make any claims to DC being the World's Most Exciting City, or invite comparisons between it and other cities. I merely stated that DC offers more of the things I value in a city than Columbus does. I was looking for a more lively, cultural, cosmopolitan city, and found it in DC. It doesn't mean that DC is a panacea, or that everyone unhappy with Columbus should move there. There are probably people that would prefer Minot over DC or Columbus as well, but those people value different things than I do.

That's cool. I'm glad that you're happy in Columbus--clearly it suits you well. But yes, there are people who value different things than it appears you do. I reached a point where I felt like I needed to move on, and I've gotten to know a number of Columbus transplants who feel similarly. I don't think Columbus is a bad city or that people who claim to enjoy living there are "settling" or otherwise dishonest; rather, we're just looking for different things.

So why do so many people seem to get a kick out of trashing Columbus at every turn? I do understand what you're saying and think that's a fair assessment. Different places for different people. I just don't get the subtle (and not-so-subtle) trash talk and condescension that so many people feel the need to take part in.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by gobucks86

This is how I kind of am. I really don't make a big deal out of much. I live in a city where I have a lot of friends, a decent job (looking to get one with my degree though), some things to do, and it's close to a big city (Cleveland).

I feel a lot of people on this site expect way too much out of cities, or have this preconceived notion that if they moved to a bigger city with more to do they'll be doing ALL those things and their lives will be MUCH better because of it. But, a lot of times it's never true. My buddy moved to California for a job and he said he's glad he never expected to be at the beach everyday because he doesn't have the time, nor does he have the desire to go often even when he does have the time.

Also, I think people just like to complain lol.

True, the grass is rarely as green as advertised. For me, it's always been less about the place than in what I'm able to do with it and the people there. I can live anywhere so long as I have a few good friends to pass the time with. Some people need to be doing something different 365 days a year, and not every city is going to fit that need. Others don't like the huge amount of activity in the larger cities. For example, I don't really "get" the appeal of suburban life, but for some that's the best existance there is. I understand that we all have different expectations and desires about our place of residence. Sometimes, though, people try too hard to downplay a place simply because they haven't been able to make it work. IMO, that says more about those individuals than in the overall quality of the city.

[Matthew Hall]

Anyone can describe the past or present, but attempting to understand the future is more difficult. I am having trouble seeing a future for columbus much different from its present. A lot of people are wondering about the future in these uncertain times. I may well be missing something, but I was hoping that someone here could do more than recite the data we can all find for ourselves. I'm not concerned that columbus has a bad future, I just don't see how it can be anything besides a college town/ gov't camp/ back office location for businesses headquartered elsewhere. That is fine, but I think columbus could be more if it had a committed local economic and political elite, which it largely does not.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Matthew Hall

Anyone can describe the past or present, but attempting to understand the future is more difficult. I am having trouble seeing a future for columbus much different from its present. A lot of people are wondering about the future in these uncertain times. I may well be missing something, but I was hoping that someone here could do more than recite the data we can all find for ourselves. I'm not concerned that columbus has a bad future, I just don't see how it can be anything besides a college town/ gov't camp/ back office location for businesses headquartered elsewhere. That is fine, but I think columbus could be more if it had a committed local economic and political elite, which it largely does not.

Columbus' present is double-digit population growth, a rising GDP, continued development, business growth... yeah... if that's all you can see for the future, I don't think anyone is going to have a problem with that. People seem to love to downplay Columbus, and have been doing so for a long time. It has done just fine without everyone believing in it.

[Matthew Hall]

The double- digit growth is since 2000 and includes areas far beyond the columbus commuter area. Recent IRS and BLS data show columbus' growth slowing since 2008. Those in Columbus are doing well, but if they don't always do well will they stay? I somehow doubted. Most of Columbus' population growth is economic refugees from the great lakes and northeast. That flow can certainly continue, but will the businesses investment hold up to bring them here? Columbus has always been much more transient than other midwest metros. While I think this brings problems of its own, it can still work if people keep coming to take the place of those leaving. This means columbus is more exposed to the vagaries of the national and global economy than other midwest cities, for better and for worse. It is good that if people lose their job here they usually leave if they can't find another job here. This keeps unemployment lower here, but it deprives the city of a local economic network that is important in the creation of new, homegrown companies. Again, this pattern of transience and domination by outside companies seems to hard to break. Maybe columbus never will, but it will always mean that columbus will be where decisions are implemented, not made.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Matthew Hall

The double- digit growth is since 2000 and includes areas far beyond the columbus commuter area. Recent IRS and BLS data show columbus' growth slowing since 2008. Those in Columbus are doing well, but if they don't always do well will they stay? I somehow doubted. Most of Columbus' population growth is economic refugees from the great lakes and northeast. That flow can certainly continue, but will the businesses investment hold up to bring them here? Columbus has always been much more transient than other midwest metros. While I think this brings problems of its own, it can still work if people keep coming to take the place of those leaving. This means columbus is more exposed to the vagaries of the national and global economy than other midwest cities, for better and for worse. It is good that if people lose their job here they usually leave if they can't find another job here. This keeps unemployment lower here, but it deprives the city of a local economic network that is important in the creation of new, homegrown companies. Again, this pattern of transience and domination by outside companies seems to hard to break. Maybe columbus never will, but it will always mean that columbus will be where decisions are implemented, not made.

Um, no. Columbus has never gone through a single decade that it didn't grow in population, and has been growing in double digits for the last 30 years. It is not the recent phenomenon you seem to believe it is.

And your contention is that if the economy collapses, people won't stay? Wow, incredible insight. What's next, saying those that make minimum wage earn less than those earning 6 figures? I understand the point you are making, I just am not getting what evidence you have that this is going to happen or is in fact, happening now. You say that the economy is slowing since 2008... you mean since the heart of the recession kicked in? And given that the city's GDP continued to grow throughout 2009, not to mention the Brookings report that has Columbus, again, as one of the top 20 economies in the country, that would all seem to contradict your assertion. As far as the transience goes, that has to do with the very large student population, but obviously far more people stay than leave, otherwise there would be a stagnant population or even a loss.
And is it not possible that unemployment is simply lower because more people have jobs?
Sorry, but you have just not supported anything you have said. This is not how you make an argument. Either present hard numbers and figures showing the inevitable decline of Columbus or don't expect to be taken seriously.

[14thandYou]

Is Columbus more transient than cities like Pittsburgh, Indianapolis or St. Louis? Where's the data to support that? I'm not stating whether it is or isn't true, I've simply never heard anyone raise that before.

[Matthew Hall]

Um, yes. I never mentioned any comparison between the ten year census numbers. But, we know from IRS w-4 filings and Burea of Labor Statistics that Columbus' fastest growth was from 1995 to 2007. It wasn't hard to grow double digits in an era of expanding govn't and education from a much smaller base population. Growing from 800,000 to 1,000,000 is much easier than growing from 1,850,000 to 2,250,000. Breaking through the 2 million metro population is a real glass ceiling. Govn't is ( supposed ) to be getting smaller and universities are struggling for funding like never before while southern cities are cheaper and more agressive. Nashville, Charlotte and Raleigh are going for the investment's columbus used to get. columbus population growth rates have slowed since 2007, for many different reasons I'm sure. The fact that few people are committed to columbus as a place is significant and not obvious. Some metro's have been able to hold on to skilled people in hard times and rebuild with strong local economic networks such as Pittsburgh and Louisville. Columbus is much more transient than pittsburgh, and st. louis and even somewhat more than indy; and OSU is only part of that. All this is just to say that the past does not quarantee the future. Columbus shouldn't get complacent like Atlanta where population growth came to a shuddering halt in 2007 after gaining half a million in the previous ten years. The most recent Atlanta MSA numbers suggest that it has had a slight population decline since then. People would have laughed in your face if you'd suggested that in 2007.