[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Uh... I’m not pretending. In a state as crowded as ours and as maturely developed (meaning little vacant land available to build upon), I do not think we should be encouraging growth just for the sake of growth. Sure, if we could force all the growth to occur in our cities, it would be great but unfortunately outside of a few major cities in our country, most of the growth is suburban and sprawling in nature. That’s the last thing we need.

Still if you look at how our population has changed, you will see population growth in more urban areas and decreases in more rural and suburban areas. To me this appears because of lower birth rates meaning that there are fewer and fewer families with more than two kids these days.

I also believe modest growth if any is better because you can accommodate that growth better than fast growth. You can improve infrastructure in a timely manner without impacting people. Please note that I’m not saying Connecticut is doing that, just that it can be done. Jay

I don’t disagree with any of your points, but nobody can say with a straight face that population decline from outward migration is a good thing. That’s, unfortunately, what’s happening.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I don’t disagree with any of your points, but nobody can say with a straight face that population decline from outward migration is a good thing. That’s, unfortunately, what’s happening.

Is it? According to the US Census, our state has lost only 8,810 people since 2010. That is only 0.246% which statistically is nothing. That is well within the margin of error for any estimate. We won’t know the true change in population until we complete the new census this year. Until then, we really don’t know with any certainty how our population has changed. Jay

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CT

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Is it? According to the US Census, our state has lost only 8,810 people since 2010. That is only 0.246% which statistically is nothing. That is well within the margin of error for any estimate. We won’t know the true change in population until we complete the new census this year. Until then, we really don’t know with any certainty how our population has changed. Jay

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CT

Fellow members have posted many sources showing that, yes, it is. And it’s not at all a good thing like it has been implied here.

You are right - the census will speak volumes.

[MMS02760]

The New London Day reports that 2019 revenues were once again down at the two CT casinos which it attributed to increasing regional competition:

Casinos’ revenues were down in fiscal 2019, annual reports show
https://www.theday.com/article/20191231/BIZ02/191239905


Mohegan Sun’s net revenues for the fiscal year were $992 million, down 7.2 percent over the $1.07 billion it took in the previous fiscal year.

Foxwoods’ net revenues were $787.8 million, down 5 percent from $828.9 million.

A year ago, both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun reported smaller year-over-year declines in net revenues for fiscal 2018.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

I still wish long depressed Bridgeport would get the 3rd casino.

The city needs a boost of large magnitude, and the casino headcounts dwarf anything else it would stand even a remote shot at.

I know it would not last forever, as 40 states will have casinos I would think by 2030, but even a good 5-10 year run at a huge employer would be a true shot in the arm.

Nah, I don't see it Bob.
Not tomorrow, but down the road, tech and AI will render brick and mortar casinos obsolete, just like retail, McJobs, and the college campus.
We're too late in the game for construction now, maybe if they started it 10-20 years ago as originally planned.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

Nah, I don't see it Bob.
Not tomorrow, but down the road, tech and AI will render brick and mortar casinos obsolete, just like retail, McJobs, and the college campus.
We're too late in the game for construction now, maybe if they started it 10-20 years ago as originally planned.

If you are correct, I see no meaningful change in the city's economic fortunes. A few stores and residences near what has long been called Steelpoint are not a "game changer".

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Fellow members have posted many sources showing that, yes, it is. And it’s not at all a good thing like it has been implied here.

You are right - the census will speak volumes.

You are saying that the loss of less than 9,000 people out of over 3.5 million is a problem? That’s about 52 people less per town. It would hardly be noticed even in the smallest of towns. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Fellow members have posted many sources showing that, yes, it is. And it’s not at all a good thing like it has been implied here.

You are right - the census will speak volumes.

Especially regarding Ct population change vs US growth. Many analysts project in the 2030 census, we will lose another Congressional seat at our current rate.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

You are saying that the loss of less than 9,000 people out of over 3.5 million is a problem? That’s about 52 people less per town. It would hardly be noticed even in the smallest of towns. Jay

I’m saying a loss, regardless of how small or large, coupled with the fact that it’s statistically high income residents, is a problem. A big one. To put into perspective, that’s equivalent to the entire town of Woodbridge.

Any loss should be met with concern.

[Stepfordct]

In retail if you keep losing customer counts then you must increase costs to maintain profitability. At some point the customer decides it's no longer worth it.
It's never sustainable over a long run. To suggest that these numbers are wrong year after year possibly is more than optimistic.