City Population Estimates

[manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl

Thanks for the explanation. Rep point for you!
Do you know how big the land area is now for Omaha?

Nope. Omaha has passed 60(!) ordinances of land annexation since 2010 (and every year but 2014): Municipal Boundary Changes

So if you wanted to find out, you can look at all of the ordinances in the link above and see which specific subdivisions were annexed. But Omaha does a terrible job of making those ordinances accessible online and there's a lot of numbers to add up. So I would say it's nearly impossible without contacting their Department of Planning.

You can also go here: https://www.douglascountyclerk.org/i...ed_09-2017.pdf (WARNING: PDF) and try to figure out the land areas for the Sanitary and Improvement Districts Omaha has annexed since 2010.

[rnc2mbfl]

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

Nope. Omaha has passed 60(!) ordinances of land annexation since 2010 (and every year but 2014): Municipal Boundary Changes

So if you wanted to find out, you can look at all of the ordinances in the link above and see which specific subdivisions were annexed. But Omaha does a terrible job of making those ordinances accessible online and there's a lot of numbers to add up. So I would say it's nearly impossible without contacting their Department of Planning.

You can also go here: https://www.douglascountyclerk.org/i...ed_09-2017.pdf (WARNING: PDF) and try to figure out the land areas for the Sanitary and Improvement Districts Omaha has annexed since 2010.

Wow. The Omaha story is fascinating when you consider the numerical gymnastics that seem to be at play since the last Census.
For example, its county, Douglas, has a revised 2010 Census population of 517,116 and a 2017 estimate of 561,620. This is growth of 44,504 within a county boundary that hasn't changed. That's the only thing that seems stable here.
If you take the original 2010 Census count for Omaha, 408,958, and its 2017 estimate of 466,893, that would be more growth than the entire county has had. Subsequent revisions of Omaha's estimate pushed the 2010 numbers up by tens of thousands to nearly 450,000. This has resulted in only modest growth of under 18,000 people, despite the 60 separate land annexations since the last Census.

[atler8]

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

Annexing land. Omaha annexes land like people change underwear: https://omahaintercept.com/posts/why...loves-annexing

A great explanatory article there so thanks for providing the link.
Actually, Omaha has relied on such "forced" or involuntary annexations for decades. In the 1970's there was a bitter fight in which Omaha prevailed and annexed the then largest southwest side suburb called Millard. So, though the article speaks only as to annexations by Omaha since 2014, the city has used that strategy to bolster it's growth for many, many years.

[rnc2mbfl]

Originally Posted by atler8

A great explanatory article there so thanks for providing the link.
Actually, Omaha has relied on such "forced" or involuntary annexations for decades. In the 1970's there was a bitter fight in which Omaha prevailed and annexed the then largest southwest side suburb called Millard. So, though the article speaks only as to annexations by Omaha since 2014, the city has used that strategy to bolster it's growth for many, many years.

I wonder what's at play here. It would seem that nobody wants to develop/grow within the existing city footprint; at least it seems that way from this story. Does Omaha have too much red tape for development within its limits? It might be easier for them to let the burbs happen and then gobble them up. It would also seem that this sort of growth annexation growth strategy makes the city less dense over time. I guess we'll see if that's true after the next Census?
Sunbelt cities grew for decades using this strategy, but many of them are now hemmed in and have to grow within their limits. Increased densities will also be evident for many sunbelt cities in the next Census as well. Even if the Sunbelt cities keep annexing, sfh lots continue to get smaller and the new suburban densities are much higher than much of the development in the 70s and 80s when a lot of these cities saw massive growth.