U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-08-2011, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Piedmont, CA
34,152 posts, read 58,920,012 times
Reputation: 17485

Advertisements



The Census Bureau reports:
Oakland Population 2000: 399,484
Oakland Population 2010: 390,724
Census 2010 News | U.S. Census Bureau Delivers California's 2010 Census Population Totals, Including First Look at Race and Hispanic Origin Data for Legislative Redistricting

If that were true, then that represents a drop of 2.2%.

However,that is in stark contrast with with the State of California's own research:

State of California reports:
Oakland Population 2010: 430,666
E-4 Population Estimates, 2001-10 - California Department of Finance

If the State is true, than Oakland's actually grown by 7.7%.

This means that potentially millions of dollars are on the line in federal funding. It means that Oakland for some reason, despite having added 4,500 new housing units downtown-still managed to lose population? Meanwhile every other major city in the state except Santa Ana grew-even if at stifled rates?

That doesnt add up to me and I think all Oaklanders should contact their city leaders immediately and urge them to take action against the Census Bureau to correct this huge error. State have never been able to reverse a Census estimate but CITIES HAVE. So go ahead and get in contact with our local leaders and make sure that they know how important this is.

Login | Facebook

Contact Us ~ City of Oakland, California
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-08-2011, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 13,806,184 times
Reputation: 4047
I cosign with you, the US Census has really been screwing a lot of places over.

By any chance do you know what Sacramento's city population came out to be?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Piedmont, CA
34,152 posts, read 58,920,012 times
Reputation: 17485
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY View Post
I cosign with you, the US Census has really been screwing a lot of places over.

By any chance do you know what Sacramento's city population came out to be?
Yes, according to the Census Bureau, the beautiful city of Sacramento grew by 59,470 and now has 466,488, a growth of 14.6%.

On the other hand, that still seems off cause the state reports that Sacramento actually has 486,189.

If I were Sac city leaders, I wouldnt stand for it. That's 20,000 that will be ignored when it comes to federal funding.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 13,806,184 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
If I were Sac city leaders, I wouldnt stand for it. That's 20,000 that will be ignored when it comes to federal funding.
The common pattern with extreme undercounts so far have been cities that had a low US Census form return rate have been incredibly under counted. This Census has been bogus, but at least overall the Bay Area didn't get screwed like the Metroplex, Dallas the city got 110,000 less than estimates, the MSA got 300,000 less than estimates, & CSA got 300,000 less than the estimates. That has got to hurt the most.

That's the signal for New York to start panicking (if any of them care) like a maniac because they had the lowest rate in the country, with Chicago & Philadelphia next up.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 03:30 PM
 
Location: South Korea
5,242 posts, read 12,026,212 times
Reputation: 2952
Remember when Republicans were whining about how nobody should respond because it was the evil government coming to take over their tinfoil-coated brains? Maybe it was all part of their plan to disenfranchise and oppress minorities as usual.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Piedmont, CA
34,152 posts, read 58,920,012 times
Reputation: 17485
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayorhaggar View Post
Remember when Republicans were whining about how nobody should respond because it was the evil government coming to take over their tinfoil-coated brains? Maybe it was all part of their plan to disenfranchise and oppress minorities as usual.
Well, unfortunately for the most rogue elements of the GOP, that goes without saying.

In any event, Its really incumbent upon us to make sure that this error does not stand. The very least we can do is contact our civic leaders and congressional representatives to voice our concern.

Im really concerned about 40,000 Oaklanders the Census Bureau is saying do not exist. Ironically Im guessing those are the 40,000 who will need help the most.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 03:48 PM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,539 posts, read 24,042,759 times
Reputation: 8833
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Yes, according to the Census Bureau, the beautiful city of Sacramento grew by 59,470 and now has 466,488, a growth of 14.6%.

On the other hand, that still seems off cause the state reports that Sacramento actually has 486,189.

If I were Sac city leaders, I wouldnt stand for it. That's 20,000 that will be ignored when it comes to federal funding.
hey, hook me up with a comparison for San Diego if you don't mind. The census estimate seems low for SD too IMO.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 03:49 PM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,539 posts, read 24,042,759 times
Reputation: 8833
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayorhaggar View Post
Remember when Republicans were whining about how nobody should respond because it was the evil government coming to take over their tinfoil-coated brains? Maybe it was all part of their plan to disenfranchise and oppress minorities as usual.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Piedmont, CA
34,152 posts, read 58,920,012 times
Reputation: 17485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo View Post
hey, hook me up with a comparison for San Diego if you don't mind. The census estimate seems low for SD too IMO.
San Diego 2010 Census 1,307,402 +83,004 +6.9%

San Diego 2010 CA Dept of Finance 1,376,173

In other words, there are 69,000 San Diegans who do not exist according to the federal government.

I really need to make a thread on this topic.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2011, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,171 posts, read 13,806,184 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo View Post
hey, hook me up with a comparison for San Diego if you don't mind. The census estimate seems low for SD too IMO.
By City:
- Los Angeles: 3,792,621
- San Diego: 1,307,402
- San Jose: 945,942
- San Francisco: 805,235
- Sacramento: 466,488
- Oakland: 390,724

San Diego MSA:
- San Diego County, CA: 3,095,313
Total: 3,095,313

San Jose MSA:
- Santa Clara County, CA: 1,781,642
- San Benito County, CA: 55,269
Total: 1,839,911

Los Angeles MSA:
- Los Angeles County, CA: 9,818,605
- Orange County, CA: 3,010,232
Total: 12,828,837

Los Angeles CSA:
- Los Angeles County, CA: 9,818,605
- Orange County, CA: 3,010,232
- Riverside County, CA: 2,189,641
- Ventura County, CA: 823,318
- San Bernardino County, CA: 2,035,210
Total: 17,877,506

San Francisco/Oakland MSA:
- Alameda County, CA: 1,510,271
- Contra Costa County, CA: 1,049,025
- San Mateo County, CA: 718,451
- Marin County, CA: 252,409
- San Francisco County, CA: 805,235
Total: 4,335,391

Bay Area CSA:
- Alameda County, CA: 1,510,271
- Contra Costa County, CA: 1,049,025
- San Mateo County, CA: 718,451
- Marin County, CA: 252,409
- San Francisco County, CA: 805,235
- Santa Clara County, CA: 1,781,642
- San Benito County, CA: 55,269
- Santa Cruz County, CA: 262,382
- Napa County, CA: 136,484
- Solano County, CA: 413,344
- Sonoma County, CA: 483,878
Total: 7,468,390

Sacramento MSA:
- Yolo County, CA: 200,849
- Placer County, CA: 348,432
- El Dorado County, CA: 181,058
- Sacramento County, CA: 1,418,788
Total: 2,149,127

Sacramento CSA:
- Yolo County, CA: 200,849
- Placer County, CA: 348,432
- El Dorado County, CA: 181,058
- Sacramento County, CA: 1,418,788
- Yuba County, CA: 72,155
- Sutter County, CA: 94,737
- Nevada County, CA: 98,764
- Douglas County, NV: 46,997
Total: 2,461,780

That would be $20 for the information.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top