Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
cityboi

Greensboro is one of the fastest growing cities nationwide

11 posts in this topic

According to Forbes, Greensboro ranks 9th out of 111 cities with metros over 200,000 people. However some say that growth is inflated because the city annexed over 10,000 people several years ago. However, Charlotte ranked better than Greensboro and the vast majority of that growth was through annexation. I don't think the ranking should be downplayed because cities grow in a number of ways and the list is not specific to immigration. Its a little difficult to come up with figures that show how many people actually moved to the city. But there may be some other numbers that may help back up Greensboro's growth in terms of people moving to the city and thats the jobs numbers. Over the past several years there have been a number of major job expansions in Greensboro so we know the city is growing.
 
 
 
Edited by cityboi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Charlotte ranked better than Greensboro and the vast majority of that growth was through annexation. 

uhm - false.  

 

This "vast majority of growth" is not through annexation.   Yes Charlotte, like ALL cities (yes that includes Greensboro) in North Carolina has benefited from NC's favorable annexation laws for cities (which I think is changing).but we went through this rumor debunking on the Charlotte board last year.

 

I'm linking my post on this subject from less than a year ago which basically (along with the map linked by AH59396) shows that of teh 40,000 people gained in one year only 10% of them was through annexation.

 

I'm  thrilled for Greensboro's mention - but am tired of the cattiness of other cities in NC about Charlotte's growth and always pretend it's through "annexation".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhm - false.  

 

This "vast majority of growth" is not through annexation.   Yes Charlotte, like ALL cities (yes that includes Greensboro) in North Carolina has benefited from NC's favorable annexation laws for cities (which I think is changing).but we went through this rumor debunking on the Charlotte board last year.

 

I'm linking my post on this subject from less than a year ago which basically (along with the map linked by AH59396) shows that of teh 40,000 people gained in one year only 10% of them was through annexation.

 

I'm  thrilled for Greensboro's mention - but am tired of the cattiness of other cities in NC about Charlotte's growth and always pretend it's through "annexation".  

 The key is coming up with a list that breaks down how many people are moving in versus annexation. Like Charlotte, people point out the fact that Greensboro is growing because of annexation. In terms of people moving in, i'm sure the figures are much higher in Charlotte. But honestly what does it really matter. If a city is growing faster because of annexation, that still indicates healthy growth in a city. I like to think of it as people moving to a city before they have been annexed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The key is coming up with a list that breaks down how many people are moving in versus annexation. Like Charlotte, people point out the fact that Greensboro is growing because of annexation. In terms of people moving in, i'm sure the figures are much higher in Charlotte. But honestly what does it really matter. If a city is growing faster because of annexation, that still indicates healthy growth in a city. I like to think of it as people moving to a city before they have been annexed.

 

I think the point is that you took a swipe (and an ignorant and false one at that) at Charlotte in order to talk about something good happening to Greensboro.

Again - I'm happy for Greensboro - just why don't you try talking about Greensboro instead of dragging in another city?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is that you took a swipe (and an ignorant and false one at that) at Charlotte in order to talk about something good happening to Greensboro.

Again - I'm happy for Greensboro - just why don't you try talking about Greensboro instead of dragging in another city?

 

To be fair, Charlotte ranked 4th on that same list and you have this quote in the News-Record article:

 

Annexations aside, Cox said, North Carolina is growing. Also, he added, the state has some of the nation’s most liberal annexation laws.

And Charlotte, ranked No. 4 on the list, likely saw much growth through annexations, he said.

“Charlotte annexes about every day,” Cox said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you missed an important part of that same story:  

The Forbes report is based on the research of Wendell Cox, principal of Demographia, an international public policy consulting firm.

 

The rankings are derived from U.S. Census Bureau data, which don’t account for annexation, Cox said.

 

So for high-ranking cities, the growth could be due in part to annexations, he said.

But, Cox explained, “annexation is also a way that cities grow. Obviously, stronger growth would be indicated by people actually moving in, but we don’t have that data, unfortunately.”

 

And btw the original full quote (with bolded emphasis being mine) about Charlotte annexations is a little clearer that this research firm is not speaking with facts but broad assumptions - one of which is patently false.

Annexations aside, Cox said, North Carolina is growing. Also, he added, the state has some of the nation’s most liberal annexation laws.

 

And Charlotte, ranked No. 4 on the list, likely saw much growth through annexations, he said.

Charlotte annexes about every day,” Cox said.

 

Over any 10-year period, Charlotte has shown growth. A check of the city’s land area will likely show lots of annexation, he said.

 

HUH?   We don't even annex every year let alone every day!  The last annexation discussion is the one I linked to earlier in this thread where it was 4K people (out of a growth of 40K). 

 

And he is making these assumptions over a guess (of Likely btw - he didn't even research it)  that if you look at land annexed that equals much of the population growth?  What kind of research is that?  

 

As far as I'm aware the majority of land area that Charlotte has annexed in the last ten years are may be any size tract of land, but the population that resides on them is small subdivisions and rural/suburban areas not significant population numbers.

 

I'm saying for the third time in this thread - I'm thrilled for Greensboro, but I question why a thread started about a positive for Greensboro had to do so by making a negative qualifier for another city.  Since that falsity was raised I will dispute it.

Edited by Urbanity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you missed an important part of that same story:  

 

And btw the original full quote (with bolded emphasis being mine) about Charlotte annexations is a little clearer that this research firm is not speaking with facts but broad assumptions - one of which is patently false.

 

HUH?   We don't even annex every year let alone every day!  The last annexation discussion is the one I linked to earlier in this thread where it was 4K people (out of a growth of 40K). 

 

And he is making these assumptions over a guess (of Likely btw - he didn't even research it)  that if you look at land annexed that equals much of the population growth?  What kind of research is that?  

 

As far as I'm aware the majority of land area that Charlotte has annexed in the last ten years are may be any size tract of land, but the population that resides on them is small subdivisions and rural/suburban areas not significant population numbers.

 

I'm saying for the third time in this thread - I'm thrilled for Greensboro, but I question why a thread started about a positive for Greensboro had to do so by making a negative qualifier for another city.  Since that falsity was raised I will dispute it.

 

i wasn't taking a swipe at Charlotte. I was restating what was said in the News&Record article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying for the third time in this thread - I'm thrilled for Greensboro, but I question why a thread started about a positive for Greensboro had to do so by making a negative qualifier for another city.  Since that falsity was raised I will dispute it.

 

The point is that cityboi only repeated what the article itself said. So if anyone was taking a "swipe" at Charlotte, it was the writer of the article or the author of the study, not cityboi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Apparently, someone didn't tell this columnist the good news.

 

 

 I believe Guarino is correct in stating, “The responsibility for the city’s decline ultimately rests with citizens who refuse to vote in municipal elections. If we continue to allow the same old power groups to determine how the city is run, the city will likely continue to decline.”

 

She's a part of a tea party group that I'll cover in another post about the competing factions in the city's elections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we dont need any more tea party folk on city council. thank god the citizens came to their senses and voted them out last election

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear Dr. Brod's extended comments not included in the original N&R article provides additional clarity on the subject:

"What I'm saying is very similar to what retail chains do when they analyze same-store sales growth. If they include new sales from new stores, it skews their interpretation of the sales figures. Similarly with Greensboro's population growth. Did we grow 12+%? Sure. But our civic and economic-development leaders need to understand WHY we ranked so high. Only two-thirds of that growth, or about 8%, came from "same-store sales growth." After all, the residents of the Cardinal didn't move to Greensboro. They just changed their addresses. That's not a bad thing, but let's be clear on what it means. What I actually told the N&R reporter was "less than 2% a year." If the annexation is netted out, our growth in 2007-12 was a tad above 8%. That works out to about 1.6% per year."

 

I would find that to be a very acceptable growth rate...It matches Winston-Salem's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.