Predict the next census

[joeDowntown]

George Heartwell is very liberal. I went through his house on the Heritage Hill tour and everythig about him screamed liberal. Also, his ministry and teaching gig have quite liberal views. I don't think we need to worry about neo-conservatism while Heartwell is in office.

heh thats why I was afraid, hes a west michigan preacher and I hate to admit but some West Michigan preachers make jerry fallwell look liberal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[GRCentro]

heh thats why I was afraid, hes a west michigan preacher and I hate to admit but some West Michigan preachers make jerry fallwell look liberal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heartwell is far more liberal than most West Michigan ministers. He he broke away from the RCA and became ordained in the liberal-leaning United Church of Christ.

[Freddy C]

Latest Census figure estimates of Counties shows a slowdown in growth rates for all counties of Metropolitan Grand Rapids. This is the likely effects of the local economies inability to offer opportunities in the degree that it has in previous decades. In fact, only one county in Michigan, Macomb in suburban Detroit, was in the top 100 in numerical growth from 2003-2004. I do not think any counties in Michigan made the top 100 in percent growth over the same period.

I think that in order to build this world class city that many on this forum desire, the focus needs to be first upon building a world class economy that can attract people and investment. I think that most folks would desire an impressive signature downtown...however; I think economic viability of an area is of more importance and indeed...a prerequisite

2004 Census estimate of County population...hot off the press

[Rizzo]

^Thing is, GR already has a world-renowned, world-class economy.

[egrguy]

i dont see annexation working. its worked wonders to infate the populations of jacksonville and san antonio, but i dont see the most likely candidate in wyoming voting for it.

i mean, godwin is hissing a fit over simply sharing a superintendent. so as for as wyoming becoming apart of grand rapids? no chance, although the cost saving measures are there (ie police, fire, school administration, etc)

[ModSquad]

Couple of comments about GRPS. Our current predictions are that by 2010 GRPS will level off and have about 20,000 students, of which 90% will be of another race other than white, and about 40% will be in some form of special education or a English as a second language class. If one was to draw a line completely across the City of Grand Rapids along Fulton...from 196 all the way to East Grand Rapids and look at students who attend GRPS that live north and south of that line, you wold see a very interesting GRPS. We have experienced incredible white flight from our school district. We have gone from about a 50% minority student population in the 80's to over 80% in 2005. Meanwhile, our student population has dropped by over 4,000 students in the same period. We do have schools of choice in Kent County. It is not the private or charter schools that are hurting GRPS it is our neighboring suburban school systems. Other than Wyoming and Godwin Heights schools systems our suburban school neighbors have not experienced a demographic shift with a significantly higher number of minorities attending. Thus one can say that white families have left our district for suburban schools.

When you look at these facts you must conclude that the population in GR will not grow because we cannot an will not attract families. GR's growth is as many of you have rightly pointed out empty nesters who have raised their "cubs" in the "safe" suburbs and now want to come back to the city for its ammenities.

[MJLO]

While I don't think we'll see phenominal growth over this decade, I would like to point out that in 1999 the estimated population of Grand Rapids was a little more than 185k a drop from 1990. However when the actual census came out, the population of the city was what we know it as, however, 12,000 more people than had previously been predicted. Predictions for population are derived from income tax returns, they do say the city is gradually losing people, but don't believe it until the census gives the accurate count. ( if you can say the census bureau doesn't mess up.)

[joeDowntown]

Dave,

Do you think the kids are still living in the city but using school of choice to attend a suburban school system? Or do you think families have moved outright? Do you think the trend can be reversed?

Thanks for the stats. Interesting stuff!

Joe

Couple of comments about GRPS.  Our current predictions are that by 2010 GRPS will level off and have about 20,000 students, of which 90% will be of another race other than white, and about 40% will be in some form of special education or a English as a second language class.  If one was to draw a line completely across the City of Grand Rapids along Fulton...from 196 all the way to East Grand Rapids and look at students who attend GRPS that live north and south of that line, you wold see a very interesting GRPS.  We have experienced incredible white flight from our school district.  We have gone from about a 50% minority student population in the 80's to over 80% in 2005.  Meanwhile, our student population has dropped by over 4,000 students in the same period.  We do have schools of choice in Kent County.  It is not the private or charter schools that are hurting GRPS it is our neighboring suburban school systems.  Other than Wyoming and Godwin Heights schools systems our suburban school neighbors have not experienced a demographic shift with a significantly higher number of minorities attending.  Thus one can say that white families have left our district for suburban schools. 

When you look at these facts you must conclude that the population in GR will not grow because we cannot an will not attract families.  GR's growth is as many of you have rightly pointed out empty nesters who have raised their "cubs" in the "safe" suburbs and now want to come back to the city for its ammenities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[ModSquad]

Dave,

Do you think the kids are still living in the city but using school of choice to attend a suburban school system? Or do you think families have moved outright? Do you think the trend can be reversed?

Thanks for the stats. Interesting stuff!

Joe

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the answer is both...and...we have a combination going on. There certainly are families who start in GR, but then have kids and move out. On the other hand many families that live near the fringes of the city limits, exercise their schools of choice option and send their kids to a neighborhing school district.

I do think the trend can be reversed. We at GRPS need to do a better job. We are not without fault in this situation. We have been working hard over the past three years to stabilize our system to offer the same quality educational programs no matter what school you choose. We are trying to downplay the "magnet" schools or "specialty schools" and offer these programs at all of our schools.

GRPS started sigificantly bussing minority students from the south side to north side schools through a federal grant that encouraged magnet schools to diversify public school systems. This had two very ill effects.

1-It drove white families out of our district

2-It destroyed neighborhood schools in predominately black communities

Not only did we have white flight, we also had "bright" flight as well. All parents regardless of race that had the ability to send their kids to schools that were perceived (and perceived is the key word here!) better schools did so.

I believe coming back to strong neighborhood based schools can reverse this trend, but it will take time, something I am afraid in this current funding environment we have very little of.

[Rizzo]

"1-It drove white families out of our district"

^-I wonder what that says about GR....

[hood]

I think GR will be about the same size, but downtown will obviously be way up in population. Unfortunately that doesen't translate into the city as a whole, if GR is like most other urban cores it will be lucky to maintain its current population.

[evac311]

I think we will see about 10% growth in Grand Rapids next census. There is going to be an explosion of new residential downtown, and we are already seeing what used to be the most depressed areas of the urban core repopulating, and property values are going steadily up. Add to this the fact that there is a good amount of open land within the city limits, and all the people project x will hopefully bring.

2010 Popultaion GR - 216,000

[MJLO]

I very much doubt that, they have only predicted a slight downturn in pop. now, which could very much be wrong. But you're talking a 20k people increase. Even with the developements downtown, any Michigan city hasn't seen that kind of growth in 60 years. I predict modest gains on this census. Momentum will still be in the beginning stages. I think you very well could see that kind of growth in the 2020 census, when momentum could be in full swing. It will be interesting to see.

[AlexPKeaton]

Can a city in Michigan even annex an already incorporated area? How would that work?

-nb

[RustTown]

I haven't read through this thread, but my prediction is around the same size give or take 5,000 persons. Downtown will be greatly improved, but I don't suspect that Grand Rapids will have grown or shrank significanly this decade. The census is not always right (and sometimes flat wrong), but they are predicting Grand Rapids in mid-decade is still hovering around 195,000. Barring some huge housing booms within the other neighborhoods outside of downtown, I don't see what's going to stop the flight from them (however slow it may be).

[GR8scott]

there is no friggin way GR will be 300k+ in 4 years or ever unless annexation happens. 44 sq miles is a fairly small city and there is not much new development in the few areas on the North side that can still be developed. I'm for annexation to a certain extent. I would like to see Gr annex already older urban areas of kentwood, wyoming, and plainfield township. That would better represent the true city and probably be somewhere around 250,000. But as is GR might even loose population. It might be below 195K right now and its been to 197K in 1970 and then back down to 181K in 1980. I would like to see a steady population of just over 200K

[Pale Green Pants]

Frankly, I've never seen so much growth and improvement in the city of Grand Rapids in so little time. I'm predicting a population of over 300,000 by the middle to the end of the next decade. By 2010, though, I can't imagine a population of much more than 220,000 (keep in mind the possibility of the "mystery development").

[RustTown]

For those saying over 300,000 even by 2020 is ridiculous. It's city boosterism not based on facts. Chicago, yes Chicago, gained a little over 100,000 in ten years. You'd have to level half of Grand Rapids, and pack it full of multi-story housing to hope for something ridiculous as 100,000 in even 30 years in the Midwest. Let's get real, here.

[Phizzy]

If Grand Rapids were to annex the more densely populated communities near its present border, it would easily surpass 500,000 in population. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but this would cover around 325 square miles, far smaller than Jacksonville's size of 874 square miles (population 777,704), Oklahoma City's size of 621 square miles (population 528,042), and Nashville's size of 526 square miles (population 546,719).

Population below is based on 2004 estimates...

[Pale Green Pants]

I would have to disagree with you, Lmichigan. As Phizzy has conveniently pointed out, there is more than one way for a city to grow.

[RustTown]

Annexation in Michigan is just about impossible, let alone the annexation of multiple townships and cities in a state were "home rule" is so deeply ingrained in the culture. We're talking ballot intiative to change the states constitution to take away power from charter townships and the like. Michigans Constitution of 1963 pretty made the idea of entertaining large-scale annexation ridiculous. We do have things called "land/tax sharing agreements" now, but those are small scale annexations, and are very complicated. I'm just saying that it's one thing to be realistically optimistic, it's entirely another to entertain highly unrealistic options.

[MJLO]

however on the flip side of the land area arguement. San Francisco has the exact same land area as GR, and 760,000 in it. I'm going to side with Lmich on this one, no matter how shrill he gets. 300k, not for a while. Not impossible, but something short of an act of god it would take to make the city grow that fast. The metro area, that's a different story. I promise you all that annexation won't ever happen, especially not when you have to deal with places like NIMBY I mean, GR Township. Right next door.

[Phizzy]

I also agree that the annexation of those places is highly unlikely. I was just throwing it out there.

[Rizzo]

I wonder if a simple popular vote between the two cities would solve the annexation woe. Although there could be a vote, I hardly think somone in suburb would want the added tax burden.

[MJLO]

I think a popular vote would solve it into not happening.

You'll never get people who are "from" Wyoming to consent to Changeing their address to GR. Even tho changing Wyoming to GR would quite possibly be an improvement. I know the city schools are great and have alot to offer, but think of all the people who would be worried about their kids going to GRPS. It's stuff like that, not to mention the people out in NIMBY twp. Who pretend like they are not even from metro Grand Rapids. It's goes back to that whole "local" rule thing.