Your point on Pulaski County can be repeated virtually everywhere where there there are municipalities in a county (read more than 99 percent). Probably the best course of action would be for the Census Bureau to withdraw these meaningless estimates On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Jonathan Lupton &lt;jlupton(a)metroplan.org&gt;wrote;wrote: -- -- Wendell Cox +1.618 632 8507 Demographia | Wendell Cox Consultancy - St. Louis Missouri-Illinois MSA Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris Contributing Editor newgeography.com <http://www.newgeography.com/> www.demographia.com | www.publicpurpose.com | www.rentalcartours.net BOOKS & PUBLICATIONS *War on the Dream *demographia.com/wod1.pdf<http://www.demographia.com/wod1.pdf> *International Housing Affordability Survey *demographia.com/dhi.pdf<http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf> *The Wal-Mart Revolution *(with Richard Vedder) *Demographia World Urban Areas *demographia.com/worldua.pdf<http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf>

Todd (and others) Thanks for the background. Let me say that the census estimates are highly useful, and that's partly why this concerns me so. Yes, I make local estimates based on our own data sources but the Census estimates are a mighty helpful cross-check. They were especially accurate during the 2000-2010 period within my region, even better than during 1990-2000, which is why any change in methodology concerns me. If you need support (strength in numbers) when addressing this, please let me know. I'm strung between a lot of priorities so when the next November review comes around please send out a message with triple explanation points or some other extreme measure to get my attention. Jonathan Lupton Metroplan From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Graham, Todd Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 11:03 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] Census pop estimates Jonathan, others- Usually each November, FSCPE state participants are asked to review and comment on minor-civil-division-level housing stock changes (units permitted, demolitions if known, etc). We take this seriously here, and have found the State Demographer staff and Census Bureau staff to be receptive to our review and data submissions during the 2009 estimates cycle, and prior years. FSCPE state participants learned last November that Census Bureau had decided to depart from their usual annual estimates methodology - there were no housing stock changes for us to review. Rodger Johnson at the Bureau basically said: We're doing trend extrapolation for 2011 estimates cycle. I'm not sure if this was because the CB staff considered the CY 2010 building permits data to be disappointing (?) - or some other reason. Whatever the case, this led to what Jonathan and Patty observe: within any county, most places in the county have the same growth rate. I think they'd do well bringing back the minor-civil-division-level housing stock changes in the 2012 estimates cycle. Todd Graham | Principal Forecaster Metropolitan Council | 390 North Robert Street | Saint Paul, MN 55101 tel: 1+651-602-1322 | fax: 1+651-602-1674 | e: todd.graham(a)metc.state.mn.us in: www.linkedin.com/in/toddgraham Visit www.metrocouncil.org/data for the latest in regional information. From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Jonathan Lupton Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 8:54 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] Census pop estimates I just wanted to chime in with this discussion. In my region (Little Rock AR MSA) it's clear that the city estimates are heavily driven by census county estimates. The estimates for the largest five cities in our central county all show 0.9% growth 2010-2011. This is absurd; these five cities varied in the 2000-2010 interval between outright decline in one case and 63 percent growth in another. The building permits and all other local evidence suggests that they are not all growing at 0.9 percent in unison. Therefore I express my agreement that there's something very wrong with the place/MCD estimates released on July 1. Since these estimates are fundamentally misleading, they are worse than nothing at all. Jonathan Lupton From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of wendell cox Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 5:20 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: Re: [CTPP] Census pop estimates That is a crucial question that needs to be answered. On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Patty Becker &lt;pbecker(a)umich.edu&gt; wrote: Gee, I hope not. But it's very unclear what's going on. Loud protests might help. At 05:42 PM 7/2/2012, wendell cox wrote: Will this be their approach in future year estimates as well? Best regards Wendell Cox On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Patty Becker &lt;pbecker(a)umich.edu&gt; wrote: The bottom line here is that the Census Bureau has abandoned its previous methods for calculating the subcounty estimates. For 2011, they basically carried the county % change in household population down to the sub-county units (MCDs and places), apparently holding the GQ pop count the same as the 2010 count (most of the time). In my personal view, coming from a strong MCD state, it would have been better if they had just not done 2011 estimates at all. Patty Becker At 08:57 AM 7/2/2012, Ed Christopher wrote: This is an interesting article Wendell Cox sent me from a friend of friend. We all remember when the Census Bureau changed from using county based estimates to using sub-county estimates in 2009 which are then used to factor and weight the ACS. I had thought the process of going from a county to a sub-county was a little more sophisticated but maybe its not. http://www.urbanophile.com/2012/06/30/misreferencing-misoverestimated-popula tion-by-chris-briem/ -- Ed Christopher 708-283-3534 (V) 708-574-8131 (cell) FHWA RC-TST-PLN 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 600 Matteson, IL 60443 _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)ryoko.chrispy.net http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- Patricia C. (Patty) Becker 248/354-6520 <tel:248%2F354-6520> APB Associates/SEMCC FAX 248/354-6645 <tel:248%2F354-6645> 28300 Franklin Road Home 248/355-2428 <tel:248%2F355-2428> Southfield, MI 48034 pbecker(a)umich.edu _____ This email is intended to be read only by the intended recipient. This email may be legally privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination of this email or any attachments is strictly prohibited, and you should refrain from reading this email or examining any attachments. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and any attachments.