Austin Census Discussion

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Thank you Kevin!

You asked in the other thread for name ideas. Perhaps Census Discussion or something like that?

Good idea!

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You deleted some substantial comments...

Very well. Let's try to keep it civilized, though. I moved them here and undeleted them.

[the Genral]

Nothing intelligent to contribute here, but I am enjoying the debate guys. Yeah, keep it civil but lively, we're all friends here. I once challenged wwmiv a while back, and learned my lesson... Sir you are my cerebral superior. I loved your qualification statement. It will take me years to decipher, perhaps a divorce and bankruptcy, and potential State imposed hospitalization in a mental institution before I can even grasp a fraction of what you said, but if that's what it takes...respectfully wwmiv, you obviously worked hard and continue to work hard and should be proud of your accomplishments now and future.
My prediction....this drought we are having especially if it continues for years to come will dictate where the largest concentrations of growth will be in the future. Closer to the larger lakes, Canyon, Buchanan, Travis, maybe even Walter E Long. Despite the growth spurt in and around San Marcos, when the springs stop flowing, so will the building permits.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Nothing intelligent to contribute here, but I am enjoying the debate guys. Yeah, keep it civil but lively, we're all friends here. I once challenged wwmiv a while back, and learned my lesson... Sir you are my cerebral superior. I loved your qualification statement. It will take me years to decipher, perhaps a divorce and bankruptcy, and potential State imposed hospitalization in a mental institution before I can even grasp a fraction of what you said, but if that's what it takes...respectfully wwmiv, you obviously worked hard and continue to work hard and should be proud of your accomplishments now and future.
My prediction....this drought we are having especially if it continues for years to come will dictate where the largest concentrations of growth will be in the future. Closer to the larger lakes, Canyon, Buchanan, Travis, maybe even Walter E Long. Despite the growth spurt in and around San Marcos, when the springs stop flowing, so will the building permits.

Awe! That's very sweet. I know I come across as abrasive and douche-y, and can be incredibly thick headed much of the time, but I swear my heart is in the right place.

And for what it's worth: I don't believe that there are inherent substantial differences in intellect among the members of the human race. There are only opportunities to learn. Some are deprived of those opportunities by the system, many even by their own choice. What makes this community stand out is that we're seeking knowledge for the sake of itself. That makes all of us, even though there are places we disagree, cerebral equals.

I'm sure there are subject areas that you are vastly more knowledgeable in that would take me decades to understand at even the most basic level. I don't know how physicists, biologists, engineers, and other hard scientists do what they do. I scraped by the skin on my teeth through accounting in order to get my three minors (they all required it) after my third attempt (I had dropped the previous two times before it got rough after I failed the first exams).

[the Genral]

Hahaha, all the adjectives you described of yourself equals pure honesty in my book. I respect and like that about you. Ok enough of the love affair and back to business

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

Come on man, we all know that Austin's city limit population is obviously a fact that can't be disputed, and you have every right to repeat that number in relation to others for boosterism purposes all you like as if it actually meant something, but you can't tell me that in your head you actually consider cities like Austin and Jacksonville and Indianapolis to be "bigger" than cities like Boston and Miami and Atlanta and Washington DC etc...

The reason people point out the silliness of 'boosting' a fact like that is precisely because it's so arbitrary. You might as well be claiming that you have a higher net worth than Bill Gates because you have more cash in your wallet than he does at this moment in time.

DISCLAIMER: I entered this thread because I love Austin and I'm fascinated with the incredible boom happening there, and wanted to learn more about it. I just think you should be realistic in your boosterism. That is all. haha

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I'm not the one who stated it to begin with. I just asked why people get so bent out of shape when someone does. I also said it's all in context, and that MSA is a better judge for most situations. There is no boostering here.

[Novacek]

The whole process of basing MSA's on counties seems arbitrary and error prone anyway. If tomorrow the state of texas decided to combine all the counties from Williamson to Bexar into one, would it really change much (maybe some fewer sheriffs?)? But suddenly the census would consider them all one single MSA?

This thread started out with the observation that metros/MSAs are better for comparing than city population, because of different annexation sizes/policies. But counties have the same issues (if not more so). Travis county is ~1000 square miles. San Bernadino county in California is 20K.

Continuous urbanized area based on census tracks seems like a much better comparison.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The whole process of basing MSA's on counties seems arbitrary and error prone anyway. If tomorrow the state of texas decided to combine all the counties from Williamson to Bexar into one, would it really change much (maybe some fewer sheriffs?)? But suddenly the census would consider them all one single MSA?.

States have no say in combining counties into MSAs or defining them in any way what so ever. It's done by the Census Bureau and the same methodology is used across the crountry. That makes MSA comparisons Apples to Apples.

[lzppjb]

He's not saying Texas can combine counties into an MSA. He's saying Texas could, hypothetically, combine all the counties into one county. At that time, the Census Bureau would recognize it as the Austin-San Antonio MSA.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

He's not saying Texas can combine counties into an MSA. He's saying Texas could, hypothetically, combine all the counties into one county. At that time, the Census Bureau would recognize it as the Austin-San Antonio MSA.

Right. Or Texas could have not split up it's original 23 counties. For instance, Nacogdoches County used to be huge.
http://www.txgenealogy101.com/maps/
and has since been separated into at least 10 other counties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_Texas

Or Travis county used to stretch far to the west, and included what is now Coleman county. If Texas hadn't divided the county, it would now be included in the Austin MSA.

County distinctions are fairly arbitrary, and aren't apples to apples.

[The ATX]

Not that anybody cares what I think, but this thread is absurdly stupid.

[wwmiv]

... then don't comment here? That comment was entirely not needed.

[Novacek]

As an extreme example, the 20,000 people in Blythe California are included in the Riverside/San Bernadino/Ontario MSA. Blythe to Riverside is 173 miles or 2.5 hours. I don't really think anybody is making that commute. A whole lot more commute Austin<->San Antonio. But Blythe is considered the same metro due to the arbitrary county lines.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

As an extreme example, the 20,000 people in Blythe California are included in the Riverside/San Bernadino/Ontario MSA. Blythe to Riverside is 173 miles or 2.5 hours. I don't really think anybody is making that commute. A whole lot more commute Austin<->San Antonio. But Blythe is considered the same metro due to the arbitrary county lines.

Yes, but that's really only a problem that plagues states with large counties (or county equivalents) that also have large population centers. Fortunately, that's a very small set of states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada) that have very large counties.

Even further, that means that only some metropolitan areas are possibly affected by this: Riverside, Phoenix, and Las Vegas. And only one of them is truly affected at all (Riverside).

California would be wise to split Riverside county into three units, with Riverside, San Bernardino, etc. anchoring one county, Palm Springs another, and the rural parts east of that (including Blythe) yet another.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Yes, but that's really only a problem that plagues states with large counties (or county equivalents) that also have large population centers. Fortunately, that's a very small set of states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada) that have very large counties.

Even further, that means that only some metropolitan areas are possibly affected by this: Riverside, Phoenix, and Las Vegas. And only one of them is truly affected at all (Riverside).

California would be wise to split Riverside county into three units, with Riverside, San Bernardino, etc. anchoring one county, Palm Springs another, and the rural parts east of that (including Blythe) yet another.

Honestly, the definition of "X biggest (cities/metros)" is mostly just useful for messageboard smack talk. I just find it an interesting intellectual exercise to find holes in the definitions.

The whole "austin/san antonio MSA/CSA hypotheticals", even if they were to happen, wouldn't actually change much/anything in real life. The individual municipalities would either cooperate (or not) to the same extent they do today.

[lzppjb]

I agree. I don't really care if Austin is bigger than some place. That's why I laugh at people saying I'm guily of boosterism. I'd prefer Austin be smaller, actually.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Honestly, the definition of "X biggest (cities/metros)" is mostly just useful for messageboard smack talk. I just find it an interesting intellectual exercise to find holes in the definitions.

The whole "austin/san antonio MSA/CSA hypotheticals", even if they were to happen, wouldn't actually change much/anything in real life. The individual municipalities would either cooperate (or not) to the same extent they do today.

That's actually not true. Major revisions of MSAs actually would change a lot for them in real life, given the federal (and sometimes state) funding that comes along with their size. If Austin and San Antonio were merged (which isn't going to happen) we'd get in sum much more money than both of us together are getting. And not just w/r/t stuff like CAMPO and SA-BCMPO, but also w/r/t to earmarks for particular transportation projects (which are more likely to occur with higher visibility that comes with larger size, disproportionately so to the new population growth, according to the literature in this area) and others. It can make a big difference long term on infrastructure and development.

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I agree. I don't really care if Austin is bigger than some place. That's why I laugh at people saying I'm guilty of boosterism. I'd prefer Austin be smaller, actually.

You should care, for the reasons that I provide here. Ofcourse you'd be the one to say you wish Austin was smaller. If so, move to a smaller town.

[lzppjb]

I'm from here. This is my family's home. I ain't moving.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I'm from here. This is my family's home. I ain't moving.

Then move to a small town suburb thirty miles out or something. Austin isn't going to get smaller, so there's no use in arguing that it should be. Any set of policies that could possibly be enacted to make it so would be ruinous for our population. See, as an example, Detroit (they just lost the X Games to us, cough cough).

[lzppjb]

I also noticed you took the time to point out a typo in my quote. Are you a bit OCD? There's nothing wrong with that. If you are, it would help me understand why you correct people so often.

I see typos in your posts from time to time, but I don't see people pointing them out.

Just wondering.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Then move to a small town suburb thirty miles out or something. Austin isn't going to get smaller, so there's no use in arguing that it should be. Any set of policies that could possibly be enacted to make it so would be ruinous for our population. See, as an example, Detroit (they just lost the X Games to us, cough cough).

Go back and quote where I was arguing or saying anything about policies.