Northern California 2010 Census results

[fflint]

The Comical arrives late to the party. Basically the article says crime in Oakland was the major push factor, while bigger homes in safer communities in the East Bay suburbs, Sacramento and other states was the main pull factor.

25% drop in African American population in Oakland
Matthai Kuruvila, Chronicle Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, March 11, 2011
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1GJare4up

....
Black people remain the single largest ethnic group at 27.3 percent of the population, just slightly greater than the white and Hispanic populations, which are 25.9 and 25.4 percent of the population respectively. Asians account for 16.7 percent. In 1980, black people accounted for 46 percent of the city.

....Oakland has 106,637 African Americans, still the second largest black population in the state. Only Los Angeles, with 347,380 black people, has more - but they make up 9 percent of the population. All of the state's major cities, except Sacramento, saw declines in their black populations. Inland areas saw gains. African Americans make up 5.8 percent of California's population.

Some of the movement is out of state.

....African American ministers and politicians point to a variety of factors that have led people to leave Oakland for cities like Stockton, Fairfield, Antioch and Sacramento. A lower cost of living, the lure of jobs, frustration with schools and the search for safer communities all played key roles.

...."I love Oakland for the cultural value and African American history," said Shaw, 43, who still works downtown, goes to Oakland churches and socializes on weekends in the city. "But it's not a safe place."

[ChiMIchael]

^ I figured that LA would have at least 500k blacks, but I guess that the black population in that area are mainly in the suburban areas.

[pesto]

Interestingly, what separates SF and SJ is that SF is more white and SJ more Hispanic. Asian is about even, with SJ being more Vietnamese and less Chinese.

SJ actually saw its percentage of black and Hispanic combined go higher; SF had a small decrease and Oakland a larger one.

SJ: 33 to 36
SF: 22 to 21
Oak: 57 to 53

[krudmonk]

The Chron pushing Oakland violence? I am shocked.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by pesto

Interestingly, what separates SF and SJ is that SF is more white and SJ more Hispanic. Asian is about even, with SJ being more Vietnamese and less Chinese.

SJ actually saw its percentage of black and Hispanic combined go higher; SF had a small decrease and Oakland a larger one.

SJ: 33 to 36
SF: 22 to 21
Oak: 57 to 53

'

Er, why are you combining Hispanics and Blacks? They arent the same thing.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by fflint

The Comical arrives late to the party. Basically the article says crime in Oakland was the major push factor, while bigger homes in safer communities in the East Bay suburbs, Sacramento and other states was the main pull factor.

25% drop in African American population in Oakland
Matthai Kuruvila, Chronicle Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, March 11, 2011
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1GJare4up

....
Black people remain the single largest ethnic group at 27.3 percent of the population, just slightly greater than the white and Hispanic populations, which are 25.9 and 25.4 percent of the population respectively. Asians account for 16.7 percent. In 1980, black people accounted for 46 percent of the city.

....Oakland has 106,637 African Americans, still the second largest black population in the state. Only Los Angeles, with 347,380 black people, has more - but they make up 9 percent of the population. All of the state's major cities, except Sacramento, saw declines in their black populations. Inland areas saw gains. African Americans make up 5.8 percent of California's population.

Some of the movement is out of state.

....African American ministers and politicians point to a variety of factors that have led people to leave Oakland for cities like Stockton, Fairfield, Antioch and Sacramento. A lower cost of living, the lure of jobs, frustration with schools and the search for safer communities all played key roles.

...."I love Oakland for the cultural value and African American history," said Shaw, 43, who still works downtown, goes to Oakland churches and socializes on weekends in the city. "But it's not a safe place."

I ran into BT in the comments section. I wanted to say hello but didnt.

Anyway,
The Chronicle is never going to report that Oakland actually gained Whites while San Francisco and San Jose actually lost Whites, because that would force them to acknowledge that Oakland is a multi-faceted city with all sorts of contrasts that contradict any box one might want to assign Oakland too.

And I couldnt believe all the racists who commented. Its amazing how shallow we need to reach into society to still find the worst in peple.

[fflint]

Insofar as the loss of blacks in Oakland (and likely SF) can be explained by booming black populations in the eastern suburbs and in Sacramento, this all seems like a continuation of larger post-WWII trends. "White flight" was only partly racial--it was always also about suburbanization. This past decade's black flight from the inner core of the Bay Area is much the same, at least going on this article. I can't say that's a negative--people should be free to live where they want, not trapped somewhere they don't want to be.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by pesto

Interestingly, what separates SF and SJ is that SF is more white and SJ more Hispanic. Asian is about even, with SJ being more Vietnamese and less Chinese.

SJ actually saw its percentage of black and Hispanic combined go higher; SF had a small decrease and Oakland a larger one.

SJ: 33 to 36
SF: 22 to 21
Oak: 57 to 53

What are you talking about? SF added Latino people, and is now at it's highest latino population ever. Same for Oakland and San Jose. And San Jose lost black people/percentage just like the others. What's with your arbitrary combinations?

[dimondpark]

LA & SF Combined Statistical Areas by 4 Largest Racial Groups, 2010 Census

Los Angeles Combined Statistical Area
Total Population: 17,877,006
Non-Hispanic White 6,004,354...33.5%
Hispanic 8,028,831...44.9%
Asian 2,162,146...12.0%
Black 1,173,691...6.5%


San Francisco Combined Statistical Area
Total Population: 7,468,390
Non-Hispanic White 3,210,454...42.9%
Hispanic 1,797,078...24.0%
Asian 1,657,828...22.1%
Black 462,837...6.1%

[pesto]

Black and Latino are the main "underrepresented minorities" in educational, professional amd economic literature and federal law. They are the basis for a variety of govt. programs (for example, when I was with a large Silicon Valley company whose hiring was disproportionate as to these groups, I was interviewed every 3 years to determine if I had experienced discrimination).

Overall decreases in their numbers often indicate gentrification or economic development. They also act as potential signals for need (or lack of need) for govt. services (health, education, employment).

[tech12]

Originally Posted by pesto

Overall decreases in their numbers often indicate gentrification or economic development. They also act as potential signals for need (or lack of need) for govt. services (health, education, employment).

Uhh, ok...except i think you forgot the part where black and latino people are not the same, and i think you also forgot the part where the latino population has grown, basically everywhere, including the three large Bay Area cities (did you miss those stats i posted?). So why do you say there was a decrease in latino people in SF and Oakland? There wasn't. Let me repeat myself: they are both at their HIGHEST latino populations ever, both in raw numbers and as a percentage. The only way for you to say that they lost latino population is for you to arbitrarily combine the latino and black populations. Just like the only way for you to claim that SJ's black population grew (it didn't... because it SHRUNK) is to combine them with Latinos. Do you not see what's wrong with that when posting demographic stats?

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by fflint

Insofar as the loss of blacks in Oakland (and likely SF) can be explained by booming black populations in the eastern suburbs and in Sacramento, this all seems like a continuation of larger post-WWII trends. "White flight" was only partly racial--it was always also about suburbanization. This past decade's black flight from the inner core of the Bay Area is much the same, at least going on this article. I can't say that's a negative--people should be free to live where they want, not trapped somewhere they don't want to be.

I would not saying "booming black populations in Sac".

SAC Region: Asians grew by 57%; Hispanic's by 56%; Blacks only 22%; Blacks went from 6.9% to 7.0% of Total.

[M II A II R II K]

As California's coastal counties see less growth in 2010 Census figures, the state's inland areas could become bigger players in politics.


http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/09/346...ate%20Politics

When state legislators drew new districts for themselves and their congressional colleagues in 2001, they were interested only in political impacts and largely ignored demographic changes revealed in the 2000 census. The bipartisan gerrymander was aimed at preserving the numerical status quo in both the 120-member Legislature and the 53-member congressional delegation by designating the partisan ownership of every district. The public's adverse reaction to the insider deal, however, led to a 2008 ballot measure that shifted legislative redistricting to an independent "citizens' commission" and a 2010 measure that added congressional seats to its duties.

On Tuesday, the Census Bureau released the detailed 2010 census data that the commission will use to draw new legislative and congressional districts, as well as four Board of Equalization districts, and the numbers confirmed that big changes are in the air. In effect, the commission will be adjusting the district lines not only for the demographic changes of the last decade, but for those of the 1990s that were disregarded in the 2001 gerrymander. The most obvious adjustment will be a major shift of districts from slow-growing coastal – and mostly Democratic – coastal counties to rapidly growing inland areas, which have tended to vote Republican.

One of the geographic shifts is likely to be a loss for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, whose population growth rate (5.4 percent) is scarcely half of the state's 10 percent. For instance, San Francisco itself, with a new population of 805,235, has 126,090 fewer people than it would need to justify one state Senate district (931,325), but now has two state senators, thanks to the gerrymander that Bay Area politicians oversaw. Overall, the Bay Area will probably lose at least one congressional seat, one senator and two Assembly members to the Central Valley, which has seen double-digit growth.

An even starker shift is likely in Southern California. Los Angeles County's growth rate, 3.1 percent, was less than a third of the state's rate, while the Inland Empire counties of Riverside and San Bernardino expanded by a whopping 29.8 percent.

.....

[mhays]

Originally Posted by fflint

The new American Fact Finder is the most atrocious, user-hostile piece of shit website I've ever suffered.

The entire Census.gov is a POS. It's clearly run by people who don't have the slightest clue, and/or want to torture us.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

As California's coastal counties see less growth in 2010 Census figures, the state's inland areas could become bigger players in politics.


http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/09/346...ate%20Politics

Its interesting because beginning in 2007, the growth rates for inland counties plunged to either parity or even below the coast--mainly due to the economy.

I think the inland counties greatly benefitted from the decade ending because they had already given back much of their gains in the early part of the decade.

[M II A II R II K]

And this may cause the state to start swinging to red.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

And this may cause the state to start swinging to red.

Its the other way around.

What's happened as evidenced by our last two elections, is that the inland counties have actually gone more blue.

Coastalites have had a profound effect on the political landscape of the inland counties.

I think the red tide that has swept much of the nation has largely hit a brick wall in California. This goes back to the early 1990s. Arnold winning appears to have been an anamoly.

[LtBk]

I'm curious to know: How is it possible for SF to gain that many people despite the strong NIMBYism in the city?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by LtBk

I'm curious to know: How is it possible for SF to gain that many people despite the strong NIMBYism in the city?

It's a good question without an easy answer. Even local forumers are surprised at one number in particular--San Francisco built 30,000 new housing units between 2000 and 2010 despite strong NIMBY opposition.

Some of the growth was very high profile, and controversial--Mission Bay and Rincon Hill--but most of the growth has flown under the radar in terms of controversy. Only in retrospect is it easy to see where all the growth occurred--in medium sized projects scattered around the city. There are scores of new 5 and 6-story buildings that don't really garner much attention individually but, collectively, account for a big housing boom during the 2000s. There are tons of such projects in the Mission, South Beach, Hayes Valley, the Tenderloin, and SoMa. Even Dogpatch and the central waterfront have seen significant new housing construction.

[Gordo]

I've mentioned before on many of the local threads that SF's NIMBY reputation is overblown. It is harder to build a skyscraper in SF than NYC, Chicago, etc, but it's not really harder to build 4-6 story infill in many neighborhoods in SF compared to most cities in the US.

This is especially true compared to other Bay Area cities. The only place that may be easier to build infill in is San Jose - just San Jose proper, the other South Bay cities are much, much harder than SF (just try to build something - anything - anywhere in Cupertino).

This isn't to say that all is well with the development/planning process in SF, just that it's generally no more broken than the process in most other American cities (there are some notable exceptions where infill is easier than the average, of course).