These side-by-side trends could spell trouble for a state whose economy relies on continued population growth and real-estate development.
Not every state and community can have the kind of growth and development run that Florida has had in recent decades. In 1950, the state had 2.7 million people and today has over 23 million people. Air conditioning plus available real estate plus warm weather and natural features plus immigrants plus retirees have contributed to the third most populous state.
But don’t most American places want something like this to happen? It may not be possible due to history, a lack of development and capital, population stagnation or decline, few features that possible residents or businesses would desire. Yet growth is good in the United States. Stuff being built, people moving in, new activity is all good. The places where things are happening are getting ahead, other places are falling behind or are way out of the picture.
If these trends discussed continue, what happens to Florida? Does it become like many other places that want growth but cannot seem to make it happen? Do the new hot states pass it by? Do leaders try to chase new or different opportunities in hoping to revive their glory days of growth? The Florida that looked unstoppable may become an afterthought, all because the focus on growth moves its lens to somewhere else.
At the 2014 Oscars, best supporting actor nominee Bradley Cooper took a selfie with host Ellen DeGeneres and a bunch of A-listers, among them Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Brad Pitt, Meryl Streep, Lupita Nyong’o and Jennifer Lawrence. DeGeneres’ Twitter account posted it immediately afterward, and it became the most retweeted post in the platform’s history at the time.
The selfie was an instantly viral moment in a telecast that drew the Academy Awards’ largest audience in 14 years — 43.74 million people. The photo (for which Cooper used a phone made by Samsung, a major Oscars sponsor) became a dayslong news cycle unto itself…
It wasn’t just the Oscars that were big that year, either. Broadcast and cable outlets were arguably at their peak in terms of reach, with more than 100 million households in the United States subscribing to a multi-channel provider. The 2014 Grammy Awards drew 28.5 million viewers, and the Golden Globes brought in almost 21 million. The Emmy Awards in August 2014 had 15.59 million viewers on NBC — down about 12 percent from 2013 but still a very healthy audience. Five other music awards shows that year brought in at least 10 million viewers…
If awards shows are a proxy for what people — both the folks who make the things nominated for awards and the public that consumes them — are dialed in on at any given time, then our collective attention has steadily waned over time. None of the big awards telecasts has approached its 2014 audience numbers in the 12 years since. The Oscar broadcast is still usually the biggest non-sports primetime show of the year on a broadcast network, but that now means 18 million or so viewers rather than 40 million-plus. The Grammys (14.41 million viewers in 2026) and other awards shows have similarly fallen off.
As the article notes, it might be hard to isolate one point where a common collective experience in the United States dissolved. I’ve heard people date it to going beyond three major TV networks to the rise of premium cable TV shows (think The Sopranos) to the rise of the Internet in the 1990s to streaming services to the advent of 24/7 cable news. Usually this line of discussion refers to the number of media outlets people can access but it is also related to the number of narratives or stories people have.
Another way to think about it: prior to the rise of mass broadcast media in the twentieth century (radio and TV), how collective were people’s experiences within and across countries? News traveled more slowly. People heard about important events but it might be days or weeks later.
The accompanying piece to this article would be considering what we have lost if large numbers of people are no longer watching the same Oscars or going to the same movies. How much does this contribute to fragmentation, polarization, individualism? Or how has it helped contribute to freedom and creativity?
And it might be worth remembering that such fragmentation might not necessarily last. The trend toward personally curated experiences might continue – but it could also go back the other direction. The streaming services could all collapse back into each other. The audio streaming platforms could consolidate. The Internet and social media might retract in scope. The multiculture or pluriculture might be an artifact of the early 21st century.
If the bill passes, anyone who wants to ride an e-bike or e-moto capable of traveling over 28 mph would be required to have a driver’s license, title, registration and insurance. Those higher-speed devices would be treated more like motor vehicles, and riders would be barred from operating those higher-speed devices above 28 mph in bike lanes, paths and similar spaces. Most importantly, riders of most micromobility devices would need to be at least 16 years old. In short, this bill would set something Illinois has lacked for years: clear, statewide expectations for devices that have rapidly become part of everyday life.
What is special about 28 mph? It is not a common speed limit. Residential or local streets might have 20, 25, or 30 mph speed limits. Is it really safer to ride at 27 mph compared to 29 mph?
This particular speed limit is related to the three classes for e-bikes. Here is one description:
There are three designations of ebikes in America—Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3—that are defined by a small handful of characteristics. While most ebikes have a maximum power output of 750 watts, it’s a combination of a bike’s top speed and how that speed is achieved that puts each ebike into its correct class. The three classes also determine where you can ride your ebike…
With a top speed of 28 miles per hour, Class 3 bikes are the most powerful of all. However, given their speed, most states impose heavier restrictions on where you can ride a Class 3 ebike. Like any bicycle, riders can operate a Class 3 ebike on roads, in traffic lanes, and in road-adjacent bike lanes. However, Class 3 bikes are typically prohibited on greenways, paths, and in parks.
Let’s say you are a resident in a community and want to know more about it. Who lives near you? What businesses or industries are local? What events are happening nearby? How is land used? Where are all these things on a map? What are residents thinking?
There are numerous online tools that can help you answer these questions. Here are ones I rely on quite a bit:
QuickFacts from the US Census. Put in a geography and you get basic information about the community, often based on the American Community Survey. Median household income? Racial and ethnic demographics? Total employment among businesses? It is all there in one table (and you can compare multiple communities at the same time).
Local government websites and data portals. You might be able to access datasets, maps, regulations, plans. Communities will tell you their history while also pointing you to where you pay your utility bills.
Google Maps can help you visualize where things are. Major roadways, waterways, railroad lines, green spaces – these are fairly visible. How is land used: for single-family homes, denser developments, parks, or something else? What information Google chooses to highlight is less clear; why pick out the coffee shops versus displaying the locations of public libraries? Use Google Streetview to mimic driving or strolling around. Additionally, review information, user photos, and more is attached to the maps.
Find a local media or information source. This may no longer be a local newspaper or TV station. It could be Patch, a volunteer run website, a social media group, a subreddit. There are ways of getting consistent information and discussion even if the discourse is fragmented across platforms.
For more options (including IRL), see earlier posts on knowing your community (post #1 and post #2),
But there is only so much an individual homeowner can do if the built environment makes flooding more common. There are numerous causes: development on top of certain kinds of land and soils; numerous hard surfaces like roads; inadequate drainage at construction or more development after initial systems were put in; low-lying places compared to higher ground nearby. Having water in one’s house is no fun as it requires cleanup and repairs that can require a lot of time and money.
Several pictures used in this story seem to make this point. How much can be done for a house if the street right in front of the home is completely flooded? What can be done if roadways are shut down because of water? Where is all the water supposed to go?
These tips can help but a broader neighborhood or community-wide approach is needed to really address flooding issues. When new development is proposed near housing, NIMBY responses are common and water and flooding issues are often part of this. There may just be some truth in these concerns; changes to land might affect drainage and/or strain existing mitigation efforts. Water has to go somewhere and one homeowner may not really be able to address what is a larger concern.
The annexation is proposed ahead of a potential redevelopment of the roughly 67-acre site, which is on the southeast corner of Higgins and Bartlett roads. A Rosemont company called the Opus Group wants to purchase the site and construct a light-industrial complex.
The proposal is similar to the one Texas-based Hillwood Development Co. put forth in 2022. Allstate petitioned for disconnection the following year, and it was granted by a Cook County judge in February 2025.
But Hillwood is out of the picture now, and the Opus Group has a contract to purchase the land, Vasselli said….
“Once developments de-annex, they seldom come back, but I believe there is renewed interest in South Barrington because of what we have been able to accomplish in recent months,” McCombie wrote. “There is a desire to be a part of the exciting growth and development of our community.”
Annexation is connected to the oversight municipalities exert over land as well as what services might be available for the land. What is interesting here – and unique, as mentioned several times in the article – is that one developer wanted to be outside the suburban municipal limits and the next one wanted to be within the local boundaries.
Suburban communities generally like annexation. They then have more oversight over the land and can fold the development into their comprehensive plan and land use goals. They can benefit from the tax revenues the property provides. They can tout the new development taking place in their community.
It is too bad we do not hear more from the two developers. How did the first see disconnection as advantageous? Why does the second want to be annexed back into the community? How do these decisions affect their bottom line and how they use the land?
This is also a reminder that municipal boundaries are not always fixed. Some sprawling communities and regions have this happen regularly as new development continues. Some communities may have little room to do much given surrounding municipal boundaries. But even in these cases, there could be parcels of land that individual property owners might want to annex or deannex at different points.
I recently was in the suburbs of a major city on a Sunday morning and looking for somewhere to go to church. I used this megachurch database, searched a few congregational websites, and ended up in a satellite congregation. It was a newer building amid newer subdivisions and green spaces. The local pastor and band led worship: there were lights, fog, and people moving to the worship music. The sermon came from the home church with a charismatic pastor who shared from personal experience and a number of Bible passages on how to counter social and cultural pressures and instead follow God. People were friendly. I could text to give or to ask for more information.
Even as the median congregation size in the United States is around 70, there are many satellite church locations in the United States. Researcher Warren Bird recently shared this:
The congregation I went to was part of the 416 mentioned above: numerous campuses scattered throughout a portion of a metropolitan region. In the service, they shared Easter Sunday figures across their locations. They had big crowds – possibly several multiples of normal Sunday attendance – and a number of baptisms. They want to reach their communities for Jesus. There are regular connections to a main campus but also a good amount going on at each satellite.
It is helpful to keep this in mind when considering the large number of evangelicals or conservative Protestants in the United States. Some of those folks go to small congregations. Others go to big churches or to satellites of those big churches who have lots of attendees, lots of programs, and numerous locations throughout regions. The big church with satellites is not the only model of congregational life but it is a popular and visible one.
Home prices across the New Jersey climbed nearly 6% in February compared to a year earlier, the sharpest gain of any state in the nation, according to figures released this week by Cotality, a property data firm.
The national average over that same stretch is only half a percent. The Garden State did not just beat the field. It lapped it.
Why the bigger rise in New Jersey?
The state’s dense corridor of finance and fintech firms, pharmaceutical giants and biotech campuses has kept demand humming even as buyers elsewhere pump the brakes.
Cotality analysts specifically flagged New Jersey’s high-wage employment base as a structural driver of housing demand, one that insulates the market from the volatility hitting Sun Belt states hard right now.
I might put it another way as someone who studies suburbs: the state is positioned between two major metropolitan areas, New York City and Philadelphia. This both provides access to jobs and opportunities there but includes its own large collection of suburban jobs and opportunities across numerous communities that have different industries and populations. The fate of these suburban possibilities are tied to what happens in these big cities but it also has some life of its own.
In November, the National Association of Realtors reported that the age of first-time buyers has incrementally increased since 2010, when the typical age was 30, to hit a record high of 40. In the meantime, the median age of repeat buyers, those who already own a home and are buying their next home — also hit a record high of 62.
Redfin researchers used a different methodology and found that while the typical home buyer is older than in the past, their average age for a first-time home purchase is 35…
The percentage of home buyers purchasing a home for the first time dropped to 21 percent in 2025, according to NAR, compared with about 40 percent before the Great Recession. Factors in that delay include high home prices, a lack of affordable homes, relatively high mortgage rates and student loan debt.
Another factor is the difficulty saving money for a down payment. First-time home buyers typically make a down payment of 6 percent to 10 percent of the purchase price, but many believe a 20 percent down payment is required.
Even with some broader conversation about the need at a national level to address housing, why aren’t more politicians and leaders tackling this one? Those with power could help provide opportunities for younger adults and potentially receive their votes. Many communities say they want to have housing where their younger adults can stay or young professionals could live but is this actually possible in many places? And what would it take to get there?
To address this would require working with a lot of potential levers. Builders and developers could be smaller and cheaper starter options. Local communities could approve or incentivize units for younger adults. The federal government could help. Consumers could push in particular directions. And so on.
At the moment, the issue appears to keep getting worse and unless there is some major action, my guess is that it will continue to go this way.
City residents who sponsored the voter initiative said it marks an escalation of tactics to oppose the massive facilities needed to power artificial intelligence and could inspire activists in other towns to follow suit….
The Port Washington referendum doesn’t actually derail the city’s controversial data center campus — a $15 billion, 1.3-gigawatt facility from tech giants OpenAI and Oracle that’s one of multiple “Stargate” AI megaprojects the companies are planning with the Trump administration’s support. Instead, it takes aim at future projects by requiring city leaders to obtain voter approval before awarding developers lucrative tax incentives…
The referendum could be frozen within days as part of an ongoing court challenge. The Milwaukee Metropolitan Association of Commerce, a regional business group, filed a lawsuit in late January seeking to block the measure on grounds that it violates state law…
Residents in Monterey Park, California, will decide in June on a measure seeking to indefinitely ban new data center construction within city limits. In August, Augusta Township in rural Michigan will decide whether to override a local ordinance that cleared the way for a data center project. And in November, Janesville, Wisconsin will vote on a measure that could scuttle plans to redevelop a former General Motors assembly plant into an AI factory.
This is a different way for communities to address data centers: put a referendum on the ballot and let local residents express their opinions through a vote.
Perhaps this context is unique. The article suggests some local officials opposed the ban. Can suburbs pass up on major developments that could be local revenues and jobs? It sounds like residents in this suburb were responding to a big data center already in the works that they did not like. Perhaps residents did not feel that local officials represented their interests?
At the same time, it takes planning and work to put together referendums for local residents to consider. Port Washington is not big – over 12,000 residents – but there are calendars to be followed to get placed in front of voters and signatures that are needed. Then there is public discussion. Then there is the vote and the aftermath as different groups consider their options.
Of course, a primary recourse residents have if they do not like local decisions about data centers is to vote accordingly the next time local leaders are up for election. Those opposed to or in favor of data centers could make this a major issue in upcoming elections as smaller communities grapple with what data centers might bring.
Legally Sociable 