The Vintage 2023 population estimates show broader trends reflecting pre-pandemic norms, with fewer deaths and an increase in migration spurring growth. The net result was a gain of more than 1.6 million people in the past year, a 0.5% increase that brought the total U.S. population to 334,914,895…
Overall, 42 states saw population increases this year, topped by Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee and Arizona.
The South accounted for 87% of the nation’s population growth, adding more than 1.4 million residents. The Midwest reversed a two-year slide, adding more than 126,000 people for a modest 0.2% increase. The West region also saw a 0.2% increase, while the Northeast declined by 0.1%, according to census data.
The South is the only region that sustained its population growth throughout the pandemic, fueled by both domestic and international migration.
The ongoing population shift to the Sunbelt continues. It may not last forever but this is a consequential in-process change that affects numerous aspects of American life.
The council’s silence leading up to the decision highlights what some observers say is a striking trend toward secrecy among local governments across the U.S. From school districts to townships and county boards, public access to records and meetings in many states is worsening over time, open government advocates and experts say…
Few states compile data on public records requests, and laws governing open records differ by state, making a comprehensive analysis difficult. However, a review by Cuillier of data provided by MuckRock — a nonprofit news site that files and shares public records requests – found that between 2010 and 2021, local governments’ compliance with records requests dropped from 63% to 42%…
Incidents of governments suing journalists and residents for making records requests also have become more common, said Jonathan Peters, a media law professor at the University of Georgia.
Accessing local government meetings is getting more difficult, too. Elected officials are discussing significant public business in closed sessions, observers say. In some regions, they’re engaging in more combative behavior with constituents.
Many Americans like suburban, small town, and city local governments because they are more responsive to local needs, directly use local monies for visible benefits, and are more accessible to residents.
But, if local governments end up looking like what many perceive the federal government to be – faceless, cold, distant, and untrustworthy – what happens? Local government often works on the idea that any resident can show up or see what has been discussed. It is easy to contact local officials. Things need to get done and long arguments about abstract ideals or petty issues detracts from the local quality of life. Getting elected to a local position does not necessarily require independent wealth or political partisanship.
If Americans get to a point where they do not like local government, they might withdraw even further from civic life. Already, local voting turnout is very low. We can already find people online to interact with and drive where we want to rather than engage with neighbors and community members. I hope there is room for local government officials and residents to find ways to work together to serve their communities.
An investment firm know for buying up newspaper publishers then gutting them is behind the recent shuttering of dozens of Greyhound bus stations across the country, a new report has revealed.
Twenty Lake Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of Alden Global Capital, purchased 33 Greyhound stations across the U.S. from transport company FirstGroup in 2021, reported Axios…
Since the change of ownership two years ago, Greyhound has closed scores of its central bus stations around the country, either by cutting services completely, or moving to far out sites as a cost-saving measure to sell off the depots to real estate developers…
But as demand fell – with passengers numbers dropping by a third from 1960 to 1990 and then halving again between 1980 and 2006 – and running costs increased, they became less economically viable to run.
Given the American emphasis on driving, buses offer opportunities to move a lot of people along existing road networks. This limits the needs for fixed railroad tracks and buses can make more stops.
Like most transit hubs, buses and bus stations are shared spaces where members of different neighborhoods or social classes mix—which has made them important symbolic battlegrounds in civil rights history.
Black Americans, escaping the Jim Crow South for better opportunities in the north and west, used Greyhound buses during the Great Migration. The Freedom Riders used Greyhound buses to protest segregation and to test new protections on interstate passenger travel. In 1961, a mob beat and firebombed the Riders’ bus in Anniston, Alabama, attempting to trap the passengers, who escaped through the windows and door; the Riders had to be evacuated from Anniston through a convoy…
The accessibility of bus services and the mutability of their routes have historically made it an effective method for cities to move systemic problems elsewhere. Prior to the 1996 Olympics, for example, Atlanta leaders aimed to make the city more hospitable to the world by reducing its hospitality to people experiencing homelessness. The city bought thousands of one-way bus tickets to other locales to remove homeless populations from sight.
With more emphasis in the United States on driving individual vehicles – and this is a marker of self-sufficiency and freedom – buses can get short shrift. For those who cannot afford cars and other travel options, buses can offer opportunities – if they are available.
Rosemont could cite and fine bus companies from Texas, impound their vehicles, and arrest drivers for dropping off migrants in town, under an ordinance approved Monday.
The new rules — which are similar to ones in Cicero and tighter penalties being considered by the Chicago City Council this week — come after about a half dozen buses started bringing asylum-seekers to Rosemont last Wednesday.
Each bus had about 40 to 50 people, who were being let off in front of the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center, the Metra Rosemont station on Balmoral Avenue, and the Metra O’Hare transfer station on Zemke Boulevard on airport property next to Rosemont.
“We’re not going to let them just drop people off and drive away,” Mayor Brad Stephens said Monday. “It’s inhumane dropping them off on a concrete sidewalk on a day like today.”
Migrants are no longer being dropped off at the city’s landing zone on buses from the southern border, causing people to wander with no direction looking for shelter, according to an aide to Mayor Brandon Johnson.
Cristina Pacione-Zayas, Johnson’s deputy chief of staff, said the lack of communication is directly correlated with the city’s harsher penalties for bus owners whose vehicles violate rules to rein in chaotic bus arrivals from the southern border. She suspects bus companies are finding other ways to get migrants into the city. As of Saturday, more than 25,900 migrants had arrived in Chicago since August 2022, according to city records.
Under revised rules Wednesday, buses face “seizure and impoundment” for unloading passengers without a permit or outside of approved hours and locations. Violators will also be subject to $3,000 fines, plus towing and storage fees.
If this “works,” how many suburbs and cities will adopt similar approaches?
The problem is structural: Washington just isn’t set up to address the housing crisis. The federal government plays a large, but largely indirect, role in the housing market. It operates through incentives, credits, guarantees, and subsidies. Rather than building housing, it makes mortgages cheaper and covers part of market rents. Rather than setting up retirement communities, it provides tax breaks for developers. You could say the country’s real department of housing and urban development is the Treasury Department, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Senate committee responsible for housing is the Banking Committee…
It wasn’t always that way. Indeed, Washington played an aggressive role in expanding the country’s housing stock from the 1930s to the 1970s. As part of the New Deal, the government financed the construction of homes for tens of thousands of families. HUD was founded during Lyndon Johnson’s administration and, as part of his Great Society, set out to build or rehabilitate millions of housing units…
Something else is stopping Washington from addressing the housing crisis: the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. Land-use policy is not the purview of the federal government. It’s the purview of the states. Congress cannot rewrite Los Angeles’s building code. The White House can’t decide to upzone West Hartford, Connecticut. “I used to spend time with my counterparts in other countries and they’d say, Well, we just updated our national building code and national zoning code. We just wrote a national housing strategy,” Donovan told me. “I’d say, Wait, you have a national building code?”
As my colleague Jerusalem Demsas has written, we have delegated our housing policy not just to state and local governments but to every neighborhood’s homeowners association. Residents of a given place have ample opportunities—zoning-board meetings, candidate forums, historical architectural reviews, city-council open mics—to stop development. So they do. And thus mostly wealthy, mostly older people shape policy to their preferences: keeping new families out, maintaining single-family zoning, stopping development, and prioritizing the aesthetics of buyers over the needs of renters.
I understand the difficulties of creating federal laws or policies that then run into local government and zoning issues. I have written about this.
But, I am a little confused about the argument overall. It might be more accurate to say that the HUD and federal agencies have been reluctant to be directly involved in providing housing. The United States tried to provide some public housing in the mid-twentieth century and this did not go well. The federal government ended up retreating and, as the article notes, largely provides help now through housing vouchers.
At the same time, the federal government has an impact on financial markets, housing policy, and housing aspirations. Look at all of the interest in addressing interest rates. Or, the interest in mortgage regulations. Or, how politicians discuss homeownership. In other words, one journalist provided this quote of how housing works in the United States: “The former governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, told me this: “Most countries have socialized health care and a free market for mortgages. You in the United States do exactly the opposite.”
Could the federal government do more to provide actual housing units? Yes, it could. This would require a concerted effort and resources as this has not been the approach for a while. Does the federal government promote housing, specifically supporting single-family homes? Yes, it does.
From the perspective of this college professor, I tend to like the end of the semester. We are wrapping up our work. We have spent weeks talking together and considering readings. We have learned and put into practice knowledge and skills. And, perhaps most importantly, the final work – whether exams or papers or discussions – demonstrate how students have grown from the beginning of the course to the end.
And then we start over again. In the middle of the school year, this involves several weeks off. In the summer, this involves months. The class process starts again, sometimes from the very beginning in some classes and sometimes building off what you and students did in the previous semester.
This is a rhythm and cycle I am very familiar with after being in college/university settings for over half of my life. It can be exhausting and life-giving. It can be both in the same semester, depending on courses and contexts. It will continue ad infinitum whether I am involved with it or not.
May all who have an upcoming break from school find it to actually be a break.
The “American Dream” costs about $3.4 million to achieve over the course of a lifetime, from getting married to saving for retirement, according to a recent analysis from financial site Investopedia.
Meanwhile, median lifetime earnings for the typical U.S. worker stand at $1.7 million, earlier research from the Georgetown University has found.
Such figures underline the financial pressures that many families face trying to afford a middle-class life as expenses like child care, college tuition and buying a home continue to climb. The Investopedia analysis tallies the average cost of achieving other aspects traditionally associated with the American Dream, such as owning a house and raising two children to age 18.
Another analysis, from USA Today, found that funding the American Dream costs about $130,000 a year for a family of four. Median household income stands at about $74,450, according to the Census Bureau.
One key facet of the American Dream is that it is supposed to be available to all. That never meant everyone would achieve it, particularly as Americans often emphasize individual hard work and taking advantage of opportunities. But, it should be reachable in a society where many Americans value and see themselves as middle-class.
Perhaps this is why there is a market or demand for particular experiences that provide part of the American Dream or a taste of it. One traditional marker of the American Dream in the United States is owning a home. This is displayed on TV, illustrated in toys, and promoted by presidents. If people can just own a home, they have a strong case to make for attaining the American Dream. Or, consider the freedom of driving down the road in your vehicle to wherever you want. This experience offers a taste of the larger American Dream.
If large numbers of Americans cannot obtain the American Dream now and in the coming years, this could mean the Dream becomes redefined. Maybe it will have different elements. Or, perhaps it will be more commonly viewed as attainable only by some. It could be a status symbol of the elite. Or, new policies and conditions could renew aid and efforts toward achieving the American Dream. Politicians could run on this idea while grassroots movements could promote it.
As things stand right now, there are no protections that would prevent future owners from altering or tearing down the house. Its location is just outside of the Naperville Historic District, where regulations dictate standards for exterior home improvements. It is part of a federal historic district, but their rules is not nearly as restrictive, according to the Illinois Historic Preservation Office.
Preservation is possible were it to be made a city landmark, a process open to any Naperville property over 50 years old, but that requires the recommendation of the Naperville Historic Preservation Commission and the approval of the Naperville City Council.
There are only four historic landmarks in Naperville.
Heap said he and his fellow co-owners are keeping options open but acknowledges the house’s future will hinge on who it’s sold to. That also goes for whether Heap’s law practice stays on as tenants.
This is not a new debate in Naperville. As the article notes, the suburb has a historic district that developed over time and through much discussion. Naperville has lots of teardowns where public debate could pit the property rights of the owners against the interests of neighbors or the community.
Is four historic landmarks, then, good or enough? The current four include two houses, one former church, and a former library building. One way to figure this out would be to do some comparing to other suburbs. I do not know these figures but someone or an organization might have them. Another way to think about it is that Naperville has a track record of preserving its past and telling its own story, such as through Naper Settlement and other actors. A third option would be to have some sense of what leaders and residents want concerning landmarks; do they want to save particular structures or have guidelines for more buildings and properties?
The matter of preserving buildings in the suburbs is an ongoing conversation as buildings from a prior era come up against changing conditions and styles. This includes homes (even McMansions eventually?) but also civic buildings and business structures. The American suburbs have had a particular look for decades but there is no guarantee that much or all of that remain in the future unless there are dedicated efforts to the contrary.
“We’re not New York. We’re not L.A. We’re sure not Chicago. We fix our problems.”
Quick quiz: Who recently said that? Ron DeSantis? Greg Abbott? Nikki Haley?
The answer is John Whitmire, a Democrat who over the weekend resoundingly won election as mayor of Houston, the nation’s fourth largest city and on track to overtake Chicago as third largest if present demographic trends continue…
Politically, Chicago comes across to much of the rest of the country as a city that’s off course, focusing not on the issues at the top of residents’ priority list (public safety, jobs, public transit, for example) but on progressive to-do lists. Not only are Johnson and his City Council allies choosing to spend their time and political capital on issues the majority of Chicagoans view as less than pressing, they’re doing a poor job even when it comes to their own priorities.
Several factors appear to be at work. First, as noted, Houston is approaching Chicago’s population. Chicago was once the second city, then became the third city, and likely will soon be the fourth city. This means a decline a status, both internally and from the outside.
Second, Chicago has long had a reputation as “the city that works.” It might have all sorts of problems but things got done. If the perception inside and outside is that things do not get done, then people might have concerns.
Legally Sociable 