Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Pittsburgh’s Population Loss
The Census Bureau’s estimates on population changes have been heavily covered in the local media due to the fact that the City of Pittsburgh’s population fell by 4,000 people from July 2004 to July 2005. The City’s population now stands at just over 316,000 people and it is possible that the City could be home to less than 300,000 people by the end of the decade if that rate continues.
What a precipitous fall. Since standing at 676,000 six decades ago, the City has lost close to 360,000 people. Major economic transformation contributed to much of this change, but heavy-handed government and civic intervention beginning in the 1950s certainly did not help.
There’s something to be said about the relationship between government spending and taxes and the attractiveness of a City. In 2004 we did a study that examined similarly sized cities to Pittsburgh (300-380,000 people) and line items in their 2002 budgets. Pittsburgh, along with Cincinnati and St. Louis, consistently ranked at the top of the list for per-capita spending and taxes collected. They spend well above average on the public safety functions of police and fire protection.
What has happened to their population count? Since 2000, those three cities have lost population with Pittsburgh falling 5.3 percent. Cincinnati lost close to 7 percent, St. Louis at just over 1 percent.
Conversely, cities that we found spending and taxing at a fraction of the rate of Pittsburgh—cities like Colorado Springs, Arlington, Raleigh, and Tampa—have added population over the five-year period.
This is not to imply a causal relationship, but there seems to be a correlation between a low-spending, taxpayer-friendly government and the attractiveness of a city. The cities that are growing have the added bonus of being located in Right to Work states with low levels of public sector unionization. Pittsburgh and Cincinnati have pursued strategies of subsidizing stadium and convention center construction while not tackling core problems. They languish, while the others flourish. Go figure.
What a precipitous fall. Since standing at 676,000 six decades ago, the City has lost close to 360,000 people. Major economic transformation contributed to much of this change, but heavy-handed government and civic intervention beginning in the 1950s certainly did not help.
There’s something to be said about the relationship between government spending and taxes and the attractiveness of a City. In 2004 we did a study that examined similarly sized cities to Pittsburgh (300-380,000 people) and line items in their 2002 budgets. Pittsburgh, along with Cincinnati and St. Louis, consistently ranked at the top of the list for per-capita spending and taxes collected. They spend well above average on the public safety functions of police and fire protection.
What has happened to their population count? Since 2000, those three cities have lost population with Pittsburgh falling 5.3 percent. Cincinnati lost close to 7 percent, St. Louis at just over 1 percent.
Conversely, cities that we found spending and taxing at a fraction of the rate of Pittsburgh—cities like Colorado Springs, Arlington, Raleigh, and Tampa—have added population over the five-year period.
This is not to imply a causal relationship, but there seems to be a correlation between a low-spending, taxpayer-friendly government and the attractiveness of a city. The cities that are growing have the added bonus of being located in Right to Work states with low levels of public sector unionization. Pittsburgh and Cincinnati have pursued strategies of subsidizing stadium and convention center construction while not tackling core problems. They languish, while the others flourish. Go figure.
