Author |
Message |
   
Vicdeluca
| Posted on Friday, March 9, 2001 - 10:16 am: |    |
Here is the information on the 2000 Census in comparison to the 1990 Census. The overall increase in population is about 11% (23,868 in 2000 vs. 21,572 in 1990). The numbers below are 2000, 1990, + or - number and + or - percentage. White 14,030 18,164 -4,164 -23% Black 7,788 2,590 +5,198 +201% Native American 31 6 +25 +416% Asian 689 594 +95 +16% Multi-racial Not used in 1990 957 Other 373 218 +155 +71% TOTAL 23,868 21,572 +2,296 +11% Hispanic (of any race and already counted above) 1248 761 +487 +64% |
   
Malone
| Posted on Friday, March 9, 2001 - 10:44 am: |    |
Does anyone have similar numbers for South Orange? |
   
Dacar
| Posted on Friday, March 9, 2001 - 8:04 pm: |    |
Vic Assuming the new population are families or potential families replacing senior citizens - what is the projected impact of elementry schools in the near future? |
   
Pcg
| Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 12:30 am: |    |
I'll bite. The most notable of this to me is as follows: 1990 84% White 12% Black 2000 59% White 32% Black 1990 Total Pop 21572 2000 Total Pop 23868 11% Increase This data, both 1990 and 2000 are nothing more than a snapshot in time, already our towns racial make up is different than these statistics indicate. What is the projected racial make up of the town in 2005. Is it important? Does anyone care? Questions from this data do not revolve around families replacing senior citizens. We need more information, which will be available in the next few months. A provocative line of questions deal with the impact of tax reevaluation as it pertains to racial make up. With appropriate information about the race of household, what would we learn if we did regression analysis on tax rate changes versus racial make up? Is their a correlation of tax rate change to racial make up of the household? Is it significant? Is it indicative of a racial bias in the process? Does anyone care? (note Fridays Star Ledger has the raw data behind these numbers) |
   
Imacgrandma
| Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 10:24 am: |    |
An article in a newspaper today ended with the comment that more senior housing is needed. The last thing I, a senior, want is more senior housing. I love my neighborhood, I love my neighbors and their kids, and I don't want to leave my home. What I need is a family to take over my home but let me stay here!!! Oh, well, perhaps more on this later. It's SUNNY today and I'm going out NOW for a hike.! |
   
Mtierney
| Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 11:29 am: |    |
Another senior heard from! And an IMac person too! I also don't want to leave my home and I have been "put down" for not wanting to be "put out" of Maplewood. There was a county program - don't know if it's still around - which will match families needing housing to seniors who will share their homes. It may be what you are looking for. Just imagine what will happen to the school population if every senior adopts a family! Anyway, glad to know there's another home lover on this board. |
   
Dytunck
| Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 12:21 pm: |    |
Malone wanted to see South Orange numbers. Here's 2000 census numbers for Maplewood and South Orange, as posted in the NS-L.
| White | Black | Native American | Asian | Other | Multi-racial | TOTAL | South Orange | 10,248 | 5,309 | 16 | 665 | 266 | 460 | 16,964 | | 60.4% | 31.3% | 0.1% | 3.9% | 1.6% | 2.7% | 100% | | | | | | | | | Maplewood | 14,030 | 7,788 | 31 | 689 | 373 | 957 | 23,868 | | 58.8% | 32.6% | 0.1% | 2.9% | 1.6% | 4.0% | 100.0% | |
|
   
Kathy
| Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 4:53 pm: |    |
Since the Star-Ledger did not print 1990 figures for comparison, it's hard to compare the changes in South Orange vs. Maplewood. But from what I knew of the two towns ten years ago, I would venture to say that South Orange has changed less than Maplewood in the last ten years. |
   
Joancrystal
| Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 5:13 pm: |    |
Does the added population mean more outside funding? How does this growth compare with other parts of the county? state? |
   
Dytunck
| Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 6:25 pm: |    |
Kathy, couldn't show the demographic shift because, as you noted, the 1990 breakdown wasn't posted. Here are the 1980, 1990 and 2000 totals:
| 1980 | 1990 | 2000 | SO | 15,864 | 16,390 | 16,964 | Map | 22,950 | 21,652 | 23,868 | | South Orange grew around 3.5%, Maplewood grew 10.2%. The County of Essex grew from 778,206 in 1990 to 793,633 in 2000. The 15,427 increase is about 2%. The State of New Jersey grew 8.9% The United States grew 13.2% More interesting tid-bits: Irvington lost 60% of its white residents, going from over 13,000 in 1990 to approximately 5,400 in 2000. Irvington also lost 45% of its Asians and showed a 21% decrease in Hispanics. The total population, however, was relatively stable, losing 323 from the total in 1990 to just around 60,700. Here are some oddball towns: Tavistock, population 24. (not thousand, two dozen people!) Walpack, population 41. Pine Valley, population 20. Teterboro, population 18. (with a huge ratable. wonder what their taxes are?) Here are three towns in Cape May County: Lower Township Middle Township Upper Township Wonder if they have East/West conflicts....."We live on the Upper east side, you live on the Lower west side" The town with the population closest to Maplewood's: Roxbury, 23,883. South Orange's twin: Asbury Park, 16,930 Municipality with the largest population increase: Lakewood added the most, 15,304, since 1990. 34% increase!! Largest decrease: Camden lost 7,588. Dyt |
   
Gerardryan
| Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 7:43 pm: |    |
Today's Star Ledger says that Maplewood is one of the top 10 towns in the state whose growth was dominated by children! Quite believable, I would say. Joancrystal: The population figures are used to factor aid from various sources. More immediately interesting is the use of population figures for the congressional and legislative redistricting. Maplewood has been a part of three congressional districts for the last 10 years. It seems likely that the 7th (Ferguson's) will shrink and Maplewood will be removed from it. Will we all end up in Pascrell's? Or Payne's? And what happens to the state legislative lines? |
   
Ejt
| Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 7:51 pm: |    |
I've got a map of Maplewood from 1930 that states the population was 21,338. Amazing to me that it's basically stayed the same over the decades. Any theories? Is it that the town just can't accommodate any more than 20-25,000? |
   
Bix
| Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 10:54 pm: |    |
Anyone know why M/SO is 32% black but Columbia H.S. is 55% black? |
   
Goodolddays
| Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 11:32 pm: |    |
Gerardryan...After reading your last contribution, have come to one conclusion.....spoken like a true person in the area of politics. Bix...an interesting observation. Maybe someone made a mistake when taking attendance? Or could it be....nice to have relatives living in M/SO? |
   
Dytunck
| Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 12:51 am: |    |
What's in a name? There are 7 towns named Washington in NJ. Can't we find another name for our towns? Washington Twp. Bergen Cty pop. 8,938 Washington Twp. Burlington Cty pop. 621 Washington Twp. Gloucester Cty pop. 47,114 Washington Twp. Mercer Cty pop. 10,275 Washington Twp. Morris Cty pop. 17,592 Washington Twp. Warren Cty pop. 6,248 Washington Boro Warren Cty pop. 6,712 There's an East Brunswick, New Brunswick, North Brunswick, South Brunswick, but there's no Brunswick. There's Hope, Hopewell, Hopewell Boro and Hopewell Township. There are 2 Harrisons. We Jerseyites like Parks: Cliffside, Elmwood, Harrington, Midland, Palisades, Ridgefield, Rochelle, Edgewater, Audubon, National, Highland, Asbury, Prospect, Seaside, Lincoln, Florham and Roselle. And love Woods: Linwood, Elmwood Park, Englewood, Englewood Cliffs, Woodland, Collinswood, Woodbury, Woodbury Heights, Kingwood, Woodstown, Fanwood, Garwood, Ringwood, Lakewood, Beachwood, Eagleswood, Spotswood, Woodbridge, Woodlynne, Wildwood, West Wildwood, Wildwood Crest, Woodbine, Maplewood, Maywood, Norwood, Ridgewood, Westwood, Wood-Ridge and Woodcliff Lake. All in the most densely populated urban sprawl of a state |
   
Gerardryan
| Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 1:48 am: |    |
Goodolddays: laugh if you like but those decisions will be with us for the next 10 years.... |
   
Spw784
| Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 9:14 am: |    |
What about the Oranges and the Caldwells? Orange, East Orange, South Orange and West Orange, but no North Orange? and Caldwell, North Caldwell, and West Caldwell... no South or East Caldwell? |
   
Imacgrandma
| Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 3:32 pm: |    |
When I looked at the census report I noted that Livingston, just above Maplewood in the list, has a rather large Asian population, whereas Maplewood's is small. I spoke with a friend from Taiwan. She said her friends moved to Livingston, Millburn and Summit for the schools, because they are so good. That rubs salt in Maplewood's wounds! |
   
Thetruth07040
| Posted on Monday, March 12, 2001 - 8:59 am: |    |
Well, this tread certainly ties back to a number of others here, including Demographics, The Irvington Factor and The one regarding Sunday's Star Ledger article about re-segregation. I find the statistics quite interesting. I would still like to know how much of the minority population increase between 1990 and 2000 occurred in the East side of Maplewood, and statistically, what is the percentage black vs white on each side of town. For the sake of argument, let's use Springfield Ave as the dividing line? I have a feeling that the results will be shocking. |
   
Malone
| Posted on Monday, March 12, 2001 - 9:20 am: |    |
Bix. A tremendous number of (mostly white) students from M/SO attend private high schools. I know many just in my little Jefferson neck of the woods. This probably skews the numbers a little. |
   
Davel
| Posted on Monday, March 12, 2001 - 4:25 pm: |    |
Bix. Another reason besides what Malone mentions is that the minority population is considerably younger than the white population. |
   
Lseltzer
| Posted on Monday, March 12, 2001 - 5:53 pm: |    |
Davel: I suppose I can believe this, but until we have further census numbers we're guessing about it, right? |
   
Nicky
| Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2001 - 10:16 am: |    |
Thetruth: Is integration only a black and white issue or are other minorities considered? In particular, where do Hispanics and Asians fit in your view. |
   
Nohero
| Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2001 - 11:58 am: |    |
Just can't resist jumping in here ... EJT is right, the population in Maplewood has stayed pretty steady over the years. According to historical census data, the population in the last few censuses was as follows: 1930 - 21,321 1940 - 23,139 1950 - 25,201 1960 - 23,977 1970 - 24,932 1980 - 22,950 1990 - 21,652 (I'm not sure why the last number is different from the one Vic had at the top for 1990, but the chart this came from is online here.) Maplewood was essentially "built-out" in the 30's, and it looks like we "peaked" in population in the fifties. But, our current population is still below the all-time high. As for the age of the residents, according to the "New Jersey Data Center", of the 2000 census population of 23,868, 17175 are 18 and over. In other words, 6693 are under 18. 1990 Census data for Maplewood shows a total of 5065 under age 18. So, between 1990 and 2000, the under-18 population increased from 5065 to 6693. So yes, there are more kids around these days! |
   
Ashear
| Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2001 - 12:08 pm: |    |
Re the difference in 1990 numbers and comparisons in general. My impression is that there are two sets of 1990 numbers out there. One set adjusted for undercounting (mostly of the poor and minorities) and one not. I don't know who is using what numbers but it might explain why different people have different ones. I know there is also a big fight about doing the same thing for the 2000 numbers. Anyone know more about this? |
   
Nohero
| Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2001 - 12:15 pm: |    |
I don't think that the difference is due to sampling adjustments. It seems that the Census Bureau has counts for "municipalities", for "zip codes" and for something called a "CDP". For whatever reason, the numbers are slightly different depending on which one is used to get data for Maplewood. As for this year - the Census is releasing unadjusted numbers, primarily because their study panel concluded that there was not enough time to complete the work needed to utilize a statistical adjustment |
   
Greenetree
| Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2001 - 2:37 pm: |    |
FYI- If anyone wants to know where the extra 1,628 kids are- I think they are all cutting across my lawn on the way home from school. |
|