Posted on 02/16/2011 9:02:41 PM PST by Steelers6
Rank 2010 Rank 2000 City Pop 2010 Pop 2000 % chg 1 1 Chicago 2,695,598 2,896,016 -6.9 2 3 Aurora 197,899 142,990 38.4 3 2 Rockford 152,871 150,115 1.8 4 7 Joliet 147,433 106,221 38.8 5 4 Naperville 141,853 128,358 10.5 6 6 Springfield 116,250 111,454 4.3 7 5 Peoria 115,007 112,936 1.8 8 8 Elgin 108,188 94,487 14.5 9 9 Waukegan 89,078 87,901 1.3 10 10 Cicero 83,891 85,616 -2.0
and how many Liberals are moving to more Conservatives states, turning them blue and ruin another state
White flight. Fleeing humongous tax increases as well.
And I am proud to say I was one of those who left! Best move I ever made.
Ditto.
More likely the conservatives are leaving for more like-minded states.
Looks like they’ll need more community organizers to keep the city afloat. :-)
Hmmmmmmmm, dimocRATS fleeing a sinking ship. I hope they do not move into my neighborhood. We have enough RATS as it is.
Judging by the ‘10 election returns, it appears Liberals are staying put in these hell holes and the Conservatives are moving to where freedom is easier to find. A lib probably does not see a problem living in Chi town.
Chicago - 2.7 population. 5 million voters. The liberal way.
Me too. Moved 10 years. Great city, but fatally flawed with liberalism.
Only 5 million votes. When you add in the pets, squirrels, rats, and long deceased I would have thought you would get more.
Exactly. From N to S, E to W, city to suburb, large to small. I’ve felt for a long time, just follow the population, that will tell you more about liberalism than anything. Actions speak much louder than words as liberals head for cover away from their own policy areas, neighborhoods, schools, shopping, and their own constituencies. Like the spoiled brats running for Mommy and Daddy, sure enough here they come.
That's almost a 17% decrease in the black population, much greater than the 7% decrease in overall population. So if the whites are fleeing, the blacks are way out in front of them! I can't pretend to understand these statistics, but it is certainly not "white flight" as it was understood in the 1960's.
No big surprise. Does anyone wonder why?
When my past job required traveling around the country, Chicago was my favorite city to visit.
Great bars, restaurants, food, music, etc. From Jazz & blues to German, and everything else, my “off time” was great.
But… I would not live there for free, due to the corrupt politics!
That all sounds really fascinating but people move from areas they can’t afford to live in to those they can. Big cities are critical to economic life and have always been definers of civilization so it is critical that they remain viable. Chicago is a fine place to live if you understand that certain areas are dangerous. My neighborhood on the other hand is probably safer than yours.
Very few of these movement decisions were made for political reasons.
LoL and you think Chicago’s politics were not at least as corrupt as when you were here in the past? All those things you like are still here with all you liked as before. Lou Malnati’s still tastes great, Greek town will fill you up, and the Chicago Symphony is still the world’s best band. And the Magnificent Mile is still Magnificent.
Compared to the 19th century Chicago is a hotbed of virtue in the corruption department. We haven’t even had an alderman sent to the hoosegow in several years.
Chicago sucks, I left too. Who would ever want to live among the likes of Obama?
I’ll call you on that. How many people stay in cities for the urban public educations their kids can get? Yeah, they move out for $$$, but the urban schools rotted from liberal policies. Liberalism is expensive, they don’t get value for their dollar. I can’t stand paying school taxes to districts I know is being pissed away by libs, and virtually every major city is run by them. I know tons of white liberals who run to one of the most conservative districts in Texas. They come here for schools . . . and safety. My post was about the general rule, there of course are exceptions out of millions in the populations. But don’t kid yourself that population trends aren’t politically motivated. It’s been going on for too long in too many places for it to be mere coincidence.
Those of us who have lived in Chicago for many years know where the good schools are and many send their kids to private schools. The Catholic system is huge. Most of the suburban schools are no less liberal than the city and many are far worse in that regard.
But when these folks leave and find out that their property taxes are much higher than in the city they get a very unpleasant surprise. But the teachers are paid much more in those systems than in the city so it is going to come out of the taxpayer.
While what you say about Texas may be true but I have seen this going on too long to believe that there is much of political motivation in it. It is primarily economic and actually is based primarily on the lower price of land in the outer rings around cities. Other things get factored into the decision and a political one could tip the scales but I never met many libs who wanted to move to a conservative area if they had ANY viable option.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.