Scads of people are moving to Maryland. The Census Bureau tells us so. But people are moving away in droves. Which all points to more people for York, PA.
Confused? Thought so.
This editorial in the Baltimore Sun explains some of it. See, a growing population does not necessarily men people like living in a place. For instance, Maryland is becoming more and more congested. So people are bolting for greener, or at least less congested, pastures. That's not really news. But the editorial is still worth a look for this:
It does Maryland no good to lose residents to other states - especially when there's room for housing in Maryland, and it's not on farmland or in forests. It's in the city of Baltimore, which once had a population half again as large as it does now. It could again. But last year, Baltimore took the third-biggest hit after the D.C. suburbs when it came to net migration - losing nearly 8,000 more residents than it gained.
This is odd. Because when you read other reports, you see people chattering about what a huge success Baltimore is in terms of getting people interested in cities again.
But that's neither here nor there. What I find interesting is the level of AMBITION in this editorial: "Baltimore, which once had a population half again as large as it does now. It could again." Wow. It's not very often you see people talking in stark terms like that. Can Baltimore really be as big as it was at its peak? Should it be? What would it look like? Who would live there? How would they live? Is this just true of Baltimore? Or is it something that can/should happen in other aging Rust Belt cities? Baltimore has DC, after all. But does that mean that rather than re-emerging as a "city," it's going to become an enormous suburb? Should we WANT people to live in Baltimore and work in DC?
But at least they are putting it on the line and saying what their vision is. Baltimore, as big as it ever was. Man. You don't hear a lot of people talking about Pittsburgh becoming a city of 600,000 again.