Detroit has taken legal action against the U.S. Census Bureau and Commerce Department for a second time, leveling serious allegations of an undercount in its population figures. This recent lawsuit, filed under the administration of Mayor Mike Duggan in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, represents a continued struggle to ensure accurate representation and fair allocation of resources based on Census data. The city’s primary contention is with the Census Bureau’s methodology, which it claims systematically undercounts urban populations, especially those in predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, by relying on a standardized formula that fails to account for the unique characteristics of housing in older cities.
This legal challenge is not Detroit’s first confrontation with Census figures. The city’s population, according to the 2020 Census, was marked at 639,115, a figure that saw a further decline to 620,376 by July 2022, signaling a stark 15% decrease from the 731,777 residents reported in 2010. Detroit officials argue that this decline is not reflective of the city’s actual population dynamics but rather the result of a “fundamentally flawed formula” used by the Census Bureau, which bases its population estimates primarily on the number of housing units, without adequate consideration for the nuances of urban housing stock, including rehabilitated and newly constructed homes.
The city’s grievances extend to the Bureau’s handling of housing data, particularly the way demolitions and renovations are accounted for in population estimates. Detroit’s vigorous efforts to improve housing conditions through demolitions of uninhabitable structures and renovations of existing homes are, according to the city, misconstrued as population losses under the current Census methodology. This, Detroit claims, results in a systematic underestimation of its population, with detrimental effects on federal representation and funding.
Despite an adjustment by the Census Bureau in February, which modestly increased Detroit’s population estimates for 2021 and 2022, city officials maintain that these corrections are insufficient and fail to capture the true scale of Detroit’s population. The lawsuit meticulously details a wide range of housing data to bolster its case, including permits for new housing units that far exceed the Bureau’s estimates, significant numbers of properties brought into compliance by the Detroit Land Bank Authority, and substantial increases in both postal service addresses and utility customers, all indicative of a growing population.
The backdrop to this legal challenge is a broader narrative of dispute and advocacy that began three years prior, when Mayor Duggan and U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib first announced their intention to challenge the Census counts. Their concern was that the Census Bureau’s efforts during the pandemic fell short of an accurate and comprehensive count, a stance supported by discrepancies between the estimated population and the actual number of utility bills in circulation.
Adding to the city’s argument are independent research findings from 2021, suggesting significant undercounts in specific Detroit neighborhoods during the 2020 Census, further questioning the accuracy of the population estimates that followed. Mayor Duggan has been openly critical of the Census Bureau’s approach, particularly highlighting the incongruence between the observed urban revitalization, such as housing construction and increased mail delivery, and the Bureau’s declining population estimates.
Last year, Mayor Duggan didn’t hold back in his criticism, calling out the Census Bureau for what he saw as glaring oversights in recognizing signs of Detroit’s growth, as he labeled the Census Bureau a “complete national clown show” for overlooking clear indicators of Detroit’s growth, such as ongoing housing projects and an uptick in mail-receiving homes. He highlighted the city’s demolition of 2,500 vacant houses and the rehabilitation of 2,000, actions the Census interpreted as indicative of a shrinking population, ignoring those who remained or moved in.
Duggan expressed optimism at the Detroit Policy Conference in January, suggesting that the city’s arguments might be swaying the Census Bureau’s perspective on its estimation processes. His concern extends to the potential implications of the city’s blight removal initiatives, funded by the $250M Proposal N bond initiative approved by voters in 2020, which, according to Census methodologies, could further inaccurately suggest population declines.
The Detroit Land Bank Authority, the city’s largest property owner, has been instrumental in these efforts, having demolished 24,000 homes and rehabilitated 16,000. In 2022 alone, the city saw a higher number of homes rehabilitated than demolished, with 200 homes being sold each month through the buildingdetroit.org platform.
This lawsuit not only challenges the Census Bureau’s population estimates but also serves as a broader critique of federal methodologies that fail to recognize the unique challenges and transformations of urban environments like Detroit. Through detailed accounts of housing data, including permits, renovations, and utility subscriptions, Detroit aims to compel a reevaluation of how population estimates are calculated, seeking adjustments that accurately reflect the city’s demographic realities and ensure equitable access to federal resources and representation.
Detroit’s challenge to the Census Bureau is not just a quest for numerical accuracy; it’s a fight for equitable treatment and recognition of the city’s resilience and growth. Through its Land Bank, Detroit has embarked on an ambitious program of demolitions and rehabilitations, transforming the city’s housing landscape and, by extension, its community. The lawsuit, with its detailed accounts of housing developments and population dynamics, embodies the ethos of “put some respect on my name,” again, the city’s legal challenge is more than a dispute over numbers—it’s a declaration of Detroit’s enduring spirit and demand for recognition and equity in the face of systemic oversight.
About Post Author
