By Ken Alltucker
The Cincinnati Enquirer

Greater Cincinnati's relentless march to the suburbs shows little sign of slowing, new Census population estimates show.

Estimates released Thursday conclude that Hamilton County lost 2.6 percent of its population from April 2000 to July 2003 - a faster decline than all but tech-wrecked San Francisco among the nation's 100 largest counties.

But Hamilton County's population loss was more than offset by fast suburban growth that led the 15-county Greater Cincinnati region to increase its population by nearly 2 percent to 2,047,333.

The sprawling new homes, office parks and trendy shops north and south of Cincinnati helped swell Warren County's population by 14.7 percent and Boone County's by 13 percent in just three years. All other Greater Cincinnati counties achieved modest growth, except Northern Kentucky's Campbell County, where population dropped less than 1 percent.

Some experts think that the suburban pull stresses local governments in older, declining cities and fast-growing bedroom communities alike. While older neighborhoods struggle to retain tax base as people leave, newer communities must figure out how to pay for costly sewers, roads and schools, said Michael Romanos, a University of Cincinnati economic development professor.

"The more population and businesses Hamilton County loses, the more property taxes will have to go up to substitute for the losses," Romanos said.

Hamilton County's national ranking has diminished, too. During the 1990s, Hamilton County was knocked from its perch among the nation's 50 largest counties to No. 52 in 2000. The latest Census report shows Cincinnati's core county has retreated even further. Its fall puts it at No. 57.

Population of Sunbelt counties and tech hotspots such as Pima County, Ariz. (which includes Tucson); Fresno County, Calif.; and Travis County, Texas (which includes Austin) raced past Hamilton County over the past three years.

Although the Census report didn't include updated population figures for Cincinnati and other cities or townships, earlier reports show that Cincinnati and suburbs ringing it have been largely responsible for the county's drain.

"The two biggest issues of why people are moving out are the quality of the housing stock and the quality of schools," said Hamilton County Commissioner Todd Portune.

Hamilton County planners put a brave face on the new figures. Although the loss of people over the past three years has already surpassed the rate of decline in the 1990s, planners say it hasn't matched the exodus of the 1970s when population skidded 6 percent.

"We're getting relatively flat in terms of the rate of decline," said Ron Miller, director of the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission. "This could be the bottom."

What's more, Miller said, the population freefall isn't all doom and gloom. He cited his agency's 2003 report that showed Hamilton County remains the dominant employment center even as people leave.

The biggest factor in Hamilton County's population decline over the past three decades has been young families leaving the county for the suburbs of Warren, Butler and Clermont counties and Northern Kentucky, Miller said. The new Census figures show that trend continuing with more than 33,700 people ditching Hamilton County over the past three years. (New births cushioned the county's total population loss to just over 21,800.)

Even though Hamilton County has lost more than 100,000 people since 1970, census figures show the number of homes surged 20 percent over the last three decades. The number of households increased 17.4 percent over the same period - an indication that household size is shrinking.

Yet Miller acknowledges that other factors are at play, too. The number of empty or abandoned buildings has risen sharply over the last decade as more people leave century-old homes clustered in near-downtown neighborhoods and inner-ring suburbs.

County leaders have attempted to stem the decline with an array of housing programs, property tax breaks and other incentives aimed at encouraging families to spend money to renovate older homes. One such initiative sponsored by Portune offers homeowners discounted loans to fix up their Hamilton County homes rather than leave for the suburbs.

Launched in June 2002 amid great fanfare, the Home Improvement Program completed 451 loans totaling $6.5 million during its first six months. But a lack of marketing has hurt the program, Portune and program administrators acknowledge.

In 2003, the program completed 212 loans totaling $3.3 million. Through the first two months of this year, only 18 loans for $248,115 have been approved.

Patrick Hanrahan, who administers the program for the county, said few people are seeking the loan program because they are able to get low-interest loans from banks. (The main benefit of the program is that it lowers home-improvement loan rates by 3 percent from existing bank rates, but it requires homeowners to spend the money on improvements.)

Portune blames the program's struggles on a lack of promotion.

"This is something we're going to have to raise more directly with the banks," Portune said. "The banks are pushing their own product, as opposed to our product."

Suburban communities, too, are looking for ways to manage growth. Clermont County recently announced an initiative to overhaul its economic development effort to streamline incentives to businesses and make it easier for developers to secure building permits.

Even though the county's population has jumped 4.4 percent to nearly 186,000 since 2000, county development officials worry that the newcomers will shoulder too much of the tax burden unless the county recruits more business.

Now, homeowners pay about 80 percent and businesses about 20 percent of taxes in many Clermont County townships. Elected officials want to see up to 40 percent of the tax burden paid by businesses, said Curt Paddock, Clermont County's director of economic development.

"Even though we have that significant population growth, we're not happy that a relatively low percentage of those folks work in Clermont County," Paddock said.

Winners and losers

Here's the top five gainers and decliners in population, by percentage points, among the nation's 100 most populous counties from 2000 to 2003:

Winners

1. Collin County, Texas (suburban Dallas) 21.5

2. Will County, Ill. (suburban Chicago) 16.8

3. Riverside County, Calif. (Palm Springs), 15.4

4. Clark County, Nev. (Las Vegas), 14.6

5. Gwinnett County, Ga. (suburban Atlanta), 14.4

Losers

96. Allegheny County, Pa. (Pittsburgh), -1.6

97. Cuyahoga County, Ohio, -2.2

98. Philadelphia County, Pa., -2.5

99. Hamilton County, Ohio, -2.6

100. San Francisco County, Calif., -3.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

E-mail kalltucker@enquirer.com