My comments on the proposed addition of a citizenship question to the US Census

I’m sorry to leave this till the last minute, but there are just over 24 hours left to make public comments on an important mistake that the US Census Bureau is set on making. The Bureau has proposed, over the objections of many of its own staff, to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 survey. This is a terrible idea which is almost certain to cause immigrants to be undercounted because of fear, especially in the context of the vicious hostility the US has been displaying against immigrants over the past couple of years. Even if that were an unintended consequence, it would be reason enough to oppose this change, but there is also strong reason to believe it’s being done in bad faith. Meanwhile, the 2020 Census was already in danger from good old fashioned neglect, underfunding and incompetence, problems that will only be compounded by adding a question that discourages responses.

As someone who uses Census statistics regularly in my work, I am concerned that if this is allowed to go through it will leave us unable to rely on the 2020 count as the accurate snapshot we depend on it being. As a citizen and resident of this country, I am afraid that what we’re seeing is a deliberate attempt to skew future elections and federal government resource allocations by systematically undercounting the population of areas with more immigrants.

If you read this in time, please make a public comment.  It doesn’t have to be a long reasoned argument—even just saying “please don’t add the citizenship question” may be worth something—but here’s what I wrote, trying to put it in terms that the Census Bureau is officially supposed to care about, in case it helps you to write yours: Continue reading “My comments on the proposed addition of a citizenship question to the US Census”

Blindly trusting data will leave you all at sea

Zillow recently published a report on how many houses are at risk from sea level rise around the US. It’s a good idea, but looking closely at where I live reveals some… issues in their analysis. Here’s a screenshot from the Seattle Times’ article with the local angle on the report:

Homes that Zillow thinks are at risk of flooding from sea level rise in Seattle

If you know Seattle, you can probably spot the first problem. For those who don’t: the Eastern shore, and the cluster N of the word “Seattle” on that map are all lakefronts, separated from the sea by the rather large Ballard Locks. The local article’s been updated to mention that, but Zillow’s downloadable data hasn’t. And even the local article misses a detail: if sea levels were to rise by a foot more than the analysis assumed, the highest tides would still only be 4¾ inches over the lock gates—a problem for some houses for sure, but nothing like the 7 feet of flooding we’d have on our sea side, and much less than the amount the lake is already allowed to rise and fall by.

But there’s another problem, unrelated to quirks of Seattle’s Herculean engineering, and much more worrying for the reliability of this analysis. Continue reading “Blindly trusting data will leave you all at sea”