Ah, the problem of different tools measuring different things.
The census measures people who live in given area, and everyone "counts".
However, I was thinking more in terms of real estate documents that measure the number of recently built or reoccupied units in a given neighborhood. Despite this, I used the term "people and population", when in fact I meant to state that there are:
- more occupied units of housing, and (dare I say it),
- more people who are readily seen.
For example, homeless people are a subset of low income people that are often hard to miss. However, seniors and children do not tend to occupy the same public spaces, or in the same manner, and are thus easier to miss.
Everyone with me?
Of course, all of this depends on where you tend to spend your day, and who you tend to see..... For people who work the typical 9-5 job, and make an "ok" (whatever that means...) salary, the poorest members of a given neighborhood are often almost "invisible": They rarely eat or drink with "them", or even ride the subway at the same time.
It hopefully comes as no surprise that the poorest in our society are disproportionately:
a. families with young children and only one wage earner,
b. the elderly.
c. not "white".
Unless they able to "score" some variety of subsidized housing, these populations are usually in the first wave of people that don't/can't renew their lease in a neighborhood with increasing rents.
....I'm of the opinion that very few poor people can quickly increase their income to meet a rent increase, because they would have a long time ago if they could.
But back on topic:
Rents are increasing. What role in the food chain do you occupy? Are you poor to the degree that you must...
Or, merely cut back on other expenses?
Or, finally cover more expenses from tenant rent?
Sadly, it is much easier to down the food chain than up it.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.