Editor's note
Wendy Utzig is a firefighter and a Registered Nurse in Pike Township of Marion County. This week she discusses with us the emerging role of an Emergency Medical Technician as a beneficial health worker and cost cutter. Hear it all at the Who Gets What? podcast via mortonjohn.libsyn.com.
Both Indiana and the federal government provide assistance to communities with problems of growth or declines in population. Here is our recent record of population changes.

Indiana has 566 cities and towns. In the past four years (2020 to 2024), 340 (60%) of them added nearly 118,000 to our population, according to the annual estimates from the Census Bureau. Of the remaining 226 (40%) of our cities and towns, 41 had no change in population and the rest lost 12,900 persons.

Our six largest cities (those over 100,000 residents), with 34% of our population, had 19% of the growth. Only Evansville lost population (fewer than 2,000 persons). Two Indianapolis suburbs (Carmel and Fishers) joined the 100,000 club.

Our 389 cities and towns with less than 2,500 residents, were 69% of all places, and just 7% of our population. Just over half of them saw any population growth, and that was less than 1% of the state’s total increase.

Where was the more vigorous growth? Over one quarter of the state’s population growth occurred in the 50,000 to 99,999 group of 15 places. Another quarter of that growth was found in the 48 smaller, 10,000 to 24,999 size communities.

Should the state assist communities with large numbers of change (adding or declining in population)? Or those places with the high rates of change?

One might argue that Westfield (another Hamilton County suburb of Indianapolis) adding nearly 16,000 persons, a 34% increase over just 4 years, should be able to derive revenue from the developers and added residents to meet the costs of added population. Sidewalks, roads, waterlines, sewers, school rooms, library collections, fire and police services, all the infrastructure and services associated with new or expanding commerce should be considered.

Those are the apparent costs, all seen as the benefits of growth. But what about the congestion, pollution, noise, dislocation, and nuisance costs spread across the city and county?

Most local governments want growth, but it may occur outside their jurisdictions. We can call it urban sprawl or just citizens seeking the pleasure of longer commutes, more powerful lawn mowers, and septic systems. Or we can emphasize the singing birds, the return to nature, the absence of streetlight pollution, the “rural” life style with accessible urban convenience.

Farmers who actually farm, often reject changes in land use. They may have concepts about the land that are difficult for the urban population to appreciate. Many farm families, however, do ultimately find suitable compensation by selling or renting land for housing, power production, or other remunerative purposes.

States and federal agencies split “urban” from “rural” issues. But many of the concerns are the same: housing, jobs, transportation to work, school, and shopping, medical services, water and air quality. A redefinition of this continuum is surely ahead. The bureaucratic split will likely remain.
Morton J. Marcus is an economist formerly with the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. His column appears in Indiana newspapers, and his views can be followed his podcast.

© 2025 Morton J. Marcus

-30-