U.S. Census Says Hastings Population Rising

  • Comments (10)
Greenburgh and its villages all have seen an increase in population since the 2010 U.S. Census, according to estimates released by bureau Thursday.
Greenburgh and its villages all have seen an increase in population since the 2010 U.S. Census, according to estimates released by bureau Thursday. Photo Credit: Courtesy of Flickr user quinn.anna

GREENBURGH, N.Y. – With the addition of more than 500 residents, Greenburgh has seen Westchester County’s second-biggest population spike between April 2010 and July 2011, according to estimates released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Including its six villages, Greenburgh’s population is estimated to have risen to 89,033, up 524 from the 2010 Census. The town’s increase, second only to Yonkers among Westchester municipalities, translates to each of its villages, who all saw a small population spike.

Census estimates showed the following increases in each of Greenburgh’s six villages:

  • Ardsley added 26 people, increasing to 4,484.
  • Dobbs Ferry added 61 people, increasing to 10,949.
  • Elmsford added 28 people, increasing to 4,699.
  • Hastings added 46 people, increasing to 7,904.
  • Irvington added 40 people, increasing to 6,468.
  • Tarrytown added 64 people, increasing to 11,354.

Unincorporated Greenburgh also saw an increase of 259 people, the bureau suggests, rising to 43,175 people in the annual estimate. 

“These estimates provide our first look at how much the total population has changed in each of our nation's cities since we conducted the 2010 Census,” Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said in a press release.

While Hastings Mayor Peter Swiderski warned against reading too much into such a small increase in population, he said the trends are interesting, if not surprising.

“Hastings is close to New York City and has great schools, diversity of housing and a strong community identity,” he said in an email. “That will remain an attractive choice for people looking for a new home.”

The bureau's most recent estimates continue an upward trend for Elmsford that began in the 2010 Census. Mayor Robert Williams attributed the increase in residents to the village’s low taxes, good services and improving school district.

“This would be a good sign that people want to come here and live here,” he said.

In Tarrytown, village administrator Michael Blau said it wasn't surprising the village’s population has been projected to be on the rise.

“We have had some construction going on the village with new housing being built so it is no surprise to see an increase in our population,” he said.

Blau said he expects residents will see a continued growth in Tarrytown’s population in the near future with the village’s changing demographics.

“Some of families who have lived in Tarrytown all of their lives sold their homes to younger couples. So there is a change in demographics and you may see some growth patterns here in Tarrytown,” he said.

As a whole, Westchester’s population is estimated to have risen just more than 5,000, bringing the total to 955,899. The increase would continue a recent trend of a rising population in the past decade for the county. Between 2002-10, the population has increased by more than 14,000, reports show.

On a larger scale, the data suggests New York City grew by more than 70,000 people since the 2010 Census, more than any other city in the country. New York also continued to be the nation's most populous city by a large margin, with 8.2 million residents in 2011, followed by Los Angeles and Chicago.

  • 10

Comments (10)

Hal I disagree with 'regular population boom' theory. Unincorporated Greenburgh saw 259 people, which is a stark difference from the other villages. Living here, and not in one of the villages, it is easy to see that many single family designated homes are occupied by multiple families and new construction for "affordable housing" are housing lower income families with multiple people (mostly children).
Our GC7 elementary school (specifically K) adds new classrooms yearly to accommodate the upsurge in population. Look at the numbers...the villages are in double digits, with no more than 65 people. We're in triple and less than 50 away from 300 people.
Yonkers is making strong efforts to clean up their city, building high end condos on the water and putting a stop to the increase in section 8 rented apartments. This is not the answer for Grenburgh, but where do you think people will go when they can't live in Yonkers because that city has cracked down??
There should be a crackdown on multiple family dwellings and an equalizing of lower income, affordable housing and high end property in unincorporated Greenburgh.

Sorry momof2, hips and math figures don't lie. The population of unincorporated and incorporated (6 villages) is roughly the same. Thus, if you add the village increases together you get a total of 265 (not so stark) vs. unincorporated's 259.
Census figures count both adults and children in a household so don't be guilty of "double entry" bookkeeping as though school population is drawn from a parallel universe.
Your ignorance is fascinating. Building high end condos in Yonkers along the water has nothing to do with eliminating the buildings where the section 8 tenants whom you fear will emigrate to Feinerland (because of its AAA bond rating?) currently live.
While you exhibit a refined racist approach to Yonkers from afar, you also defend your beloved GC7 here as though the world is beating down the doors to enroll. Once again the numbers don't lie. Only 106 students were in the GC7 2012 graduating class.
While the 259 person increase for the entire unincorporated section of Greenburgh was not only composed of school age children (parents or households without children come to mind as other possibilities), the problem for GC7 may be with its administration and its lack of success despite its huge outlays per student. Perhaps the new broom will have some effect and spend the budget more prudently.
I don't claim to be well-versed in school matters so I'll beat a hasty retreat now but your failure to comprehend that there are other school districts in Greenburgh and that unincorporated Greenburgh is a larger piece of the pie than just your block and thus the "triple digit" increase is no more threatening than the double digits of individual villages.
And while your anonymous existence protects you from exposure as the bigot you are, I'd love to read your explanation of how to "crackdown" and achieve "equalizing". Perhaps you could host a symposium and invite Karl Marx, Robin Hood and Joseph Goebbels to speak.
And for someone who worries so much about making room in "K", maybe you should have been momof1.

Your insults are what's fascinating to me. Dare anyone to disagree. That thare Hal, shows YOUR ignorance. I'll try to reply to your...what do i call? statements or insults...one by one

Of course I can add very well, that wasn't my goal. I was specifically talking about Unincorporated Greenburgh, Fairview, Hartsdale and Edgemont areas. Thanks for adding it up though.

Of course census counts adults and children. No one suggested that it didn't. Reread my post. I live here and can see many families living together with multiple children with few adults. Thats what i attested to. Nothing more to add on that.

Of course elimination of any areas lower income housing or housing programs will upsurge lower income in other "affordable" areas. Reread my post, I'm not in 'fear' of Yonkers people at all, I stated and do believe that there should be an equaling of high end AND affordable/lower end housing. ***NEWS FLASH*** in case you missed it, there is my idea for cracking down and achieving equalizing.

BTW, I gave Yonkers as an example. I don't care where people come from, if there's an increase of rich folk living in one house next door to me, being a fire and parking hazard, I will fuss about it. Not aviation or bigotry just referenced because in my experience and opinion its more than regular population boom.

Of course I will "defend my beloved GC7". Who wouldn't support the school district where we pay taxes to and fight to improve? I believe in public education and never suggested people are beating down doors to enroll. That's your term.

Your inferences from my post are something else. Oh! And the attacks on my character makes me infer quite a few things which I won't post because this was/is about the census number increase.

Of course the graduating class has nothing to do with population at GC7 as many families pull their children out of school. I referred to K class. The families I now "try" the lower grades them pull kids out. But who knows, maybe e graduating class will be larger in a few years do to the increase in population in unincorporated Greenburgh.

I'm not well versed in school matters either, just a parent stating her views on population.

Not sure where you read any statements by me which suggest there aren't other school districts in Greenburgh or even Unincoprorated Greenburgh (hence Edgemont).

You're clearly just throwing things out there for fodder.

Again, I disagree with your statements about a simple population boom being the cause for the increase. Was that what got your panties in a bunch? Forget the population increase, feel free to attack me more, then we can go back and forth about me (one of my favorite topics). Or you can go back to Feiner bashing, either way people see right through you.

Shoot, I can't amend my previous post to correct predicttext errors!

In addition, I see more than just "illegals" piling multiple families into one family households. If I can easily see it, so can town officials, so clean it up!

I meant to also say that your posts outting Feiner on certain matters are fine and sometimes informative (for those of us not well versed on all town matters)...but then you go too far. Just tone it down a little and you'd probably have a more captive audience. Don't appear so....like you're trying to burn him at the stake. Anyway, I digress, this post was about me...I mean the census, so get back to witch hunt/burning me!!

Your post(s) really are about your frustration over tenants living in illegal HOUSING and noticing that the Town takes very little action against those landlords who profit from knowing that they can get away it. I don't disagree with this conclusion. What I take issue with is using census data which neither supports nor denies your premise. Of course unincorporated includes Hartsdale, Fairview, Edgemont AND Hartsley so when you divide the increase among these sections and then remove those that aren't GC7 eligible, the numbers aren't really overwhelming -- certainly not enough to explain your (taking your word) statement that more Kindergarten space is needed. As I'm winging this from memory (unable to scroll up beyond your correction above while commenting), what sent the train off the tracks was your faulty logic in trying to connect a long-standing and justified claim with new census data.
I do remember a comment about being able to see through me which I take as a compliment. I am the most transparent person around. I will comment without fear and out in the open. Whereas I do recognize that not everyone, often for good reasons, will not put their name behind what they write I put myself on the line for readers to judge for themselves. I invite controversy. However, too often I note that when I step on toes, the sore foot responds not about the issue or the facts but about me.
Hiding behind a screen name for this purpose only certainly invites my disdain.
As for Feiner, how can I ever go too far. The man is incompetent and uses the media not to provide information but to promote Paul Feiner under the guise of official communication. As incredible and unlikely as it may seem, Feiner is all the time as bad as I make him out to be. His believers are lulled to sleep by his catch-of-the-day approach to government. The day after, the unacted upon concern du jour is more garbage for the trucks to pick up (at curbside and now with the leaf bags at taxpayer expense). If you want to see a joke marathon, wait for the coming public outcry on the proposed lease with GameOn. Let me give you an advanced wakeup call: it ain't about whether or not the Town needs enclosed playing fields and it ain't about not in my neighborhood. Both of these distractions are the covered playing fields that Feiner wants to air publicly instead of having to deal with the serious concerns which endanger the entire Town and its taxpayers. Stay tuned.
But like most of the Feiner crowd, you fail to recognize the disconnect when it confronts even your own, most frustrating grievance. Illegal Roomers and Boarders (illegal, not about their citizenship but because they occupy illegal dwelling units), you know it's happening yet you fail to blame the person upon whose desk the buck stops -- Feiner. If I am trying to burn him at the stake which I don't deny, people like yourself should be standing in line carrying matches and kindling. As you say, if you can see it, the Town should be able to see it also and do something about it. Maybe Feiner (he is the Town, he has his Feiner team beside him to vote accordingly and together they select the Town /Department heads...). On the other hand, they, unlike me, "never go too far" which is why you think Feiner's such a jolly good fellow and therefore your complaint doesn't get handled by the self-named Problem Solver. He's too busy 24/7 blogging, posting and playing "king of all media" (used by prior agreement with H. Stern) and worrying about matters controlled by higher government: the County, the State, the Feds.
But as I suggest, pay attention when the GameOn lease comes up for discussion and don't be thrown off track by Feiner's cast of thousands recruited to keep the ball away from those who will fight to have the game called because of reign.
Hal Samis

Wow! Lots of Assumptions and inferences. Aren't you a lawyer or something? You should know better. As for me, I'm just a tax paying parent, not sure when I became part of the "Feiner crowd".

Back to topic...I think the new census data reflects my long standing and justified claim. Faulty logic to you, so be it in your opinion. Doesn't make me a racist or bigot, as you stated.

Read the whole (insult infused) blurb on Feiner. Got it! So, a lot is going on with (what you call) the crook, Mr. Feiner...Maybe your should keep focus on improving our town and not on trying to bash fellow citizens who disagree with your point of view.

Are those assumptions and inferences wrong? "Shoot the messenger" but ignore the meat.
Never was a lawyer, advertising gave way to commercial real estate.
You became part of the "Feiner crowd" when you began calling my exposure of Feiner as "bashing".
Personally I don't care ("sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me") but apparently "bashing" is some sort of code among his supporters for attacking the messenger to deflect from his statements. There's never an explanation about whether the "bashing" (I am always hesitant to use a word that sounds negative but further discomforted when not knowing what the figurative verb actually means) is warranted.
Misusing census data is not what makes you a bigot. It is when you discuss the less well off of Yonkers and imply that they will be forced out their homes there because of gentrification (condos along the river) and needing a place to live will end up in Greenburgh causing even more pressure upon the GC7 kindergarten class size. Don't try and shift your sentiments (still viewable) as somehow the result of my vivid imagination. If your only concern was for what's going on here, how did you manage to pull Yonkers into the equation?
So where I have throughout criticized your writing as being off point, now I have to end with your reading ability in that your closing "with (what you call) the crook, Mr. Feiner..." and ask (gee I do write a lot about him) where did I write that he was a crook (what you call is really your call). Besides, to make that conclusion, you have to already know what is coming soon when the GameOn lease gets discussed publicly.
As for my focus, to quote Sy Syms "an educated customer is our best customer". True the clothing retailer has gone out of business (death be not proud) but your advice not to "bash" (here's that word again) fellow citizens is interesting on two levels:
1) self-serving in that I should suffer fools whichever side they take
2) that fellow, albeit anonymous, citizens with keypads are entitled to a "get out of jail free" card.
I'm much more likely to recapture Bill Murray to Jane Curtin on early SNL, "Jane, you dumb slut..."

Oh Hal, You really have a lot of time on your hands huh? You need a little fun, come on over to Fairview (and not just when you come to town board meetings), I have two kids you can play with anytime. It's much more fun than finding ways to annoy people.

And yes, your assumptions and inferences about me are wrong.

I don't view this article as biased.
Nor do I see the increase the result of "illegals" being counted for the first time. Illegals are the first group likely not to voluntarily comply with data collection by any government.
Neither do I view the new arrivals as representing anything more than a natural process of growth and "if you build it, they will come".
The prevailing incentive, more than that realized by local politics, is the proximity between two large employment hubs: NYC and Stamford. While serviced by a network of connecting highways, rail lines, bridges and a nearby airport are top of the list incentives. Just below jobs are the often exceptional school systems to be found within the targeted area.
But there's no ignoring the chilling effect of rising taxes either.
Population increases here are not due to higher fertility rates; rather they are the result of increased product available. With an increasing number of residences, the greater population becomes the alarming result as the varied infrastructure requirements and the burden upon school districts brings a financial cost higher than revenue contribution. Meanwhile, the lack of reassessment and revaluation leads to certiorari which in turn lowers ratables which leads to lower property tax revenue.
Those electing to remain within Greenburgh borders, more and more turn to subdivision of their existing parcels to supplement their incomes. With subdivision comes more homes. Then too, comes the existence of large scale commercial development: an Avalon II brings 440 new homes with the bulk being occupied by more than one person.
Then too, those who no longer can justify remaining in Greenburgh, even for those down-sizing, often upset the zero sum equation (for each buyer there is a seller) by substituting aging sellers (whose children were not counted in the previous census) for new buyers (whose children were counted in the 2010 census).
None of this means anything in the face of the political realities of residing in Greenburgh.
Hal Samis

Sure it's increased, “...Unincorporated Greenburgh also saw an increase of 259 people...” What it doesn’t say is that these increases are mostly illegals in illegally rented rooms, closets, basements and attics in single family homes. Why does the Town let this continue and why doesn’t Gannett’s Matt Bultman, investigate this? Because they and he are Feiner’s lapdog.