[HN Gopher] 2020 Census Apportionment Results
___________________________________________________________________
2020 Census Apportionment Results
Author : kochb
Score : 65 points
Date : 2021-04-26 20:16 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.census.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.census.gov)
| sethbannon wrote:
| New York lost a congressional seat by falling 89 residents short.
| Given that the response window fell during the peak COVID crisis
| for NYC, it's hard to imagine it didn't have a negative impact on
| response rate.
| mc32 wrote:
| Weren't many places affected by the pandemic and not just NYC?
| I guess you could argue given their raw numbers it affected
| them more.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| NY was certainly hit harder earlier than other states, and
| during the census window.
| sethbannon wrote:
| Households received their census cards March 12-20 and
| "Census Day" -- when there was a big marketing push to get
| folks to respond -- was April 1. That was right when NYC was
| getting slammed, which happened before the rest of the
| country. Census workers then sent folks physically out to try
| and reach non-responding households, but that's super hard to
| do.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > That was right when NYC was getting slammed, which
| happened before the rest of the country.
|
| Except California, but, mostly, yes.
| betterunix2 wrote:
| I see 89 residents and immediately think less of COVID and more
| of the Trump administration's effort to scare certain
| demographics off. The results were tainted by an administration
| that acted in bad faith.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Well, the absolute easiest way to gain 89 residents would
| have been to let the YIMBYs build one more highrise in
| Brooklyn.
| contrahax wrote:
| I think there is a case for the opposite trend as well -
| anecdotally I and many others I know moved from NY to another
| state after responding to the census as a resident of NY. From
| what I observed (and when I responded) most of the census
| outreach in NYC was early in 2020 before the pandemic really
| hit. USPS published some data using change of address
| information that shows NY lost a good number of residents
| during 2020, how many of those responded to the census before
| or after they moved is a toss up though. No conclusion, just
| adding some context.
| codezero wrote:
| Even in California when we saw folks moving away I had a
| census worker on foot knocking door to door trying to ask
| about who lived in the various apartments - and at the time I
| know a lot of folks had moved away even if temporarily.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| Yeah this is such a cluster. Makes you think that maybe we
| should not be doing point in time counts every ten years.
| That can have a huge impact on entire generations of people.
| American Community Surveys run far more often, showing that
| we can potentially change our ways.
| danso wrote:
| Sure, but (ignoring the Constitutional decennial mandate,
| which also requires Census subjects to be defined 3 years
| before the actual counting [0]) what's a cost-effective
| alternative? The budget for the 2020 Census was $7+ billion
| [1].
|
| And while the ACS annual surveys are considered accurate,
| what would be the right period for changing Congressional
| seat counts? It obviously can't be annual (since House
| terms are every 2 years).
|
| [0] https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-
| census/abo...
|
| [1] https://www.census.gov/about/budget.html
| xnx wrote:
| It's also astounding that this is the standard method when
| Apple/Google/Facebook/AT&T/Verizon could trivially give an
| instantaneous and probably more accurate count.
| economusty wrote:
| So I change my Facebook profile and get counted as a
| resident? Is that what you are suggesting?
| danso wrote:
| None of those companies are likely to uniformly count all
| of the things that the Census purports to do, such as
| race/ethnicity and housing status.
| keepkalm wrote:
| AOC could lose her district and opt to run against Schumer
| instead of staying in the House. Payback for AOC beating
| another incumbent Democrat that ends in her beating Schumer for
| US Senate.
|
| That is the most interesting thing that could happen at least.
| 1270018080 wrote:
| I'm interested to see how Montana will be drawn. I didn't think
| I'd ever see that happen.
| jlangemeier wrote:
| Perfect world, it probably has a jagged split north to south
| drawing through Great Falls down to Billings/Hardin.
|
| With this year's state legislature and Governor Body-slam;
| they'll try some stupid ass bs drawing down the rockies along
| the I15 corridor and splitting the two major dem hubs in the
| state (Bozeman and Missoula) rendering it set up perfectly for
| 2 republican representatives from here to eternity.
| seneca wrote:
| The most important bit:
|
| > Texas will gain two seats in the House of Representatives, five
| states will gain one seat each (Colorado, Florida, Montana, North
| Carolina, and Oregon), seven states will lose one seat each
| (California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
| and West Virginia), and the remaining states' number of seats
| will not change based on the 2020 Census.
| sethbannon wrote:
| For those wanting to know state congressional seat gains and
| losses...
|
| Gaining 2 seats: Texas
|
| Gaining 1 seat: Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina,
| Oregon
|
| Losing 1 seat: California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio,
| Pennsylvania, West Virginia
| swyx wrote:
| how does this work for congresspeople already in those seats?
| does this only take effect next congress?
| mbauman wrote:
| State governments re-draw the lines. Sometimes they try to
| preserve existing districts and existing constituents for
| existing congresspeople, and sometimes they intentionally
| obliterate them (based on where the congressperson's house
| is). Precisely how they do so varies by state.
| protomyth wrote:
| If you keep in mind that those seats are for the current term
| only, then it makes it a bit easier. For the purpose of the
| 2022 election, there is no one in those seats since the
| election process has not started.
|
| The state legislators of each state will redistrict based on
| the census numbers (having the same number of seats doesn't
| mean the district doesn't change). Then the primary /
| election process starts with candidates declaring their
| intention to run for one of those seats. It is possible that
| two sitting Representatives will run for the same seat due to
| redistricting.
|
| This is where you are going to see the preferences of the
| majority party and what Representatives they like. A
| nationally popular Representative might have their district
| removed and absorbed into two or more adjoining districts.
| This is often done when the Representative is more trouble to
| the local party then useful.
| tharne wrote:
| Yes, this would impact the next election cycle, occurring in
| 2022, and the effects would first be seen in the congress
| sworn in in January of 2023.
|
| The states with changes in seats are responsible for the
| redistricting. What this means in practice is that in a state
| losing one seat, one district will disappear and the map gets
| redrawn. Then you'll typically have a primary or a general
| election where both candidates are incumbents. If both
| incumbents are in the same party, they'll face off in the
| primary for that party, if they're in different parties
| they'll face off in the general election. Alternatively, one
| incumbent may choose to retire.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The states with changes in seats are responsible for the
| redistricting.
|
| So are the states _without_ changes; no net changes in
| seats doesn't mean no internal population movement that
| would render existing districts no longer sufficiently
| equal to satisfy equal representation (the exception being
| states that have no change in seats _and_ exactly one
| seat.)
| bkjelden wrote:
| The states will draw new district maps based on the new
| census data for each state, as well as accounting for any
| seat gains or loses. The rules for drawing those maps differ
| from state to state.
|
| In the states that lose a seat, it depends. Sometimes two
| current members will face off for the new district that most
| closely resembles their two prior districts. Sometimes one of
| the members will just decide to retire.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The changes will come into play as of 2023's Congress.
| thestoicattack wrote:
| House seat changes by state: (+2) TX
| (+1) CO, FL, MT, NC, OR (-1) CA, IL, MI, NY, OH, PA, WV
| (0) everyone else
| [deleted]
| elliekelly wrote:
| > Puerto Rico's resident population was 3,285,874, down 11.8%
| from 3,725,789 in the 2010 Census.
|
| Is there any explanation for this?
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Massively devastating natural events + crappy economy + local
| governmental corruption + freedom of movement into the US = a
| lot of people leaving.
|
| Honestly, the fact that even more people don't flee that island
| for mainland US is a testament to the importance people place
| on their "homeland".
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Everyone is pointing to Hurricane Maria, which is a big factor,
| but even before that there was a major financial crisis
| creating substantial misery.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Hurricane drove a lot of people away.
|
| https://centropr.hunter.cuny.edu/research/data-center/resear...
| exegete wrote:
| Hurricane Maria was pretty devastating and the lack of Federal
| aid exacerbated it. I imagine people left after that.
| darksaints wrote:
| Another one of Trump's short sighted policy backfires. In his
| effort to paint Puerto Rico as a failed and corrupt liberal
| state, he denied them aid, causing half a million American
| citizens to move from a place where they couldn't vote in
| federal elections to places where they could.
| pavlov wrote:
| Hurricane Maria in 2017 must be partially responsible?
|
| Property damage (estimated at $90B) and loss of economic
| opportunity surely forced many people to move to the mainland.
| deanCommie wrote:
| Don't forget - the 2020 census was interfered with for expressly
| political gains.
|
| That seems relevant to any discussion if it's outcomes. While
| states themselves are not nearly as red/blue at the district
| level as they might be in the aggregate, it is absolutely worth
| noting that a net 6 additional congressional seats are going from
| "Blue" states to "Red" states.
|
| The actual impact of the census may be even bigger than this -
| for all we knew the REVERSE trend should have occurred as the
| country's demographics shift.
|
| * https://publicintegrity.org/politics/system-failure/trump-ob...
|
| * https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/15/trump-...
|
| * https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/08/07/trumps-...
| pianom4n wrote:
| Red states gaining seats is in no way incompatible with
| demographic changes. Red states become less red via population
| growth could fully explain this effect, and seems like a
| completely plausible explanation.
| hinkley wrote:
| Also 6 electoral college votes.
| deanCommie wrote:
| Wait is that true? Is a democratic president ever going to be
| elected again?
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Rhode Island's 2nd congressional district survives for another
| decade.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| Spare a thought for the census bureau folks, who in an incredibly
| stressful year and in an incredibly polarized political climate,
| had to nonetheless get the job done and try to release the data
| on time and keep their cool and remain objective, all the while
| knowing that their best case scenario is nobody really thinks
| about how they did it. Not an easy job.
| standardUser wrote:
| The slowing of immigration is starting to make our falling
| birthrates more noticeable. We'll need to see a surge in
| immigration in the coming years to avoid the aging problem facing
| most other wealthy countries.
|
| Biden's proposed $2 trillion family plan might help if it could
| ever get passed, but it might be too little too late. Other
| countries have had far more extreme incentives to have kids for
| decades and still ended up much farther down the wrong side of
| the aging curve than we are.
|
| EDIT: I appreciate the downvotes. But I wonder which you prefer:
| higher taxes for working people, reduced benefits for the
| elderly, or more immigrants coming to our nation of immigrants?
| We need to pick one.
| bluthru wrote:
| We don't need immigration to feed a pyramid scheme. We need a
| responsible level of population for what's best for our high
| rents, congested cities, and carbon footprint.
| [deleted]
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Birthrates are depressed because prime child-rearing ages,
| (22-35?) are increasingly unable to afford adequate housing and
| health insurance. Solve those, families will feel more secure
| and be able to live close to relatives to help out with
| children, and the issue is much more tractable.
| standardUser wrote:
| That perspective is not compatible with what we know about
| birthrates in other developed nations. More highly educated
| societies exhibit lower birthrates, more or less universally.
| Even within the US, people with more education have children
| later and fewer children, even though they also have higher
| incomes and better insurance, etc.
|
| In many European countries, families are given considerable
| support and incentives far beyond what American families
| receive, yet birthrates still continue to drop.
| ArkanExplorer wrote:
| And if you increase immigration, you increase labour supply,
| and demand for housing - reducing wages and increasing cost
| of living, which negatively impacts fertility.
|
| The fundamental problem in the USA is the broken healthcare
| and pension system, which allocates too many resources to
| baby boomers and unfairly burdens younger workers.
| standardUser wrote:
| The fertility issue is not a unique American problem. It
| has been happening for decades in nearly every developed
| country, and it is consistently observed when populations
| become more highly educated. The reason it has hit most
| developed nations harder than the US is because the US
| historically has much higher immigration rates than other
| nations, and immigrants tend to skew younger.
| Rafuino wrote:
| Now the Q is how will the districts be drawn to make those two
| new TX districts reliably red, eh?
| tenpies wrote:
| Probably in much the same way that the seats in the other
| states will be re-drawn to make them as Blue as possible, so it
| will not even out, but at least Texas will remain Texas.
|
| That said, given what the Democrats are doing, seats may be
| entirely inconsequential going forward. This may all be a huge
| waste of time.
| skystarman wrote:
| Democrats are committed to the idea that politicians
| shouldn't choose their voters. They have fought in court over
| it and the SCOTUS decided gerrymandering is fine, even many
| egregious examples.
|
| The GOP has always been on board with this. Why I'll never
| understand. The only excuse you ever get is "Dems do it too!"
|
| As if Democrats should just lay down arms and not participate
| in the practice and let the GOP gerrymander every state to
| oblivion out of principle or something.
| tolbish wrote:
| Do you mean in terms of granting DC and Puerto Rico
| statehood, or reallocating representatives based on
| population?
| exegete wrote:
| Is it time to expand the House? It feels like as the population
| grows we shouldn't dilute and move around representation.
| pg_bot wrote:
| If you can convince 27 more states to ratify the congressional
| apportionment amendment you can.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am...
| Aloisius wrote:
| To be clear, one does not need an amendment to increase the
| size of the House.
|
| Changing the size of the House can be done through normal
| legislation after a Census.
| pg_bot wrote:
| Yeah, but it's extremely unlikely to happen that way
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| In particular, such legislation would have to pass the
| House. Each representative in the House can decide: "Do I
| want to be one of 435 representatives, and represent a
| significant number of people, or do I want to be one of
| some larger number of representatives, and have
| correspondingly less power, both in DC and at home?"
| Given that calculus, I'd be surprised if the House passed
| any such thing.
| nickff wrote:
| One issue with increasing the number of representatives is that
| you make each individual member less powerful, and consequently
| centralize power in the parties (and the executive).
| betwixthewires wrote:
| I don't think I agree with this. Suppose there were 1 million
| representatives, each with ~330 constituents. This is
| untenable, sure, but imagine this were the case. Would a body
| like that even be capable of having votes on party lines?
| Would a body like that even be capable of operating as a two
| party system?
|
| Then, the academic cases, wouldn't a body like that make it
| more likely to have other parties have a larger role in
| national politics?
|
| I'd say since the house is supposed to be a democratic
| institution, the only one in the federal government, making
| individual members less powerful is a _good_ thing. If the
| body is supposed to represent the population directly, the
| less powerful each individual is in the body the less
| oligarchic that body will be.
| bbatha wrote:
| Unlike the senate where all the power rests in Joe Manchins
| hands
| tharne wrote:
| In a senate that's split 50-50, Joe Manchin has exactly as
| much power as every other Senator. Right now he's just the
| only one willing to use it.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| The Senate is so different from the house that I don't
| think it is worth it to make a comparison. Much better to
| compare to other legislatures for large population nation
| states, like Canada, Mexico, Brazil, India, Australia, and
| Nigeria.
| 1270018080 wrote:
| Anti-democratic principles and minority rule are baked into the
| constitution. Plus, with one party actively benefiting from it,
| it's not going to happen any time soon. But yes, expanding the
| house would be the right thing to do.
| a-posteriori wrote:
| Wouldn't adding incremental representatives to the house
| "dilute" representation regardless? I would argue that this
| isn't a dilution of anyone's representation, it's a re-
| weighting of representatives to a more representative
| distribution based on underlying demographic movement over the
| last 10 years.
| betterunix2 wrote:
| The number of representatives makes it hard to fairly
| apportion the seats. Montana went from 1 representative for
| 1M people to 2 for 1M, meaning each should represent about
| 500k people. Meanwhile in my district in NJ over 700k people
| are represented by one person. It was unfair before, when
| Montanans had too few representatives, and it is just as
| unfair now, when they have too many (compared to NJ). More
| representatives would improve the granularity and make the
| system (somewhat) fairer.
| tomp wrote:
| If improving granularity is the goal, wouldn't it make even
| more sense to have fractional votes? After all, there's no
| real reason why each representative's vote should count
| equally...
| maxerickson wrote:
| It's sort of nice to be able to reason about votes in a
| straightforward way, and you'd have even worse social
| dynamics if some members are literally more powerful
| inside the chamber than others.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| Yes, and it's time to solve that problem once and for all with
| this
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am...
|
| Interestingly this amendment was passed by congress with the
| bill of rights with no expiration and is still waiting before
| the States for ratification. So it does not require Congress to
| act, only many of the states. Another amendment passed with the
| bill of rights was ratified in 1992.
|
| It would guarantee that all congressional seats on congress
| represent an equal number of people, thus making the house of
| representatives a truly democratic institution. It would make
| house representation a more local enterprise and reduce the
| effectiveness of gerrymandering. The downsides are of course
| that there would be thousands of representatives and the
| capitol would then need to be rebuilt or some other mechanism
| created for house and joint sessions.
| betterunix2 wrote:
| A better plan would be to change to a proportional system in
| the House, where seats are allocated to parties according to
| national vote totals. State lines are arbitrarily drawn and do
| not actually represent the actual divisions among Americans.
| The fact that a representative from a densely populated urban
| district represents more people than a representative from a
| sparsely populated rural state is inherently undemocratic (this
| is even worse in the Senate). We do not need more
| representatives, we need better representation.
| the_lonely_road wrote:
| This would violate one of the central promises of the union
| which was that the large populous areas would not be able to
| dictate to the smaller regions and would instead be forced to
| compromise with them. We seem poised to start expanding the
| union again in the coming decades. Imagine how much more
| difficult it would be to get smaller Mexican states or
| central American countries to agree to join the union if they
| believed they would have no say in running their local after
| doing so.
|
| I understand where you are coming from as the US is so
| homogenous now thanks to 250 years of interstate population
| movement that the delineations seem arbitrary and unfair, but
| they were very distinct separate regions once upon a time and
| looking forward the regions we hope to bring into our union
| are more different than the average American than similar so
| these same protections will be critical to the effort.
| betterunix2 wrote:
| That is the unconvincing argument for the (extremely)
| undemocratic Senate. The House is supposed to reflect the
| will of the people which is why we apportion
| representatives according to the states' populations; the
| only compromise was that no state would receive less than
| one representative.
|
| Really though, appealing the logic used 250 years ago is
| not very convincing. We have different concerns today than
| we did in in the 18th century. We are not trying to
| convince a ragtag group of states to form a union, the
| union has formed and is unlikely to disintegrate. Today we
| have a problem of bad representation in Congress, and it
| has been getting worse and worse with each passing year. It
| is not just about state borders, it is also a problem of
| how districts are drawn within states, and a proportional
| system would address that as well (why should we ever talk
| about gerrymandering? it is an artificial problem that can
| easily be solved). Year after year a majority of Americans
| have watched as people the party they voted against somehow
| took power, kept power, and received just enough power to
| prevent widely supported initiatives from going anywhere.
| The trend has been getting worse and worse as Republicans
| from sparsely populated states have become more and more
| aggressive at pressing their structural advantage. That
| needs to be addressed before people start questioning the
| value of democracy itself.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| This is a terrible idea and let me tell you why.
|
| First, it puts the balance in the house in the hands of the
| campaign managers for president (or whichever "vote totals"
| you would prefer to go by) second, it entrenches the 2 party
| system as a de jure institution. Third, while districts are
| drawn very much arbitrarily (and in many cases against the
| interests of the people in them a la gerrymandering) people
| _do_ have more in common with neighbors than simple party
| members from the other side of the country. A republican and
| a democrat in the 6th district have more in common than two
| republicans, one from Maine and one from Louisiana. Your
| proposal eliminates representation of community interests and
| elevates party interest above all else. It also severely
| damages the check the house can have on the president since
| whichever party wins the presidency also wins the house.
|
| A better solution is this solution https://en.wikipedia.org/w
| iki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am... thankfully it has
| already been passed by congress and is awaiting state
| ratification. It would ensure that each representative
| represents the same number of people but it would still
| preserve community interest representation and probably
| strengthen it and make party interest an afterthought in the
| house.
| vinay427 wrote:
| Personally, I say yes. The US is a huge outlier among OECD
| nations [1] and this definitely shows in the connection and
| level of interaction people feel to their representatives, at
| least based on my experience living in both the US and a
| country with a far lower ratio.
|
| [1] https://www.vox.com/2018/6/4/17417452/congress-
| representatio...
| tharne wrote:
| It's not such an easy decision. Sure if you have more reps,
| each constituent arguably has more access. The flip side is
| that they have more access to a less powerful rep. If you had
| 10,000 people in congress, sure it'd be a lot easier to get
| in touch with one of them, but 1 person in a group of 10,000
| doesn't have much influence, so how much is that interaction
| really worth?
|
| Even at 435, unless your rep is a senior member with some
| important committee assignments and they happen to be in the
| majority party, getting the ear of your rep isn't worth all
| that much.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| <opinion>
|
| The real solution being to devolve more power to state
| legislatures with on-the-ground familiarity with local
| issues, since it's actually quite easy to get the ear of
| your _state_ representative.
|
| </opinion>
| tharne wrote:
| I think this exactly right. However, in the U.S. we have
| been moving in precisely the opposite direction for
| decades, centralizing power more and more at the federal
| level. This is, in part anyway, what has turned federal
| elections into such a bloodsport. If your side loses,
| people who don't share your values or understand anything
| about where you live suddenly have a big say in a lot of
| things that affect you directly. This is true regardless
| of your particular political affiliation.
| delecti wrote:
| The power of reps extends far beyond just passing
| legislation, and even then, essentially all of them are on
| _some_ committees. Lots of them (maybe even most /all?)
| make themselves accessible to constituents to help work
| through government bureaucracy, and a representative
| shining a light on a constituent's issue can help things
| get addressed. I'm not sure jumping straight to 10,000 reps
| would necessarily be the best idea, but I think having been
| static for the past 100 years isn't ideal either.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Power is bad.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| Getting the ear of your rep could lead to your rep getting
| the ear of other reps, or the scruff of some federal
| agency.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| It seems absolutely wild to me that we are using pre pandemic
| population counts to apportion seats.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| For the next 10 years
| CameronNemo wrote:
| At least it is better than the UK. IIRC they completely
| stopped updating their seats.
| PraetorianGourd wrote:
| The pandemic was and is horrible, but it didn't take enough
| lives above the expected death rate to really have an
| appreciable impact on census data. (I am not a COVID denialist,
| we had more deaths than expected rates, it is worse than the
| flu etc. etc.)
|
| Unless you are talking about out-migration from big cities to
| small cities, but then again I think it could be just as
| illogical to say "lets base it off of immediate post-pandemic
| numbers" as I would best a good many people will move _back_ to
| the big cities.
|
| That is the risk of a point-in-time count. So many external
| factors. But generally they all cancel one another out, and
| each point-in-time count has similar but unique circumstances
| that in the aggregate could have an impact. Just the way these
| counts are.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| I am explicitly concerned about the point in time nature. I
| am glad you pointed out all of the migration anomalies, as
| well as the future possibility for more.
|
| Edit: also I would not balk at 500k deaths. There will be
| more to come as well. That is a significant portion of the
| voting age and likely voter populations.
| PraetorianGourd wrote:
| Especially since we are talking 10-year increments here,
| for the pandemic to have a real impact on census stuff, it
| would have to have killed many people _who were not
| otherwise going to die over the next decade_. Most likely,
| we front-loaded a lot of these expected deaths to the early
| part of the decade. That is to say, at some point in the
| next 10 years the census will be an accurate representation
| of living voting-age people in the USA.
|
| I didn't balk at 500k deaths. In fact, I tried to make sure
| that nobody would accuse me of downplaying the
| deaths/impact of the pandemic.
| codezero wrote:
| There's more to it, I had a census worker knocking on my door
| mid pandemic and nobody answered as they went door to door.
|
| The pandemic itself impacted the ability to DO the survey,
| while also happening when certain areas experienced great
| movements of their populations.
| abeppu wrote:
| In all the press surrounding the shortened door-to-door period,
| as well as the legal kerfuffle about asking about citizenship, it
| was repeatedly stressed that lower counts could also impact
| federal funding for a range of programs.
|
| I know the census is supposed to release other stats later this
| year, but are these state-level resident counts enough to make
| educated guesses about impacts to stuff beyond the house?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-26 23:02 UTC)