[Vision2020] Some comments for Jeff Harkins

Sat Mar 4 14:21:16 PST 2006

I'd like to point you to the Northwest Area Foundation website (shameless
plug) for a variety of local and state indicators.

http://www.indicators.nwaf.org/

It helps to put some of the local statistics in context with surrounding
counties and states.

For Idaho, http://www.indicators.nwaf.org/ShowOneRegion.asp?FIPS=16000

you can find that Idaho's population change between 2003-2004 averaged
1.9% (over twice the Latah rate and the 4th highest rate in the nation,
lead only by Nevada, Arizona and Florida).
You can look at rankings for states and counties as well as download state
or county data from the decennial census and intercensal estimates.

Doing this for Latah County shows us population figures as follows
(including the 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 values)

1970     1980	1990	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004

24,898	28,749	30,617	34,935	35,022	34,828	34,986	35,169

Note: the population did fall from 2001-2002.

Looking at population changes is interesting it doesn't
paint the whole picture of the community or county.

Looking at Whitman County might be useful:
1970     1980   1990    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004
37,900	40,103	38,775	40,740	40,196	40,420	39,991	40,146

Community/city level data is available at the census american factfinder
site:
http://factfinder.census.gov

I just wanted to share this helpful resource and to remind people to not
just focus on one or two statistics, you have to look at the broader
context as well as other indicators.

Debbie

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, Jeff Harkins wrote:

> Here you go Mark - straight from the CC web page:
>
> >Population Growth
> >
> >                  City            County
> >1980            16,513          28,749
> >1990            18,422          31,314
> >1995            20,555          33,050
> >1998            21,500          32,051
> >2000            21,291          34,935
> >2005            21,700          35,218
> >
> >The average annual growth rate for Moscow is .7%
> >The average annual growth rate for Latah is .6%
>
> Check the city numbers for 1998 and 2000
>
> At 11:46 AM 3/4/2006, you wrote:
> >Jeff,
> >
> >A point of clarification is needed here re
> >population numbers. Somehow, a conflation of
> >City of Moscow and Latah County numbers seems to
> >have occurred. I'm going to admit I'm too busy
> >at the moment to dig out the census numbers but
> >to my knowledge there has never been a negative
> >growth period in Moscow. There has been a 15
> >year trend in shrinking rural Latah County
> >populations (including populations within the
> >county's small cities only now reversing in a
> >few) that has been precipitated by changes
> >within the rural natural resource based economy
> >due to a combination of market forces, federal
> >land use policies, corporate decision-making
> >(sometimes seen as a subset of market forces)
> >and automation of previously labor-intensive job-producing industries.
> >
> >So yes, there may have been a county-wide
> >negative growth at some point, but Moscow has
> >only seen a steady increase which to my
> >knowledge is very close to the 1% reported by Mr. Holmquist.
> >
> >Mark Solomon
> >
> >>Also in response to BJ, you wrote:
> >>>To maintain the status quo in
> >>>growth (.6% to .7%), we must find a way to house
> >>>about 150 - 200 families each year in Latah
> >>>County - that is a mathematical fact.  The
> >>>challenge in all of this is that those families
> >>>must have a way to feed and house themselves -
> >>>they must have economic opportunity.
> >>
> >>The mathematical fact is a conditional one: IF
> >>growth continues at a rate of .6% to .7% per
> >>year, then 150 - 200 families will need
> >>housing. The mathematical fact is not the claim
> >>that â*œwe must find a way to house about 150 -
> >>200 families each year in Latah County.â* It
> >>takes more than just the conditional,
> >>mathematical fact to support that value claim.
> >>First, it takes the truth of the antecedent of
> >>the conditional: that Moscow will continue to
> >>grow at the same rate. Second, it takes other
> >>value claims, like â*œgrow or die,â* with
> >>which folks like BJ and I would disagree.
> >
> >I think I have responded to this point a couple
> >of times, so I will keep my response brief. My
> >point on the growth issue was to refute the
> >"highly emotional but devoid of fact" comment by
> >Mr. Antone Holmquist.  If you need Holmquist's
> >quote, let me know.  Agreed, the mathematical
> >argument is conditional - conditional on the
> >growth rate.  Before we digress too  far, please
> >note that the rate that I used was the average
> >growth rate for the last 25 years or so.  If we
> >look at more recent history, we have years which reported negative growth.
> >
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>

Debbie

%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%
  Debbie Gray      dgray at uidaho.edu
  We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned,
  so as to have the life that is waiting for us." --Joseph Campbell
%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%