[Vision2020] Some comments for Jeff Harkins

Sat Mar 4 15:08:09 PST 2006

Great site Debbie

Thanks.

Here is a tidbit for your efforts:

 From 1970 to 2005, the state's population grew 
by 95% - from 713,015 to 1,393,262.

Latah County grew from 24,898 to 35,169 or about 41%.

Interesting huh!

At 02:21 PM 3/4/2006, you wrote:
>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
>%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%