[Vision2020] Some comments for Jeff Harkins

[Mark Solomon]

Thanks for the real numbers. We know statistics 
never lie although I will point out that any 
numbers other than the ones from years that end 
in zero are estimates and not actual counts.

I won't pretend to be a statistician, so feel free to correct my math:

Using the 1980 and 2000 actual census numbers: 
subtract 16,513 from 21,291 for a total 
population growth of 4,778 people in 20 years 
divided by the 2000 # of 21,291 people yields an 
increase of 22% over 1980 or 1.1%/yr.

Mark

At 1:56 PM -0800 3/4/06, 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.