[Vision2020] Some comments for Jeff Harkins

[Jeff Harkins]

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.
>