Posted on 12/21/2004 10:36:50 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - New Mexico, Idaho, Utah and other states blessed with wide-open spaces are seeing steady population growth as increasingly cramped Americans look for ways to spread out.
Overall, the U.S. population grew by almost 3 million people over the last year to just under 294 million, the Census Bureau (news - web sites) reported in annual population estimates being released Wednesday. The top 10 list of fastest-growing states was dominated by those in the West and South, with Nevada leading the way for the 18th consecutive year.
While favorable weather and jobs continue to be primary lures, people also are looking for places that offered space, affordability and the great outdoors. That helped place Idaho fourth on the list of fastest-growing states. Utah was seventh and New Mexico 10th.
Robert Lang, a demographer with the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, said those states are appealing to people who want to escape the urban sprawl of big cities like Los Angeles and Denver.
"This is part of a long diffusion of population of the country because of the interstates, airports and the Internet," Lang said. "We use the whole country now."
Fern Bull, 74, moved from Colorado to Layton, Utah, about 25 miles north of Salt Lake City, to be near her two young granddaughters. In the five years since arriving, a Wal-Mart, a small shopping mall and two new fast-food restaurants have been built on once-empty parcels of land near her home, she said.
Utah's population is 2.4 million, up 1.6 percent over the past year and up 7 percent since 2000. Bull, who is involved in a social group that welcomes new residents, said local officials are trying to keep infrastructure on a pace with the influx.
"We're just trying to get highways and transportation," she said. "As more people keep moving in, we need more."
Idaho's population rose 2 percent over the last year to nearly 1.4 million. There is growth around the capital of Boise and in Kootenai County in northern Idaho.
That is where the shoreline of scenic Lake Coeur d'Alene has been increasingly fenced by million-dollar homes, and subdivisions are climbing higher up the county's hillsides, said Rand Wichman, the county's planning and zoning director.
"We're struggling to keep the infrastructure up with the growth, and schools and roads and all those kinds of things are perpetually behind the curve," he said. "The question is how long we can keep this a great place to live before the pressure overwhelms us."
Nevada, spurred in large part by the sprawling growth around Las Vegas, grew by 4.1 percent to 2.3 million people.
Retired utility worker Lloyd Wicliff, 58, moved from the Los Angeles area to North Las Vegas last year. "Your money goes a little further here," he said. "A nice house in Southern California can be a nicer home in southern Nevada."
Arizona had the second-largest growth, up 3 percent to 5.7 million, while Florida was third with a 2.3 percent increase to 17.4 million. Georgia, Texas, Delaware and North Carolina also were in the top 10.
Massachusetts was the only state that had a population decline — albeit down a slight 3,800 people, or 0.1 percent, to 6.41 million. Demographers speculated it could have been caused by an exodus of people leaving to escape rising costs in the Boston area.
The bureau estimated North Dakota gained population for the first time since at least 2000. The July 2004 population of 634,366 was 966 higher than the previous year.
There also has been small but steady growth in Montana and Wyoming, probably due in part to folks' seeking to leave urban settings for a small-town lifestyle, said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
"Put yourself in someone's shoes living in Los Angeles," said Marty Bakken, a 30-year veteran of the fast-growing real estate market around Bozeman, Mont. "If they can make a living and provide for their family here, they're probably going to do it."
Also, Frey said, with low housing prices and warm climates, don't expect the popularity of Arizona or Nevada to wane soon.
___
Associated Press writers Rebecca Boone in Boise, Idaho; Ken Ritter in Las Vegas; and Sarah Cooke in Helena, Mont., contributed to this report.
On the Net:
Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov
Delaware is never going to have more than its 3 electoral votes. If it ever reached the point where it had 4 (which it once did only from 1813-23), the state would be massively overcrowded. It becomes harder and harder for California to add electoral votes because it has to maintain massive growth just to hold the 55 it has now (and it only added 1 vote last time around, its slowest growth since 1893-1903). New York loses an average of 2 seats per cycle now, and that probably will happen again. Massachusetts dodged the bullet this time in holding 10 seats, but will probably have to shed one seat. It's only a matter of time before RI or NH inevitably drop one. I'd be surprised if Utah jumps to 5 (though it probably should've gotten 4 this time around). In addition to the states you mentioned, perhaps GA, NC, or VA might even add one (though GA gained 2 last time, it might stay at 15 EV for at least another cycle).
I haven't seen the latest numbers, but I would bet you that Iowa will lose a CD after the 2010 Census, and KA and NE will have to hustle to keep their 4 and 3 CDs, respectively. PA will lose at least one, as will NY and IL, and I think MA will lose one after surviving the 2000 Census unscathed. NH and RI are safe for at least another decade, as is Hawaii. I agree with DJ that there is no way that DE will pick up a second CD, and that UT will certainly pick up a 4th CD (of which they were robbed after the 2000 Census) but not a 5th CD. MT barely lost its 2nd CD after 1990 and barely missed getting it back after 2000, and I think they'll get it back after 2010. AZ will pick up probably 2 more CDs, as will FL, and NV, TX and GA will almost certainly pick up at least 1 CD. In the Pacific Northwest, WA hasn't picked up a CD since its controversial pick-up after the 1990 Census (when its overseas military personnel nudged it ahead of MA for the 435th CD), and OR hasn't picked one up since 1980, and I think one or both will pick a CD up after 2010.
I think Congress should legislate to ensure that the Census data is used in accordance with the Constitution and so that illegal aliens don't skew the numbers. This is what I wrote a few weeks ago:
The Constitution requires an actual enumeration (the Census) of the inhabitants of each state, and those numbers are used to apportion representatives among the states and to draw congressional districts within each state. Excluded from the Census count are people who are not permanent residents of the state on Census Day, such as people who are travelling on that day or tourists from other countries. I believe that Congress should pass a law so that in the 2010 Census persons who are not U.S. citizens or legal non-citizen residents (legal residents, even if they are not citizens, are clearly inhabitants of their home states) are not counted for purposes of the apportionment of representatives, although they can be counted for other purposes, such as hospital funding, etc.).
By excluding illegal aliens from the count, it would eliminate the "rotten borough" districts in which only 100,000 voters, 400,000 legal residents and 250,000 citizens have the same representation as a next-door district with 300,000 voters, 650,000 legal residents and 600,000 citizens. It would result in states like California losing like 3 electoral votes, Texas losing like 2, Florida probably losing 1, and perhaps one or two other states losing EVs as well. And within those states, it would eliminate several Democrat congressional districts, since areas with a lot of illegal aliens would have fewer congressional districts than they do today (for example, there would surely be one fewer CD in South Texas and probably one fewer CD in Houston, and it would be Democrat districts that would have to go).
I think Congress should get cracking on this issue right away, since once President Bush's temporary-guest-worker program (which I conditionally support so long as it is clear that temporary guest workers won't be bringing in their families or qualify for eventual citizenship) is adopted, there will be an even greater increase in the number of non-residents aliens in the U.S., and the presence of such temporary workers should not affect the right to one-man, one-vote among the electorate. Maybe it can be part of the negotiation for the approval of the guset-worker program.
And while Congress is at it, it should amend the law so that it is clear that (i) U.S. citizens who are temporarily away from their home states are counted in the Census (thousands of Utahans were unfairly excluded from the count because they were serving one-year stints as Mormon missionaries abroad, even though they still voted and paid taxes in Utah), (ii) the sampling practice of "hot-deck imputation" (in which if no one answers in a house or apartment after several visits, the Census worker will assume that the house or apartment houses the same number of persons as the average persons per unit in the neighborhood) is eliminated, and (iii) college students and other persons who are temporarily in another state be counted only once, in their home state. Representation is serious business, and we can't let people play with the system and result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters.
Were any of them Americans? Just curious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.