Quantcast
» Population pressure’s up, but less so here

HASSO HERING

A perspective from Oregon’s mid-Willamette Valley

Population pressure’s up, but less so here

Written November 17th, 2019 by Hasso Hering

The view north from Palestine Road on Oct. 20: The Oregon population is rising elsewhere.

The latest population report from Portland State University gives us yet another reason to be glad about living in the mid-valley instead of the metropolitan hot spots of the state.

Oregon added about 41,000 people from 2018 to 2019, most of it from net migration, according to the estimates released last week by the university’s Population Research Center, bringing the total to 4,236,400 for an annual increase of 1 percent.

Nearly half the growth in numbers came in the metro counties around Portland: Multnomah and Washington, each with more than 7,000 new people, and Clackamas with nearly 4,000. Most of the rest was in Deschutes, Lane, and Marion counties with around 4,000 each, more or less.

By comparison, the estimated increases for Linn and Benton counties were modest, 975 for Linn and 770 for Benton, for an annual growth rate of a mere 0.8 percent, below the state average.

Albany’s population now is estimated at 54,050, up 905 people or 1.7 percent from 2018. Lebanon is up 1.3 percent to 17,135, and Sweet Home grew 1.2 percent to 9,340.

Corvallis, strangely enough, lost population over the year, according to the estimates. The Benton County seat went from 59,280 last year to 58,885 in 2019, a drop of 0.7 percent. Maybe the reported decline in OSU enrollment had something to do with that.

The 2019 estimates are open for review until they become official on Dec. 15. You can look at the details here.

There’s good news and bad in the numbers and the trends.

From the standpoint of politics, the left-leaning power centers in Oregon are getting stronger, meaning the decades-long trend in that direction will continue after it’s confirmed by the 2020 census and reflected in the redistricting a year or two after that.

From the standpoint of livability though, mid-valley residents have reason to be glad that the pressure of a growing population for more density and development is strongest in parts of the state other than here. (hh)



7 responses to “Population pressure’s up, but less so here”

  1. Ray Kopczynski says:

    “From the standpoint of livability though, mid-valley residents have reason to be glad that the pressure of a growing population for more density and development is strongest in parts of the state other than here.”

    Very-very true! However, even a 1.5% forward trend creates huge infrastructure problems for the city in 25-30 years… Those will obviously have to be addressed because folks will continue to move here. Period.

  2. J. Jacobson says:

    There seems to be a certain schizophrenia amongst Albany’s influential set. Hering writes, almost in relief that, “From the standpoint of livability though, mid-valley residents have reason to be glad that the pressure of a growing population for more density and development is strongest in parts of the state other than here.”

    If this is indeed the desired outcome, then why do we spend so much on economic development and downtown beautification? It strikes this reader that if preventing population growth is desirable, then economic development efforts fly directly in the face of Hering’s stated goal. The two outcomes seem to be diametrically opposed.

    • Bill Kapaun says:

      To prove you aren’t hallucinating, would you please state what “Hering’s stated goal” was in the above article?

      • J. Jacobson says:

        My apologies. I made the mistake of not understanding that regardless the volume of economic development, the Albany workforce would be able to fill all new jobs created, negating any need for an influx of opportunity-seeking types, along with their families, thereby proving the original premise of this blog post – namely that Albany should be grateful because we are not part of the left-leaning power centers…locales where economic development is taking place and where populations are rising. Again, my apologies.

  3. H. R. Richner says:

    Economic growth does not need population growth.

    • Ray Kopczynski says:

      While that may be true, there is nothing we can do to preclude “population growth.”

    • hj.anony1 says:

      But and a BIG but, the current population NEEDS pocket book growth to survive.
      You know more $$$$ to pay for rising city utility fees etc.

      Current population needs pocket book growth!!
      45 ain’t providing….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

 
Cycle around town!
Copyright 2019. All Rights Reserved. Hasso Hering.
Website Serviced by Santiam Communications
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!