Portland population growth continues to slow
The population of Portland grew 1.01 percent between July 1, 2006 and July 1, 2007, according to "preliminary" estimates released by Portland State University last week. That's part of a gradual slowing trend in the growth rate within the city limits. In the previous year, the rate was 1.13 percent.
The July 1, 2007 population estimate was 568,380.
This means a couple of adjustments for the City of Portland debt clock, which resides on the left sidebar of this blog. We're resetting the annual population growth rate from 1.32 percent a year to 1.07 percent (the compound annual rate over the last three years), and of course we're now using the July 1, 2007 figure as our base. As a result, the clock's running estimate of the population has been reduced, and the debt per capita has increased accordingly.
| Posted at 4:54 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (7)
Shouldn't you be measuring the number of tax payers in Portland, rather than just strict population numbers.
I know most cities are getting smaller or increasing at a slower rate, because families are leaving the city and being replaced by single adults or DINKS. And while this reduces the overall population basem, it actually increases the tax-base, and thus the overall tax revenue.
Posted by Justin | November 19, 2007 7:40 AM
What happened to our population doubling in 20 (or whatever the number is to justify density) years?
At this rate (by rule of 72s) we should be 2x in about 67 years.
Posted by Steve | November 19, 2007 8:55 AM
It's no secret that most of the Metro population growth is in places like Gresham, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tigard, etc. Maybe even worse for Potter & Co. is the fact that businesses are locating in the places where growth is happening. These clowns have to realize that at some point Beaverton will have a larger population than Portland.
Posted by Dave A. | November 19, 2007 10:27 AM
Shouldn't you be measuring the number of tax payers in Portland, rather than just strict population numbers.
Justin is taking this in a direction that merits some discussion, except for one thing: The individual income tax revenue doesn't go to reducing Portland's debt, it's property tax revenue.
And adding $400/sq ft condos to the tax base, whether occupied by families, DINKs, individuals, or (as is the case now) unoccupied because it was intended to be a quick investment to flip at a profit), can only help. In theory.
And that theory is blown apart by the present practices of the city giving away the future tax revenue as enticements to the developer.
Posted by john rettig | November 19, 2007 10:51 AM
These clowns have to realize that at some point Beaverton will have a larger population than Portland.
Just like San Jose (and also Oakland almost) is bigger than San Francisco. You can't beat the adult Disneyland effect Portland is going for though.
Posted by Steve | November 19, 2007 12:09 PM
It would be interesting to know the debt to taxpayer ratio, but it is arguably not necessarily more relevant than the debt to population ratio. Debt-to-taxpayer would include businesses - NOT a component of the debt-to-population ratio. On the other hand, debt-to-taxpayer doesn't really account for the fact that there is a wide variability in household size. Some households are comprised of one, others are made up of many. I think debt to population is more relevant.
Posted by Frank | November 19, 2007 7:01 PM
Maybe its slowing because people are realizing, the east coast is where its at!
Posted by Jerry Cummings | November 19, 2007 7:47 PM