Chris Doane / the Charlotte Observer

Growıng Paıns

CHRIS DOANE / THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER GARY O’BRIEN / THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER KEITH GREENE / THE NEWS AND OBSERVER I Richard Whisnant a FarminBetween A Tale ofTwo POPULAR GOVERNMENT Carolina. text onrecentpatternsofgrowth inNorth Governments, forcontributing dataand senior planner, Triangle JCouncilof vironmental law. HethanksBenHitchings, faculty memberworkingprimarily inen- The authorisanInstituteofGovernment [email protected]. Many peopleinMallvillebelievethat city, especiallyintheoldurban core. are doomingbusinesseselsewhereinthe ucation andpublicsafety. Rapidchanges ing newdemandsforexpendituresoned- city’s edge.Theinfluxofpeopleiscreat- the farmlandthatusedtolieattheir idents ofMallvillemisstheforestsand rising alongwiththeofficetowers.Res- runoff, andairpollutionallseemtobe But traffic,noise,pollutedstormwater buildings risingamidtheretailstores. strip. Jobsareavailableinnewoffice iums arespringinguparoundtheretail rising rapidly. Housesandcondomin- retailers. Propertyvaluesintheareaare change hasattractedasprawlinghostof edge ofMallville,aninterstateinter- ville—just anhour’s driveaway. Atthe they wereborn. the town’s youthtostayandworkwhere economic vitalityandasmotivationfor the workers.Theeffectsoflayoffs Imagine asecondcity—callitMall- cently closeditsplantandlaidoff where theonlylargeemployerre- magine atown—callitMillville— they seeasnecessaryforareturnto are ripplingthroughoutthecom- its citizenscravegrowth,which munity intheformoflowered faces stagnation.Itsleadersand income, increasedstress,and Contact theauthoratrichard_ pects arelimited.Thetown reduced propertyvalues.Every- one fearsthefuture.Jobpros- popular government fall 2000 Popular Government realm andinthepagesofthis issueof debate nowunderwayinthe political a contextforthegrowthmanagement The purposeofthearticleis toprovide ing oncommunitiesinNorth Caro cusses someimpactsthatgrowth is hav- policies andtrendsinthestatedis- tween? Thisarticleexaminesgrowth Millville, Mallville,andthefarminbe- useful insolvingthecurrentproblemsof growth theycould.Aretheseapproaches decision makerstriedtoachievewhatever tion ofenvironmentalimpacts.Mostlocal sion ofpublicinvestmentsandmitiga- mostly concernedwithgeographicdisper- cets. Uniformstatewidepolicieswere Carolina hashadtwodisconnectedfa- historical approachtogrowthinNorth balance ingrowthanddevelopment.The has longsoughtanelusivegeographic lenges forpolicymakersinastatethat in theseviewpointsraisedifficultchal- the turnofcentury. Thedifferences (and elsewhereintheUnitedStates)at viewpoints ongrowthinNorthCarolina tween representthreeofthemostcommon for themselvesandtheirchildren. look liketheeasiestroutetoabetterlife opment andthemoneythatitwillbring love thelandinitspresentstate,devel- harder timesahead.Asmuchasthey farm astheyalwayshave,seeonly home atthecoast.Iftheycontinueto for theirchildren,perhapsasecond many thingstheywant—goodschools they subdivideandsell,canafford its shrinkingandlandpricesrising.If ville andMallville,theownersseeprof- growth management. quality oflife,andtheydemandsmarter paced thecity’s abilitytomaintainits the growthonedgeoftownhasout- Millville, Mallville,andthefarminbe- Meanwhile, onafarmbetweenMill- Cities and . lina. 3 Figure 1. Population Growth, North Carolina Counties, 1990–98 defining cash crop, tobacco, both encour- aged this semiurban, semirural form of development.3 Beginning in the 1970s, the state for- mally attempted to encourage this trend through a policy of “dispersed urbanization.”4 The state policy goals were aligned with the direction that demo- – 6.4–8.4% graphics supposedly indicated was most 8.4–20.0% 20.0–34.8% people’s desire: urban living in a rural Bold outline = counties with metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in them setting.5 Whatever differences this state policy of “balanced growth” made, it did not Source: North Carolina Dep’t of Env’t and Natural Resources, Div. of Envtl. Ed., Geographic Information change the fundamental trend of faster System (GIS) database summarizing U.S. Census Bureau data from various data sets (database in author’s population growth in and around larger possession) (1998). urban areas.6 As early as the 1830 census, it was apparent that the state’s cities How North Carolina Has Grown rise of North Carolina’s own mills and were growing at a faster rate than its factories, the population began to grow rural areas. By the 1930 census, although Population faster but also to spread just outside city the state remained only 25 percent ur- Thomas Wolfe was not the only one who limits. There was a shift from “a rural ban, its cities showed a larger gain in ab- felt about North Carolina that “you can’t farm to a rural non-farm way of life, and solute numbers of people than its rural go home again.” For most of the twenti- on to an urban non-city way of life.”2 areas did. By 1950 the proportion of the eth century, up until the 1970s, North After midcentury, the population of the state’s population that was urban had Carolina experienced net out-migration.1 state was moving, not to the city-level increased to 34 percent; by 1980, to 48 The state’s citizens left its farms and densities typical of large metropolises percent; and by 1990, to 50 percent.7 small towns for the manufacturing cen- elsewhere but to a suburban-level density Projections for the 2000 census and be- ters of the Northeast and the Midwest, that sprawled across the landscape. The yond show this trend continuing. The where the assembly lines of the new dispersion of textile mills throughout the Mallvilles are picking up steam; the industrial order brought relatively high small towns of the Piedmont and the Millvilles are lagging in growth.8 As for wages. As out-migration slowed with the decentralized production of the state’s the farms, North Carolina has been at or near the top of the nation in the decrease Figure 2. Average Annual Population Growth, United States in farm employment for the last twenty years.9 (For a graphic representation of and North Carolina, 1790–1999 the rate of population growth from 3.5 1990 to 1998, see Figure 1.)10 The state as a whole now is growing U.S. 3.0 at a historically fast pace. North Caro-

N.C. lina’s population growth from 1990 to 2.5 1999, an increase of 1.02 million people, ranked sixth nationally. Its 15 percent

2.0 annual growth rate during the same period ranked eleventh nationally.11 The state is one of fifteen projected to have

PERCENT 1.5 population increases of more than one million people from 1998 to 2025. Of 1.0 these fifteen, only five (Florida, Georgia, New York, Texas, and Washington) are 0.5 projected to have higher growth rates than North Carolina.12 Sometime in the 0.0 1970s, North Carolina’s annual growth rate surpassed the nation’s average an-

1790–18001800–18101810–18201820–18301830–18401840–18501850–18601860–18701870–18801880–18901890–19001900–19101910–19201920–19301930–19401940–19501950–19601960–19701970–19801980–19901990–1999 nual growth rate, and it has stayed ahead of the national average since then Source: Rates to 1970 from C. HORACE HAMILTON, 1 NORTH CAROLINA POPULATION TRENDS: A DEMOGRAPHIC (see Figure 2). North Carolina’s net SOURCEBOOK (Chapel Hill, N.C: Carolina Population Center, 1975). Rates from 1970 to 1999 calculated from domestic in-migration was estimated to U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATE POPULATION ESTIMATES AND DEMOGRAPHIC COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE: APRIL 1, 1990, TO JULY 1, 1999, available at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/st-99-2.txt rank fourth highest in the United States (as of July 13, 2000); and from historical census figures for 1970, 1980, and 1990. between 1998 and 1999.13

4 popular government fall 2000 of relativepoverty. explain, ifnottoaddress,thisproblem has beenshapedthroughtheyearsto low. ufacturing sector, butitalsokeptwages workers drawingacheckfromtheman- and boostedthestate’s percentageof ond incomeletfamiliespurchasegoods in nearbymillsforlowwages.Thissec- come andsomefood,alsoworked ed smallfarmsthatprovidedsomein- labor emerged,inwhichfamiliesoperat- metropolis and thelarge,industrialized resources representedby the major avoid—the concentrationof economic —indeed, ithasofficially soughtto like theircounterpartsinlarger cities). have smallplotsoflandforfarming(un- zation byallowingfactoryworkersto velopment patternofdispersedurbani- among thefiftystates. Carolinians rankedinthebottomfive as 1959, thepercapitaincomeofNorth middle ofthetwentiethcentury. Aslate among thepooreststatesthrough natural resources,NorthCarolinawas major markets,andgenerallyabundant supplies, astrategicpositionbetween Despite afavorableclimate,goodwater Economy North Carolinahasrarely touted 16 Such asystemoflaborfitthede- 15 14 A typicalformof Political rhetoric increase of11 percent. in realterms,withanaverage annualreal income from1970 to1997 almosttripled economic growth.Percapitaannual also hasmovedontoafastertrackin century onastrongupturningrowth,it its populationloss,leavingthetwentieth themselves andgrow. own relativelyamplemeanstomarket and establishedinstitutionstousetheir has beentoleavethemetropolitanareas areas thatlackedtheseassets.Thepolicy have triedtofocusstateresourceson state leadersinthetwentiethcentury an economicdevelopmentpolicy, but tan areasthatmighthavebeencentralto tions, highwaysystem,andmetropoli- assets initshighereducationinstitu- growth. Thestatehassomeprominent been majorenginesforeconomic forms ofproductionthatelsewherehave east, hasthestateseenconcentrated of intensivelivestockoperationsinthe research anddevelopment,therise the ResearchTriangle asacenterfor Charlotte asabankingcenter, theriseof farm. Onlyrecently, withtheriseof poverty. Buttheengines forthisgrowth with alonghistoryoflow wagesand growth isanothernewfeature ofastate Just asNorthCarolinahasreversed 17 This economic popular government fall 2000 cerned withgrowthmanagement. for policymakers,including thosecon- this populationwillbeahuge challenge prime productiveyears.The grayingof boomers haveworkedthrough their strong economicgrowthasitsbaby United States,NorthCarolinahasseen look atgrowth.Liketherestof age shiftissomewhat softenedbyanother studied nationally. is projectedtorank45thofthe315 areas ployment increases.ThePiedmontTriad top thirtymetropolitanareasinem- and Charlotteareprojectedtomakethe ployment numbers,butRaleigh-Durham economies in2025,asmeasuredbyem- of thenation’s topthirtymetropolitan North Carolinaisprojectedtohavenone cities largerthanamillionpeople. tion”) whileavoidingtheproblemsof business concentration(“agglomera- could givealltheadvantagesofurban linked bytransportationcorridors,that Crescent theintermediate-sizedcities, economists, whosawinthePiedmont ing thecoursepredictedbysomeurban persed urbanization.Growthisfollow- around them,thanthesuccessesofdis- the privatedecisionstolocateinand statewide aremorethemetropolisesand There areotherimportantwaysto 19 20 This 18 5

JOHN COLE / THE HERALD-SUN, DURHAM, NC important current in growth, the rise in Figure 3. Growth of Urban Population and Urbanized Land in Four immigration of Latino, African-American, North Carolina Regions, 1950–90 and other populations that are younger than the majority white population.21 1,200% On the economic front, although income has grown, the nonmanufacturing Urban Population sectors, not the sought-after manufac- 1,000% 22 turing jobs, have driven growth. The Urbanized Land income of farmers, however, has not kept 800% pace with the overall rising income of North Carolinians,23 except for some who have opted for industrialized forms 600% of agriculture.

Growth Strategies 400% At the start of a new century, and given the manner and the pace of growth in North Carolina today, it seems particu- 200% larly timely to ask whether the state’s historical growth strategies adequately 0% address the problems faced by Millville, Mallville, and the farm in between.24 Asheville Charlotte Triad Triangle The policy of dispersed urbanization Source: UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU, 1990 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING: GUIDE PART B, glossary 17 (Washington, D.C.: Census Bureau, 1996). was explicitly touted in the 1970s as “a way to prevent the urban sprawl that has attended rapid economic expansion Figure 4. The Urbanized Area in the Research Triangle, elsewhere in the country. North Caro- 1950, 1970, and 1990 lina’s larger cities, which are attractive, prosperous and safe by national stan- dards, remain manageable in size and in touch with their citizenry.”25 1950 But as the data in this article show, 1970 urban sprawl has become a normal fea- ture of growth and development in the 1990 state. In some ways the dispersed urbanization makes the sprawl worse. In much of the state, finding where city and suburb end and country begins is hard: development and population have spread for half a century in semiurban, semirural forms.26 For some people con- cerned about sprawl, it is exactly this lack of defined urban edges that is most disturbing. Beyond the aesthetic issue— the desire of city residents to be within a five-minute drive of bucolic vistas— there is doubt about the ability of semiurban, semirural dispersed development to create distinctive and livable places.27

Recent Patterns of Growth

North Carolina has long been a state of small cities and towns separated from one another by unincorporated rural land. However, in the years following Source: Triangle J Council of Governments, Geographic Information System database World War II, urban regions across the (in council’s possession) (printed Mar. 2000).

6 popular government fall 2000 square mile.From 1950 to1990, urban- a densityof1,000peopleor moreper included asadjacentsettledarea ifithas of 50,000ormore.Ingeneral, landis densely settledareawitha population fined asacentralplaceand its adjacent changes. An“urbanizedarea” isde- vide onemeansoftrackingthese the U.S.CensusBureausince1950 pro- consuming thefarminbetween. As MallvillesprawlsouttoMillville,itis ing municipalitiesclosertooneanother. have beengrowinginpopulation,bring- state havebeenspreadingfasterthanthey next toafarm. likethese, up—some, houses arespringing of Wake County, new In thewesternpart Statistics onurbanizedareaskeptby ton regionsshowsimilartrends. able fortheFayettevilleandWilming- (see Figure3). the urbanpopulationinthoseregions grew morethanthreetimesfaster Triad, andTriangle regionscombined ized landintheAsheville,Charlotte, people persquare mile.In1950 the density haddroppedtoless than2,000 people persquaremile.By 1990 the gle hadadensityofmore than 5,000 in 1950 theurbanizedareainTrian- areas todropsignificantly. Forexample, caused thedensityofstate’s urban dispersed patternofdevelopmenthas 28 More recentdataavail- 29 This

GARY ALLEN / THE NEWS AND OBSERVER popular government fall 2000 ping centersinstead ofcrops. will beginsproutinghouses andshop- ville, andmanyofthefarms inbetween creasingly hardtodistinguish fromMall- into oneanother, Millvillemaybein- Carolina communitiesbegin togrow density patternofdevelopment. AsNorth some oftheimpactsstate’s low- as fast. cent, arateabouttwoandhalftimes miles traveledwillincreaseby43per- 17 percent,whilethenumberofvehicle the populationisprojectedtogrowby seven timesfaster. creased by430percent,aratealmost number ofvehiclemilestraveledin- tion increasedby63percentwhilethe 1 to 1951 out, peoplealsoaredrivingmore.From more complex. make thebusinessofworkingfarm tive. Globalcompetitionandmarketing pros farmers. Risinglandvaluesmakethe areexertingonNorthCarolina omics pressures thatchangingglobalecon- cent. Suburbanizationisaddingtothe number offarmsdroppedby40per- the by 17 percent. twenty yearsfrom1978 to1997, itdropped farmland statewideisdeclining.Inthe acres developed. ranked fifthnationallyinthenumberof During thelatterperiod,NorthCarolina 17.8 acresperhourfrom1992 to1997. acres perhourfrom1982 to1987, to increased overthisperiodfrom10.1 developed land.Therateofconversion developed, anincreaseof70 percentin 1.72 millionacresofrurallandwere From 1982 to1997 inNorthCarolina, rural landtodevelopedusesstatewide. Inventory documenttheconversionof and otherurbanamenities. efficiently withpublictransportation dense tofarmbuttoodispersedserve but somethingbetweenthatoftenistoo places thatareneithercitynorcountry the state’s historicalpatternofcreating Figure 4).Theresultisacontinuationof 1990, to282squaremilesof land(see grown to114 squaremiles,andby 27 squaremilesofland.By1970 ithad urbanized areaintheTriangle included These arejustafewexamplesof As communitiesacrossthestatespread As morelandisurbanized,thetotal Data fromtheNationalResources pect ofworkingthefarmlessattrac- 33 990, NorthCarolina’s popula- 31 Over thesameperiod, 32 From 1995 to2007, 30 7 Growth and Quality of Figure 5. Volatile Organic Emissions from Point Sources, Life in North Carolina North Carolina Counties, 1995

Another way of looking at growth in the state focuses on how population and growth in North Carolina counties over various periods of the twentieth century are “associated” (statistically linked in some way) with important quality-oflife indicators—fiscal and economic sta- 0–345 tons per year 346–1,010 tons per year tus, education, environment, health, and 1,011–1,986 tons per year 1,987–3,909 tons per year 34 crime. The inquiry reveals several in- 3,910–9,008 tons per year teresting “correlations,” or relationships. A correlation does not prove a causal relationship—in this case, between growth Source: North Carolina Dep’t of Env’t and Natural Resources, Div. of Envtl. Ed., Geographic or size and any of the quality-of-life vari- Information System (GIS) database summarizing U.S. Census Bureau data from various data sets ables. It merely suggests that one variable (database in author’s possession) (1998). relates in some way to certain other variables (but not to all). So this is a screen- growth and per capita income, and be- Education ing analysis that begs for further re- tween MSA status and per capita income. More growth is associated with better search to determine whether population They show an even stronger association educational outcomes. Average scores growth, size, or other variables are causal between population and per capita in- on the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test—a factors for quality of life in North come. Interestingly this relationship with standardized test widely required for Carolina and, if so, how strong the rela- per capita income did not hold for the admission to college) are positively asso- tionships are.35 top ten fastest-growing counties in the ciated with county growth, size, and last decade.38 The very fastest-growing MSA status for all the periods studied. Population Growth and Density counties (in percentage terms) do not So are total public school resources In the recent past, growth led to more necessarily have the highest per capita spent per capita. As with income per growth. The counties with the highest incomes. The same patterns hold for av- capita, however, this relationship does growth from 1950 to 1990 largely con- erage working wages. Similarly, higher- not hold as strongly for the ten fastest- tinued to grow fastest from 1990 to growth counties had lower average growing counties of the last decade. 1998. Interestingly, however, the coun- unemployment rates in the 1990s, but ties that grew the fastest from 1900 to this association nearly disappeared for Environment 1950 were not as likely to be the fastest- the ten fastest-growing counties. Of interest in environmental terms is the growing counties from 1950 to 1990 and Some evidence indicates that growth association between county growth and were even less likely to be growth lead- also brings higher costs of living, so in- three outcomes: water quality, in the ers from 1990 to 1998. creased income may not equate to high- form of benthic testing of surface Also in the recent past, big counties er purchasing power. For example, from water;40 air quality, in the form of air did not grow faster than small ones. 1990 to 1998, median income in Wake emissions; and solid waste generation. From 1990 to 1998, the bigger counties County increased by 34 percent, while The data show no association between had only a weak likelihood of being the housing prices increased by 52 percent growth counties and water quality, as faster-growing counties. From 1950 to and apartment rents by 57 percent.39 measured by benthic testing results. 1990, there was a stronger likelihood of Growth’s association with overall However, there is a weak association the bigger counties growing faster. The county tax rates, spending, and debt is between counties with higher wages and counties with metropolitan statistical ambiguous. For certain periods, growth counties with poorer water quality. areas (MSAs)36 in them have grown counties are weakly associated with The state’s air quality problems have more quickly in all the periods studied. lower effective tax rates. But there is no been much in the news with press re- association between the change in tax ports that North Carolina ranked as the Fiscal and Economic Status rates from 1990 to 2000 and the growth third smoggiest state in the United States In general, bigger, more urban, and rates of counties. There are weak associ- in 1999. Air experts attribute the smog faster-growing counties have higher per ations between county growth and total to a combination of “point sources,” capita income, higher wages, and lower county government expenditures per which are fixed locations such as indus- unemployment. An important goal of capita, as well as between county trial smokestacks, and mobile sources, state policy, expressed in the 1997 report growth and debt service per capita (debt such as cars. For most of the air pollu- of the North Carolina Progress Board,37 service being the amount of money spent tant types of point source emissions is to raise per capita income beyond the to repay past borrowing). These correla- examined (particulates, sulfur dioxide, national average by 2010. The county tions are strongest for the counties that oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monox- data show a strong association between grew the fastest between 1950 and 1998. ide), there are no associations with

8 popular government fall 2000 strong forthe longer periods.Formore the tenfastest-growingcounties andvery the 1990–98 period butisstrongerfor when onelooksatallthecounties for waste percapita.Thisassociation isweak grow faster, theygeneratemoresolid least 6percent this goal.Infact,itisdisposingofat only thefarmhouseandashedremain. much orallofafamilyfarm.Above, At times,subdivisionshavereplaced by June2001. waste by40percentonapercapitabasis of reducingdisposalmunicipalsolid organic emissions(seeFigure5). counties withthehighestlevelofvolatile particularly whenoneexaminesthe in thefirsthalfoftwentiethcentury, the westernPiedmont(thefurniturebelt) reflect themanufacturingthatgrewin fastest from1900 to1950. Thismay occurring inthecountiesthatgrew od, muchofthecorrelationapparently growth countiesinthe1900–1998 peri- show asubstantialcorrelationwith such asgasoline,paints,andsolvents,do sions ofvolatileorganiccompounds, growth. However, thepointsourceemis- the deadlineapproaches. In 1991 thestatesetastatutory goal 41 more The statewillnotmeet waste percapitaas 42 As counties page 46. quences ofgrowth,seethearticleon discussion oftheenvironmentalconse- the 1990–98 period. dence andgrowthforallthe countiesin correlation betweentotalcancer inci- metropolises. Thereisaslight negative of bettercancerscreeningin thelarger cer rates.Thiseffectcouldbe theresult ulous countiesreportedhighertotalcan- of themid-1990s. Ingeneral,morepop- had higherincidencesoftotalcanceras in thefirsthalfoftwentiethcentury fant mortality. Countiesthatgrewfaster than nineteenyearsold,andlowerin- lower pregnancyratesforwomenless dence thathigher-growth counties have childhood poverty. Thereissomeevi- growth isstronglyassociatedwithlower growing countiesofthe1990s. Faster is barelydiscernibleforthetenfastest- with percapitaincomeandSAT scores, However, thisassociation,likethose ciated withloweroverallmortality. with respecttogrowth.Growthisasso- public healthindicatorsareambiguous their slower-growing counterparts.Other lower infaster-growing countiesthanin Mortality andchildhoodpovertyare Health decentralized agriculture anddispersed to maintainthestate’s characteristically tried areas. Stategovernmentexplicitly in numeroussmalltownsand semirural state” spreaditslargepopulation around twentieth century, the“RipVan Winkle slumber andgrewinthelasthalfof As NorthCarolinaawakenedfrom er crimerates. and higheraveragewagesalsohadhigh- counties withhigherincomepercapita and measuresofeconomicwell-being: relation between1997 indexcrimerates 1900–1998. Therealsoisahighcor- ly forthelongerperiods,1950–98 and ties and1997 indexcrimerates,especial- correlation betweenhigh-growthcoun- rates andpopulation,amoderate correlation between1997 indexcrime growth inpopulation.Thereisahigh crimes, includingarson)alongwith rate) in“indexcrimes”(themostserious both absolutenumbersandthecrime for the1950–98 periodsawgrowth(in er populations.Faster-growing counties Crime riseswithfastergrowthandlarg- Crime popular government fall 2000 Summary 9

ROBERT MILLER / THE NEWS AND OBSERVER urban areas by attempting to funnel jobs 3. See BRAD STUART, MAKING NORTH description of CAMA, see the article on page and public investment to poorer areas. CAROLINA PROSPER: A CRITIQUE OF BALANCED 21. Opponents of CAMA feared that it would At the beginning of the twenty-first GROWTH AND REGIONAL PLANNING 14 slow development on the coast, but there is no (Raleigh: N.C. Center for Public Policy evidence that this has happened. On the con- century, however, farms have grown in- Research, 1979). trary, viewed in light of the powerful push to creasingly concentrated, and the state’s 4. SCOTT, STATEWIDE DEVELOPMENT the sea that is occurring all around the south- more densely populated urban areas— POLICY 90 (“The primary thrust of develop- eastern United States, including North Caro- its Mallvilles—have continued to be the ment policy, therefore, must be to reinforce lina, CAMA was a prescient attempt to cope major engines for economic growth. The the growth of smaller and medium sized cen- with one of the major trends in the state’s small towns—Millvilles—and the rural ters, outside of the Piedmont, in the 5,500 to population growth. areas still suffer from poor economic 50,000 range. This is the only practical way 11. UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU, STATE to achieve a jobs-people balance through pop- POPULATION ESTIMATES AND DEMOGRAPHIC conditions and the attendant problems ulation dispersal in North Carolina”). COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE, ST-99- for quality of life. The problems of the 5. In the development policy of the Scott 2 (Washington, D.C.: Census Bureau, Dec. major urban areas look very different administration (in the early 1970s), limiting 29, 1999). from the problems of the lagging semi- the rate of growth was off limits: “A State- 12. NESTER E. TERLECKYJ & CHARLES D. urban and rural areas. It is increasingly wide Development Policy . . . is not a policy to COLEMAN, REGIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH IN difficult to imagine a development-and- set direct limits on growth in any region. This THE UNITED STATES: PROJECTIONS FOR 1999– growth policy that could treat Millville, probably is impossible, and no proven tech- 2025, at 5 (Washington, D.C.: NPA Data niques are available anyway. Rather, develop- Services, 1998). The other states are Arizona, Mallville, and the farm in between the ment policy is drawn in a positive sense, sup- California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, same way, or that could treat them dif- porting the expansion of clusters outside of Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, ferently just as a function of their geo- the Piedmont Crescent as a counter-balance to Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, graphic location. increased urban concentration.” SCOTT, STATE- Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. In North Carolina of the twentieth WIDE DEVELOPMENT POLICY 90. 13. UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU, century, growth, size, and urbanization 6. See THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, POPULATION ESTIMATES PROGRAM, POPULATION (as reflected in MSA status) were posi- CENTER ON URBAN & METROPOLITAN POLICY, DIVISION, STATE POPULATION ESTIMATES AND ADDING IT UP: GROWTH TRENDS AND POLICIES DEMOGRAPHIC COMPONENTS OF POPULATION tively associated with higher personal IN NORTH CAROLINA 4 (Washington, D.C.: CHANGE: JULY 1, 1998 TO JULY 1, 1999 income, better educational outcomes, Brookings Institution, July 2000). (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 29, 1999) available and lower mortality. These are impor- 7. Data up to 1980 are from CATHERINE at http://www.census.gov/population/esti- tant facts for a state that until recently W. B ISHIR, CHARLOTTE V. B ROWN, CARL mates/state/st-99-1.txt (as of July 13, 2000). was near the bottom nationally in per LOUNSBURY, & ERNEST H. WARD III, ARCHI- 14. United States Census Bureau, Table capita income, educational attainment, TECTS AND BUILDERS IN NORTH CAROLINA: A S3, Per Capita Income by State: 1959, 1969, and many public health measures. The HISTORY OF THE PRACTICE OF BUILDING 354 1979, and 1989, available at http://www. (Chapel Hill, N.C.: UNC Press, 1990). Data census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/state/state3. data suggest that growth has significant for 1990 are from U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, PRESS html (as of July 13, 2000). benefits, although the extent to which it RELEASE CB 91-334 (Washington, D.C.: 15. See, e.g., S. H. HOBBS, NORTH CARO- causes the improvement in quality-of- Census Bureau, Dec. 18, 1991). Still, as of LINA: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 148 (Chapel Hill: life indicators reported in this article is 1990, the state ranked forty-fifth in percent- UNC Press, 1930) (“Wages will rise, and not clear and requires further study. age of its population in urban areas; the should rise, and working hours and conditions At the same time, growth in the met- national proportion in urban areas in 1990 will improve, but it remains a fact that cheap ropolitan areas of the state has taken on was 75.2 percent. labor of the past and present has had much to 8. The correlations reported in this arti- do with our industrial growth”). a character that may deserve special pol- cle’s quality-of-life section confirm this fact: 16. Critics of North Carolina’s dispersed- icy treatment. The growth policies of the counties that are part of metropolitan statisti- growth policies have pointed to dispersion as past, that largely left the metropolitan cal areas in North Carolina tended to grow one of the main factors in the state’s low in- areas to fend for themselves, were not faster than other counties for each period come. See, e.g., Barry Moriarty, Manufacturing made with a view to solving urban prob- examined. See text at page 8. Wage Rates, Plant Location, and Plant lems. As North Carolina continues its 9. North Carolina farm employment Location Policies, POPULAR GOVERNMENT, position among the nation’s leaders in dropped from 106,319 in 1970 to 87,827 in Spring 1977, at 48. 1996, a 55 percent decrease. Regional Econo- 17. Calculated from data presented in urban growth, policy makers and public mic Information System (REIS) database, UNITED STATES DEP’TOFCOMMERCE, BUREAU administrators face difficult management available at http://fisher.lib.Virginia.edu. Of OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, COMPREHENSIVE challenges, with little history of con- course, farmers very likely made up a signifi- REVISION TO STATE PERSONAL INCOME certed statewide efforts to solve them. cant component of that decrease by using ESTIMATES 1969–98, available at http://www. immigrant farm workers, who may not be bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/articles/0600spi/ reflected in the official surveys. maintext.htm (June 2000). Notes 10. One important exception to the story 18. E.g., WILBUR THOMPSON, PREFACE TO of North Carolina’s urban growth is the dra- URBAN ECONOMICS 35 (Baltimore: Johns 1. C. HORACE HAMILTON, 2 NORTH matic rates of population growth on the coast Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, CAROLINA POPULATION TRENDS: A DEMO- in the past ten and twenty years. The Coastal 1965) (citing the Research Triangle as a “fed- GRAPHIC SOURCEBOOK 166 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Area Management Act (CAMA) of 1974 in- erated local economy”); NILES M. HANSEN, Carolina Population Center, 1975). troduced a regulatory regime and mandatory INTERMEDIATE-SIZED CITIES AS GROWTH 2. GOVERNOR ROBERT W. S COTT, THE land-use planning in the state’s twenty coastal CENTERS: APPLICATIONS FOR KENTUCKY, THE STATEWIDE DEVELOPMENT POLICY 22 (Raleigh: counties. N.C. GEN. STAT. (hereinafter G.S.) PIEDMONT CRESCENT, THE OZARKS AND TEXAS N.C. Dep’t of Admin., Mar. 1972). § 113A-100 through -134.3. For a detailed 109 (New York: Praeger, 1971) (extending

10 popular government fall 2000 Thompson’s argument to the entire Piedmont this period, the population grew by 76 percent from 1990 to 1998. Should they all be consid- Crescent). while the land area grew by 186 percent. For ered high-growth counties? This article han- 19. TERLECKYJ & COLEMAN, REGIONAL some of the smaller regions, data are available dles the issue in two ways: first, by looking at ECONOMIC GROWTH 15. only from 1980 and 1990, and the results three categories of high-growth counties 20. See MDC, INC., STATE OF THE SOUTH vary. In Hickory the population of the urban- (those with the top 50, top 25, and top 10 1998 ch. 2, available at http://www.mdcinc. ized area grew by 12 percent while the size of percent growth rates in each of the time peri- org/SOS98text.html#chap2 (Mar. 28, 2000). the area grew by 23 percent, matching the ods studied); and second, by also examining 21. See James H. Johnson, Karen D. other patterns. In contrast, the population of correlations between growth rates without Johnson-Webb, & Walter C. Farrell, Jr., A Goldsboro grew by 4 percent while the urban- grouping the counties at all. Profile of Hispanic Newcomers to North ized area grew by 2 percent, and the popula- (5) Sources: There are long-standing de- Carolina, POPULAR GOVERNMENT, Fall 1999, tion of Jacksonville grew by 39 percent while bates on the proper quality-of-life data to use, at 2. the urbanized area grew by only 14 percent. and the data easily available to researchers 22. E.g., OFFICE OF STATE BUDGET AND 30. UNITED STATES DEP’TOFAGRICUL- have serious limitations. This article borrows MANAGEMENT, NORTH CAROLINA LONG-TERM TURE, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION several quality-of-life indicators suggested by ECONOMIC-DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS 21 SERV. AND IOWA STATE UNIV. STATISTICAL the recent report of the North Carolina Pro- (Raleigh, N.C.: OSBM, 1989). LABORATORY, SUMMARY REPORT: 1997 gress Board (see note 37) and adds indicators 23. Real farm income for the state actu- NATIONAL RESOURCES INVENTORY not mentioned by the Progress Board when ally decreased 45 percent between 1970 and (Washington, D.C.: USDA, Dec. 1999). available data seem interesting to participants 1990. It rose between 1990 and 1997, making 31. UNITED STATES DEP’TOFAGRICUL- in the debate about growth management. an overall increase for 1970 to 1997 of 11 per- TURE, U.S. CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE (1997), 36. Currently an MSA is an area con- cent, or just 0.44 percent on an annualized available at http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/. taining at least one city with 50,000 or more basis. However, the figures for farm income 32. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IN NORTH inhabitants, or a Census Bureau–defined do not look quite as bad on a per capita basis CAROLINA (David M. Lawrence & Warren urbanized area (of at least 50,000 inhabitants) because of the rapid decrease for the period in Jake Wicker eds., 2d ed., Chapel Hill, N.C.: and a total metropolitan population of at least the number of farms and farmers. United Institute of Government, The University of 100,000 (75,000 in New England). For an States Dep’t of Commerce, Bureau of Econo- North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1995). explanation of metropolitan area definitions, mic Analysis, Regional Economic Information 33. North Carolina Dep’t of Env’t and see http://www.census.gov/population/www/ System data set, available at http://fisher. Natural Resources, Div. of Air Quality, Pre- estimates/aboutmetro.html. lib.Virginia.EDU/reis/ (as of Feb. 28, 2000). sentation to the N.C. Envtl. Management 37. The N.C. General Assembly created 24. As this article was being written, Comm’n (Feb. 9, 2000). See also Figure 1, the Progress Board in 1995 and charged it, a state legislative study commission was page 54. among other things, to set priority goals and conducting such a review (see the article on 34. The “correlation coefficients,” or r measures for the state. See NORTH CAROLINA page 21). values, for all variables that showed signifi- PROGRESS BOARD, MEASURING OUR PROGRESS: 25. Commerce Secretary D. M. cant relationships to growth, in all the time TARGETS FOR THE YEAR 2010 (Dec. 1997), Faircloth, quoted in a WINSTON-SALEM periods and categories of high-growth coun- available at http://www.ncpb.state.nc.us. JOURNAL editorial, cited in Stuart, Making ties studied, are available from the author on 38. One possible explanation for this is NORTH CAROLINA PROSPER 39. In particular, request at [email protected]. The r that these counties are largely on the coast, the “growth center” concept of the state’s bal- values indicate the magnitude of the correla- and the income figures for the coastal counties anced growth policy was supposed to prevent tion, in a range from – 1 to + 1. do not capture the wealth of the seasonal visi- sprawl by concentrating water and sewer 35. In this quality-of-life analysis, there tors and second-home buyers who have con- investments within growth centers, rather are other limitations than lack of causal rela- tributed so much to the growth rates. than continuing the practice of funding coun- tionships: 39. Wake County Dep’t of Social tywide utility systems. (1) Scale: The article looks at counties as Services, telephone conversation with Ben 26. In North Carolina the push to the the primary units of measurement for growth Hitchings, senior planner, Triangle J Council edge and beyond, to the “twilight zone [be- because most of the easily accessible quality-of- of Gov’ts (Feb. 1999). tween urban and rural],” was observed and life data are kept by county. Averaging rates 40. Benthic testing examines the health documented as early as the 1930s by Hobbs, of growth over an entire county undoubtedly of surface water bodies (waters on the earth’s who attributed it “to the fact that much of misses more localized growth patterns that surface, as opposed to groundwater) by our industrial development is on the outskirts are having positive or negative effects on the counting the numbers and the types of organ- of incorporated places, a considerable part of quality of life in a smaller area. isms found in the water and giving the water a it in unincorporated open country mill vil- (2) Time frame: Growth rates may differ rating of excellent, good, good-fair, fair, or lages.” HOBBS, NORTH CAROLINA 210. depending on the time frame chosen. To mini- poor. Benthic methods allow one to observe 27. See, e.g., JAMES H. KUNSTLER, THE mize this possibility, the analysis examines longer-term pollution issues in streams than GEOGRAPHY OF NOWHERE (New York: Simon growth rates over several time frames: does ambient water column testing, which is & Schuster, 1993). 1900–1950, 1950–90, 1990–98, and, for some greatly affected by events around the particu- 28. UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU, 1990 purposes, 1900–1998. lar time the samples are taken. For this article CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING: GUIDE (3) Localized versus external effects: I examined the state’s 4,242 benthic test PART B, glossary 17 (Washington, D.C.: Cen- Certain quality-of-life measures, such as envi- results reported as of July 9, 1999, categorized sus Bureau, 1996). New regions are included in ronmental data, do not necessarily reflect them by county, assigned numbers (5, 4, 3, 2, these listings only when they pass the 50,000- localized causes. In other words, pollution 1) to represent the benthic ratings, and per- person threshold. The only North Carolina travels, sometimes great distances. This article formed the correlation analysis. regions that met this criterion in 1950 were focuses on data that seem likely to be related 41. G.S. 130A-309.4(c), originally passed Asheville, Charlotte, the Triad, and the Triangle. to local growth and local conditions, rather in 1989 and amended in 1991. 29. From 1970 to 1990, the population than to external factors. 42. See N.C. DEPT. OF ENV’T AND NA- of the urbanized area in the Fayetteville region (4) Definition of high-growth counties: TURAL RESOURCES, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT grew by 50 percent while the land area in- The populations of 57 of North Carolina’s ANNUAL REPORT 1997–1998 (Raleigh, N.C.: creased by 87 percent. In Wilmington over 100 counties grew faster than the U.S. average NCDENR, Mar. 1999).

popular government fall 2000 11