Sifting Portland and metro area population data

Last Thursday's Portland Tribune had an interesting feature by Peter Korn that displayed some common myths about migration here.

Among Korn's findings, based on IRS data, are that about as many Multnomah County residents have left for California as have left the Golden State for here in the last several years. Portland also does not, Korn found, attract an unusual amount of people from other states. "Many other states and most western cities have higher rates of migration than Oregon and Portland," he added. Seattle, for instance, gets much more Californians and people moving there overall. 

In fact, for most of the past decade, more people actually left Multnomah County to live elsewhere than moved here. The reality is different in suburban Washington and Clackamas Counties: they've gone up in population.

But Korn notes that trend has changed: "Tax returns for 2006-07 (the IRS groups the migration data in two-year segments) show 3,601 more people moving into Multnomah County than leaving. 

Another finding: "Portland residents aren't moving to the suburbs anymore, but out-of-staters have taken up the slack." For much of the last several years, the article says, the demographic trend has been for out-of-state residents to move first to Portland and then, after a few years, to move to the suburbs of Clackamas, Washington and Clark counties. Now, however, the number of people moving into Washington County versus a decade ago, while roughly the same overall, is made up 19.6 percent Portlanders versus 24 percent ten years ago.

What should we make of some of this data?

It's hard to draw concrete conclusions because there are a lot of complicating factors. Sometimes we may tend to see population increases as indications of which places people like best, and what cities are therefore the most pleasant to be in and experience. In reality, though, it may be more of an economic indicator, or maybe even climate.

After reading Korn's article, my Google search of fastest-growing US metro areas found this CNN article from a year ago listing the Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix and Houston. Notice a theme here? Sprawl. Having an urban growth boundary like Portland does, and combining it other statewide anti-sprawl measures, means the added quality of life is (perhaps inevitably) tied to increases in the cost of living. Take away those restrictions, and you have cheaper land. The divide between rich and poor has become greater in America over the last decade, and over a broader period, central cities and suburbs have to some degree traded places as coveted and cheap destinations, respectively.

I'm probably just being too sensitive or seeing mirages, but I wondered if the paper had a bit of an agenda . The headline for the story, in big bold type on the cover, asked, "Nirvana? Possibly Not." Is it possible the Tribune's owner, the conservative Doctor Robert Pamplin Junior, might get a little extra satisfaction in taking Little Beirut down a peg?

Even if so, however, the numbers are there in plain sight. The tidal wave of Portland immigrants may indeed be a myth. But ultimately if there is a competition between Portland and its suburbs, or between the Portland metro area and those in other regions, our strength lies not in quantity but quality.

Comments

[Keegan]

Just to clarify, above you say that for most of this decade more people have moved out than moved into Multnomah County. I think the important qualification there was this, from the article:

"For most of the past decade, more tax-paying people left Multnomah County to live elsewhere than moved in."

As the PSU Population research estimates show, Multnomah County has seen steady growth in this decade, year after year. (http://www.pdx.edu/media/p/r/PRC_2007_Population_Report2_rev.pdf - 2008 numbers are out, but the 2008 report doesn't show the last several years like this report does)

In regards to a tidal wave in the metro area or not, depends on how you look at the stats.

A little outdated, but check out this link from last year:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/cb08-49table3.xls

This shows numerical and percentage growth from 06 to 07 in the 100 largest metros.

Portland is 26th in terms of percentage. But when you're dealing with a metro area of our size versus something of a million or less, percentages are not really apples to apples. If you cut out metros of a million or less, I count PDX at number 15.

Further, when you sort this by pure numerical growth, PDX sits at number 15, too.

I'm not really sure who actually thought we were booming to the level of, say, one of the desert cities like Phoenix (thank goodness). But these numbers (and the development that goes with them) are evidence enough of the attraction of Portland, and the need to address the continued influx of people. 40+ thousand people in a year in this area is, what, an additional Tigard every year?

[Duane]

The Tribune always has a agenda. When it comes to Portland or the Oregon Ducks, the Trib will
9 times out of 10 trash them both. But to
add salt to the injury, alongside they will
write an upbeat positive story on the Beavs
or some community based story on suburban bake sales.

That's why it's free and prints once a week.