“We’re being strangled by the lack of action at the federal level. That’s why mayors are where the action is.”

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed uttered these words during a panel discussion titled “Cities 2012: Are Cities the New Global Building Blocks?” at the New York Ideas forum Tuesday, co-presented by The Atlantic, the Aspen Institute, and the New-York Historical Society.

“There isn’t a lot of time spent discussing the Federalist Papers in city government.”

Reed and his fellow panelists, Houston Mayor Annise Parker and New York Deputy Mayor Robert Steel, talked a lot about the new report from the McKinsey Global Institute, which shows that 259 of the largest cities in the United States are responsible for 10 percent of global GDP. That economic significance, they argued, means that American cities merit way more clout than they get in the current political environment.

The mayors talked about the multitude of challenges facing American cities today – unemployment, pension and health care costs, outdated infrastructure, education, social inequity. All three emphasized that municipal government is more accountable, more innovative, and more responsive than federal government.

“I hope for the good of the country, cities continue to lead on these issues,” said Reed, whose hard-nosed pension reform deal attracted national attention last year. “Because if we wait for the federal government to move on issues like immigration and real job creation, then I think we’re going to be waiting for some time.”

Conversations and debates on the big issues of the day. Reed pointed out that a huge proportion of the nation’s GDP is generated in cities, but that mayors still have a hard time getting the feds to pump money back into them. “If you look at the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, less than 10 percent of those dollars went into cities, where 80 percent of GDP occurs,” he said. “We’re going to have to shift national politics, and we’re going to have to shift state politics. Governors have a better lobby than mayors do. That’s why they got 90 percent of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, when that money should have gone to cities. Because we deploy it faster, we’re more creative, and we’re more representative of the majority of the United States of America.”

Steel concurred, noting that city governments operate with “a very short feedback loop” and can’t afford to spend a lot of time in theoretical policy debates. “I’ve worked in federal government,” said Steel, who served in the Treasury Department during the George W. Bush administration. “There isn’t a lot of time spent discussing the Federalist Papers in city government.””

“Cities are more nimble,” said Parker. “They’re 24/7 operations. I have to pick up the trash, and the toilets have to flush.”

All three mayors conceded that tough economic times have made their jobs more difficult. But they also emphasized the inherent appeal of urban life, and the urban potential for opportunity and innovation.

“Cities have people, and they have possibilities,” said Parker. “And whether you want a mate, or an education, or a job, or just new ideas, cities attract you.”

That advantage should be fostered if the U.S. is to remain competitive in the world economy, said Reed.

“We are no longer in a position, globally, to have massive investment in rural areas while cities struggle,” he said. “That’s the paradigm we’re going to have to face up to.”

by
Sarah Goodyear
(The Atlantic Cities)

A new report from Credit Suisse has been getting a fair bit of buzz in the business press, largely thanks to the graph below. The report focused on how urbanization affects developing economies. As an example of the differences between rural and urban productivity, researchers broke down government data on American GDP by state and by hour. Then they looked at how urbanized the states are. And they found that, by and large, the more urban the state, the more productive it was on average. (The glaring exceptions to this rule being ultra-resource-rich Alaska and Wyoming.) Just click the graph below for a larger, better-defined version.

For our purposes, the graph captures the urban/rural divide across New England reasonably well. With less than 40 percent urbanization, Vermont is among the most rural states in the country–and doesn’t appear to be terribly productive. Maine’s also lightly urbanized–and on the lower-end of the production scale. New Hampshire, meanwhile, hovers around the middle of the pack. Under the Credit Suisse thesis, that makes a lot of sense. Cities like Manchester, Nashua, Portsmouth and Concord would tend to add some umph to the state’s productivity average.

As you move south, though, the story changes. Massachusetts, which is more than 90 percent urban, is among the nation’s productivity leaders. Rhode Island is a little more urban than Massachusetts, and is slightly less productive. And Connecticut, at around 80 percent city-dwellers, actually does better than Massachusetts.

As is often the case with data, however, not everything fits into a neat little narrative box. After all, Pennsylvania’s much less rural than New Hampshire, and on average, it contributes about the same to the national GDP. North Carolina, Louisiana, Oregon and Nevada are also about on a level, in terms of productivity, and they run the gamut from 60 to 90 percent urbanized.

Individual exceptions aside, however, these numbers do appear to tell a compelling story. But what’s so special about cities? Here’s how the Credit Suisse report explains it:

“Typically a 10 percentage point increase in a country’s rate of urbanization translates into a 10% greater tertiary education enrollment ratio. Growth in human capital delivered via investment in intangible infrastructure (education and research and development) is as critical to a city’s ultimate success as investment in physical infrastructure.”

In other words, the percentage of people who go on to post-secondary education roughly coincides with the growth in urbanization.

“As a direct consequence, higher urbanization rates are equally associated with greater investment in technology, research and development and thus a shift up in the value chain of economies enabling a higher delivery of per capita patents and trademarks.”
And more educated people concentrated in one place means a greater demand for technology, which results in more innovation, which results in more patents and trademarks, which in turn generate bigger bucks–and more GDP. Finally:

“Efficiencies of high density populations employed in higher value industries collectively generates higher productivity in urban areas, as illustrated by USA state level data showing the pattern of economic output per hour worked versus the rate of urbanization. It appears that Americans, who live in heavily urbanized states are up to 50% more productive than those who live in more bucolic states. Furthermore, significant cost savings are realized on transportation by concentrating manufacturers and service providers together with their end customers.”

So having more people crammed closer together makes the workforce more productive thanks to the greater proliferation of technology and the high-dollar jobs that come with it. And productivity is ratcheted-up further when you consider the efficiencies built into city life. Everyone’s close together, anyway, so a Boston-based delivery truck can potentially drop off a lot more orders inside the city in one day than the driver responsible for all of Coos County.

If you’d like to see another breakdown of productivity by state, check out this slideshow on MainStreet.com, which uses some of the same government data as the Credit Suisse report.

By Amanda Loder
(StateImpact)
April 16, 2012 | 1:16 PM

The Wilson City Council is repeating its opposition to tolls along Interstate 95, revisiting its 2006 vote against toll booths, taken when the North Carolina Legislature was just considering charging people to drive on I-95. Earlier this year, the state Department of Transportation announced it would spend more than $4 billion widening and improving the 182 miles of I-95 in North Carolina, then charge tolls along the entire route to pay for the work. Officials in Wilson say tolls would hurt locals who use the interstate and reduce the amount of tourism in the area. Wilson City Manager Grant Goings says other cities along I-95 are also planning to oppose the new tolls.

(WILSON DAILY TIMES)
4/07/12

The next time the Wall Street Journal editorial board decides to reprint talking points from the Heritage Foundation they might endeavor in some fact-checking. In today’s Wall Street Journal piece, the editorial board offers a menu of reasons why the federal government shouldn’t be involved in transportation investment including the inequities it creates between states, saying that Western and Southern states get less than they pay in. In reality, from 2005-2009, each and every state received more back from the Federal government than they contributed in user fees to the Highway Trust Fund according to the General Accountability Office. This is because instead of keeping Highway Trust Fund revenues – which are largely derived from the federal gas tax – in line with federal commitments, Congress has chosen to periodically transfer general funds to keep the investments afloat.

Even when the Trust Fund was flush with cash, Western and Southern states generally made out much better in their Return on Investment (ROI) than heavily populated states on the Eastern corridor. While the donor-donee debate captures the imagination of many members of Congress when these laws come up for renewal, the whole argument misses the forest for the trees. The reason for this “inequity” is national connectivity, which in turn supports domestic and international trade, national security, emergency preparedness and interstate mobility – all important national objectives.

We also strongly disagree with the notion that investment in transit is an unserious, utopian enterprise. While the Chamber does not ascribe to most of the Department of Transportation’s livability initiative, we strongly believe that transit is a critical means of addressing congestion and driving economic development in many areas around the country. Addressing congestion is an incredibly complicated challenge that often requires a menu of logistical options. Building roads and congestion pricing are both valuable tools, but so too is transit. From 1995 through 2008, public transportation ridership increased by 38%—a growth rate higher than the 14% increase in U.S. population and higher than the 21% growth in the use of the nation’s highways over the same period. Without public transportation, congestion costs would have been an additional $13.7 billion.

With regard to economic development, every $10 million in capital investment in public transportation yields $30 million in increased business sales and every $10 million in operating investment yields $32 million in increased business sales. It’s no coincidence then, that most of the nation’s major transit operations are situated in areas with heavy congestion and often in close proximity to international ports. Just ask groups like Mobility 21, a business-led coalition that works to advance transportation solutions in Los Angeles and surrounding areas.

While we at the Chamber agree with the Wall Street Journal’s assessment that the federal programs need a great deal of reform and the permitting process needs some serious simplification, we believe the federal government plays an important and necessary role in infrastructure investment. Many of our nation’s conservative visionaries agreed, including Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan. Even today, some of the most vocal opponents of federal spending recognize the importance of transportation investment. Rep. Paul Ryan points out in A Roadmap for America’s Future that transportation is a core government responsibility: “Governments must provide for a limited set of public goods: they must build roads and other infrastructure, foster the protection of property rights, and maintain internal and external security… this ‘core’ government spending tends to foster economic growth.”

Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the Chamber would like to see Congress work together to advance a serious bill that eliminates eligibility for expenditures that aren’t in the national interest, focuses dollars on core road networks and freight systems, invests in making commutes faster and more efficient, requires performance management and accountability in state and local decision making, speeds up project delivery, expands project financing options, creates incentives for private investment, and lays the groundwork for a sustainable revenue model that enables investment levels aligned with needs. For the sake of near- and long-term job creation, stronger economic growth, and enhanced U.S. competitiveness, the Chamber strongly supports robust surface transportation reauthorization legislation that addresses revenue shortfalls and includes necessary and urgent policy and program reforms.

by Janet Kavinoky
(US Chamber of Commerce)
Apr 16, 2012

House committee will vote Thursday; Moffitt eyes amicable transfer, but Assembly may force change

The city should lose control of the region’s largest water system, a report from a state legislative study committee said Friday.

The long-expected report by the Metropolitan Sewerage/Water System Committee was met with dismay by city officials, who said the mountains’ largest urban area should run its own water system. Residents opposing the change launched a petition drive about the same time the report was released.

But committee Chairman Rep. Tim Moffitt said in the report and during a Friday interview that handing over control of the system to the Buncombe County Metropolitan Sewerage District would protect noncity residents. The water system serves about 125,000 people in Asheville and nearby.

“The noncity of Asheville ratepayers should not continually face the threat of double, triple and possibly quadruple increases in their water rates,” the Buncombe County Republican said.

Because the city has taken money in the past from water revenues, it should receive limited compensation, he said.

Moffitt has previously said Asheville should be compensated for the reservoirs, treatment plants and other infrastructure with a book value of $173 million.

The change could lead to a stepped-up repair schedule accompanied by annual water rate increases for all customers, Metropolitan Sewerage District officials have said. MSD is an independent body that controls the county’s sewer system. Its members are appointed by county government as well as local towns and cities.

The committee is expected to approve the report Thursday in Raleigh. It does not provide legislation that would force the change because Moffitt said he would like the sewerage district and city work out a transfer.

If they don’t, the General Assembly could act next year, he said. There would be no guarantee of its passage.

“The next logical step is to put turf battles aside, develop a plan that is acceptable for everyone and move forward with it. But if they don’t, we will work it out for them,” he said.

Moffitt got the Republican-controlled legislature to create the study committee after the city raised water rates for some businesses last year.

City Council members defended the hike, saying residential water customers had been subsidizing high-volume users.

The nearly 300-page report was compiled after three meetings, including a Feb. 23 public comment session at the WNC Agricultural Center in which more than 70 people spoke, most against the change.

The report attempts to explain the tangled history of the water system. Key events include a Depression-era merger of city and county systems to cope with bankruptcy.

It was that merger that gave noncity residents a special status. In most water systems, those living outside city limits are charged higher rates.

But the General Assembly passed the Sullivan Act in 1933 specifically forbidding differential rates in the Asheville system. Laws passed in 2005, called Sullivan Acts II and III, restated that rule.

The rules also say that Asheville, unlike other cities, cannot deny water service to noncity property owners and cannot use voluntary annexation as a condition for extending service.

Those kind of rules are appropriate because water customers, including those outside Asheville, are the true owners of the system, Moffit said.

“Title does not mean ownership,” Moffit said. “I think the city has taken stewardship to mean ownership.”

City officials disputed several aspects of the report, including its take on the system’s history and their motivation regarding noncity customers.

Councilman Jan Davis said the city tried to get the Sullivan Acts overturned but the N.C. Court of Appeals ruled against Asheville in 2008. Since then, the council has not tried to get differential rates, he said.

“That is how it is done in most cities, but we recognize that we are beyond that,” Davis said.

City figures say it would cost $1.3 billion to build the water system if someone were starting from scratch. But the current value of the reservoirs, water treatment plants, pipes and other infrastructure is about $173 million.

In the past, Moffitt has said Asheville should be compensated for the system. But the report highlights $114 million in water revenues the city took to use for other services from 1957-2005. County government took a lesser amount of money from the system.

Davis said the way the systems merged was not unusual but that the restrictions on Asheville were. Should the system be taken, Asheville taxpayers deserve to be paid for investments in reservoirs and original infrastructure.

“There is clearly a compensation that needs to be made to the citizens of Asheville,” he said, adding “I am hoping they are open to rebuttal.”

Comments can be made on the committee’s website until the Thursday meeting.

April 14, 2012
(Citizen Times)
By Joel Burgess
[email protected]

North Carolina – North Carolina was chosen as one of nine states to host a Statewide Mayoral Summit on Afterschool/Expanded Learning from the National League of Cities’ (NLC) Institute for Youth, Education, and Families (YEF Institute), with support from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The Wallace Foundation, A.J. Fletcher Foundation, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, First in America Foundation, NC League of Municipalities and City of Charlotte.

On April 16-17 at the Charlotte Hilton University Place, the North Carolina Center for Afterschool Programs (NC CAP) and Public School Forum of North Carolina will convene 50 state and local elected officials, alongside 500 educators, afterschool providers, and philanthropic leaders to discuss how communities can work together to build and sustain high quality, accessible afterschool and summer programs to address a broad range of community priorities, including academic success, economic development, workforce preparedness, public safety and children’s health.

“Local officials understand the benefits afterschool programming can bring to their communities and the important role city leaders play in ensuring children and youth have access to quality, accessible expanded learning opportunities,” said Clifford M. Johnson, executive director of NLC’s YEF Institute. “We are excited to work with statewide afterschool networks to share emerging research into what works so that city officials can play a pivotal leadership role in improving afterschool opportunities.”
NC CAP will present awards to five mayors at an April 17 breakfast featuring NC Speaker of the House Thom Tillis and Charlotte Councilman James E. Mitchell, Jr. “Champion of Afterschool” award recipients will include Mayor William Bell, City of Durham; Mayor Bill Saffo, City of Wilmington; Mayor Al King, City of Goldsboro; Mayor Terry Bellamy, City of Asheville; and Former Mayor Susan Kluttz, City of Salisbury. A video montage featuring the mayors will be released at the event. A preview is available at: http://vimeo.com/40012286

Keynote speakers will include The Honorable Thom Tillis, North Carolina Speaker of the House; Former Senator Howard Lee; Former Representative Gene Arnold; Immediate Past NLC President and Charlotte Councilman James E. Mitchell, Jr.; Charlotte Councilman Michael D. Barnes; County Commissioner Dr. James West, Wake County; Mayor William Bell, City of Durham; Mayor Pro Tem Susan Kluttz, City of Salisbury; Jamie Knowles-Griffiths, NC CAP Director, and Jo Ann Norris, Executive Director, Public School Forum of NC. Video remarks will be shown from Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx and US Senator Kay Hagan. National keynote speakers will include Afterschool Alliance Board Chair Terry Peterson; Dr. Freeman Hrabowski, President of University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Audrey M. Hutchinson and Bela Shah Spooner with National League of Cities; Nancy M. Devine, The Wallace Foundation; and Shawn Stelow Griffin, The Finance Project.

A panel of private and public funders will share resources for how to build and sustain afterschool and summer programs. Panelists will include: Barry Ford, US Tennis Association; Keith Poston of Time Warner Cable – Connect A Million Minds; Carr Thompson, Burroughs Wellcome Fund; Brian Collier of Foundation for the Carolinas; Joni Davis, Vice President, Government & Community Relations, Duke Energy; Becky Scott, NC Department of Public Instruction; and Cynthia Ervin, NC Division of Public Health.

Felicia Arriaga, Duke University Student & Former Boys & Girls Club Youth of the Year, will also share remarks regarding the youth perspective on how afterschool changes lives and mobilizes youth to reach their greatest potential.

The nine selected statewide afterschool networks are supported in part through grants from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. All state networks selected to participate in this initiative demonstrated an interest in working with municipal officials and state municipal leagues on enhancing afterschool and expanded learning opportunities. In order to be considered for the project, networks secured commitments from their governor’s offices and state legislative representatives, state education department officials and key mayors to participate in and help plan the summit.

“Coordinated approaches can help cities and states ensure that OST and afterschool programs are of high quality and are available where they are needed most,” said Lucas Held, The Wallace Foundation’s director of communications.

“This collaborative grant helps tie our statewide networks with the city-based activities that The Wallace Foundation supports – extending the range of promising practices to an ever-larger pool of policymakers concerned with making high-quality, afterschool opportunities available to more children and families,” said Gwynn Hughes, Program Officer at the C.S. Mott Foundation.

Event sponsors include the National League of Cities, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The Wallace Foundation, A.J. Fletcher Foundation, NC Department of Public Instruction, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, First in America Foundation, Microsoft, Best Buy Foundation, and the City of Charlotte. Event planning partners include Boys & Girls Clubs, NC Department of Public Instruction, Communities in Schools of NC, Professional Educators of NC, NC Rural Economic Development Center, City of Charlotte, NC Department of Commerce, NC DHHS-Division of Child Development, NC DHHS- Division of Public Health, and POST.

For more information on afterschool, visit www.nccap.net, www.nlc.org/iyef, www.mott.org and www.wallacefoundation.org.

The National League of Cities is the nation’s oldest and largest organization devoted to strengthening and promoting cities as centers of opportunity, leadership and governance. NLC is a resource and advocate for 19,000 cities, towns and villages, representing more than 218 million Americans.

The North Carolina Center for Afterschool Programs (NC CAP) is a ten-year old statewide afterschool network serving more than 6,000 afterschool programs reaching 150,000 children and youth in our state every day. The network aims to increase access to high quality afterschool and summer programs.
NC CAP is housed in the Public School Forum of NC.

Press Release
(News from the National League of Cities)
4-11-12

RALEIGH – The North Carolina General Assembly passed several landmark pieces of legislation during its 2011 session, dealing with key issues as regulation, civil litigation, criminal justice, education reform, and annexation. But state lawmakers left two important matters on the table: eminent domain reform and eugenics compensation.

Both deserve action during the 2012, and for a similar reason – they involve the state abusing its power over defenseless citizens in a misguided attempt to advance “the common good.”

Some may bristle at the comparison. And certainly the intrusiveness of government taking your property differs in degree from the intrusiveness of government subjecting you to sterilization. But there is a parallel to be found in government’s rationalization of each policy – a parallel that may help explain why so many people who think they are doing good can end up doing evil.

In both cases, the exercise of government power is advocated as a logical extension of a prior, less-controversial government action. In the case of eminent domain, most people accept as legitimate the power of states and localities to take property for public use (such as a highway) or public safety (such as a decrepit building that poses a risk of fire or collapse), as long as just compensation is paid.

But what if the intended use of the property isn’t strictly a public use but, say, the supposed public purpose of economic development or revenue maximization? And what if the potential harm to neighboring property owners isn’t structural but, say, that a building’s unsightliness might reduce property values? Over the years, public officials came to see fuzzy lines where there were once bright ones. They argued themselves to a point where seizing land from one private party to convey to another private party seemed like a reasonable use of power, rather than an outrageous one.

In the case of forced sterilization, North Carolina had for decades provided cash and other public assistance to individuals who gave birth to or fathered children they had difficulty caring for due to insufficient financial, family, or mental resources. If you go back and read the statements of government officials during the 1950s and 1960s, you see them citing spillover effects – the cost of services for abandoned or neglected children, for example – as a justification for going beyond voluntary measures to coercive ones.

In other words, if taxpayers were inevitably going to be responsible for the children produced by private sexual behavior, should that behavior really be thought of as private? Throw in the then-fashionable “science” of eugenics, which essentially treated human beings like pets or flocks to be bred for “desirable traits,” and you have the makings of a horrific abuse of government power against individuals who lacked the capacity to defend themselves – and in some cases had no idea what was being done to them.

Any government program involves socializing the cost of some private behavior. If you set up a local government to police offenses against law and order, you will end up spending lots of tax dollars on people with poor impulse control, be it for violence or intoxicants. If you set up a state government to fund education programs, you will end up spending lots of tax dollars on children of poor parents or poor parenting. If you set up a federal government to fund health care, you will end up spending lots of tax dollars on people who smoke, drink, or eat excessively, or are promiscuous.

Using public cost as an excuse for intruding on the rights of private individuals is a common temptation. It must be resisted. In the case of past abuses, government has a responsibility to compensate its victims. And in the case of current or future abuses, government has a responsibility to change its laws.

During the 2012 session, then, the state legislature should authorize the payment of cash and other compensation to the 1,500 to 3,000 sterilization victims who may still be alive. And it should submit for voter approval a constitutional amendment to protect against eminent-domain abuse.

We’ve fallen pretty far down the slippery slope of abusive government. Let’s start climbing.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.

By John Hood
(John Hood’s Daily Journal)
Apr. 10th, 2012

The N.C. Department of Transportation has appointed Lauren A. Blackburn, AICP, as the new director of the Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. Blackburn begins her duties on April 30 and will supervise the day-to-day operations of the division, which oversees various aspects of bicycling and walking in North Carolina including funding, project planning, mapping and signing, and safety education. Blackburn comes to NCDOT from Davidson, where she most recently served as the town’s planning manager. She has worked in the planning department for more than six years overseeing transportation planning and land development activities. During Blackburn’s tenure, the town was nationally recognized as a leader in bicycle and pedestrian planning and transportation. NCDOT has also appointed Kumar Trivedi, PE, to serve as deputy director of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Division. Trivedi has worked for NCDOT more than 18 years, including 12 years with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Division where he has held the roles of interim director and senior facilities design engineer.

(NEWS RELEASE)
4/04/12

The state grew by 1.3 percent from 2010 to 2011, but new U.S. Census Bureau estimates show that 44 of the state’s 100 counties — including most in Northwest North Carolina — lost residents.

The state’s economic powerhouses of Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham led the way, contributing almost 45 percent of the state’s growth during the first year since the 2010 census.

The counties that lost people cut wide swaths across the Piedmont, taking in many midsize counties that once formed the core of North Carolina’s textile and furniture industries. They also included many mountain counties that in the past drew an influx of retirees, and a large chunk of counties in the agricultural northeast.

“It is shocking and really quite troubling,” said geographer Keith Debbage, a professor at UNC Greensboro. “It is a reshuffling of the deck of cards. What it is telling you is that cities matter more than ever. In the large, urban economies of the state, you have a more diverse portfolio and wider educational opportunities.”

Most of the losses were small — most counties that lost population decreased by less than 1 percent. But the trend showed a marked change from the 2000 to 2010 period, when only seven counties — most in the northeast — had a population decline.

But most of Northwest North Carolina’s counties lost population from 2010 to 2011.

Counties such as Davidson, Rockingham and Stokes — places that have benefitted from being near the core Triad cities of Winston-Salem, Greensboro and High Point — saw population declines after gains in the 2000-2010 period.

Forsyth County grew by 4,282 people from 2010 to 2011, according to the estimates, reaching a total population of 354,952. The growth rate of 1.2 percent was slightly lower than the state average.

Still, Forsyth ranked 24th among the fastest-growing counties, up from 35th in the 2000-2010 period.

The state’s five most populous counties all improved their growth ranking.

Meanwhile, some suburban counties that had been booming with torrid growth slowed down: Union County, the fastest-growing between 2000 and 2010, fell to ninth place in the 2010-2011 period. Iredell fell from ninth-fastest to 27th.

Closer, Davie County slipped from being in 25th place among fast-growing counties to 35th place.

Debbage said fast-growing suburban areas have been hit harder by foreclosure, while rising gas prices and “livability” are attracting people to the cities.

“One of the things that has happened with this great recession is the re-emergence of cities,” Debbage said. “I have seen it all over the country. You have seen two decades of rampant suburbanization. Now you are seeing a return to old-fashioned urbanization.”

Younger people are leading the way back to the center of the city, Debbage said.

Paul Norby, director of the City-County Planning Board here, said this trend is reflected in updates being made to Forsyth County’s Legacy Plan, the long-range document that guides growth.

“We are thinking that the downtown and the center city should see a quadrupling of population,” Norby said. “People want to be close in to the urban environments.”

While Davie, Watauga and Surry counties showed very slight gains, the estimates show that the other counties of Northwest North Carolina — Davidson, Wilkes, Stokes, Yadkin, Ashe and Alleghany counties — all lost people, the Census Bureau said.

“It’s the declining labor force and employment base of manufacturing jobs,” said Matthew Dolge, executive director of the Piedmont Triad Regional Council, a regional governmental agency. “At some point, folks go where the jobs are. The other thing is that the population of the counties is aging pretty dramatically, so obviously the population is going to decline at some point.”

Geographer Alfred Stuart, one of the co-editors of the North Carolina Atlas, said the trend of decline outside the state’s larger urban areas — and away from beach and mountain resorts — is not likely to reverse itself soon.

“North Carolina has always been unusual in that the population was more dispersed than in some other states,” Stuart said. “That was because the furniture and textile industries were dispersed in rural areas. I think we will become like other states where the growth will be more centralized.”

The Census Bureau said that among the 50 fastest-growing metro areas nationwide over the past decade, only 24 of them were also among the 50 fastest-growing since the 2010 census.

Palm Coast, Fla., the fastest-growing metro area from 2000 to 2010, fell to 55th place from 2010 to 2011. Las Vegas, third on the list from 2000 to 2010, fell to 151st place.

Metro Raleigh ranked fifth nationally in percentage growth from 2010 to 2011, while Charlotte ranked 28th. Winston-Salem was in 161st place for growth, while Greensboro was in 145th place. Durham was in 62nd place.

Fayetteville, not among the 100 fastest-growing metro areas from 2000 to 2010, jumped into 29th place for the 2010-2011 period.

Hoke County, part of the Fayetteville metro area, was the single fastest-growing North Carolina county from 2010 to 2011, leaping ahead almost 5 percent to almost 50,000 people. Hoke was also in eighth place nationally for percentage growth.

A nearby county, Harnett, was in second place in the state with a 4 percent growth rate.

Army base consolidations have brought in more military people to Fort Bragg, and that in turn is spurring growth in the metro Fayetteville area, said Courtney Locus, a spokeswoman for the N.C. Business Military Center, a part of the state community college system.

The consolidation took place in between 2005 and 2011, she said.

“A lot of government contractors that are looking to bid on projects may be looking to create a location in this area as well,” she said.

(Winston-Salem Journal)
By Wesley Young
Published: April 05, 2012

A proposed 22-mile toll road between western Mecklenburg and western Gaston County is still moving forward, with a round of funding coming up in July. But it’s not a done deal. Long-time opponent Sen. Kathy Harrington, R-Gaston, said the flow of money for the embattled $1 billion Garden Parkway could still be stopped. She believes the money could be spent more wisely. “It is fiscally irresponsible to hold money aside for a project that has not yet started when we have so many deficient bridges and road maintenance issues and incomplete projects in Gaston and across the state,” Harrington said.

The parkway would begin west of Gastonia, at Interstate 85 at Bessemer City, and run south for roughly five miles before turning east toward Charlotte. It would cross the Catawba River and end just south of Charlotte/Douglas International Airport. Earlier this week, officials with the N.C. Turnpike Authority provided area officials with an update on the parkway. The parkway’s final environmental impact statement has been completed and in February the Federal Highway Administration approved a Record of Decision for the project. This gives officials the right to file for construction permits, and is a “major milestone,” according to Turnpike Authority spokeswoman Reid Simons.

By July 1, the project will get $17.5 million from the state and $35 million a year for the next 30 to 35 years. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin this fall, with construction to follow in 2013. The parkway would open to traffic in late 2015 or early 2016. That is, if everything goes right. Simons acknowledged “we do have a tight state budget” and that things could “always change.”

by Joe DePriest
(THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER)
4/04/12