|
Virginia's Population in 2050 Introduction According to many political and business leaders, ãall growth is good.ä In some instances, population growth can be beneficial. Early in the 20th century when the United States was sparsely populated, more people meant more jobs and more money. It meant more houses to build and the list goes on. Yet such growth is seductive. One statement often heard is that growth contributes to lowering taxes. Yet according to Harvard economists Alan Altschuler and Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez: ãThe available evidence shows that development does not cover new public cost; that is, it brings in less revenue for local governments than the price of serving it is.ä1 Imagine a state with considerable land area and few people. Every new resident contributes to lowering the cost of providing basic services to all. These are ãeconomies of scale.ä They reflect average costs, which are simply the result of dividing the costs of services by the total number of users. In that sense, growth may be good. But there is a limit to that growth, if it is to remain beneficial to all. As the state grows, its population overwhelms its infrastructure and exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment. Farmland and forests are sacrificed to strip malls. Police forces no longer meet citizensâ needs; roads and schools no longer satisfy the demands of a growing population. Thus, there is a point past which growth is no longer beneficial. Evidence that this point has been surpassed can be seen throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia, as roads are widened and lanes are added to highways. Schools are understaffed and enrollments are increasing. Ideally, a stateâs infrastructure must keep pace with growth if quality of life is to remain high. It is time to ask: Has Virginia reached the point where marginal costs are rising faster than average costs? It is incontrovertible that Virginia has indeed been growing as a direct result of a strong economy. But the state now faces an uncertain future as a result of state legislators and a governor who view with virtual indifference their obligation to reckon with the consequences of growth. The price for their inattention will be exacted in the not-very-distant future, when overcrowded schools, congestion, and smog deter migration into the state and even conspire to encourage otherwise-contented citizens to leave. This study addresses the ill effects of growth on the state of Virginia and connects them to their fundamental, root cause÷population growth. Denial of the role played by population growth may delay uncomfortable discussions for politicians who lack will, and it may also placate businesses which benefit from development. But it does nothing to solve Virginiaâs growth crisis and, in fact, it imperils the stateâs future. In order to focus attention on this grave situation, this report will first sketch the dimensions of Virginiaâs expected population growth and then address the necessary implications of those projections on the stateâs infrastructure, environment, and quality of life. The final section of this paper works through some strategies for slowing deleterious growth÷already underway in other states÷and it will highlight a tripartite approach of federal, state, and local governments that can work in concert to preserve the robust economy of the present while also investing in Virginiaâs future. As we enter the new millennium, Virginiaâs population has just passed the seven million mark.2 In contrast to its neighbor to the north, Maryland, which is at least making people aware of the problems associated with urban growth, Virginiaâs state leaders are doing nothing to reduce growth. Virginia is one of the few states where the legislature and the governor control most legislative action, leaving localities little power to solve their own problems. Despite being severely hamstrung, some local citizens have tried to make the case for reducing growth. Recently, as the Washington Post reported the General Assembly in Richmond murdered a valiant effort by Northern Virginia and other suburban areas to stem ill-controlled growth. Citizens and lawmakers from more than 20 exploding cities and counties had formed coalitions to win some authority to enact certain conditions on development in their areas.ä Since localities had to appeal to a pro-growth governor and legislature, ãthe answer from Richmond was a resounding no.ä3 This view differs from that of Governor Parris Glendening of Maryland, who has gained national attention for his concern about unplanned urban and suburban growth. Or as a columnist for the Virginian-Pilot puts it: ãMaryland believes in planning for development, giving localities considerable control over their destinies, while Virginiaâs philosophy regarding growth might be described as Îlet it rip.âä4 Extremely cautious projections from the U.S. Census Bureau foresee a Virginia population of 8.5 million by 2025, and by 2050, a population of at least 9 million.5 That amounts to an increase of about two million inhabitants in just fifty years or over a 20 percent increase in the stateâs current population. All this is dismal news for Virginia residents, especially those living in metropolitan regions like Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, and the Richmond area. But that is just the beginning of the demographic news. I. Sketching the Demographic Picture Population Growth Virginia reached its first million in 1830. It took eighty years more to reach its second million (2,061,612 in 1910). About 35 years later, the third million was reached, and it took only 15 more years to reach 4 million in 1960. Since then, growth has accelerated. In 1970, over 4.6 million Virginians were counted; by 1990, the population stood at 6.1 million and it is now about 7 million (see table on previous page). Over the past fifty years, Virginiaâs population has more than doubled in size. This begs the question: What accounts for Virginiaâs rapid growth? Regions can grow or decline as a result of shifts in three demographic variables: fertility, migration, and mortality. Changes in population size are dependent on net migration (i.e. in-migration minus out-migration) and/or natural increase (i.e. births minus deaths). Between April 1, 1990 and July 1, 1999, natural increase accounted for a net growth of 395,448. The Census Bureau estimates net international migration for Virginia during the same period at 145,733 and net domestic migration of 96,562. This brings total net growth to 637,743.6 Thus, natural increase accounted for 59 percent of all growth during that period; the remainder came from movements from other states and countries. Each and every day in the past decade, Virginia has added about 200 people. If the political mood remains as it is today, such growth can be expected to continue and the stateâs population could easily reach and possibly surpass the 9 million projected for 2050.7 These numbers will impact nearly every aspect of life in Virginia. II. Implications of Demographic Change Reckoning with the Future Virginiaâs population will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. The virtual certainty of this statement is further reinforced by the attitudes of the political leadership of the state, who seem convinced that unchecked growth is beneficial to all Virginians. However, the anti-growth movement is increasingly being heard. Reporters note that [t]he grass-roots group that helped sweep a slate of slow-growth candidates into office in Loudoun County last fall pushed out yesterday beyond the fringes of the Washington suburbs to the fast-growing Fredericksburg region. .Ê.Ê. Voters to Stop Sprawl declared the launch of four new chapters and political action committees in Stafford, Spotsylvania and King George counties and the city of Fredericksburg.8 In addition, existing political organizations are adding anti-growth to their agendas. The League of Conservation Voters, for instance, has organized an ãanti-sprawl and environmental agenda by offering campaign support to legislators who vote their way.ä9 It remains to be seen if these nascent movements will have any impact on the state legislature and the governor since the Virginia development lobby is well-financed and well-connected. As the Washington Post reported, ã[t]he Virginia development lobby is powerful, giving 15 percent of $4.4 million of campaign contributions to members of two committees who defeated slow growth bills. By contrast, the Virginia League of Conservation Voters currently only has $100,000 in funds.ä10 This growing anti-growth sentiment mirrors the increasing awareness of overpopulation nationwide. As urban planner Gabor Zovanyi describes it in a recent NPG Forum report: During the 1960s and 1970s an ideological shift occurred in America with respect to the value of further growth. The traditional association of population, economic, and urban growth with societal progress began giving way to a new and more skeptical view. .Ê.Ê. Their [Americans] personal experiences led them to associate growth with overcrowded schools, tax increases, rising crime rates, physical blight, traffic congestion, the loss of open space, the destruction of a way of life, and increasing air and water pollution.11 Admittedly, many sections of the state are not affected by the massive growth noted in northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, and the Richmond area. However, all Virginians must pay for the infrastructure expenditures needed to keep pace with growth in a few parts of the state. For example, over the next twenty years, according to the Virginian-Pilot, it is estimated that the area will require $13 billion for highways alone÷paid for by all Virginia residents.12 The Sierra Club estimates that Virginia Beach will spend over an additional $300 million in infrastructure costs, unless a ãsmart growthä plan is implemented.13 According to a new report from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the Virginia ãouter suburbsä of Washington (Loudoun, Prince William, and Stafford counties and the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park) ãwill grow three times faster than the rest of the region over the next decade.ä14 It is also highly possible that the area from Arlington to Richmond and from Richmond to Norfolk will become one giant megalopolis within the foreseeable future. Quality of Life Can Virginiaâs infrastructure support another two million people within the next fifty years? That means building and maintaining more schools: The U.S. Department of Education projects a 3.7 percent increase in public school enrollment from 1997ö2009.15 Over the five-year period from 1999 to 2004, almost 20,000 additional students are expected in grades Kö12.16 Some thirty to thirty-five new schools will have to be built to educate these young people. At least 2,000 new teachers will have to be hired to maintain the current teacher-pupil ratio and to replace those who retire or are disillusioned with the relatively low-paying Virginia educational system. Numerous school districts had inadequate numbers of teachers at the start of the 1999ö2000 school year; adding thousands more students will only worsen an already serious situation.17 Virginia already spends an estimated $6.7 billion on public schools.18 Providing for future growth will mean directing an even greater portion of the stateâs budget to education. The growth of the student population is fed by the so-called ãbaby boom echo.ä The rises in fertility some ten to twelve years ago are reflected in soaring middle-school enrollments. According to one reporter, ã[t]hereÊare two classrooms where 50 marble shower stalls once stood inside the locker room at Blue Ridge Mill School in Loudoun County. There are classrooms built into corners of the lobby and the cafeteria.ä19 Although the baby boom echo will eventually affect higher education, spending for state colleges was cut during the 1990s. By 1994, Virginia had fallen to 43rd in the nation in per-student funding. Conversely, in-state tuition rose to among the highest in the nation. This pattern indicates that tuition rates will soon be exorbitant and beyond the reach of many Virginia families. The traffic problem in many parts of Virginia is worrisome. Northern Virginia rivals Los Angeles with respect to gridlock. An estimated five million licensed drivers travel the stateâs 66,000 miles of roads.20 If the stateâs population continues to grow rapidly in the next few decades, consider the increased transportation difficulties. Springfieldâs infamous tangle of commuter roads, the ãMixing Bowl,ä will undoubtedly be replicated in other parts of the state. One reporter chronicled, ãthe much-ballyhooed 12.1-mile Virginia Beach-Norfolk Expressway was opened in 1967, halving the commute time between Virginia Beach and Norfolk.ä Yet she noticed that, ãin the first year, 10 million vehicles passed through the toll plaza. Now, about 64 Êmillion cars a year use the highway. To handle the swelling demand, the toll plaza expanded from eight lanes to 10 lanes to 14 lanes.ä21 The proposed ãsolutionsä of adding more lanes and toll plazas, or adopting a regional gas tax, which are currently being discussed, will do little to relieve traffic congestion if another two million residents are added to the state. The Environmental Impact The discomforts described above affect everyoneâs quality of life, but do not involve survival. Environmental problems such as air pollution, water shortages, and disappearing wetlands are far more serious. More people mean more cars, (which are the leading contributors to carbon monoxide levels), and that in turn leads to the poisoning of the environment. At present, only vehicle owners in Northern Virginia must arrange for emission control tests every year. There, the carbon monoxide emanating from cars and trucks is reaching the danger point. Unfortunately, we can predict that residents of Hampton Roads and perhaps Richmond will soon be joining Northern Virginians as the level of carbon monoxide reaches a danger point in those areas as well. One chagrined reporter announced that ã[s]mog season has arrived, bringing renewed concerns that Hampton Roads will fail new clean-air standards that seek to reduce the health risks of breathing polluted air.ä22 The ozone level is also becoming more problematic. All three major metropolitan areas are already affected. This problem, as well as that of carbon monoxide, extends beyond the metropolitan areas as suburban sprawl contributes to increasing air pollution throughout most of the state. In the greater Washington D.C. area, concerns over water shortages are growing. A report by the League of Women Voters concluded: ãThe regionâs surging population eventually will strain the limits of its water supply .Ê.Ê. [the report further] warns that a severe drought could force homes and businesses to restrict tap water use in less than two decades.ä23 As of 1995, Virginians used 862 gallons of fresh water a day.24 In Loudoun County there is growing anxiety about ãhow the countyâs ground water supply will hold up during future droughts as more and more wells are dug to support growth in western Loudoun.ä25 The problem is even leading to a possible ãwater warä between Virginia and Maryland. Many would agree with one reporterâs observation that ã[w]ater has joined transportation and growth controls as a flash point issue between Maryland and Virginia.ä26 It is widely predicted that the current water supply system with its two reservoirs wonât be enough to sustain the areaâs growing population in twenty or thirty years. Even the stateâs precious wetlands are in danger: The definition of wetlands is being reinterpreted by the Virginia General Assembly to satisfy the demands of developers. However, as environmentalist Jan Eliassen has recently written, ã[t]he debate over wetlands protection is not over and will not end until Virginia embraces smart-growth policies similar to those already in place in Maryland.ä27 On April 10, 2000, Governor James Gilmore approved the general purposes of a bill that would better protect nontidal wetlands. ãThese seasonally saturated fields and forests, prevalent in low-lying Hampton Roads, have been disappearing for centuries under development, at an average rate of 2,000 acres a year.ä28 Since 1998, more than 2,600 acres of nontidal wetlands, almost all in south Hampton Roads, have been drained. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, another 7,514 acres are at risk. It is interesting to note that ãfew lawmakers from Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, areas most affected by proposed restrictions, supported the bill.ä29 More recently, Gov. Gilmore finally agreed to join his neighboring governors in Maryland and Pennsylvania (as well as officials in the District of Columbia) by signing the Chesapeake Bay 2000 agreement. This ended ãan awkward political standoff between Virginia and its mid-Atlantic neighbors over the sensitive issue of controlling suburban sprawl.ä30 It took a compromise in wording for Gilmore to sign on: Urban sprawl was renamed ãharmful sprawl,ä but nowhere is there a definition of this term. While Gilmoreâs willingness to join the agreement was welcomed by leaders of the other jurisdictions, relations remain tense. Such cooperation on the part of Virginia is essential due to the fact that Virginiaâs population residing in the Chesapeake Bay region will grow from 4.7 million in 1990 to almost 6 million by 2010. If sprawl in the bay area is not controlled, 3,500 square miles, an area equivalent to fifty Washington D.C.âs, will be developed to provide for population growth.31 The basic question is clear: What will the addition of millions of people do to the environment and the quality of life of all Virginians as we proceed into this new millennium? For far too long, Virginians have tried to ãsolveä their problems÷whether education, highways, garbage disposal, environmental conditions, etc.÷without considering one of the root causes of the problems: population growth. Again we ask: Has Virginia reached the point where marginal costs are rising faster than average costs? We believe it has. III. The Solution: The Tripartite Challenge Clearly, growth rates must be reduced and growth itself must come to an end if the state is to remain a truly liveable place. Growth can only be diminished through reductions in fertility and migration. Fertility If growth eventually is to come to an end, fertility must fall. Public and private agencies alike should work to raise the consciousness of all Virginians about the problems of high fertility and population growth. These problems should be discussed in schools throughout the Commonwealth. The fertility rate can be decreased through proper education and by making available the necessary contraceptives. Between 1980 and 1990, the total fertility rate rose÷from 1.6 to 1.9.32 Migration Simply reducing fertility will not solve population growth problems if migration levels remain high. The state faces a dual problem: It must reduce both domestic and international migration but there is little within its direct purview that affects these rates. Yet it remains true that if net migration÷domestic as well as international÷were cut by half, and if fertility fell gradually, the future population sizeÊcould be significantly reduced. The Federal Level Legal immigration levels are determined by the federal government. At present, nearly one million new legal immigrants are admitted each year. It is estimated that over five million illegal aliens reside in the United States, and 300,000 new illegal aliens settle in the country each year.33 According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), as of 1998 Virginia ranked as the ninth largest immigrant-receiving state with over 15,000 legal immigrants.34 Virginia also ranks ninth in illegal immigration, with over 50,000 illegal aliens residing in the state as of 1996.35 Illegal immigration is a major problem in Virginia÷and not only in the Washington suburbs. For example, a recent Virginian-Pilot article reported: ãFederal agents have smashed a smuggling ring that brought about 100 illegal immigrants from the Czech Republic and other Eastern European nations to work as janitors in Hampton Roads hotels and stores.ä36 Federal legislation has been introduced that would limit legal immigration to 300,000 annually but nothing has come of it. If such legislation were passed (and Virginia members of Congress took a strong stand for it), if illegal immigration was drastically reduced, and if the nationâs refugee laws were made less politicalized and more realistic, immigration levels into Virginia could be drastically reduced. The State Approach Although state governments can do nothing to regulate the influx of legal immigrants into their states, they can do their part to discourage illegal immigration. Federal law encourages cooperation agreements with the INS in assisting in enforcement of immigration law, including the removal of criminal aliens and agreements to screen the eligibility of noncitizens for a variety of state and federal benefits. Recent court decisions have confirmed that there is no prohibition on states enforcing immigration laws, so long as there is cooperation with the INS and that enforcement is consistent with federal law. Federal law requires that states allow officials to turn over information to the INS about an alienâs illegal status. Ideally, a state will view its role as sympathetic to, and complementary to the federal immigration enforcement agencies. There are also a variety of federal provisions that encourage states to set up verification requirements for basic identification information÷such as those that would support an application for a driverâs license. Congress also recently required states to issue birth records on secure, fraud-proof bank note paper in an effort to prevent states from inadvertently issuing so-called ãbreederä documents to those seeking to create false identities. States play a vital role in the effort to halt illegal immigration. Turning to domestic movements, no state has a constitutional right to refuse newcomers from any other state. Oregon, though, has long made it clear that, while it welcomes tourists, it does not particularly want more permanent residents. Virginia might consider following Oregonâs example. In Oregon, the people in an affected area (whether city or county) vote on development proposals. They donât leave it up to county commissioners or, as in Virginia, the state legislature and the governor. A similar new law in Georgia, on which Governor Barnes campaigned for election, sets up a state-level commission that can disapprove city or county development permits if it can be shown that these would be socially or environmentally harmful. Such laws would be most appropriate for Virginia at this time.37 There are numerous other ways by which Virginia can discourage in-migration. Many have been suggested by some of the stateâs own cities and counties that desperately want to limit population growth. This new alliance of high-growth communities wants the state to allow counties to ban development in areas that lack adequate public facilities÷such as schools, roads, and utilities÷and to charge impact fees for every house a developer builds, while hoping to curtail legislation approved last session that locks in landownersâ rights to develop property.38 Some county supervisors want permission to link the amount of residential development they allow with the countyâs ability to pay for new schools. Eben Fodor, an urban planner who has formulated strategies for ending pro-growth policies, recommends correlating growth with the burden it places on services: Development impact fees are an increasingly popular means of funding the many types of public infrastructure required by growth. At least 18 states have now adopted enabling legislation that specifically authorizes local governments to collect these fees. With a system of impact fees, developers and new home buyers must pay more of the full cost of their impact on the community.39 Some states have already started down this path. Florida and Washington have mandated that in order for a development to be approved, there must be adequate school, sewer, road, and water capacity in place at the time the project is completed. If a community is unable to afford the new facilities, a developer may be required to pay for them in order to obtain construction permits.40 Another option would be for Virginia to buy up tracts of land to ensure the perpetuity of open spaces. Actually, public acquisition of land can often save taxpayers money. For example, a 1996 study .Ê.Ê. found that the town of Londenberry, New Hampshire could save money by purchasing the development rights on 269 acres of land known as Mack Orchards. .Ê.Ê. This conclusion was due, in part, to the fact that housing was found to cost the local government more in ongoing services than it generated in tax revenues.41 All these suggestions are worth considering if reducing population growth is desired. Some methods may work better than others. In the long run, however, we can perhaps hope that the grip of the General Assembly and the governor over distressed but disempowered localities will loosen. Referring to growth and wetlands in particular, environmentalist Jan Eliassen writes: This battle may last a decade, but smart growth will prevail because Virginians are basically conservative people who will want to wrest control away from Richmond and bring it back to their local communities. Instead of ãstates rights,ä the battle cry coming to Virginia will be ãlocal rights.ä . . . One thing is for sure: Until we have smart growth, wetlands will continue to be under political pressure from sprawl developers. The only questions that remain are: Will our state representatives learn about smart growth and change their stands? Or will we have to change our senators and delegates?42 The Local Level A robust, grass-roots no-growth movement is the direct response of many communities to the harmful effects of population growth as evinced by crowded roads and schools, noise and air pollution, and overdeveloped land÷all of which undermine quality of life, community viability, and individual property values. If citizens in counties or cities feel overwhelmed by the forces colluding against them, however, they ought to be encouraged by examples of recent success. Before, concerns voiced over growth were muted in the face of a commonly held assumption that development brought benefits÷particularly economic benefits÷to affected communities. Now, new research demonstrates that growth increases the tax burden on communities and fails to bring about either employment opportunities or lower housing costs.43 Armed with data that confirms what many knew from their own experience, concerned citizens are now overturning the pro-growth policies that defined local governance for decades÷and using the tools of traditional pro-growth strategies to do it. Instead of local governments handing out infrastructural support to developers for free, a common technique used as an incentive to bring businesses, now communities are tying those costs to development itself. Using aggressive tools to limit growth has become the only recourse for Virginia communities inundated with newcomers. The situation in Loudoun County÷the third fastest growing county in the nation÷is especially tense. More than 1,000 new residents are added every month. To keep up with this growth, county officials believe that over the next ten years they will have to build 156 new projects at a cost of $1.1 billion. This estimate includes 43 new school projects costing over $757 million. These new schools must be staffed, maintained, and run. County supervisors would like to initiate a new policy, ãone that would allow them to stop issuing residential permits in any given year once the county exhausts its ability to finance new schools. If developers wanted to obtain additional permits, they would have to pay the full cost of school construction.ä44 When citizens monitor their local officials and keep track of votes on no-growth efforts, they can more effectively lobby their representatives. Doing so at the level of local government is particularly appealing since individuals and organized groups have a better chance of garnering attention and producing results÷results that affect their own lives in immediate ways. While the particular construction of centralized state authority diminishes the potential for local action, state action itself will only come from organized pressure from Virginiaâs communities. IV. Conclusion: Reckoning with Growth Today, and increasingly in the future, population growth in the United States comes from immigration, either directly or in directly. The Census Bureauâs new national projections indicate that, without any net international migration, the U.S. population in 2100 would be 377 million rather than 571 million.45 Thus, immigration will account for two-thirds of all of the nationâs growth over the next century. If a moratorium on immigration were put into effect for a specific number of years, during which time consideration would be given to making drastic changes in our immigration legislation, it would be of great help to those states and metropolitan areas that are desperately seeking solutions to their overpopulation problems. Perhaps the greatest challenge facing Virginia is finding the political leadership to address the complex growth problems the state faces. But this is the entire Commonwealthâs problem, and it should be addressed by courageous legislators, with continued prodding from the residents of the state. Otherwise, the projections made in this report may well prove to be on the low side. Adding another two million or more residents to the Commonwealth will affect all Virginians in one way or another. The highly propagandized statement that ãgrowth is goodä must be re-evaluated. An excellent example that a shrinking population can also be ãgoodä can be seen in Norfolk. Since 1990, the city has lost over 34,000 people. Yet, ãbusiness is booming, tax receipts are up, and classrooms are full. Norfolk hasnât felt healthier in at least a generation.ä46 Most residents of Norfolk would probably agree that the quality of life there has improved significantly over the past decade. We close with this relatively optimistic statement by environmentalist William K. Reilly: Once, citizens automatically accepted the idea that growth÷in numbers of people, in jobs, in industries÷would ease the public burden by increasing the tax rolls and spreading per capita costs. Now they have doubts. They seem to be expressing the belief that larger size reflects not only lesser quality but higher costs. Pressed by inflation, they listen carefully to arguments about the hidden costs of growth. The new mood reflects a burgeoning sophistication on the part of citizens about the overall, long-term economic impact of development. Immediate economic gains from job creation, land purchases, and the construction of new facilities are being set against the public costs of schools, roads, water treatment plants, sewers, and the services new residents require.ä47 Unfortunately, this insightful statement was written in 1973! It is time for all Virginians to look seriously at the future and ask: What kind of Virginia do we want for the 21st century and for our children and grandchildren? Virginiaâs obvious natural advantages÷from the seashore at Virginia Beach to the Blue Ridge mountains÷could contribute to making the state the envy of the nation. That can only occur, however, if steps are taken now to address the challenges posed by continued growth. Notes 1 Alan Altschuler and Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez, Regulation for Revenue: A Political Economy of Land Use Exactions (Washington: Brookings Institute; Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1993), p. 77. 2 As of July 1, 1999, the stateâs population was estimated to be 6,872,900. Julia H. Martin and Donna J. Tolson, ã1999 Virginia Population Estimates,ä Spotlight on Virginia (January 2000), p. 8. 3 ãSuburban Defeat in Richmond,ä The Washington Post, March 1, 1999. 4 Patrick Lackey, ãThe Virginia Way: To Endure, Rather than Spend,ä Virginian-Pilot, February 18, 2000. 5 Paul Campbell, ãPopulation Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2025,ä Population Projections Branch, U.S. Census Bureau, 1996 as found at http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/pp147.html. We then extended the projections to 2050 by using approximate estimates of the demographic variables used by the Census Bureau. 6 ãState Population Estimates and Demographic Components of Population Change: April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999,ä Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, 1999 as found at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/st-99-2.txt. 7 Specifics of interest to policy makers and demographers in the population count are as follows: Virginiaâs median age (where half the population is older and half is younger) mirrors that for the nation÷35.2 in 1998. As recently as 1990, the median age was 32.4; it was 26.8 in 1970. Changes within the various age groups have also been substantial. For example, in 1990 there were 646,000 persons 65 and over. Today, about 800,000 Virginians are age 65 and over, and represent about 11 percent of the stateâs population. By 2025, the number of elderly residents of the state could number over 1.5 million and comprise 18 percent of the population. By 2050, almost 20 percent (1.75 million) of the stateâs population will be elderly. The 18ö24 age group numbers about 660,000 today. It is projected to grow to well over 770,000 by 2025 and perhaps 875,000 by 2050. Similarly, the youngest Virginians (those under 18) will increase in number from 1.6 million today to almost 1.9 million in 2025, and over 2 million by 2050. In the 1990 census, non-Hispanic Whites were clearly dominant numerically. Three-quarters of all Virginians were in this group. The other racial/ethnic groups were represented as follows: 19 percent African-Americans, 3 percent Hispanics, and 3 percent Asians and so-called ãOthers.ä By 2025, the shares for Virginia will have changed somewhat: 70 percent non-Hispanic White, 21 percent African-American, 5 percent Asian and Others, and Hispanics will comprise 6 percent. We estimate that by 2050, 58 percent of the state will be non-Hispanic White, 28 percent will be African-American, 8 percent will be Hispanic and 6 percent will be Asian and Others. 8 Lisa Rein and DâVera Cohn, ãAn Anti-growth Boom: With Population Expanding in Fredericksburg Area, Activists Seek to Counter Pressure for Development,ä The Washington Post, March 9, 2000. 9 ãNew Soldiers Against Sprawl,ä The Washington Post, July 10, 2000. 10 ãNew Soldiers Against Sprawl.ä 11 Gabor Zovanyi, ãThe Growth Management Delusion,ä NPG Forum (1999), p. 1. 12 ãArea Roads in Trouble, Leaders Say,ä Virginian-Pilot, May 17, 1999. 13 Sierra Club, Sprawl Costs Us All: How Your Taxes Fuel Suburban Sprawl (San Francisco: Sierra Club, 2000). 14 Peter Behr, ãOuter Suburbs to See Most Growth,ä The Washington Post, July 17, 2000. 15 Debra Gerald and William Hussar, Projections of Education Statistics to 2009 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999). 16 Michael A. Spar, ãSchool Enrollment Increases Appear to Be Slowing Down,ä Spotlight on Virginia (June 2000), p. 4. 17 A July 16, 2000 editorial in the Virginian-Pilot entitled ãTeachers .Ê.Ê. Pay Them More,ä points out that after adjusting the average salary of teachers for cost-of-living within particular states, Virginia ranks 26th in the nation. 18 Lena McDowell, Early Estimates of Public Elementary and Secondary Education Statistics: School Year 1998ö99 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999). 19 Liz Seymour, ãBaby Boomâs Colossal Echo: Suburban Districts Face Middle-school Bulge,ä The Washington Post, April 10, 2000. 20 Commonwealth of Virginia, Dept. of Transportation, ãMileage Tables State Highway Systems, December 31, 1998,ä Richmond, VA, 1999. 21 Debbie Massina, ãSay Good-bye to Route 44 as it Disappears Today,ä Virginian-Pilot, March 25, 2000. 22 Scott Harper, ãSmog Rules Could Bring New Controls,ä Virginian-Pilot, May 18, 2000. 23 DâVera Cohn. ãReport Warns That Region Could Run out of Water÷Surging Population Will Strain Supply,ä The Washington Post, March 10, 1999. 24 Wayne Soley et al., Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995, U.S. Geological Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998). 25 Maria Glod, ãWater Concerns Extend Beyond Present Drought÷Supervisors Want Supply Studies,ä The Washington Post, September 2, 1999. 26 Michael D. Shear, ãTruce Sought in Regionâs Water Wars,ä The Washington Post, August 30, 1999. 27 Jan Eliassen, ãSmart Growth vs. Not-so-smart Politicians,ä Virginian-Pilot, March 28, 2000. 28 Scott Harper, ãGilmore Approves Wetlands Safeguards,ä Virginian-Pilot, April 11, 2000. 29 Harper, ãGilmore Approves Wetlands Safeguards.ä 30 Scott Harper, ãVirginia Agrees to Cut Sprawl in Effort to Clean up Bay,ä Virginian-Pilot, May 4, 2000. 31 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Land and the Chesapeake Bay (Annapolis: Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2000). 32 The total fertility rate indicates how many offspring a woman would have during her reproductive years according to the age-specific rates of a given year. In other words, this is the number of offspring a woman would have if the yearâs specific rates were maintained in the future. 33 U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1997 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999). 34 U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Legal Immigration, Fiscal Year 1998, Annual Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999). 35 U.S. Department of Justice, 1997 Statistical Yearbook. 36 Marc Davis, ãIllegal Immigrants Were Brought to the U.S. to Fill Low-paying Positions as Janitors,ä Virginian-Pilot, February 19, 2000. 37 Kevin Sack, ãGeorgiaâs New Governor Proposes a Remedy for Atlantaâs Sprawl,ä The New York Times, January 26, 1999. 38 Dan Eggen and Justin Blum, ãFaceoff on Growth in Virginia,ä The Washington Post, December 27, 1998. 39 Eben Fodor, Better not Bigger: How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community (Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers, 1999), p. 114. 40 Fodor, Better not Bigger, p. 123. 41 Fodor, Better not Bigger, p. 134. 42 Eliassen, ãSmart Growth.ä 43 Fodor, Better not Bigger, p. 134. 44 Justin Blum, ã10-Year County Forecast:: $1.1 Billion in Projects,ä The Washington Post, May 20, 1999. 45 Frederick Hollmann et al., Methodology and Assumptions for the Population Projections of the United States: 1999 to 2100, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000) . 46 Karen Weintraub, ãWhere Have Norfolkâs People Gone? Itâs a Mystery,ä Virginian-Pilot, May 1, 2000. 47 William K. Reilly, ed., The Use of Land: A Citizenâs Policy Guide to Urban Growth (1973), p. 189, cited in Fodor, Better not Bigger, p. 77. Acknowledgments In preparing this report, the authors received valuable advice from numerous sources. We are especially grateful to David Simcox, who read and reread countless drafts and offered useful opinions. We are also very grateful to researcher Joshua Herring and the entire staff of Negative Population Growth. They all offered suggestions and were there for us when we needed them. This was, in truth, a team effort and we thank you all for your help. Elaine Dawson did all the desktop publishing and editing necessary to put the manuscript into final shape. Her expertise and patient cooperation are both deeply appreciated. About the Authors Leon Bouvier has taught at numerous universities, including Georgetown University, Tulane University, University of Rhode Island, and currently he teaches at Old Dominion University. He has served as demographic advisor to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Population and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy. He is demographic advisor to Negative Population Growth, Inc. Sharon McCloe Stein is Executive Director of Negative Population Growth and the founding Chairman of Pop.Stop, Inc. A graduate of Cornell University, Ms. Stein has served in executive capacities of several national public interest organizations and is a frequent commentator in the media on population policy issues. |
