Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GRDadof3

Kent and Ottawa Counties see modest growth despite State losses

25 posts in this topic

Well, there's good news and bad news

New Census Bureau 2006 reports are out

- From 7/05 - 7/06 overall the State had a net loss of -5200 people

- Livingston County had the highest population increase of 3107 or 1.7%

- Kent County was the second fastest growing, with 3545 net population increase or about .7%; Kent County added 2700 jobs, while the state lost 49,000 jobs in that time period

- Ottawa County was third with population increase of 2484, or about .9%.

Diverse industries boost area growth - GR Press

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


At this point in the game, growth is growth.

Well, there's good news and bad news

New Census Bureau 2006 reports are out

- From 7/05 - 7/06 overall the State had a net loss of -5200 people

- Livingston County had the highest population increase of 3107 or 1.7%

- Kent County was the second fastest growing, with 3545 net population increase or about .7%; Kent County added 2700 jobs, while the state lost 49,000 jobs in that time period

- Ottawa County was third with population increase of 2484, or about .9%.

Diverse industries boost area growth - GR Press

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is, it it urban growth, or as I suspect, growth in the suburbs and townships? I would guess most of the Kent County growth is occuring somewhere around the M6 corridor, ie Gaines Township, Byron Center, etc. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the population increase due to persons moving into the area or births?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the population increase due to persons moving into the area or births?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question is, it it urban growth, or as I suspect, growth in the suburbs and townships? I would guess most of the Kent County growth is occuring somewhere around the M6 corridor, ie Gaines Township, Byron Center, etc. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm suprised Macomb county didn'tt gain more, that was growing a lot before

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In doing some research, we should be very happy with our +.7% growth.

I think Kent County was one of only a handful of Northern urban counties to actually see population growth from 2005-2006.

Cuyahoga County (Cleveland): - 1.2%

Hamilton County (Cleveland): - .7%

Allegheny County (Pittsburgh): -1.0%

Cook County (Chicago): -2.0%

Marion County (Indianapolis): +.5%

Franklin County (Columbus): +.6%

Hamilton County (Cinc.): -.6%

St. Louis (St. Louis): -.2%

Erie County (Buffalo): - .7%

Hennepin County (Mpls): +2.5%

Milwaukee County (Milwaukee): -.3%

For Great Lakes States, it's essentially GR, Indianapolis, Columbus and suburban Chicago showing any kind of sustained growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


In doing some research, we should be very happy with our +.7% growth.

I think Kent County was one of only a handful of Northern urban counties to actually see population growth from 2005-2006.

Cuyahoga County (Cleveland): - 1.2%

Hamilton County (Cleveland): - .7%

Allegheny County (Pittsburgh): -1.0%

Cook County (Chicago): -2.0%

Marion County (Indianapolis): +.5%

Franklin County (Columbus): +.6%

Hamilton County (Cinc.): -.6%

St. Louis (St. Louis): -.2%

Erie County (Buffalo): - .7%

Hennepin County (Mpls): +2.5%

Milwaukee County (Milwaukee): -.3%

For Great Lakes States, it's essentially GR, Indianapolis, Columbus and suburban Chicago showing any kind of sustained growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DN facts

these are the numbers acording to the Detroit News, Macomb had the largest gain in population numbers, Kent was 2nd, Ottawa was 4th,

Livingston had the highest percentage gain followed by Grand Traverse and then Ottawa 3rd and Kent 5th (excluding smaller counties that may have had a larger percentage gain but small numbers)

Overall very sad considering that the state lost population during this time, Wayne fell to less than 2 mill being the 2nd largest looser only to Orleans Parish La. and the 10th largest gainer out of 82 counties had a 0 percent increase.

Hopefully we can turn things around and attract more jobs to the state in all places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NAI Global (Commercial Realty) has a White Paper out right now that estimates that the Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland CMSA will be in the top 40 fastest growing in the country for 2007 - 2020:

http://www.naiglobal.com/docs/NAI_Global_G...paper_11_08.pdf

...with a gain of over 500,000 residents. I'd be interesting to see their methodology. That's a lot of peeps.

Just for comparison sake, from 1980 to 2007 that same area designation grew from 840,000 to 1.15 Million (about 300,000). So they estimate the growth rate will accelerate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The report creates more questions then it answers. It states that people prefer to live in warm, dry locations with lots of sun and little snow, near oceans and mountains.

Other reasons are briefly touched upon but it still doesn't explain the huge increases in places like Chicago and Minneapolis in additon to GR or Ann Arbor (or Detroit for that matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In doing some research, we should be very happy with our +.7% growth.

I think Kent County was one of only a handful of Northern urban counties to actually see population growth from 2005-2006.

Cuyahoga County (Cleveland): - 1.2%

Hamilton County (Cleveland): - .7%

Allegheny County (Pittsburgh): -1.0%

Cook County (Chicago): -2.0%

Marion County (Indianapolis): +.5%

Franklin County (Columbus): +.6%

Hamilton County (Cinc.): -.6%

St. Louis (St. Louis): -.2%

Erie County (Buffalo): - .7%

Hennepin County (Mpls): +2.5%

Milwaukee County (Milwaukee): -.3%

For Great Lakes States, it's essentially GR, Indianapolis, Columbus and suburban Chicago showing any kind of sustained growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The report creates more questions then it answers. It states that people prefer to live in warm, dry locations with lots of sun and little snow, near oceans and mountains.

Other reasons are briefly touched upon but it still doesn't explain the huge increases in places like Chicago and Minneapolis in additon to GR or Ann Arbor (or Detroit for that matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People will always prefer more favoreable climates. I think Minneapolis is a classic example of what snow belt cities can do to create favorable conditions to sustain existing populations and also grow. Minne is a services hub, with quite a few fortune 500's. The government in the area has done great things in terms of infrastructure. With a combination of the two it has one of the highest educated populations in the country, and is a great area. Ann Arbor on a smaller scale is much the same, and Grand Rapids itself has taken great strides starting about 30 years ago, and they have started to excelerate in the last decade. Big thing missing, IMO is more stable employers. It'd be amazing if GR could snag a couple larger companies to plant roots there. If only the state would help with tax packages. Hey, it worked for Atlanta. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perhaps they are, I have been running under the impression that Michigan is pretty generous with brownfields and things like that, but was otherwise considered a little business unfriendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps they are, I have been running under the impression that Michigan is pretty generous with brownfields and things like that, but was otherwise considered a little business unfriendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is considered a business-unfriendly state.... but not because they aren't giving away tax breaks.

It's our unionized workforce and tax policy as a whole that (fairly or not) gives us the business-hostile reputation (in my opinion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is also sillier little laws that are just more or less a nuisance. For retailers; the Michigan Consumers Pricing Act and the Bottle Bill are examples of unneccessary extra expenditures...the smoking ban is an example of government interfering with the way a business wishes to run itself. I'm not saying thats how I feel, that is just how business feels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps they're predicting the climate here will get milder as global warming turns the lakeshore into a tropical paradise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has quite a bit to do with our reputation - warranted or not - of being unionized to a fault. The bottle bill should actually make us seem more progressive (i mean that in a good, non-political way!). Also, not to be overlooked is our simple geography: we're a cul-de-sac state off the major transportation corridors. If there was more demand, high-speed rail between Chicago and Detroit might help that...

I have to believe there are some corporations out there hungry for high-skilled engineers/professionals who may be former GM/Ford/Chrysler employees in metro Detroit. Not all of those folks have left MI for GA, TX & FL! Isn't anyone doing something to market THEM??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a site which paints a completely different picture ...

http://proximityone.com/metros.htm#msa2020

Add Muskegon and Holland-Grand Haven areas to Grand Rapids and you get population growth (2000 - 2020) of roughly 155,000 ... about 80th in rank, equal to Madison, WI. Considerably less than Des Moines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, but who is telling you this kind of nonsense? Businesses staying away from Michigan because of a proposed smoking ban (when many states already have the same), and because of Michigan's bottle returns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banning smoking in NYC actually increased business. It turns out there was a large, under-served demand for non-smoking restaurants. Who knew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to suck the air out of anyone's balloon, but the census figures you're quoting are from 2006 - and the Census is widely acknowledged to be rather useless in terms of accuracy and data quality. When we recently reworked our master plan, we decided it would b a good exercise to do our own detailed population study. Our findings were much bleaker than the Census - but much more accurately reflected the reality of the last 2 years and especially the past 12 months.

Here's a link to the community profile section of our master plan: (warning: it's a 92 page PDF)

http://www.plainfieldchartertwp.org/pdf/mi...ainfieldCPR.pdf

The population section starts on page 22.

The bottom line is that, in our area, given current economic patterns, we still have a 2-8 year supply of existing housing stock for sale to satisfy our population projections. And I'm proud to say we've placed some very explicit narrative in our Master Plan to prevent further speculative building until this trend corrects itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.