Stagnation: Three cities in Butte County decline in population (Chico: college, living in)

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

While am unable to comment about the other cities and towns mentioned, the fact that Paradise lost 61 persons is hardly noteworthy. Paradise is rather unique geographically and demographically. There is no real room for expansion or growth, the surrounding land is owned by government of one kind or another. While am not familiar with zoning regulations or building restrictions, not going to see high rise apartment buildings. There is no sewage system in place, the entire town operates on septic tanks, which local residents say works just fine. Paradise is a retirement town, lots of elderly folks reside there. Like every other place in California, Paradise has its share of budget problems and unemployment, and a few younger working families may have left, but retirees still move there. The population has been very stable for many years, staying at 26 thousand and change and deviating only slightly year to year. Unlikely that the population will ever top 27 thousand, or for that matter, drop below 26 thousand.

BlackShoe, you definitely have a point about Paradise. Thanks for bringing it up. And I wouldn't be surprised if Magalia, just up the hill, did see some growth.

That said, the stagnation in Butte County is real, and the virtually non-existent population growth is a huge component of the problem. The cities in the valley have no excuses.

Granted that it could be a chicken-and-egg dilemma. People have fewer children because (it is often claimed) the regional economy is bad, and yet a regional economy cannot recover without normal population growth.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by BeauCharles

Gridley and Biggs are half Hispanic - traditionally higher birthrates. Could be they're not growing for lack of jobs, not babies popping out.

But the farm worker population is highly transitory and disproportionately male. Their demographic influence in the county tends to obscure the baby-bust of the native population.

Originally Posted by BeauCharles

Still, I'm sure none of that will make a dent in your theistic approach to everything.

Quite right.

Originally Posted by BeauCharles

Personally, if growth slowed in Butte County that would be just fine. Its a beautiful place and the last thing it needs is Fresno-like sprawl and smog (the air is dirty enough at certain times as it is).

You and BlackShoe are correct in that slow or no growth in a Paradise situation is normal. But it's not normal or healthy in a place like Chico or the other valley communities. A stagnant and declining population creates economic problems that end up hurting the people who are already there ... and pushing many out of the county.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

Three cities in Butte County lost population in 2011: Paradise, Gridley, and Biggs. Growth in neighboring cities was anemic and well below the state average. Given the fertility numbers I posted elsewhere, it is certain that Butte County's net gain of 0.4 percent (808 people) is due entirely to immigration.

We see the same pattern across the country: contraception and abortion are destroying rural and small town America. The reason is that rural America has long experienced higher rates of out-migration than America's population centers. Therefore, a higher birth rate is necessary to keep these counties alive.

Paradise is essentially an old folks' home. It may have a renewed increase as Boomers retire and then fade away to nearly nothing. The other two suffer from the same decline dynamics as other ag related places nationwide.

[drewjube]

Funny, the Butte County I grew up in during the '70s had oodles less people, yet Gridley, Biggs, Oroville, and especially Chico were vibrant, fun, manageable places. I haven't seen how the subsequent population explosion has improved Butte County.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by drewjube

Funny, the Butte County I grew up in during the '70s had oodles less people, yet Gridley, Biggs, Oroville, and especially Chico were vibrant, fun, manageable places. I haven't seen how the subsequent population explosion has improved Butte County.

I think you miss the point. The less-populated Butte County of the '70s that we both remember had a dynamic economy and a growing population. It's about movement and direction, not absolute numbers.

[BeauCharles]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

I think you miss the point. The less-populated Butte County of the '70s that we both remember had a dynamic economy and a growing population. It's about movement and direction, not absolute numbers.

The hell it did. Butte County had exactly one big countywide growth period since WW II. The construction of the Oroville Dam complex in the 1960s. Retirees add some growth in the hills. Chico's growth has been tied to the university and is really the only place in the county with large scale growth seen elsewhere in California. Its always been a poor county with lower growth than the rest of the state. Hardly what you'd call "Dynamic" if you're using anywhere else as a yardstick.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by BeauCharles

The hell it did. Butte County had exactly one big countywide growth period since WW II. The construction of the Oroville Dam complex in the 1960s. Retirees add some growth in the hills. Chico's growth has been tied to the university and is really the only place in the county with large scale growth seen elsewhere in California. Its always been a poor county with lower growth than the rest of the state. Hardly what you'd call "Dynamic" if you're using anywhere else as a yardstick.

The population of Butte County was 102,000 in 1970 and 143,000 in 1980. By contrast, the county's population was 204,000 in 2000 and 220,000 in 2010.

The 1970s = 41.0% growth
The 2000s = 7.8% growth

The 1970s had more than FIVE TIMES the growth rate of the 2000s. Looks pretty dynamic to me.

I'm not using "anywhere else" as a yardstick. I'm using Butte County today as a yardstick.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

It is a demographic inevitability that places like Butte County will continue to depopulate for at least the next 100 years. Ultimately much of the developed part of the world could go the way of Europe 500 - 800 AD.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

It is a demographic inevitability that places like Butte County will continue to depopulate for at least the next 100 years. Ultimately much of the developed part of the world could go the way of Europe 500 - 800 AD.

It does seem to be in the cards, but what makes it inevitable? The north valley is resource rich - water, timber, soil, you name it. Our transportation corridors are excellent. This could be a growing, prosperous, and self-sustaining region for many decades to come.

Shifting from dependence on in-migration to natural population growth is the way to proceed here.

[BeauCharles]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

The population of Butte County was 102,000 in 1970 and 143,000 in 1980. By contrast, the county's population was 204,000 in 2000 and 220,000 in 2010.

The 1970s = 41.0% growth
The 2000s = 7.8% growth

The 1970s had more than FIVE TIMES the growth rate of the 2000s. Looks pretty dynamic to me.

I'm not using "anywhere else" as a yardstick. I'm using Butte County today as a yardstick.

I really wouldn't want 400K people here right if that kind of growth rate translates into "dynamic". Its not sustainable and its not healthy.