Previous Chapter | Table of Contents | Next Chapter |
Natural Borders Homepage |
Chapter
12
The
Mid-Valley Human Resource Unit
This chapter
serves to summarize the more detailed descriptions of the seven Community
Resource Units (CRUs) that are contained within the Mid-Valley HRU, and that
are provided in subsequent chapters. The chapter is divided into the following
sections:
A.
A Summary of
Cultural Descriptors
B.
Key Findings
Related to Community Life
C.
Key Findings
Related to Public Lands
D. A Summary of Citizen Issues Related to Public Lands
Tables Four and
Five at the end of this chapter draw upon census data referred to in the
following pages.
A.
A Summary of Cultural Descriptors
The Mid-Valley
Human Resource Unit (HRU) includes all of Benton and Linn counties. A more precise HRU definition based on
census block group identifiers, is found within the 1990-2000bg.xls data file
on the distribution CD. Ten cities are
located within this HRU, with the largest being Corvallis (19,630) and Albany
(16,108).
Figure 35 shows a
map of the unit, stretching from the crest of the Cascades on the east, above
Sweet Home and Cascadia to an east-west line to the north of Millersburg,
beyond Philomath and Blodgett to the crest of the coastal range on the west,
and to an east-west line to the south of Alsea, Monroe, and Brownsville.
The area thus
includes National Forest lands in the higher elevations of the Cascades and in
the Alsea area, and BLM lands in the lower elevations to the
Figure 35
Map of the Mid-Valley Human Resource Unit
(HRU)
east and west side
of the valley, but primarily the unit is comprised of the heart of the
Willamette Valley, with its flatlands making up the agricultural backbone of
the region.
This area was
among the first in Oregon to be settled by Europeans. The Willamette River and
the fertile soils it created were the major attractions as settlement began.
The river became an important source of power and transportation as communities
began in Albany, Brownsville, Marysville (Corvallis), and Lebanon. The river
became an important social divider as well. Not only did it come to separate
Linn and Benton Counties, but it distinguishes east and west valley as well
(Highways 99E and 99W, for example).
According to the
2000 census, the Mid-Valley HRU has a total resident population of 171,282
persons, an increase of 12.7% over 1990 levels. This is a low rate of growth that closely parallels natural
increases with little net migration.
Corvallis had a much lower rate of growth (8%), adding 3,733 residents
in the decade of the '90s. At a smaller scale, the pattern observed for the
Greater Salem HRU is repeated here: modest growth in the urban center, much
higher rates of growth in the next ring of flatland towns, and low rates of
growth in the very rural or very mountainous communities. Thus,
Philomath and
Tangent grew by 22% and 20%, respectively, while Sweet Home only grew by 11%
and Brownsville by 7%.
Married couple
households declined in proportion from 57.8% to 53.5% of all households during
the 1990s. Growth occurred among single
person households (from 13,514 to 16,321) and female headed households (from
4,562 to 5,830). The proportion of
households living in owned homes rose significantly, with 6,835 more homeowners
residing in the area in 2000 than in 1990.
Migration patterns
have shifted somewhat between the 1985-1990 and 1995-2000 periods tracked by
the census bureau. The number of individuals residing in the same house between
1995 and 2000 increased to 75,321 from a total of 62,712 reporting that pattern
between 1985 and 1990. 30,532 persons
moved to the HRU area between 1995 and 2000, compared to 31,879 from
1985-1990. There was little change
(19,294 to 19,002) in the number of persons moving to the area from other
states.
"We
came back here because there's family here. Seattle was too big." [Lebanon;
stories like this were very common]
The age
distribution of the HRU changed appreciably through the 1990s. The median age rose from 34.9 to 35.5,
reflecting an aging of the population.
Children between the ages of 5 and 17 declined from 26,798 to 19,607 in
2000. The older population (ages 65+)
grew by 2,786 persons, from 18,943 to 21,729.
The dependency ratio, which measures the balance of children and
retirees over those 18 to 65, was little changed, indicating that the labor
force population (18-65) also declined comparably.
The racial
composition of the HRU has not changed significantly, with the white population
comprising 94.7% of the total in 1990 and 91.7% in 2000. Hispanics doubled from 3,326 to 7,664, while
other racial minorities changed little in their numbers or proportions.
Statistical
Review
The average
household income in the Mid-Valley HRU grew throughout the area by 57% over the
decade. Retirement income (79%) and
income from interest, dividends, and rent (78%) grew nearly twice that rate,
reflecting the above noted expansion in the senior population. Public assistance fell by nearly 14%, as the
welfare reforms of the mid-1990s began to take effect.
Homeowners paying
mortgages in excess of 30% of their income rose by 2,877 households from 12.4%
to 20% of all homeowners. Renters
paying in excess of 30% of their income in rent rose by 2,077 renters from 41.2
to 46% of all renters.
While the overall
poverty rate remained almost unchanged for the decade, there were significant
racial differences in these patterns.
Hispanics in poverty increased by 131% from 809 to 1,871, while the
numbers of Asians and American Indians in poverty actually declined by 23% and
6%, respectively.
Mid-Valley's
economy is supported by a healthy mix of industries. The area's labor force of more than 80,000 workers is dominated
by manufacturing (19.2%), educational services (14.5%), and retail trade
(10.8%). Employment in all three of
these industries declined during the 1990s, reflecting diversification and the
growth in construction and business and health services. Agriculture and forestry work lost 832
workers during the decade, a decline of 19.8%.
The occupational
distribution of the area reflects the presence of Oregon State University and
the growth in managerial, professional, and executive occupations. Employees in the latter group increased 60%
from 17,872 in 1990 to 28,663 workers in 2000.
Almost all the other occupational groups declined in dominance as a
result of the significant expansion of university and hospital related
occupations.
Benton County's
economic base depends on three large employers, each with over a thousand
employees - Oregon State University, Hewlett-Packard Corporation, and Samaritan
Health Center. These three organizations accounts for about 30% of the Benton
County employment (Weber, Bruce, Bruce Sorte and Dave Holland, "Economic
Diversity in Benton County: An Input-Output Analysis", Oregon State University
Extension Service, Special Report 1034, January 2002).
Linn County's
major employers are:
OreMet
WahChang, metals processing 1500
Hewlitt
Packard (Corvallis), computer peripherals 1100
National
Frozen Foods, frozen vegetables & fruit
500
Golden
West, manufactured housing
415
Weyerhaeuser
(Willamette facility), paper
350
Source: Oregon
Economic and Community Development Department, Albany Community Profile.
Table Three
compares the two counties across a number of indicators.
Table Three
A Comparison of Benton and Linn Counties
Indicator |
Benton County |
Linn County |
Population, 2000 |
78, 153 |
103,069 |
Density/sq.mi. |
116 |
45 |
Manufacturing
facilities |
146 |
274 |
Principal
Industries |
Agriculture,
lumber, research and development, education |
Agriculture and
food products, wood products, metals, paper |
Top 3 Gross Farm
Sales |
Specialty
products, grass and legume seeds, vegetable crops |
Grass and legume
seeds, dairy products, specialty products |
Per capita wages |
$28, 291 |
$21,709 |
Source: Oregon
Economic and Community Development Department, Albany Community Profile, 2002.
Social Review
The area's natural
resource economy (agriculture, timber) has diversified to include high
technology manufacturing and related business and research firms, and has been
supported by a mobile labor force willing to commute. Economic diversification,
a mobile labor force, and the increasing integration of the economy at the
regional and global scale have meant enormous changes for lifestyle and
livelihood in the Mid-Valley HRU. As described by residents in more detail
below, one thing it has allowed is for workers to adjust to changing employment
conditions. That is why the decline of timber was not more catastrophic - workers
found they could find other work. Although the work was likely to be in an
urban area and require commuting, it often paid as well or better than timber
work and it provided family benefits and enhanced opportunities for workers'
kids.
"Much
of my family was in the timber business, and don't you worry. They made their
adjustments quickly and they liked it!" [Sweet Home]
Housing became
less affordable in all communities in the HRU. Corvallis and North Albany have
the highest housing costs in the HRU (Analysis of the Regional Economy and
Housing for Linn and Benton Counties, ECONorthwest for Cascade West Council of
Governments, November, 1999).
1. Commuting has
become a basic fact of life for local livelihood and is associated with a more
diversified economy integrated regionally and globally.
"As a young person, you can pick and choose
because there is such a wide variety of jobs now." [Albany]
"Corporate America is moving in and driving
the small businessperson out." [Albany]
"I used to commute but there weren't too many of us. Now, everyone is commuting." [Alsea]
"Nowadays, about 40% of the workers go elsewhere - Albany, Corvallis, and Salem. The improvements to Highway 34 really helped." [Lebanon, Community Development Manager]
"Real estate listings used to be just local, but now they are posted in the region. With housing high in Albany and Corvallis, people realize that they can buy here much more cheaply." [Lebanon]
"Local financial institutions are global now. Nobody makes local decisions." [Lebanon]
"This was a blue-collar town but now it has become commuters." [Philomath]
"Traffic has changed direction. Used to be Corvallis people would drive out here and work in the mills. Now people here drive to town for work." [Philomath]
"We are becoming a bedroom community." [Sweet Home]
2. Strong
caretaking systems remain intact and point to the successful cultural
absorption of newcomers into Oregon life.
"We help each other out with Christmas lights. My son crawled in a window when he forgot his key and the police were here in 5 minutes. We look out for each other." [Albany]
"There is a big sense of family in the community that keeps many people local." [Albany]
"After the windstorm of February 7, ____ and a friend drove around with a chainsaw, making sure people's driveways were open." [Brownsville]
"My church approached the school district and offered to adopt a school. We began painting classrooms and helping with meals for kids in need. Now other communities are looking at this, especially with the budget cuts." [Lebanon]
3. Quality of Life values are strong.
"Environmental values are strong here. People want economic development that does not pollute." [Corvallis]
"Watch the farmlands so they don't disappear." [Corvallis]
"Farmland is being lost to houses. The best farmland is along the river and that is becoming houses." [Philomath]
4. Racial
absorption is here to stay.
"Several
homes sold over the last few years and a lot of Mexicans moved in. At first I
was very nervous and afraid, but now I realize they are great people, very
nice." [Albany]
5. Downtown
businesses struggle to remain viable.
"There are no leaders from business at the local level anymore." [Albany]
"Downtown
businesses work if you have a unique product and you are very service oriented.
You have to have the expertise so people don't go to the big stores." [Albany]
"Downtown
really needs assistance." [Albany]
"Many businesses are on the edge right now. There are vacant business buildings. The recession hurt. We have high unemployment locally." [Sweet Home]
"We are seeing the death of the merchant class - our small businesses, our local leadership." [Sweet Home]
6. Affordable
housing is a regional issue.
"You
can't afford the housing here." [common]
"There
are no lots to build on, and if you find one, it costs $40,000-45,000. It's
because Corvallis, with its no growth policy, has real estate that's 35% higher
than anywhere else." [Albany]
"Affordable
housing is a big issue." [Corvallis]
7. Both urban and
rural areas struggle with drug and alcohol abuse.
"Drugs, crime, low-income neighborhood. I had to get out of there." [Albany]
"My neighbor got mad at me because I didn't tell them I was going away for a few days. ____ got worried about me and thought something might be wrong." [Albany]
"The
drug problems are growing." [Albany, mentioned by almost everyone]
It is evident from
this research that longer-term Oregonians are grieving the loss of public lands
from the isolated, casual uses of prior generations. In days gone by, use of
the forest was part of everyday routine, often part of work activities. Now,
with more people, and more urban people who do not have the day-to-day
knowledge of the land, Oregonians see more rules, more density, and more
conflicts related to public lands. That is one reason why Forest Recreation
passes are so resisted, and when reservations are needed to enjoy a
traditionally-used area, then the "older guard" feels supplanted by new times.
Located as pockets
within this overarching dynamic are areas that are not as popular as others,
where longer-term Oregonians still go and enjoy public lands in relative peace
and quiet. The heavily traveled tourist corridors, for example Highways 22 and
126, have become national and international in focus. Highway 20, by contrast,
is a corridor still valued and appreciated by longer-term Oregonians.
"I want to get an interpretive trail going that will stretch from North Albany Middle School along the edge of the nearby woods. I'm not sure how to get funding yet." [Albany]
"People want to do outings closer to home. They want variety and they are interested in education. They want restoration that is reasonable and effective." [Corvallis official]
"We need more outdoor education!" [Corvallis, common]
2. A trend toward
more organized outings from urban areas to public lands, especially by the
elderly population.
"We had a sleigh ride planned up at Hoodoo this winter. Over 125 people wanted to go, but insurance difficulties caused them to cancel. It was a big disappointment." [Albany]
A number of church youth groups would be interested in forest restoration or river cleanup projects. [Albany]
"There is a scarcity of hikes for older adults. We need better information about trail conditions." [Corvallis, Senior Center Program Coordinator]
D. A Summary
of Citizen Issues
Related to
Public Lands
"Most people do not want to see the Forest Service cut trees like they did in the past, but people did want to see the pendulum swing a little more back to the middle - away from the seeming policy of 'cut nothing.'" [Albany]
"Some people say this forest can't burn but it's not so. Under the right conditions it would. There's a lot of slash on the ground." [Alsea]
"We need logging. Trees grow old and die. Old growth is rotten on the inside, it must be harvested, too." [Philomath]
"The Siuslaw can produce 300 MMBF [million board feet] a year that could be cut. Our hope is that federal forests will come back to a reasonable level of cut." [Philomath]
"The biggest problem with the decline of federal timber is that the big boys dictate supply and demand. Isn't it ironic that they have in common with environmentalists an incentive to keep things shut down?" [Philomath]
"Siuslaw timber sales maybe shouldn't return. These soils are more sensitive than most and slides in the past were common. The Forest shifted to lighter touch management and it's a good thing." [Philomath]
"I'm disappointed in the Forest Service for allowing environmentalists to control the forest." [Sweet Home]
Access
"There's
not enough access to the forest. I got a permit from Willamette once, but the
fire watch refused to honor it and I got a ticket for trespassing." [Albany]
"Access is the number one issue for people living in the valley. I hear people complain but there are ways to be proactive. Companies will usually allow you on their land if you sign an insurance waiver. Private gates have phone numbers." [Albany]
"Gates are now everywhere. The public is paying the price for trespass and vandalism." [Sweet Home]
Northwest Forest Pass
"People
don't like the Recreation Fee Demo. It's confusing and inconvenient. It is
annoying when you get to a site only to find out that you need a permit."
[Brownsville]
"People
don't mind paying the fees - it's just the lack of information about how to do
it." [Brownsville]
It's
hard for City employees to purchase Forest Passes. Since the Forest Service
isn't set up to bill a business or send an invoice, I have to buy the pass with
personal money and then get reimbursed by the City. The process should be
streamlined. Why can't I get a yearly invoice so I know I have it ahead of
time?" [Corvallis]
"The
process for buying permits and passes could be improved. There's got to be a
better way. Maybe when people renew their driver's licenses or something."
[Corvallis]
"People
don't like the Forest Passes because they are not sure the funds are reinvested
in a wise manner." [Corvallis]
"Hunters hate the trail park permits. They will intentionally park away from a Forest Service lot and walk in. It would be OK if money was being directly used for the land." [Sweet Home]
"With the current low level of management, fire and roads are big problems." [Alsea]
Jobs and Economic
Development
"We need training for restoration and monitoring. The [Siuslaw National] Forest is not letting restoration contracts." [Alsea]
"The Forest Service needs to hire more people to do the specialty wood products because that is going to be the way of the future. The average Joe cannot afford to pay for the required insurance. The permit requirements for harvesting are too stiff." [Brownsville]
"Their [Forest Service] funds have helped revitalize this community. They have been excellent, responsive." [Sweet Home]
Communication
"We're
glad they [Forest Service] come to the watershed council meetings." [Alsea]
"It
would be a great service for our customers if we had more information about
recreation on public lands and if we could sell permits." [Lebanon]
A Demographic Profile of the Mid-Valley Human Resource
Unit |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Part One: Based on 100% Count Census Data * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid-Valley HRU |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1990 |
2000 |
1990-2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Difference |
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Population |
152,000 |
171,282 |
19,282 |
12.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mean Age |
34.9 |
36.48 |
1.58 |
4.5% |
|
|
|
|
Population
<5 |
10,215 |
10,290 |
75 |
0.7% |
|
|
|
|
Population
5-17 |
26,798 |
19,607 |
-7,191 |
-26.8% |
|
|
|
|
Population
<18 |
37,013 |
40,697 |
3,684 |
10.0% |
|
|
|
|
%
Population <18 |
24.4% |
23.8% |
-0.6% |
-2.3% |
|
|
|
|
Population
>65 |
18,943 |
21,729 |
2,786 |
14.7% |
|
|
|
|
%
Population >65 |
12.5% |
12.7% |
0.2% |
1.8% |
|
|
|
|
Dependency
Ratio |
0.58 |
0.57 |
-0.01 |
-1.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Race |
151,914 |
171,282 |
19,368 |
12.7% |
|
|
|
|
White |
143,839 |
156,476 |
12,637 |
8.8% |
|
|
|
|
% White
(One Race) |
94.7% |
91.4% |
-3.3% |
-3.5% |
|
|
|
|
Black |
813 |
967 |
154 |
18.9% |
|
|
|
|
% Black
(One Race) |
0.5% |
0.6% |
0.0% |
5.5% |
|
|
|
|
Am.
Indian (One Race) |
1,554 |
1,790 |
236 |
15.2% |
|
|
|
|
% Am.
Indian |
1.0% |
1.0% |
0.0% |
2.2% |
|
|
|
|
Asian
(One Race) |
4,569 |
4,586 |
17 |
0.4% |
|
|
|
|
% Asian |
3.0% |
2.7% |
-0.3% |
-11.0% |
|
|
|
|
Other
Race (One Race) |
1,139 |
3,135 |
1,996 |
175.2% |
|
|
|
|
% Other
Race |
0.7% |
1.8% |
1.1% |
140.1% |
|
|
|
|
Hispanic
(Any Race) |
3,326 |
7,664 |
4,338 |
130.4% |
|
|
|
|
%
Hispanic |
2.2% |
4.5% |
2.3% |
105.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Households |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Households |
57,384 |
66,093 |
8,709 |
15.2% |
|
|
|
|
Married
Couple Household |
33,189 |
35,359 |
2,170 |
6.5% |
|
|
|
|
% Married
Couple Households |
57.8% |
53.5% |
-4.3% |
-7.4% |
|
|
|
|
Female
Headed Households |
4,562 |
5,830 |
1,268 |
27.8% |
|
|
|
|
% Female
Headed Households |
7.9% |
8.8% |
0.9% |
11.4% |
|
|
|
|
Single
Person Households |
13,514 |
16,321 |
2,807 |
20.8% |
|
|
|
|
% Single
Person Households |
23.6% |
24.7% |
1.1% |
4.7% |
|
|
|
|
Persons
Per Household |
2.50 |
2.50 |
0.00 |
0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Families |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Family
Households |
39,375 |
43,695 |
4,320 |
11.0% |
|
|
|
|
% Family
Households |
68.6% |
66.1% |
-2.5% |
-3.7% |
|
|
|
|
Persons
Per Family |
3.10 |
2.98 |
-0.12 |
-3.9% |
|
|
|
|
Families
with Related Children |
14,627 |
19,938 |
5,311 |
36.3% |
|
|
|
|
%
Families with Related Children |
25.5% |
45.6% |
20.1% |
78.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Housing
Units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Housing Units |
59,622 |
70,614 |
10,992 |
18.4% |
|
|
|
|
Occupied
Housing Units |
57,242 |
66,093 |
8,851 |
15.5% |
|
|
|
|
%
Occupied Housing Units |
96.0% |
93.6% |
-2.4% |
-2.5% |
|
|
|
|
Owner-occupied
Housing Units |
34,502 |
41,337 |
6,835 |
19.8% |
|
|
|
|
%
Owner-occupied Housing Units |
57.9% |
58.5% |
0.6% |
1.0% |
|
|
|
|
Rental-occupied
Housing Units |
22,740 |
24,756 |
2,016 |
8.9% |
|
|
|
|
%
Rental-occupied Housing Units |
38.1% |
35.1% |
-3.0% |
-7.9% |
|
|
|
|
* Above data based on the
aggregation of whole block group units of geography to approximate the
boundaries of Human |
|
|
||||||
Resource Units. Variables
are drawn from 100% count data files for 1990 and 2000 (SSTF1a and SF1,
respectively. |
|
|
||||||
Part Two: Based on Sample Census Data # |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid-Valley HRU |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1990 |
2000 |
1990-2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Difference |
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Population |
151,914 |
171,261 |
19,347 |
12.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Migration |
141,699 |
161,151 |
19,452 |
13.7% |
|
|
|
|
Same
Residence as 5 yrs Ago |
62,712 |
75,321 |
12,609 |
20.1% |
|
|
|
|
% Same
Residence as 5 yrs Ago |
44.3% |
46.7% |
2.48% |
5.6% |
|
|
|
|
Different
Residence: Same County |
34,271 |
38,720 |
4,449 |
13.0% |
|
|
|
|
%
Different Residence: Same County |
24.2% |
24.0% |
-0.16% |
-0.7% |
|
|
|
|
Different
Residence: Same State |
22,323 |
25,257 |
2,934 |
13.1% |
|
|
|
|
%
Different Residence: Same State |
15.75% |
15.7% |
-0.08% |
-0.5% |
|
|
|
|
Different
Residence: Different State |
19,294 |
19,002 |
-292 |
-1.5% |
|
|
|
|
%
Different Residence: Different State |
13.6% |
11.8% |
-1.82% |
-13.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poverty |
144,512 |
165,214 |
20,702 |
14.3% |
|
|
|
|
Below
Poverty |
20,966 |
21,446 |
480 |
2.3% |
|
|
|
|
% Below
Poverty |
14.5% |
13.0% |
-1.52% |
-10.5% |
|
|
|
|
White
Below Poverty |
18,433 |
18,035 |
-398 |
-2.2% |
|
|
|
|
% White
Below Poverty |
13.4% |
12.0% |
-1.40% |
-10.4% |
|
|
|
|
Black
Below Poverty |
275 |
209 |
-66 |
-24.0% |
|
|
|
|
% Black
Below Poverty |
38.5% |
22.0% |
-16.50% |
-42.9% |
|
|
|
|
Am.
Indian Below Poverty |
354 |
331 |
-23 |
-6.5% |
|
|
|
|
% Am.
Indian Below Poverty |
24.0% |
19.0% |
-5.00% |
-20.8% |
|
|
|
|
Asian
Below Poverty |
1,584 |
1,216 |
-368 |
-23.2% |
|
|
|
|
% Asian
Below Poverty |
40.3% |
33.0% |
-7.30% |
-18.1% |
|
|
|
|
Other
Races Below Poverty |
320 |
777 |
457 |
142.8% |
|
|
|
|
% Other
Races Below Poverty |
30.7% |
27.0% |
-3.70% |
-12.1% |
|
|
|
|
Hispanic
Below Poverty |
809 |
1,871 |
1,062 |
131.3% |
|
|
|
|
%
Hispanic Below Poverty |
25.8% |
27.0% |
1.20% |
4.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Industry |
68,233 |
80,044 |
11,811 |
17.3% |
|
|
|
|
Agriculture
and Forestry |
4,199 |
3,367 |
-832 |
-19.8% |
|
|
|
|
%
Agriculture and Forestry |
6.2% |
4.2% |
-1.95% |
-31.6% |
|
|
|
|
Mining |
207 |
264 |
57 |
27.5% |
|
|
|
|
% Mining |
0.3% |
0.3% |
0.03% |
8.7% |
|
|
|
|
Construction |
3,205 |
4,836 |
1,631 |
50.9% |
|
|
|
|
%
Construction |
4.7% |
6.0% |
1.34% |
28.6% |
|
|
|
|
Total
Manufacturing |
14,841 |
15,329 |
488 |
3.3% |
|
|
|
|
% Total
Manufacturing |
21.8% |
19.2% |
-2.60% |
-12.0% |
|
|
|
|
Transportation |
1,870 |
2,160 |
290 |
15.5% |
|
|
|
|
%
Transportation |
2.7% |
2.7% |
-0.04% |
-1.5% |
|
|
|
|
Communication
and Utilities |
1,198 |
377 |
-821 |
-68.5% |
|
|
|
|
%
Communication and Utilities |
1.8% |
0.5% |
-1.28% |
-73.2% |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale
Trade |
1,813 |
1,935 |
122 |
6.7% |
|
|
|
|
%
Wholesale Trade |
2.7% |
2.4% |
-0.24% |
-9.0% |
|
|
|
|
Retail
Trade |
11,293 |
8,635 |
-2,658 |
-23.5% |
|
|
|
|
% Retail
Trade |
16.6% |
10.8% |
-5.76% |
-34.8% |
|
|
|
|
Finance,
Insurance, Real Estate |
2,544 |
3,054 |
510 |
20.0% |
|
|
|
|
%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate |
3.7% |
3.8% |
0.09% |
2.3% |
|
|
|
|
Business
Services |
2,562 |
5,971 |
3,409 |
133.1% |
|
|
|
|
%
Business Services |
3.8% |
7.5% |
3.70% |
98.7% |
|
|
|
|
Recreation/Entertainment
Services |
737 |
1,184 |
447 |
60.7% |
|
|
|
|
%
Recreation/Entertainment Services |
1.1% |
1.5% |
0.40% |
36.9% |
|
|
|
|
HealthServices |
4,410 |
8,378 |
3,968 |
90.0% |
|
|
|
|
%
HealthServices |
6.5% |
10.5% |
4.00% |
61.9% |
|
|
|
|
Education
Services |
10,710 |
11,575 |
865 |
8.1% |
|
|
|
|
%
Education Services |
15.7% |
14.5% |
-1.24% |
-7.9% |
|
|
|
|
Other
Professional Services |
4,604 |
3,442 |
-1,162 |
-25.2% |
|
|
|
|
% Other
Professional Services |
6.7% |
4.3% |
-2.45% |
-36.3% |
|
|
|
|
Public
Administration |
2,374 |
2,941 |
567 |
23.9% |
|
|
|
|
% Public
Administration |
3.5% |
3.7% |
0.19% |
5.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occupation |
68,233 |
80,044 |
11,811 |
17.3% |
|
|
|
|
Managerial,
Professional, and Executive Occupations |
17,872 |
28,663 |
10,791 |
60.4% |
|
|
|
|
%
Managerial, Professional, and Executive Occupations |
26.2% |
35.8% |
9.62% |
36.7% |
|
|
|
|
Technical,
Sales, and Administrative Occupations |
18,863 |
17,772 |
-1,091 |
-5.8% |
|
|
|
|
%
Technical, Sales, and Administrative Occupations |
27.6% |
22.2% |
-5.44% |
-19.7% |
|
|
|
|
Service
Occupations |
9,107 |
12,267 |
3,160 |
34.7% |
|
|
|
|
% Service
Occupations |
13.3% |
15.3% |
1.98% |
14.8% |
|
|
|
|
Farming,
Forestry, and Fishing Occupations |
3,744 |
1,566 |
-2,178 |
-58.2% |
|
|
|
|
%
Farming, Forestry, and Fishing Occupations |
5.5% |
2.0% |
-3.53% |
-64.3% |
|
|
|
|
Precision
Production, Craft, and Repair Occupations |
7,168 |
6,955 |
-213 |
-3.0% |
|
|
|
|
%
Precision Production, Craft, and Repair Occupations |
10.5% |
8.7% |
-1.82% |
-17.3% |
|
|
|
|
Operators,
Fabricators, and Laborers |
11,479 |
12,821 |
1,342 |
11.7% |
|
|
|
|
%
Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers |
16.8% |
16.0% |
-0.81% |
-4.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate
Household Income |
$1,816,769,000 |
$3,296,585,000 |
$1,479,816,000 |
81.5% |
|
|
|
|
Average
Household Income |
$31,660 |
$49,748 |
$18,088 |
57.1% |
|
|
|
|
Average
Family Income |
$37,279 |
$58,589 |
$21,310 |
57.2% |
|
|
|
|
Per
Capita Personal Income |
$12,183 |
$19,584 |
$7,401 |
60.7% |
|
|
|
|
Wage and
Salary Income |
$29,441 |
$45,664 |
$16,223 |
55.1% |
|
|
|
|
% Wage
and Salary Income |
93.0% |
91.8% |
-1.20% |
-1.3% |
|
|
|
|
Nonfarm
Self-employment income |
$13,887 |
$21,044 |
$7,157 |
51.5% |
|
|
|
|
% Nonfarm
Self-employment income |
43.9% |
42.3% |
-1.56% |
-3.6% |
|
|
|
|
Interest,
Dividend, and Rent Income |
$5,294 |
$9,506 |
$4,212 |
79.6% |
|
|
|
|
%
Interest, Dividend, and Rent Income |
16.7% |
19.1% |
2.39% |
14.3% |
|
|
|
|
Social
Security Income |
$8,259 |
$11,932 |
$3,673 |
44.5% |
|
|
|
|
% Social
Security Income |
26.1% |
24.0% |
-2.10% |
-8.1% |
|
|
|
|
Public
Assistance Income |
$3,709 |
$3,195 |
-$514 |
-13.9% |
|
|
|
|
% Public
Assistance Income |
11.7% |
6.4% |
-5.29% |
-45.2% |
|
|
|
|
Retirement
Income |
$9,470 |
$16,893 |
$7,423 |
78.4% |
|
|
|
|
%
Retirement Income |
29.9% |
34.0% |
4.05% |
13.5% |
|
|
|
|
Other
Income |
$3,560 |
$7,131 |
$3,571 |
100.3% |
|
|
|
|
% Other
Income |
11.2% |
14.3% |
3.09% |
27.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commuting
Time |
66,800 |
78,747 |
11,947 |
17.9% |
|
|
|
|
Average
Commuting Time to Work |
18 |
20 |
2 |
10.6% |
|
|
|
|
Commute
<10 minutes |
16,530 |
17,553 |
1,023 |
6.2% |
|
|
|
|
% Commute
<10 minutes |
24.7% |
22.0% |
-2.75% |
-11.1% |
|
|
|
|
Commute
>60 minutes |
2,603 |
3,419 |
816 |
31.3% |
|
|
|
|
% Commute
>60 minutes |
3.9% |
4.0% |
0.10% |
2.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nativity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign
Born |
6,957 |
9,159 |
2,202 |
31.7% |
|
|
|
|
% Foreign
Born |
4.4% |
5.0% |
0.60% |
13.6% |
|
|
|
|
Citizen
Not Born in US |
1,333 |
1,843 |
510 |
38.3% |
|
|
|
|
% Citizen
Not Born in US |
0.9% |
0.9% |
0.00% |
0.0% |
|
|
|
|
Born in
State Other Than Oregon |
72,847 |
79,045 |
6,198 |
8.5% |
|
|
|
|
% Born in
State Other Than Oregon |
48.0% |
46.0% |
-2.00% |
-4.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
School
Status |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not in
School (Ages 3+) |
96,912 |
111,117 |
14,205 |
14.7% |
|
|
|
|
% Not in
School |
66.3% |
67.0% |
0.70% |
1.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Highest
Educational Attainment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
< 9th
Grade Education |
5,492 |
4,516 |
-976 |
-17.8% |
|
|
|
|
% <
9th Grade Education |
5.9% |
4.0% |
-1.90% |
-32.2% |
|
|
|
|
HS
Graduates (25+ Population) |
24,794 |
27,135 |
2,341 |
9.4% |
|
|
|
|
% HS
Graduate |
26.8% |
25.0% |
-1.80% |
-6.7% |
|
|
|
|
Graduate
or Professional Degree |
9,482 |
12,443 |
2,961 |
31.2% |
|
|
|
|
%
Graduate or Professional Degree |
10.2% |
12.0% |
1.80% |
17.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
English
Language |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaks
Only English (Ages 5+) |
133,153 |
148,719 |
15,566 |
11.7% |
|
|
|
|
% Speaks
Only English |
94.0% |
92.0% |
-2.00% |
-2.1% |
|
|
|
|
Children
5-17 Speak Only English |
25,793 |
28,171 |
2,378 |
9.2% |
|
|
|
|
%
Children 5-17 Speak Only English |
96.2% |
93.0% |
-3.20% |
-3.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labor
Force Participation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Male
Labor Force Participation Rate |
0.701 |
0.702 |
0.001 |
0.1% |
|
|
|
|
Female
Labor Force Participation Rate |
0.537 |
0.564 |
0.027 |
5.0% |
|
|
|
|
Female
Participation Rate (w/children <18) |
0.65 |
0.699 |
0.049 |
7.5% |
|
|
|
|
Female
Participation Rate (w/children <6) |
0.563 |
0.613 |
0.050 |
8.9% |
|
|
|
|
Female
Participation Rate (No children <18) |
0.489 |
0.51 |
0.021 |
4.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
School
Dropouts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Youth
16-19 Not In School |
1,761 |
1,819 |
58 |
3.3% |
|
|
|
|
% Youth
16-19 Note In School |
16.6% |
15.0% |
-1.60% |
-9.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Youth
Unemployment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Youth
16-19 Unemployed |
360 |
280 |
-80 |
-22.2% |
|
|
|
|
% Youth
16-19 Unemployed |
3.4% |
2.0% |
-1.40% |
-41.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seniors |
18,943 |
21,711 |
2,768 |
14.6% |
|
|
|
|
65+ In
Group Quarters |
793 |
875 |
82 |
10.3% |
|
|
|
|
% 65+ In
Group Quarters |
4.2% |
4.0% |
-0.16% |
-3.7% |
|
|
|
|
Male 65+
Living Alone |
955 |
1,323 |
368 |
38.5% |
|
|
|
|
% Male
65+ Living Alone |
5.0% |
6.0% |
1.00% |
20.0% |
|
|
|
|
Female
65+ Living Alone |
4,136 |
4,515 |
379 |
9.2% |
|
|
|
|
% Female
65+ Living Alone |
21.8% |
21.0% |
-0.80% |
-3.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Self-care
Limitation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Self-care
Limitation (Total Population) |
1,929 |
3,481 |
1,552 |
80.5% |
|
|
|
|
%
Self-care Limitation |
1.6% |
3.0% |
1.40% |
87.5% |
|
|
|
|
65+ With
Self-care Limitation |
651 |
1,830 |
1,179 |
181.1% |
|
|
|
|
% 65+
With Self-care Limitation |
8.2% |
11.0% |
2.80% |
34.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transportation
to Work |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drive
Alone to Work |
48,663 |
59,226 |
10,563 |
21.7% |
|
|
|
|
% Drive
Alone to Work |
72.8% |
75.0% |
2.20% |
3.0% |
|
|
|
|
Use
Public Transportation to Work |
436 |
707 |
271 |
62.2% |
|
|
|
|
% Use
Public Transportation to Work |
0.7% |
1.0% |
0.30% |
42.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labor
Force |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unemployed |
4,911 |
5,665 |
754 |
15.4% |
|
|
|
|
%
Unemployed |
4.1% |
4.0% |
-0.10% |
-2.4% |
|
|
|
|
Worked
35+ Hours Per Week |
62,318 |
69,072 |
6,754 |
10.8% |
|
|
|
|
% Worked
35+ Hours Per Week |
52.5% |
51.0% |
-1.50% |
-2.9% |
|
|
|
|
Persons
Per Occupied Housing Unit |
2.4 |
2.5 |
0.1 |
4.2% |
|
|
|
|
Average
Value Owned Housing Unit |
$67,153 |
$162,227 |
$95,074 |
141.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
Value Monthly Mortgage |
$676 |
$1,151 |
$475 |
70.3% |
|
|
|
|
Mortgage
> 30% of Income |
3,032 |
5,909 |
2,877 |
94.9% |
|
|
|
|
%
Mortgage > 30% of Income |
12.4% |
20.0% |
7.60% |
61.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
Rent > 30% of Income |
9,064 |
11,141 |
2,077 |
22.9% |
|
|
|
|
% Gross
Rent > 30% of Income |
41.2% |
46.0% |
4.80% |
11.7% |
|
|
|
|
Average
Monthly Cash Rent |
$398 |
$636 |
$238 |
59.8% |
|
|
|
|
Renters
Paying No Cash Rent |
650 |
752 |
102 |
15.7% |
|
|
|
|
% No Cas
Rent |
3.0% |
3.0% |
0.00% |
0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Housing
Units Using Utility Gas |
17,550 |
25,773 |
8,223 |
46.9% |
|
|
|
|
Housing
Units Using Electricity |
24,244 |
31,596 |
7,352 |
30.3% |
|
|
|
|
Housing
Units Not Using Utility Gas or Electric |
15448 |
13228 |
-2,220 |
-14.4% |
|
|
|
|
% Housing
Units Not Using Utility Gas or Electric |
27.0% |
18.7% |
-8.25% |
-30.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plumbing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occupied
Housing Units Without Complete Plumbing Facilities |
271 |
236 |
-35 |
-12.9% |
|
|
|
|
%
Occupied Housing Units Without Complete Plumbing Facilities |
0.5% |
0.3% |
-0.12% |
-26.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Telephone |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Housing
Units With Telephone |
54,948 |
65,167 |
10,219 |
18.6% |
|
|
|
|
% Housing
Units With Telephone |
96.0% |
99.0% |
3.00% |
3.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vehicle
Available |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Housing
Units With Vehicle Available |
53,271 |
61,815 |
8,544 |
16.0% |
|
|
|
|
% Housing
Units With Vehicle Available |
93.1% |
94.0% |
0.90% |
1.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Above data based on the aggregation of
whole block group units of geography to approximate the boundaries of Human |
|
|
||||||
Resource Units. Variables
are drawn from Sample data files for 1990 and 2000 (STF3a and SF3,
respectively). |
|
|
||||||
Part Three: Based on County Level Data + |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal
Income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid Valley HRU |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
1991-2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1991 |
2000 |
Difference |
Change |
|
|
|
|
Total
Personal income (thousands of dollars) |
$2,768,547 |
$4,597,924 |
$1,829,377 |
66.1% |
|
|
|
|
Per capita personal income |
$33,882 |
$51,713 |
$17,831 |
52.6% |
|
|
|
|
Nonfarm personal income |
$2,707,781 |
$4,556,809 |
$1,849,028 |
68.3% |
|
|
|
|
Farm income |
$60,766 |
$41,115 |
-$19,651 |
-32.3% |
|
|
|
|
Income from Earnings |
$1,749,137 |
$2,928,327 |
$1,179,190 |
67.4% |
|
|
|
|
Per capita net earnings |
$21,477 |
$33,058 |
$11,581 |
53.9% |
|
|
|
|
Income from Transfer payments |
$388,159 |
$648,929 |
$260,770 |
67.2% |
|
|
|
|
Per capita transfer payments |
$4,569 |
$6,962 |
$2,393 |
52.4% |
|
|
|
|
Income from Dividends, interest, and rent |
$631,251 |
$1,020,668 |
$389,417 |
61.7% |
|
|
|
|
Per capita dividends, interest, and rent |
$7,838 |
$11,693 |
$3,855 |
49.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private earnings |
$1,353,911 |
$2,420,534 |
$1,066,623 |
78.80% |
|
|
|
|
Ag. services, forestry, fishing, &
other 8/ |
$36,607 |
$77,257 |
$40,650 |
111.00% |
|
|
|
|
Mining |
$518 |
$1,484 |
$966 |
186.50% |
|
|
|
|
Construction |
$95,283 |
$185,495 |
$90,212 |
94.70% |
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing |
$546,557 |
$928,456 |
$381,899 |
69.90% |
|
|
|
|
Transportation and public utilities |
$81,453 |
$145,709 |
$64,256 |
78.90% |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale trade |
$64,626 |
$104,176 |
$39,550 |
61.20% |
|
|
|
|
Retail trade |
$160,016 |
$251,203 |
$91,187 |
57.00% |
|
|
|
|
Finance, insurance, and real estate |
$43,319 |
$108,059 |
$64,740 |
149.40% |
|
|
|
|
Services |
$325,532 |
$618,695 |
$293,163 |
90.10% |
|
|
|
|
Government and government enterprises |
$433,254 |
$630,484 |
$197,230 |
45.50% |
|
|
|
|
Federal, civilian |
$56,547 |
$63,445 |
$6,898 |
12.20% |
|
|
|
|
Military |
$11,082 |
$12,643 |
$1,561 |
14.10% |
|
|
|
|
State and local |
$365,625 |
$554,396 |
$188,771 |
51.60% |
|
|
|
|
State |
$190,333 |
$260,996 |
$70,663 |
37.10% |
|
|
|
|
Local |
$175,292 |
$293,400 |
$118,108 |
67.40% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Full
and Part Time Employment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid-Valley HRU |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
1991-2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1991 |
2000 |
Difference |
Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
full-time and part-time employment |
44,959 |
55,213 |
10,254 |
22.8% |
|
|
|
|
Wage and salary employment |
35,446 |
43,745 |
8,299 |
23.4% |
|
|
|
|
Farm proprietors' employment |
2,253 |
2,277 |
24 |
1.1% |
|
|
|
|
Nonfarm proprietors' employment 2/ |
7,260 |
9,191 |
1,931 |
26.6% |
|
|
|
|
Farm employment |
3,385 |
3,087 |
-298 |
-8.8% |
|
|
|
|
Nonfarm employment |
41,574 |
52,126 |
10,552 |
25.4% |
|
|
|
|
Private employment |
35,560 |
45,157 |
9,597 |
27.0% |
|
|
|
|
Ag. services, forestry, fishing, &
other 3/ |
921 |
1,668 |
747 |
81.1% |
|
|
|
|
Mining |
21 |
53 |
32 |
152.4% |
|
|
|
|
Construction |
2,318 |
3,442 |
1,124 |
48.5% |
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing |
10,512 |
11,039 |
527 |
5.0% |
|
|
|
|
Transportation and public utilities |
1,840 |
2,713 |
873 |
47.4% |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale trade |
1,657 |
2,021 |
364 |
22.0% |
|
|
|
|
Retail trade |
6,987 |
9,164 |
2,177 |
31.2% |
|
|
|
|
Finance, insurance, and real estate |
1,996 |
2,583 |
587 |
29.4% |
|
|
|
|
Services |
9,308 |
12,474 |
3,166 |
34.0% |
|
|
|
|
Government and government enterprises |
6,014 |
6,969 |
955 |
15.9% |
|
|
|
|
Federal, civilian |
513 |
369 |
-144 |
-28.1% |
|
|
|
|
Military |
446 |
360 |
-86 |
-19.3% |
|
|
|
|
State and local |
5,055 |
6,240 |
1,185 |
23.4% |
|
|
|
|
State |
441 |
577 |
136 |
30.8% |
|
|
|
|
Local |
4,614 |
5,663 |
1,049 |
22.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
Transfer Payments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid Valley HRU |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
1991-2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1991 |
2000 |
Difference |
Change |
|
|
|
|
Total
transfer payments |
$388,159 |
$648,929 |
$648,929 |
167.2% |
|
|
|
|
Government payments to individuals |
$366,127 |
$613,807 |
$613,807 |
167.6% |
|
|
|
|
Retirement & disability insur. benefit
pymts. |
$190,694 |
$300,342 |
$300,342 |
157.5% |
|
|
|
|
Medical payments (Medicare, etc) |
$94,770 |
$193,613 |
$193,613 |
204.3% |
|
|
|
|
Income maintenance (SSI, Food Stamps,
etc.) |
$35,626 |
$57,480 |
$57,480 |
161.3% |
|
|
|
|
Unemployment benefit payments |
$20,578 |
$19,568 |
$19,568 |
95.1% |
|
|
|
|
Veterans benefit payments |
$12,330 |
$22,587 |
$22,587 |
183.2% |
|
|
|
|
Fed ed.& train. assist.
paymts.(excl.vets) |
$11,241 |
$19,406 |
$19,406 |
172.6% |
|
|
|
|
Payments to nonprofit institutions |
$11,460 |
$20,556 |
$20,556 |
179.4% |
|
|
|
|
Business payments to individuals |
$10,572 |
$14,566 |
$14,566 |
137.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Farm
Income and Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid Valley HRU |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
1991-2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1991 |
2000 |
Difference |
Change |
|
|
|
|
Total
cash receipts from marketings ($000) |
$96,826 |
$150,082 |
$53,256 |
55.0% |
|
|
|
|
Cash receipts: livestock and products |
$17,104 |
$12,942 |
-$4,162 |
-24.3% |
|
|
|
|
Cash receipts: crops |
$79,722 |
$137,140 |
$57,418 |
72.0% |
|
|
|
|
Government payments |
$1,432 |
$1,962 |
$530 |
37.0% |
|
|
|
|
Total
production expenses |
$96,046 |
$142,586 |
$46,540 |
48.5% |
|
|
|
|
Total
value of inventory change |
-$2,042 |
-$740 |
$1,302 |
-63.8% |
|
|
|
|
Total net
income including corporate farms |
$21,370 |
$27,278 |
$5,908 |
27.6% |
|
|
|
|
Total net
farm proprietors' income |
$18,466 |
$22,126 |
$3,660 |
19.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agriculture
and Farming |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid Valley HRU |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
1987-97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1987 |
1997 |
Difference |
Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Farms
(number) |
2,569 |
2,735 |
166 |
6.5% |
|
|
|
|
Land in
farms (acres) |
516,484 |
524,211 |
7,727 |
1.5% |
|
|
|
|
Land in
farms - average size of farm (acres) |
397 |
376 |
-21 |
-5.3% |
|
|
|
|
Market
value of agricultural products sold ($1,000) |
$145,713 |
$244,417 |
$98,704 |
67.7% |
|
|
|
|
Market
value of agricultural products sold, average per farm (dollars) |
$108,165 |
$183,414 |
$75,249 |
69.6% |
|
|
|
|
Total
farm production expenses@1 ($1,000) |
$117,240 |
$172,366 |
$55,126 |
47.0% |
|
|
|
|
Total
farm production expenses@1, average per farm (dollars) |
$88,357 |
$125,682 |
$37,325 |
42.2% |
|
|
|
|
Livestock
and poultry: Cattle and calves
inventory (number) |
49,033 |
46,888 |
-2,145 |
-4.4% |
|
|
|
|
Beef cows
(number) |
14,069 |
15,403 |
1,334 |
9.5% |
|
|
|
|
Milk cows
(number) |
7,723 |
7,139 |
-584 |
-7.6% |
|
|
|
|
Cattle
and calves sold (number) |
25,605 |
29,455 |
3,850 |
15.0% |
|
|
|
|
Hogs and
pigs inventory (number) |
6,285 |
4,179 |
-2,106 |
-33.5% |
|
|
|
|
Sheep and
lambs inventory (number) |
76,926 |
67,164 |
-9,762 |
-12.7% |
|
|
|
|
Wheat for
grain (bushels) |
1,675,187 |
735,527 |
-939,660 |
-56.1% |
|
|
|
|
Oats for
grain (bushels) |
127,773 |
291,861 |
164,088 |
128.4% |
|
|
|
|
Hay-alfal,oth
tame,small grain,wild,grass silage,green chop,etc(see txt)(tons,dry) |
72,256 |
126,104 |
53,848 |
74.5% |
|
|
|
|
Vegetables
harvested for sale (see text) (acres) |
19,012 |
20,494 |
1,482 |
7.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business
Patterns |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid Valley HRU |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
1991-2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1991 |
2000 |
Difference |
Change |
|
|
|
|
Employees |
47,188 |
61,138 |
13,950 |
29.6% |
|
|
|
|
Annual
Payroll ($000) |
$936,569 |
$1,808,341 |
$871,772 |
93.1% |
|
|
|
|
Establishments |
3,942 |
$4,489 |
547 |
13.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crime |
Mid Valley HRU |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
1990 |
1999 |
Diff90-99 |
%90-99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All
Crimes |
8,650 |
8,363 |
-287 |
-3.4% |
|
|
|
|
All
Crimes / 100,000 |
5,338 |
4,542 |
-796 |
-14.9% |
|
|
|
|
Murders |
4 |
2 |
-2 |
-100.0% |
|
|
|
|
Murders /
100,000 |
2 |
1 |
-1 |
-56.0% |
|
|
|
|
Rapes |
79 |
42 |
-37 |
-88.1% |
|
|
|
|
Rapes /
100,000 |
49 |
23 |
-26 |
-53.2% |
|
|
|
|
Robberies |
65 |
58 |
-7 |
-12.1% |
|
|
|
|
Robberies
/ 100,000 |
40 |
32 |
-9 |
-21.5% |
|
|
|
|
Agg.Assaults |
294 |
281 |
-13 |
-4.6% |
|
|
|
|
Agg.Assults
/ 100,000 |
181 |
153 |
-29 |
-15.9% |
|
|
|
|
Burglaries |
1,730 |
1,320 |
-410 |
-31.1% |
|
|
|
|
Burglaries
/ 100,000 |
1,068 |
717 |
-351 |
-32.8% |
|
|
|
|
Larcenies |
5,968 |
6,209 |
241 |
3.9% |
|
|
|
|
Larcenies
/ 100,000 |
3,683 |
3,372 |
-311 |
-8.4% |
|
|
|
|
Veh.Thefts |
424 |
379 |
-45 |
-11.9% |
|
|
|
|
Veh.Thefts
/ 100,000 |
262 |
206 |
-56 |
-21.3% |
|
|
|
|
Arsons |
86 |
72 |
-14 |
-19.4% |
|
|
|
|
Arsons /
100,000 |
53 |
39 |
-14 |
-26.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid Valley HRU |
|
|
|
|
|||
Inmigration* |
1990 |
1999 |
Diff90-99 |
%90-99 |
|
|
|
|
* Number
of IRS Filers moving to Oregon, by county of destination |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inmigrants |
1770 |
1,463 |
-307 |
-17.3% |
|
|
|
|
% of
State Total |
5.1% |
3.9% |
-1.2% |
-23.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ Above data based on the aggregation of
whole county units of geography to approximate the boundaries of Human
Resource Units. |
|
|||||||
Greater Salem HRU =
Clackamas, Marion, and Polk counties.
Mid-Valley HRU = Benton and Linn counties. South Willamette HRU = Lane County. |