Where I Stand: Guest Columnist Jeff Hardcastle: Growth’s other side

Friday, Aug. 16, 2002 | 9:47 a.m.

Editor's note: In August the Where I Stand column is written by guest writers. Today's columnist is Jeff Hardcastle, the state demographer. Hardcastle previously served as a senior planner for Clark County, specializing in growth issues. THE 2000 CENSUS confirmed that Nevada was the fastest-growing state in the eight-state Mountain West region and, in fact, the fastest growing state in the entire country.

The census also confirmed that Nevada's population had exceeded 1 million.

While both are impressive feats, it may be prudent to look beyond being the fastest horse in the race as we continue into the first decade of the 21st century. Looking at how we grew will hopefully help us in making choices in how we grow in the future.

A number of factors contributed to Nevada's growth. Coming into the 1990s Nevada had a monopoly on legal casino gaming. Now, only 18 states don't have casino gambling. Nine of them could eventually have gaming on Indian reservations.

Nevada is the world's third largest gold producer. The price of gold, however, peaked in 1988 at about $446 an ounce and in 2001 was at $271. The current average price for 2002 is about $303. In short, our main engines of growth are facing increased competition and decreasing investment incentives.

Adding fuel to our growth in the '90s was the migration from California to the Mountain West region and Oregon and Washington. For whatever reason, people were deciding to leave the Golden State. A major benefit in moving to the Silver State was the lower cost of housing.

In 1990 the median home price in Nevada was half that of California's -- someone in Nevada could buy two houses for the price of one in California. Ten years later that was no longer the case. In 2000 the median price in Nevada was just 75 percent of a California home, that is, one could buy only one and a half homes here for one in California.

Moreover, the market value of California housing has gone down over the decade by 15 percent while Nevada's has increased by 16 percent -- 2 percent less than the average increase nationally. Again, Nevada is becoming less competitive not only with California but the nation as a whole.

The other side of the coin is how income compares to housing cost. In 1990, 23 percent of Nevada's homeowners were paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs. Over the decade, the percentage of homeowners paying that much for their housing costs rose to 27.5.

In 1990 almost 30 percent of California homeowners were paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs. It only changed to 31 percent in 2000. At the opposite end, in 1990, 65 percent of Nevada homeowners were paying less than 25 percent of their income in housing costs. In 2000 it was 60 percent. In California, it was 59 percent and 56.7 percent respectively. For various reasons, Nevada homeowners are paying an increasing amount of their income to housing costs.

While our competitive advantage is slipping, the factors that comprised our capacity for growth have changed over the decade. As we start the 21st century, our water supply, air quality, availability of capital for both private and public investment, and a generally stable world economy have become less certain than they were at the closing of the 20th century.

Coming off the quick pace of the past decade, some people, citing the fact that Nevada's population grew past 1 million, have described our growth during the '90s as unprecedented. Nevada has actually been slow in reaching a million people, coming in next to last for comparable states across America's history. In the first half of the 20th century, with the boom and bust cycle of the mining industry, there were times we lost population. That happened to some of Nevada's counties since 1990. Six counties grew at less than the national average and three lost population.

As we make decisions about our civic future, we need to look not only at our competition but also at how we are doing within our own boundaries. That may be more telling of our future success than our national rankings.