New method to count population shows Clark County may still be growing

Power company estimates indicate a net gain, contrary to the contraction found in Postal Service’s numbers

Chris Morris

Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009 | 2 a.m.

Census Bureau releases data on U.S., Clark County (10-27-2009)
North Las Vegas among nation’s fastest-growing cities (7-10-2009)
Demographic changes in Clark County (5-26-2009)
Nevada falls to No. 8 in population growth (12-22-2008)
Vacant homes, fewer people. This is Vegas? (11-15-2008)
County ahead of population curve (8-21-2008)
Measuring population in moving boxes (8-4-2008)

Last year’s headlines about our population crystallized the bad news swirling about Clark County: 10,000 fewer people were living here on July 1, 2008, compared with a year earlier. So much for the region’s remarkable year-after-year growth.

Not only had it gone kaput, but those numbers, based on how the county estimated its population at the time, said we were now going in reverse.

Blame it, of course, on the recession, with the collapse of the job market and the wholesale dislocation of families to home foreclosures. It made sense that few people were moving here and a lot of people were fleeing.

Now it turns out that population might not have dropped after all. In fact, despite everything about the recession, Clark County’s population has continued to grow and in fact now tops 2 million for the first time, according to the newest government estimates — ones that rely on a new formula.

Put away the mournful bagpipes, bring out the fireworks, maybe.

Either estimate — the tiny drop in population or the tiny increase — falls within the same margin of error for such calculations. But our civic mood can certainly shift depending on which number is adopted.

The figures are published by the Clark County Comprehensive Planning Department, which comes up with annual estimates to fill in the yearly blanks between Census Bureau counts.

And it’s not an exact science. For years the county relied on U.S. Postal Service input on how many homes, condos and apartments were getting mail. But concern grew that the mailman may have been overestimating occupied residences, so after July 2007, the county shifted to what it thought would be a more accurate estimator, NV Energy.

The utility can detect an occupied home on the basis of power consumption: If the customer draws enough electricity in July to operate a refrigerator and an air conditioner, the residence is considered occupied. If it draws only enough power to run a sprinkler system or security light, it is assumed to be vacant.

Using such measures from utility companies is a common practice across the country in helping to determine local populations, says Jon Wardlaw, an assistant county planning manager.

The utility’s estimate, used for the July 1, 2008 count, showed 10,000 fewer residents than what the Postal Service estimated for the previous year. The new number should not have been interpreted as a drop in population so much as a revision of the previous year’s estimate. And this being its first involvement in estimating population, the NV Energy-assisted count may have had some minor flaws of its own.

In fact, the population gurus now think that, as NV Energy has fine-tuned its estimating process, it overcorrected from the Postal Service count and that the July 2008 figure should actually have shown an increase of 4,000 people, versus a loss of 10,000.

And this past year the county gained another 6,000 people, based on estimates using NV Energy’s input.

(Neither number takes into account births and deaths.)

With these adjustments, the county’s population is now 2,006,347.

Topping 2 million is a threshold that “people will take note of,” said Keith Schwer, director of UNLV’s Business and Economic Research Center.

Wardlaw cautions that the numbers are, indeed, estimates.

“We might have had growth or we might be neutral,” he said. “We are right inside the margin of error and when you are inside that margin, it is hard to know what’s going on with certainty ... You have got to realize the numbers we are talking about are tiny,” Wardlaw said. “We aren’t even talking 1 percent.”

One thing is for sure: The count shows that the population is no longer exploding as it had in the past two decades. The county had routinely grown by 70,000 to 90,000 people annually until 2008.

The one bit of news is the milestone count.

“It is a nice round number, but it is like the Dow hitting 10,000. Nobody gets an award for it,” Wardlaw said.

Wardlaw said he’s not surprised by some growth despite the economy’s slide. CityCenter is opening this year, and governments have added jobs.

“There is a natural outflow and inflow. It is not as scary a picture as people try to paint. A lot of people have the impression that everybody is leaving, and that is not the case.”

In this economy, any population gain is considered positive movement, considering the alternative. A decline in population results in less development and lower retail activity, and a community can go into a permanent decline, analysts say.

“Having flat population growth isn’t bad considering how many jobs we lost,” said John Restrepo, principal of Restrepo Consulting. “Usually when you lose jobs, you lose population.”

The county’s population statistics are forwarded to Jeff Hardcastle, Nevada’s demographer, who will combine the numbers with his calculations and release the state estimate next year. Population numbers help determine distribution of tax revenue. In his calculations, Hardcastle uses housing estimates, but factors in the workforce, employment and school enrollment.

Among cities, the county estimates Las Vegas grew from 599,087 to 607,876; North Las Vegas grew from 216,672 to 221,003; and Henderson grew from 272,063 to 275,134.

Outside the valley, Boulder City’s population fell from 16,840 to 16,511. Mesquite grew from 19,939 to 21,253.

And don’t forget: the population estimates are subject to error, and the region won’t have a better handle on growth until the U.S. Census Bureau issues its data in December 2010.

So it’s still possible we did lose population. But let’s stay positive.

A version of this story appears in this week’s In Business Las Vegas, a sister publication of the Sun.

Discussion: 14 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.

By warrington14

Nov. 14, 2009

2:12 a.m.

Comment removed by staff. Advertisement.
By souper12

Nov. 14, 2009

6:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Makes sense to me. Too bad we are at the receiving end of the never ending flushing toilet from MEXICO !!
By Purgatory

Nov. 14, 2009

6:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

..uhm, Mr. Sun...so what?
By nednougat

Nov. 14, 2009

8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Santa Ana, Cali passed a regulation 2 years ago that a house cannot contain more that one person for every 50 sq ft. This was because of landlords greed to fill their rentals as full as possible with newly arrived immigrants. The city found that the landlords were renting out space not only in the living areas, but the garages, too.

So let's do the math. My relatively small house has 1,400 sq ft. So 1400/50 equals 28 people. So this is the legal limit in Santa Ana. But add in the 20 x 20 garage, and you have 8 additional people, for a total of 36. In one house. What is interesting is that I built prisons in Texas, and the minimum sq ft for a single cell was 56 sq ft-for one person. So landlords provide less space than prisons.

So the real question is: How can government think they can get accurate estimates of population when people are living like this? And we all know this is occurring everywhere in our Valley.

One other thought: Think about the lines at the bathrooms.
By environprotector

Nov. 14, 2009

8:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Souper12 : That's a VERY funny comment...
By fogcity

Nov. 14, 2009

9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

How many of the occupants are actual;y not maying mortgage and simply are waiting to be kicked when the banks finally act on selling the house. Whether these occupants stay or go is up in the air. I can't imagine that there is a growth in illegals if the kind of work they are able to get has dried up. If they pack into one house I suppose they are hoing they can wait out the recession in hope of better times. Eventually, they will give up hope.
By vc

Nov. 14, 2009

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

I have one of those houses across the street from me. We have 10 cars at one house and alot of the occupants are children. So there is alot latinos in that house.
By 2zero

Nov. 14, 2009

4:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

There is little or no growth in illegals. Their spawn are legal and the growth is exponential.

CCSD reported a decrease in the number of students this year and was "surprised" that the only demographic that grew were "english" as a second language.
By figmo

Nov. 14, 2009

4:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

funny all comments above are exactly what is happing to Vegas. Been here 40 years. My town has gone to mexico
By mred

Nov. 14, 2009

4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

I've seen cribs in large bathrooms, they double as nurseries for some. Some more progressive areas use the floor load for occupancy ratings, verses the 2 per bedroom and one per common room for the reactionary communities that don't welcome the undocumented. 5 people in a 2 bedroom apartment or 30 people?

The mexicans immigrunts were fueling the housing inflation.

Riots might help if large numbers of buildings are burnt down, where is rodney king?
By 2zero

Nov. 14, 2009

5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

I propose we change the name of Bonanza Ave. to Cesar Chavez Ave.

Then we could have an intersection at Martin Luther.

Ground zero for the next riot?
By Burrittobandit2

Nov. 14, 2009

9:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Half the illegal population is at Star nursery and the other half at bus stops.
By tomslick

Nov. 15, 2009

midnight

Suggest removal

I can't believe how many xenophobic and racist people live here. I'm truly embarrassed to have you as neighbors.
By environprotector

Nov. 15, 2009

6:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

tomslick: It isn't about racism, they just need to go back to their own country is all..