Browse
Search
Agenda - 05-22-1989
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1989
>
Agenda - 05-22-1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2017 3:37:50 PM
Creation date
3/10/2017 3:18:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/22/1989
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
307
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
DIARVI HILL mR8ANE <br /> Total Town population-37,688 Total Town population. .3,761 <br /> --in Durham County 483 ---in Alamance County. .3,244 <br /> --in Orange County 37,205 ---in Orange County <br /> However, the aisa�ea.oahasrbeenoalteredngintrecent and <br /> years�.lDroamatic <br /> declining rural <br /> a <br /> population increases in the rural townships are re fiving1a80 <br /> greater proportion of County development. By <br /> Census, Bingham and Eno Townships CheekstandhCedartGrove Towr►shiPsn <br /> , the County, while Hillsborough, <br /> began to show a positive growth rate - a reversal of their negative <br /> growth rates during the 1960-1970 decade. Only <br /> Little River townships experienced a growth rate lower than Chapel <br /> Bill Township, the predominant urban and urbanizing township. In <br /> absolute numbers the acthofnthis changetonnareas characterized by <br /> small. However, the uap agricultural development is <br /> low density, low intensity rural and age's <br /> significant. Recent trends indicate that this trend is continuing <br /> and will continue to d inntheeurhansareas®o future <br /> Oc►untygrowth <br /> potential becomes limited <br /> Migration, <br /> As may be expected for an area of relatively high economic population <br /> residential attraction, a considerable portion of natural populationn <br /> growth is due to migration, rather than simply <br /> increase. As shown in Table 2-7, the net migration fornNo the <br /> Carolina during the 1960-1970 period was -14.2%. Orange <br /> the other hand, experienced a positive net migration rate of 16.1%. <br /> Most of this gain was due to white in-migration as more non-whittess <br /> left the County than entered as new residents, at a migr <br /> of -12.6%. This pattern may reflect the imbalance of economic <br /> opportunities in the re egionldu due sect . <br /> the <br /> hehigh concentration of <br /> employment in the white <br /> migration rate for the <br /> Bowever, in the decade of the 1970 s the net mig mnarwhelf, had <br /> state had reversed itself to +7.86%. Orange County, period. <br /> increased its net migration rate to 25.7% during the same <br /> Recent data since 1980 suggests that the state and county are <br /> continuing to show a positive net migration rate, although. foteatf <br /> the high rates that occurred during the 1970's. The <br /> Satte Budget and Management estimates hstate mhas <br /> show rate <br /> 4.7% rate from 1980-1987, while Orange ratigr indicates <br /> has dropped considerably to 7.5%. This rate of migration <br /> that much of the County's rapid growth durimmng the 1970's was <br /> attributable to in-migration, and that this pattern has subsisedaed <br /> somewhat but continues to play a major role in the county's growth. <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.