Table 16. Do you feel building future housing units on existing farmland
is very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable, or very
undesirable?
6.3% Very desirable
20.5% Somewhat desirable
33.7% Somewhat undesirable
34.0% Very undesirable
Residents' Attitudes Toward Growth
A. Population Growth
A number of questions sought to measure residents' attitudes toward
various components of growth: population growth, economic/business
growth, and housing growth. Attitudes toward population growth were
measured 2 different ways. The first method used 3 separate questions, each
describing a population growth rate scenario and the expected population
that would result from that rate of growth over the next five years. The 3
population growth scenarios included a growth rate approximately equal to
the current growth rate (2% which adds about 800 people per year resulting
in 38,000 residents in the year 2000), a rate of growth half as fast as the
current growth rate (1% which adds about 400 people per year resulting in
36,000 residents in the year 2000), and a growth rate that is double the
current rate (4% which adds about 1600 people per year resulting in 42,000
residents in the year 2000). Respondents were asked the extent to which
they agreed/disagreed with the particular population growth scenario.
Results describing the level of agreement with each growth scenario are
presented in Table 17 and also in Figure 1.
Table 17. Agreement with 3 population growth scenarios over next 5
years*
63.9% Agree Half the current rate (400 per year or about 1%)
52.6% Agree Current Rate (800 per year or about 2%)
12.7% Agree Double the current rate (1600 per year or about 4%)
*Differences in all 3 growth scenarios are statistically significant p < .05
Figure 1.
Of the 3 possible population growth scenarios presented to residents,
there was strongest agreement with a growth scenario that would have Latah
County growing at the half the current rate, or about 1 percent. The current
growth rate of approximately 2 percent is agreeable to just over just over
half the residents sampled. Doubling the current growth rate appears very
disagreeable to Latah County residents.
Thus, while the current growth rate of 2 percent is marginally
agreeable to a majority of Latah County residents, a preferred growth rate
for Latah County would be half the current rate of growth, or about 1
percent.
A concern with population growth in Latah County was confirmed by
3 other questions. One question simply asked residents whether the county
should encourage or discourage population growth. The results, presented
in Table 18, show that more residents would rather see the county
discourage rather than encourage population growth.
Table 18. Do you think the County should encourage or discourage
population growth?
Encourage Pop. Growth 39.2%
Discourage Pop. Growth 45.1%
Neither 5.3%
This question about encouraging/discouraging growth was analyzed
further to explore the differences and similarities between opponents and
proponents of growth in Latah County. Opponents of growth tend to see
Latah County as a more desirable place to live than proponents of growth (P
< .05), tend to be slightly older than proponents of growth (P < .05), and
tend to have lived longer in Latah County (P < .10). Interestingly,
statistically significant differences between opponents and proponents of
growth did not emerge between farmers/non-farmers, between students/non-
students, between landowners/non-landowners, between those that live in and
outside Moscow, and between those that have been active/non-active in the
planning and zoning issues. In short, there are few variables from this
study that offer strong differentiation between opponents/proponents of
growth in Latah County.
Another question asked residents whether the County needs to adopt
measures to promote population growth. Consistent with the results in the
previous table, Table 19 shows that residents do not believe that the County
should promote growth with 61.4 percent disagreeing (combining the
"disagree" with "strongly disagree" categories) with the need to promote
population growth.
Table 19. Latah County needs to adopt measures to promote
population growth.
Strongly agree 4.3%
Agree 21.4%
Neither agree or disagree 11.0%
Disagree 45.6%
Strongly disagree 17.7%
Results from yet another question dealing with population growth are
again consistent with residents' attitudes toward population growth. Table
20 shows the responses to a question asking whether Latah County is
attracting enough new residents. The results show that Latah County
residents disagree with the notion that Latah County is not attracting enough
new residents. Only 10% of residents believe Latah County is not attracting
enough new residents.
Table 20. Latah County is not attracting enough new residents.
Strongly agree 2.2%
Agree 8.3%
Neither agree or disagree 8.0%
Disagree 54.3%
Strongly disagree 27.2%
A final question pertaining to the issue of population growth offers
ambiguous results, perhaps a result of the lack of specitivity in the question
resulting from the phrase "too many" in the question. Table 21 shows the
responses to a question asking about whether too many people are moving
into Latah County. The results indicate that residents are equally divided
on the "too many" issue (41.0% vs. 40.4% with 18.6% percent undecided).
Those that believe too many people are moving into Latah County have
stronger feelings about this issue than those who don't (11.0% vs. 2.2%).
Table 21. There are too many people moving into Latah County.
Strongly agree 11.0%
Agree 30.0%
Neither agree or disagree 18.6%
Disagree 38.2%
Strongly disagree 2.2%
In summary, the seven questions in the survey that asked about residents'
attitudes toward population growth in Latah County show consistent concern
about the rate of population growth in the county. This concern is perhaps
best captured by the very specific set of 3 questions that ask residents what
rate of growth is most agreeable to them. A slower growth rate than the
present growth rate is most agreeable to current Latah County residents.
B. Economic/Business Growth
There were 4 questions asked of residents pertaining to the issue of
economic/business growth in Latah County. In general, residents do not
believe there is too much emphasis on economic growth and that the County
should work to attract new businesses. However, this general positive
attitude toward economic growth has limits. Residents also believe that
rapid economic growth often creates more problems than benefits.
Table 22 shows the results of a question asking residents about the
present emphasis on encouraging economic in Latah County. Residents do
not believe there is too much emphasis on encouraging economic growth.
However, a significant percentage of residents are ambivalent on this issue.
Over one in 5 residents are uncertain about whether there is too much
emphasis on economic growth.
Table 22. In Latah County, there is too much emphasis on encouraging
economic growth and not enough on limiting it.
Strongly agree 8.7%
Agree 20.5%
Neither agree or disagree 23.7%
Disagree 42.6%
Strongly disagree 4.5%
A majority of residents surveyed (64.4%) believe that Latah County
government should work to attract new businesses.
Table 23. Latah County Government should work to attract new
businesses.
Strongly agree 17.4%
Agree 51.3%
Neither agree or disagree 10.1%
Disagree 18.4%
Strongly disagree 2.8%
Much like the population question asking about whether there are "too
many" people moving to Latah County, Table 24 demonstrates the ambiguity
that can result from asking residents about whether there are "too many"
businesses being built in Latah County. Residents appear to be equally
divided (41% vs. 41.6%) on the issue of whether "too many" businesses are
being built. Equally significant, a significant percentage of residents
(17.5%) are likewise ambivalent on this issue.
Table 24. There are too few businesses being built in Latah County.
Strongly agree 7.0%
Agree 34.0%
Neither agree or disagree 17.5%
Disagree 37.5%
Strongly disagree 4.1%
Table 25 shows that residents agree that rapid economic growth in Latah
County can be more negative than positive with about 66 percent agreeing
with this position.
Table 25. Rapid Economic Development in a County like Latah often
creates more problems than benefits.
Strongly agree 17.5%
Agree 48.6%
Neither agree or disagree 10.5%
Disagree 20.0%
Strongly disagree 3.4%
Thus, residents' attitudes toward economic growth and business
development, while generally favorable, are not entirely conclusive or
consistent. More definitively, residents do agree that Latah County should
work to attract new businesses.
C. Housing Growth
There were 3 questions that addressed the issue of housing growth. The
results are consistent in showing that residents believe that new housing
should be built to accommodate new residents. Table 26 shows that
residents do agree (53%) vs. (34%) that Latah County needs new
subdivisions to provide housing for new residents.
Table 26. Latah County needs new subdivisions to provide housing for
new residents.
Strongly agree 13.0%
Agree 42.2%
Neither agree or disagree 9.3%
Disagree 26.1%
Strongly disagree 9.3%
Tables 27 and 28 show that a majority of residents (56.7%) do not believe
there are too many housing units being built in Latah County and that
residents believe that more housing units ought to be built for new residents.
Table 27. There are too many new housing units being built in Latah
County.
Strongly agree 7.5%
Agree 18.8%
Neither agree or disagree 13.8%
Disagree 48.0%
Strongly disagree 11.9%
Table 28. Additional housing units for new residents should be built in
Latah County.
Strongly agree 8.0%
Agree 60.7%
Neither agree or disagree 10.7%
Disagree 16.0%
Strongly disagree 4.6%
Sub-population analysis
A. Comparison between Moscow and Non-Moscow Residents
Because the random sample of Latah County residents appears to over-
represent Moscow residents, understanding the magnitude and direction of
attitudinal differences between Moscow and non-Moscow residents is
important to understanding how these study results might otherwise appear
with a truly proportional sample of Latah County residents. Statistically
significant differences between Moscow and non-Moscow residents were
limited to the items shown below. In general, non-Moscow residents may
be considered slightly more concerned about future development and growth
in Latah County, perhaps because they believe Latah County to be a more
desirable place to live and because they are more likely to own land and
engage in agricultural practices. Non-Moscow residents are also less likely
to be university students. As a result, the sampling error inherent in this
study would tend to underestimate the level of concern expressed by
residents about population growth and economic development.
Statistically significant differences emerged between Moscow and Non-
Moscow residents on
the following items:
1) Non-Moscow residents had stronger agreement that rapid economic
development often creates more problems than benefits.
2) Non-Moscow residents had stronger agreement that there are too many
people moving into Latah County.
3) Non-Moscow residents believe Latah County to be a more desirable
place to live than Moscow residents.
4) Non-Moscow residents are more adequately informed and interested in
planning and zoning issues although the rate of participation in organized
public involvement does not differ significantly.
5) As might be expected, non-Moscow residents are more likely to a) own
land, b) live on a farm, c) receive farming income, and less likely to be a
university student.
B. Comparison between students and non-students
Statistically significant differences emerged between students and non-
students on 4 items:
1) Non-students have stronger feelings about the desirability of living in
Latah County. For example, about 67% of non-students view Latah County
as "Very Desirable" as compared to about 30% of students. This difference
is a matter of degree as both groups still view Latah County as a desirable
place to live. A reasonable explanation is that students may not be as
attached to area, having lived in the area a shorter period of time and for
only part of the calendar year when school is in session.
2) Non-students tend to more strongly disagree with the statement that
Latah County is not attracting enough new residents.
3) Non-students have stronger feelings about the importance of planning for
future growth.
4) Students tend to be less adequately informed about planning and zoning
issues.
5) As might be expected, students are less likely than non-students to own
land.
Conclusions and Discussion
A reasonable starting place for a discussion of the desirability of growth
and the location of future housing in Latah County is how residents
currently view Moscow as a place to live. Fifty-four (54) percent of the
residents surveyed believe that Latah County is a "very desirable" place to
live while another 41 percent view Latah County as a "somewhat desirable"
place. In contrast, less than 1 percent of residents view Latah County as a
"very undesirable" place to live and 3 percent view Latah County as
"somewhat undesirable". Thus, most residents (95 percent) view currently
view Latah County as a desirable place to live.
The desirability of Latah County as a place to live is associated with the
characteristics that residents do not want to see changed. These attributes
include the population size of Latah County, small town atmosphere, rural
character, low crime rate, the University of Idaho, the agricultural base,
and the friendly people. To the extent that Latah County has become less
desirable over the last 3 years (a perception shared by just over 1 in 5
residents), this decreasing desirability can be attributed to increased
population growth/overcrowding, increased traffic, and the increased costs of
housing and taxes. The belief that Latah County has become more desirable
to live over the last 3 years (a perception shared by less than 1 in 5
residents), can be attributed to relatively less crime and to more businesses
and job opportunities when compared with other areas . About 63 percent
of county residents perceive Latah County to have stayed about the same
over the last 3 years.
A consistent pattern of responses from residents on numerous survey
questions indicate concern about future population growth in the county. Of
3 possible growth scenarios for Latah County presented to residents (one
that would halve the current growth rate, one that would maintain the
current growth rate, and one that would double the current growth rate)
residents are most accepting of a growth rate that would be half (about 1
percent) the current growth rate (about 2 percent). About 53 percent of
respondents find the current growth rate acceptable, but a larger percentage
(64%) find a growth rate that is half the current rate even more acceptable.
This finding is consistent with the belief of a plurality of residents that the
county should discourage rather than encourage population growth (45% vs.
39%).
Residents' concern about increased population growth may be viewed as
somewhat inconsistent with the finding that a majority of residents agree that
new housing should be built in Latah County for new residents (69% vs.
21%). One logical presumption is that increases in housing units should
accompany increases in human population. Concern over population
growth that were apparent throughout the survey should also be reflected in
concern about the desirability of building new housing units. And yet this
logical relationship between population and housing was not reflected in the
survey results. A likely explanation is that residents' agreement that new
houses should be built is bounded by the most acceptable levels of
population growth as found in the survey. Additonal housing should be
built that is within the range of the most acceptable and modest population
increase scenario in the county agreeable to residents (about 1 percent). An
additional factor contributing to residents' support for new housing is the
frustration of some residents (many of whom are students) with present
housing costs to the point where the negativity of population growth might
be viewed as an acceptable trade-off for reduced housing costs. The
unhappiness with housing costs was mentioned by about 10 percent of those
believing that Latah County had become a less desirable place to live.
Residents' concern with increased population growth also did not
manifest strongly in attitudes toward economic development. Residents'
attitudes toward economic growth and development, while generally
favorable, were not entirely conclusive or consistent. Residents do agree
that Latah County should work to attract new businesses though residents
are ambivalent on whether too few businesses are being built.
When new housing is to be built, residents believe the housing should be
located first and foremost within existing city limits of towns. The second
best alternative would be to locate new housing adjacent to existing towns.
There is little support (less than 10 percent) among Latah County residents
for alternatives that would locate new housing dispersed throughout Latah
County. Residents want to see the agricultural base of the county preserved
as they see the building of future housing on existing farmland as
undesirable.
In general, Latah County residents do not feel adequately informed about
planning and zoning issues and only about 14 percent of the survey
respondents stated that they had participated in planning and zoning efforts
in the past 2 years.
While the random sample of Latah County residents that participated in
the survey appear to be over-representative of Moscow residents based on
census data, statistically significant differences between Moscow and non-
Moscow residents emerged on relatively few items. These differences in
responses were associated with differences in strength of
agreement/disagreement rather than actual differences in opinion. The
sampling error that is present in this study would tend to underestimate the
level of concern expressed by residents about population growth and
economic development. Specifically, non-Moscow residents had stronger
agreement that rapid economic development often creates more problems
than benefits and stronger agreement that there are too many people moving
into Latah County. Non-Moscow residents believe Latah County to be a
more desirable place to live than Moscow residents and appear to be more
adequately informed and interested in planning and zoning issues although
the rate of participation in planning and zoning did not differ significantly
between Moscow and non-Moscow residents.
University students comprise a significant portion of Latah County
residents. Because of obvious differences in the lifestyles and living
situations of students and non-students, one could hypothesize that
significant differences in opinion on planning and zoning issues might
emerge between students and non-students. In fact, the findings reveal
relatively few significant differences in perspective between students and
non-students. Non-students tend to have stronger feelings about the
desirability of living in Latah County than students and non-students tend to
more conservative about the desirability of attracting enough new residents.
As might be expected, non-students have stronger feelings about the
importance of planning for future growth and tend to be more adequately
informed about planning and zoning issues.
Finally, proponents and opponents of growth for Latah County are not
easily differentiated based on social groupings and other variables collected
in this study. While opponents of growth tend to believe that Latah County
is a more desirable place to live than proponents of growth and tend to be
slightly older and have lived longer in Latah County, opponents/proponents
cannot be distinguished by where they live (a rural/urban dichotomy does
not hold), whether they are students or not, whether they farm or not,
whether they own land or not, or by how active they are in the planning and
zoning process. In short, the encourage/discourage growth attitudes of
Latah County residents appear to be complex and cannot be adequately
described in terms of social groupings, demographic characteristics, or area
of residence as collected in this study.