SMART GROWTH, IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Transcription

1 SMART GROWTH, IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Manuel Pastor 02/04/2012 U.S. Decadal Growth Rates for Population by Race/Ethnicity, % 57.9% 53.1% 50.3% 42.7% 43.0% 4.2% 3.4% 1.2% 12.0% 16.2% 11.0% White Black API Latino 1

2 U.S. Share of Decadal Population Growth by Race/Ethnicity & % 80% 2% 15% Other 6% 16% 60% 35% 14% API Latino Black White 56% 34% 14% 0% % U.S. Change in Youth (<18) Population by Race/Ethnicity, ,788, , ,683 White Black Latino API Other -248,081-4,310,525 2

3 U.S. Changing American Demographics, % 80% 60% 1% 4% 2% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 7% 4% 5% 6% 9% 7% 7% 8% 11% 13% 16% 23% 27% 31% Other API Latino 83% 80% 76% 69% 64% 59% 55% 50% 46% Black White 0% Note:! Data!from!the!U.S.!Cenus!Bureau.!Projections!for!2020!through!2050,!which!were!generated!before!the!2010!Census,!were!adjusted!based!on!the!results!2010!Census. LEADING THE NATIONAL TREND California's Changing Demographics, % 5% 9% 11% 80% 19% 26% Other 8% 32% API 60% 7% 7% Latino Black 67% 57% 47% White 0% Source: California Department of Finance. 3

4 IMMIGRATION AS A FACTOR IMMIGRATION AS A (NON-) FACTOR 50% A Leveling Off: Immigrant Share of Total Population California, Los Angeles, and the U.S. Total immigrants in the U.S. (millions) 30% Los!Angeles California United States 10% 0%

5 CALIFORNIA DEMOGRAPHIC REALITIES U.S.-Born and Immigrant Populations in Los Angeles 3.0 Immigrants U.S.-Born 2.5 Population (thousands) AND LEADING FORWARD California's Changing Demographics Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity 100% 80% 60% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 11% 13% 13% 13% 14% 14% 32% 38% 41% 45% 49% 52% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 47% 37% 33% 30% 26% Other or Mixed Race Asian/Pacific Islander Latino African American Non-Hispanic White 0% Source:!U.S. Census!Bureau!(2000!and!2010);!California!Department!of!Finance (2020"2050). 5

6 CALIFORNIA DEMOGRAPHIC REALITIES 90% California: Among the Most Long-Term of Immigrant Populations % of immigrants who arrived > 10 years ago, % 70% 60% 50% 30% 10% 0% North Dakota Kentucky Alabama South Carolina Delaware Mississippi Nebraska Indiana North Carolina Tennessee South Dakota Kansas Wyoming Oklahoma Missouri Georgia Iowa Minnesota District of Columbia Louisiana Arkansas Virginia Utah Ohio Wisconsin Maryland Michigan Oregon Colorado Pennsylvania Idaho Massachusetts New Hampshire Washington Connecticut Texas Alaska Arizona Nevada West Virginia New Jersey Florida Maine New Mexico Illinois New York Rhode Island Montana Hawaii California Vermont CALIFORNIA DEMOGRAPHIC REALITIES 90% Percent Immigrant by Share Long-Term U.S. States, 2009 % of immigrants who arrived >10 years ago 80% 70% 60% 50% Vermont Rhode Island Hawaii Montana Illinois New Mexico Maine Florida West Virginia New Hampshire Washington Alaska Connecticut Arizona Texas Pennsylvania Idaho Massachusetts Michigan Colorado Oregon Maryland OhioWisconsin Utah Virginia Louisiana Arkansas District of Columbia Iowa Minnesota Missouri Georgia Wyoming Oklahoma Kansas South Dakota Tennessee IndianaNebraska North Carolina Mississippi South Carolina Delaware Alabama Kentucky New York New Jersey Nevada California North Dakota 30% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% % immigrant 6

7 ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL: Ancestry & Migration Ancestry of Long-Term Immigrants (30+ Years) Los Angeles County, *Other 17% Armenian 3% Eastern European 3% Korean 4% Salvadoran 4% Mexican Filipino 5% Chinese 5% Western European 9% Other Latino 10% *'Other'!includes!any!group! accounting for <2% of!immigrants *Data!source:!2007"2009!Pooled!ACS,! author's!pooled!sample. Source: PERE analysis of 2005 and 2006 ACS data ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL: Ancestry & Migration Ancestry of Recent Immigrants (<10 Years) Los Angeles County, *Other 16% Other Asian 2% Asian Indian 2% Western European 3% Mexican 32% Armenian 4% Korean 5% Salvadoran 6% Other Latino 9% Guatemalan 6% Chinese 7% Filipino 8% *'Other'!includes!any!group! accounting for <2% of!immigrants *Data!source:!2007"2009!Pooled!ACS,! author's!pooled!sample. Source: PERE Analysis of 2005, 2006, and 2007 ACS data. 7

8 ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL: Becoming More Suburban ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL: Becoming More Suburban 8

9 Composition of Latino Population by State, 1990 New Mexico 3% New Jersey 3% Illinois 4% Colorado 2% Arizona 3% Remainder of U.S. 14% California 34% Florida 7% New York 10% Texas Composition of Latino Population by State, 2010 Remainder of U.S. 23% California 28% Colorado 2% Arizona 4% New Mexico 2% New Jersey 3% Illinois 4% Florida 8% New York 7% Texas 19% 9

10 Percent Latino by State, 2010 Kansas Idaho Washington Oregon Rhode Island Utah Connecticut Illinois New York New Jersey Colorado Florida Nevada Arizona California Texas New Mexico 11% 11% 11% 13% 13% 16% 18% 18% 21% 22% 27% 30% 38% 38% 46% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% 35% 45% 50% Los Angeles County Share U.S. Latino Population, % 15% 9%

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 Portrait of America: The Changing Suburbs 100% 80% 60% 3% 4% 3% 5% 5% 6% 9% 8% 13% 16% 7% 17% 9% Other 10% API Latino 76% 69% 64% Black 81% 72% 65% White 0% national profile metro suburbs profile 14

15 South Los Angeles with 2000 U.S. Census Tract Boundaries Total Population: 1990: 802, : 825, : 858,773 7% increase from 1990 to South Central Los Angeles High School School Demography, Demographics School Year School Year 1% 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 2% 0% 1% 2% 7% 5% 10% 7% 42% 31% 99% 91% 93% 90% 98% 91% 57% 68% Other Latino African American Crenshaw Dorsey Fremont Jefferson Jordan Locke Manual Arts Washington Prep 15

16 South Central Los Angeles High School School Demography, Demographics School Year School Year 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 30% 42% 47% 90% 90% 77% 67% 81% 68% 57% 52% 9% 9% 22% 31% 18% Other Latino African American Crenshaw Dorsey Fremont Jefferson Jordan Locke Manual Arts Washington Prep U.S. Change in Racial Identification of Latinos, % 3% 3% 2% 2% 80% 38% 43% 50% 44% API 60% Black Other 58% 52% 48% 53% White 0%

17 50 Median Age by Race/Ethnicity U.S., Non-Hispanic White Asian/Pacific Islander Black Native American/Alaska Native Latino Other or Mixed Race 100% 90% Other or Mixed Race Asian, U.S.-born Latino, U.S.-born Age by Race/Ethnicity/Nativity 1980 Asian, immigrant Latino, immigrant 80% African-American or black 70% 60% 50% Non-Hispanic White 30% 10% 0% <

18 Age by Race/Ethnicity/Nativity % 90% 80% Other or Mixed Race Asian, U.S.-born Latino, U.S.-born Native American/Alaska Native Asian, immigrant Latino, immigrant 70% African-American or black 60% 50% Non-Hispanic White 30% 10% 0% < Millenials Generation X Baby Boomers Pre-Boomers 18

19 THE GAP MATTERS 250 Demographics and State Capital Spending Adjusted for Income Per capita state spending capital outlays adjusted for per capita income (100 = average of U.S. states) % 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% 35% percent age/ethnic difference THE GAP MATTERS 45% Income Adjusted Per Pupil Spending on Public Schools & the Generation Gap by State Per Pupil Spending / Per Capita Income 35% 30% 25% VT WV ME NH NY AK RI NJ PA WY DE HI OH WI MTMI SC LA NM GA KY ALMAAR MD IA IN ND MS MO OR KS NE MN VA CT IL SD FL DC NC TN CA OK ID CO WA AZ UT TX NV 15% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% 35% Difference in % non-hispanic white between the old (>65) and the young (<18) Source:!Policylink/PERE analysis!of!data!!from!the!u.s.!census!bureau!and!the!integrated!public!use! Microdata!Series!(IPUMS)!Current!Population!Survey!(CPS)!March!Supplement.! 19

20 THE CHALLENGE OF INEQUALITY THE CHALLENGE OF INEQUALITY $90,000 Figure!3"1.!U.S.!Resident!Median!Family!Income!1947"2007 (in!2007!dollars) $80,000 $70,000 Asian and Pacific Islander $60,000 Non-Hispanic White $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 White Latino $20,000 Black $10,000 $

21 PUTTING IT TOGETHER! Unequal! Deregulated! Disconnected! Have things changed? Is equity key to growth? USC Program for Environmental & Regional Equity WHAT S THE EVIDENCE?! Utilizing weighted regression approach to 341 metro areas in the U.S Per capita income as a function of: (+)regional education (-) manufacturing concentration (+)central city presence (-) previous income (?)region of U.S. (-) measure of inequity, including ratio of city to suburb poverty, concentration of poverty, income distribution, black-white segregation 21

22 FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE! Federal Reserve of Cleveland studies almost 120 mid-size regions, looking for factors that predict regional prosperity! Usual suspects: skilled workforce, quality of life, industrial decline! Unusual suspects: income inequality, racial exclusion, concentration of poverty and they re highly significant IT S A BROADER STORY! Underinvestment in each other makes us less competitive as a nation! Social tensions over who will gain and who will lose make us less likely to cohere on what we need to do to thrive 22

23 WHERE TO BEGIN! Metros offer new scale for doing well and doing good, fusing competitiveness and inclusion! Configuration of metropolitan space and opportunity has become center from racial justice to spatial justice! Metros offer new opportunities to bridge difference face-to-face, raceto-race, space-to-space WHERE TO BEGIN 23

24 LOOKING FORWARD: Challenge and Opportunity Immigrant integration is improved economic mobility for, enhanced civic participation by, and receiving society openness to immigrants. Integration requires an intentional process that incorporates the assets of immigrant populations into policies governing our cities, regions, and states. INTEGRATION OCCURRING ALREADY Immigrants advance economically and socially with more experience in the US already Longer time in the US = higher socio-economic status and greater English language ability 24

25 PROGRESS OVER TIME: Income Income by Recency of Migration Los Angeles County, $70,000 $64,031 Median household income ($2009) $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $41,851 $46,833 $55,046 $56,909 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Migrated last 10 years Migrated 10 to 20 years ago Migrated 20 to 30 years ago Long-term immigrant US born PROGRESS OVER TIME: Language Adult English Language Abilities Los Angeles County, % 5% 5% 6% 14% % of persons ages % 60% 29% 28% 23% 28% 32% 25% 35% 21% 74% Yes, speaks only English Yes, speaks very well Yes, speaks well Yes, but not well Does not speak English 26% 26% 22% 16% 11% 10% 0% Migrated last 10 years Migrated 10 to 20 years ago Migrated 20 to 30 years ago Long-term immigrant US born 25

26 HOMEOWNERSHIP Percent homeownership by group, Los Angeles California County Migrated last 10 years 19% 13% Migrated 10 to 20 years ago 30% Migrated 20 to 30 years ago 55% 47% Long-term immigrant 70% 63% US born 61% 53% Percent homeownership by immigration and race, Non- Hispanic White California Non- Hispanic White Los Angeles County Latino Asian/Pacific Islander Latino Migrated last 10 years 24% 13% 25% 16% 8% 19% Migrated 10 to 20 years ago 46% 31% 53% 36% 22% 45% Migrated 20 to 30 years ago 60% 49% 64% 53% 59% Long-term immigrant 77% 65% 76% 69% 59% 70% US born 66% 50% 63% 60% 46% 60% Asian/Pacific Islander Source: PERE Analysis of ACS data. NEW SUPPORT? IMMIGRANTS & SMART GROWTH 70% Use of Public Transit, Carpooling, Biking, or Walking 60% 50% Migrated last ten years Migrated ten to twenty years ago Migrated twenty to thirty years ago Long-term immigrant Non-immigrant Percent 30% 10% 0% < $10,000 $10,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $64,999 > $65,000 Personal Income Source: PERE analysis of 2006 ACS data 26

27 NEW SUPPORT? THE GEOGRAPHY OF HOUSING The Geography of Young Professionals Scarred by the Recession: Gen-Xers bore the brunt of the foreclosure crisis and don t see homes as a safe investment See value in living closer to work: Permits for single-family homes are on the decline ( of peak), permits for multi-family are on the rise ( of peak) Source: Houston Tomorrow NEW SUPPORT? THE GEOGRAPHY OF HOUSING Re-concentration of living in the recovery In California, Coastal (read urban) markets have hit bottom, inland (read exurban) markets have not yet turned. We haven t overbuilt, we ve just built in the wrong place... The incremental demand for housing is moving more into multifamiliy housing J.Nickelsburg, UCLA Annenberg Forecast Image Source: 27

28 LEADING THROUGH THE DIVIDE " Understanding that equity and inclusion are no longer luxuries but imperatives for economic and social sustainability " Understanding the need for policy packages, unexpected alliances, and new collaborations " Reimagining Smart Growth and determining new models of participation, capacity building and coalitions LEADING THROUGH THE DIVIDE 28