Population & economy, Andrews, North Carolina

C4

North Carolina State Library
Raleigh

PULATION

CONOMY

,^>^«5^^

;^

NORTH

CAROLINA

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2010 with funding from
State Library of North Carolina

http://www.archive.org/details/populationeconomOOwesl

p

OPULATION

&

/

E

CONOMY

WESTERN

NORTH

CAROLINA

REGIONAL
PLANNING
COMMISSION

NORTH

CAROLINA

The preparation of this report, was financially aided through a
Federal grant from the Urban Renewal Administration of the
Housing and Home Finance Agency, under the Urban Planning
Assistance Program authorized by Section 701 of the Housing
Act of 1954, as amended.

PREPARED FORs

TOWN OF ANDREWS, NORTH CAROLINA

Percy B-, Ferebee» Mayor

TOWN COUNCIL

Zeb Conley
So Jo Gernert
Jo Harold Jones
Jo Luther Truett

PLANNING BOARD

Wo Do Whitaker» Chairman

To Wo Burnette, Vice-Chairman

Co Fo Delaney

J, Ho Christy

Mo Eo Ennis

WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Robert D. Barbour, Planning Director
Gary M, Cooper, Asst o Planning Director

Project Staff;

"Wayne Ko Gladden, Community Planner
""Charles Cunningham, Community Planner
Cecile Johnson, Secretary
Norma Reid, Secretary

"Responsible for Andrews Planning Program
""Responsible for Report

April 1964

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Introduction i

Summary 3

Population 5

Economy 26

Prospects for the Future 35

Appendix 41

INTRODUCTION

This report is a first step toward the completion
of a comprehensive growth plan for the Town of Andrews.
The Andrews Planning Board, charged with the task of con-
ducting studies and preparing plans designed to assist in
the orderly growth of the town, has contracted with the
Western North Carolina Regional Planning Commission for
technical assistance which is being financed from local
and Federal sources.

While growth in the Andrews area has been slow, there
is an increasing need to define long-range community goals
and to prepare realistic plans for reaching these goals.
The comprehensive plan is designed to fill this need.

The report on the population and economy of Andrews
will serve as a basis on which to prepare plans for the
physical development of Andrews. A knowledge of the type
of people, their way of life, the jobs they hold and the
potential economic opportunities will assist in arriving
at decisions on the land development patterns desired for
the community.

A community such as Andrews cannot be studied as a
self-sufficient isolated unit. It affects - and is affected
by - the larger geographical areas of which it is a part.

It has therefore been necessary to examine certain
trends in evidence in these larger areas; the township, the
county, and in some instances, the state - to better under-
stand and compare the relationships between these areas.

This report does not -- and cannot -- predict Andrews'
future. Only enlightened community leadership and the actions
of local citizens can shape future development. This report
can be used, however, in evaluating trends in the town's growth,
the quality of living, and the growth character of local indus-
tries. It is hoped that such knowledge will be helpful in
shaping local efforts to better the living environment in
Andrews .

s

1]

M

1

k

I

\

SUMMARY

Population

The Town of Andrews grew steadily in population from
its incorporation in 1905 and reached its peak in 1930. A
decline began in the depression years which levelled off in
1950-1960.

Migration Trends

Although the actual number of persons was substantially
the same in 1960 (1,404) as in 1950 (1,397) the number would
have been greater (due to an excess of births over deaths) if
out-migration had not occurred.

Age Groups

The proportion of youngsters in the population declined
in the last decade while those over 65 increased. A signifi-
cant decrease occurred in the number and proportion of females
in the child-bearing age group.

Income

Income levels in the area have improved but are still
significantly below averages for the state and nation. More
than half of all families in the township earned less than
$3,000 annually and one out of every five earned less than
$1,000. For Cherokee County as a whole, personal income in-
creased at a rate faster than that in 3/4 of North Carolina's
100 counties.

Agriculture and Employment

The products of the soil and forests accounted for
Andrews' beginning and early development. Declines in the

-3-

lumbering, logging, and related industries brought about de-
clines in employment and population. Forty-three (43 7o) percent
of those employed in the county in 1940 were engaged in Agri-
culture, Forestry, and Fishery; by 1960 this proportion had
declined to fourteen (147o) percent.

Farming

Although the number who depend on agriculture as their
sole occupation has declined, the value of farm products sold
has risen steadily in the area to constitute a major source of
income .

Industrial Development

Vigorous community efforts to bolster the sagging economy
resulted in the location of two new manufacturing plants during
the 1950-60 decade, these two plants now constituting the major
source of employment in the township. There is a continued de- '
mand for further diversification, the most chronic need being
job opportunities for unemployed males.

Unemp loyraen t

Chronic unemployment and under-emp 1 oymen t in the area
has persisted for many years. This county, along with many
others in the Southern Appalachian region, has been classified
as a "distressed" county and many aid programs, both state
and federal, are designed to relieve the unemployment problem.

Tour i sm

Although constituting a small share of the total economy,
tourism offers a significant potential benefit for future de-
velopment. Improved highways, service facilities for the

-4-

traveller, the development and promotion of recreational and
scenic attractions are needed to capitalize on this growing
market. These opportunities and needs have been recognized
in the Western North Carolina region and cooperative planning
and development promise hope for the future.

-5-

p

0

p

u

[

A

T

1

0

N

POPULATION

Andrews is a community of around 1,400 persons nestled
in a broad valley in the mountains of Western North Carolina,
In early days the Cherokee Indians grew maize near Valley
River, which winds through the heart of town- The original
white settlement was at the present site of Valleytown com-
munity and was moved in 1890 to the newly formed community
o f Andrews .

The construction of the Richmond and Danville Railroad
line helped bring about the re-location of Andrews and its sub-
sequent growth. In 1897 the first industry, a lumbering opera-
tion, located in Andrews followed the next year by a tannery.

In the early part of the century the economy flourished
due to trade and the extraction and processing of agricultural
and forest products.

In May, 1922, an important meeting was held in Sylva,
North Carolina, to determine the route for a proposed highway
from Asheville to Atlanta. The proponents for the route
through the Nantahala Gorge prevailed and construction was
completed in 1923. With rail and highway access, Andrews
continued to grow steadily at a slow but steady rate until
the decline in lumbering and forestry operations set in during
the 1930 ' s.

During the 1950's community-wide concern and action on
the economic problem resulted in the location of two manufac-
turing plants in the area. These two plants constitute the
major source of employment in the township and have helped
greatly in bolstering a sagging economy. Despite the levelling

off in population, unemployment continues high, income levels
are relatively low and diversification of industry is greatly
needed. Increased community awareness of the need to counter-
act these trends -- common to the Southern Appalachian region --
offer hope for the future.

Population Trends

Andrews and Cherokee County have not shared in the gen-
eral prosperity and dynamic population growth of the state and
the nation in the post-war years. From the incorporation as a
town in 1905, Andrews grew from 936 in 1910 to a high of 1748
in 1930. A decline set in during the depression years and the
population levelled off at around 1400. Comparisons of popula-
tion trends in Andrews, Valleytown Township excluding Andrews,
Valleytown Township, Cherokee County and the State are given in
the table on page 8.

It is interesting to note from an examination of the
population trends above that, although the Town of Andrews ex-
perienced a proportionately high increase in the early part of
the period, growing along with the county, it has shown a trend
opposite to that in the county since reaching its high point in
1930. Overall county population continued to climb to reach its
highest point in 1940, from which a steady drop has taken place.
The period which saw the largest absolute and percentage decline
(1950-60) in the county actually resulted in a slight increase
(by five) in Andrews. This is to suggest that while overall
county-wide factors will continue to have an effect on the
character of growth in Andrews, the single most important de-
terminant will be the effects of the actions which take place
in the town which provide oppor cun i t ie s for job-producing enter-
prises.

•7-

(U rH

(U CN

0) CO

W W

w en

to cr>

ns ^

10 ^

(T) -H

<D II

(U II

(U II

t. o

o

U o

o

Pi o

o o

CM

O -1

ro

O CM

C en

en

C en

a^

c ai

<u in

0) ID

10 en

w en

(0 rH

fO ^

(U 1

(1) *

u o

o

t. o

o ^

ID

U un

c ai

O)

C en

Age Composition of the Population

In addition to knowing the number of persons living
in the community and trends in population growth, it is also
helpful to know the age composition and recent significant
changes which have occurred. It is generally considered a
sign of a healthy economy if the high school and college
graduates return to the community to find a livelihood.
The community would thus find an increasing number of its
residents in the younger or productive years. Likewise, a
well "balanced" community would not have a high proportion
of the very young and very old.

Age composition is frequently depicted in the form
of a "population pyramid" showing the percentage of the pop-'
ulation in each age group. The chart on page 10 shows graphi-
cally the comparison between the 1950 and the 1960 population.
The tables for the age groups are shown on page:ll. Although
no profound changes are in evidence, it is significant to note
that there are fewer youngsters to educate, and there is both
a percentage and an absolute increase in the number 6 3 and
over ,

The population of a community is not static, of course,
and the age composition in Andrews in 1970 and future genera-
tions will be most directly determined by the in-migration or
out-migration that will occur.

Sex

There are slightly more females than males in the total
population. From 1950 to 1960 the total number of females in-
creased from 714 to 725, while the total number of males de-
creased from 683 to 679. It is worthwhile noting that the
female age group generally considered the child bearing age

-9-

o o
CD a>

9

<
q:

>-

_l

Q.
O
Q.

iLl

a:
o

o

CM

CM

1 -n O

J

00

CM
O

(0

00

o

CM

CD
CD

f I

0) <fl

E x;
2:

O ro

3\° O

11.

(15-44) declined significantly during this period. This
group constituted 44.37o or 316 of the total population in
1950 and by 1960 was reduced to 280, or 38,77<,. Assuming no
major changes in the birth rate and no significant migration,
this would indicate a further decline in the younger age
groups by 1970.

PERCENTAGE OF PERSONS, BY AGE CATEGORY
ANDREWS 1950-1960

Age Group

Percent Distribution
1950 1960

Under 15

15-44

45-64

6 5 and over

31,

,0

27.6

41 .

.3

38.0

19,

.6

20.0

7,

,9

13,4

Income

The income available to the residents of a given area
will, of course, determine their economic well-being, the
level of consumer expenditures and capital investment, and
their ability Cif not willingness) to provide for needed
community facilities and services.

The amount of total income in the community, the
average incomes and the income distribution by groups are
of importance in community planning. Upon such levels de-
pend community planning decisions such as:

** The possibility of expansions in retail trade
and service areas;

-12-

** The degree to which high quality merchandise can
be successfully marketed;

*■'■' The capacity to rehabilitate deteriorating or
dilapidated areas;

*■>'< The opportunity for expanding educational op-
portunities by means of new building, equipment,
or per Sonne 1 ;

*'''' The ability to provide financial backing for new
job-producing enterprises.

The total income received by families in Cherokee
County almost doubled from 1949 to 1959- (from $6,643,750
to $12,948,500). Of this total amount, Valleytown Township
received $3,950,000, shared by 1198 families. The township,
embracing slightly less than 30% of the total number of
families in the county, accounts for slightly more than 30%
of total family income.

The amount of total family income by township as re-
ported by the U.S. Census appears below.

TOWNSHIP

TOTAL

% OF

TOTAL FAMILY

% OF

FAMILIES

TOTAL

INCOME

TOTAL

BEAVERDAM

194

4.8

$429,000

3.3

HOT HOUSE

235

5.9

$745,500

5.8

MURPHY

1637

40.8

$6, 127,500

47.3

NOTTLA

414

10.3

$901,000

7.0

SHOAL CREEK

331

8.3

$795,500

6.1

VALLEYTOWN

1198

29.9

$3,950,000

30.5

CHEROKEE COUNTY

4009

100.0

$12,948,500

100.0

In measuring Valleytown Township income, it is interest-
ing to compare income not only with other townships in the
county but also with the state and nation. These comparisons

* 1949 Census data not available by Township.

-13-

are made graphically in the bar charts on page 15, It can
be seen that Valleytown's average or mean family income is
fairly close to the overall county average, not far below
that of the Murphy Township, but considerably below state
and national averages. (Valleytown's $3297 constitutes 68 %
of the North Carolina and only 51 7o of the national mean
f ami 1 y income ) .

In addition to knowing the total amount of income
which is earned in a given area, it is important to know
among how many inhabitants the income is distributed. The
three common-used methods for measuring so-called "averages'
for a given area are:

Average (or Mean) Family Income - The total family
income as reported divided by the total number of families.

Median Family Income - The mid-point: half the fami-
lies earn less and half the families earn more than the
median.

Per Capita Income - The total income of all families
and individuals divided by the total population.

Of the above income measures, per capita income has
been more frequently used by economists and sociologists in
comparisons and analyses of trends and problems in under-de-
veloped regions.*

* Figures on per capita income must be analyzed carefully as
other factors will influence overall economic well-beings North
Carolina, for instance, has relatively large families as com-
pared to some of the more industrialized and urbanized states.
Likewise, income figures as reported will not include such items
as family gardens or live-stock and other consumer goods being
produced for family consumption. For an interesting analysis
see STUDIES IN PER CAPITA INCOME IN NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY
OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1956.

-14-

to

<T)

r«-

N

~,

•d-

in

C\J

lO

—

N

lO

<M

t--

"i-

CJ

£J

1^

ro

ID

O

O

in

1-

00

O

in

~

^

ir

O

<

1-

>-
UJ

_l
1

Q
UJ

1-

%

o

UJ

_l

o

UJ

ll

q:

u

Ui

X

»-
o

(n

<

Q

LlJ

z.

to

O

CO

—

CM
CVJ

W

lO

—

*

10

0>

fO

CVI

^ 1

(n

m

CM

h-

o

o

-3-

o

t

CM

-

UJ 5

o UJ i

O Z) ^

The southeastern part of the United States has gener-
ally fallen behind the nation in measuring per capita income,
and the State of North Carolina has ranked relatively low
among the southern states. The plight of the rural mountain
regions likewise has been refle.cted in the relative standing
in the state. Of the 100 counties, Cherokee County ranked
89th in per capita income in 19^*9 and during the succeeding
decade climbed to #77 in rank,*

An additional consideration in analyzing community in-
come is the method by which it is distributed. The income
measures described above do not tell of the presence or ab-
sence of concentrations of low income or high income groups«
American's typically prefer calling themselves a nation where
almost all people are in the "middle income" brackets, with-
out undue concentrations of either wealth or poverty. How,
then, is income distributed in the Andrews area? Does a small
minority receive the bulk of the total income, leaving the
great majority to subsist (or perish) at poverty levels--or
are the average incomes shared by the bulk of the people with
few very poor or very rich?

It is difficult to establish a doJ.lar figure of annual
income by which to classify the "poor", the "middle" income,
and the "rich." The Council for Economic Development in a
study of national income figures indicated that by present-
day standards in modern America, an average family should
receive $4,000 a year in order to provide for the basic
necessities of life. These necessities included adequate diet,
clothing, decent housing, minimum medical care and recreation.
The Governor of North Carolina in a report on poverty in this
state recently considered an average family income of less than

* The 1949 figure of $389 when converted to account for inflation
amounted to $476 C1959 dollars). The 1959 figure was $803, amount-
ing to an annual average increase of 5,377o. The overall state
average annual rate of increase was 4.26% and for the United States
3.8 97o,

16-

$3,000 as indicating near poverty conditions- It is inter-
esting, therefore, to determine how the townships in Cherokee
County measure in comparison with state and national income
distributions.

The three broad groupings of family income (below
$3,000, $3,000 - $7,999, $8,000 and over) are shown in the
table on page 18. It is seen that over half of the families
in Valleytown Township receive less than $3,000 annual income,
with slightly more than six percent receiving more than $8,000
a year. These figures are contrasted with the state s 37,2%
and the nation's 21.47o. At the upper end of the scale,
slightly more than 6.3% of the families in the township re-
ceive over $8,000 annually, measured against 13,5%, in the
state and 26.5%, in the nation.

The amount of total income shared by the low income
group and the high income group in Valleytown Township is
practically the same, but, as shown above, there are a great
many more families in the low income group among which it is
distributed. Valleytown Township therefore is depicted as
an area where there is a large proportion of low income fami-
lies, with a very small percentage enjoying a fairly comforta-
ble high income.

One final look at the income levels among the class
which might be considered near destitute will be of value in
understanding the needs and problems of the people in this
area , More than one out of five families in the township
received a total income of less than $1,000. This one statis-
tic alone gives a hint of the magnitude of the problem faced
by planners, economists, sociologists, community leaders and
others interested in bettering the opportunities, living con-
ditions, and environment in Andrews.

-17-

J

X

<

U

o

u

zc

pc:

w

o

<

J

E-

fe

2

U

to

r>

o

X

F-

O

X

s

<

Q

Oi

U

>

<

u

CQ

CL,

l-l

>^

X

X

CO

0-,

2;

oi

s

o

o

s

E-

2;

s

o

d.

H

n

>-

X

U

to

►J

2

J

S

<

O

>

E-

u

w

i.i

>H

o

(X

u

O

X

O

o

o

J

u

<

E-

E-

<

O

E-

H

to

J

<

w

fr>

O

«

H

s

e

0)

e

0)

O <T>

•H

<U

O Pi

E

O CTI

.H

e

t) u

o

c o^

•H

o

c >

o

n •

E

u

l-H O

c

r-

m

c

t-l

x: </>

Cm

l-H

j:: X)

-H

O

CO

O

r-

CO

ir>

o

in
cn

it

o

to

•H

o

ro

:3-

o

^

•-i

O

cn

in

o

CM

CO

o

a>

CM

in
in
r-

J-

o

a>

cn

o

CO

.H

o

CD
CN

J-

j^

O

CO

o

C--

ID

in

o

01

«

c-

^

r-

CD

CM

—1

iD

CO

O

cn

O

rH

O

LO

•1

•

-H

iH

o

in

(N

cn

cn

o

O

o

O

in

«

«

00

d-

CO

o

^

ID

cn

CM

Csi

<D

o

LT)

o

tD

in

«

•

M

CO

CJl

:}■

■H

O

CO

ID

iH

.H

CO

CO

in

P-

o

CJ>

o

CO

in

«

•

CO

CN

CM

^

r-i

cn

«

«

Ql

un

cn

o

J-

00

.H

J-

in

cn
cn

CN

0)

e

o

u

c

CO

l-H

w

^-v

l-H

>-. </>

J

J

►J

J

H-l

t-t c

<

s

e: -h

<

< --'

■4h

u,

u,

O

u

►J

J e:

o\°

<

< o

E-

E^ y

O

O 2;

E-

f- n

-18-

DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME
UNDER $3,000

TOWNSHIP

TOTAL
FAMILIES

UNDER
$1,000

7c OF
TOTAL

SI

1

,000-
,999

% OF
TOTAL

$2
2

,000-
.999

7o OF
TOTAL

Beaver dam

194

46

23,7

66

34.0

41

21.0

Hot House

235

41

17o4

46

19,6

29

12.3

Murphy

1637

404

24»7

227

13„9

307

18.8

Nott la

414

151

36,5

117

28.2

29

7,0

Shoal Creek 331

109

32«9

66

19,9

44

13.3

Val ley town

1198

257

2U4

232

19,4

162

13,5

TOTAL 4009

CHEROKEE COUNTY

1008

25, 1

754

612

15.3

Housing

The quality of housing is another important factor in com-
munity planning. In addition to the location, density and trends
in type and rate of residential construction, the land use planner
must be aware of the housing conditions which will have an impor-
tant effect on the evolution of the comprehensive community plan.
The presence of sub-standard areas with inadequate facilities.
perhaps improperly located in relation to commercial and indus-
trial land uses, will be considered in the plan for the future
land use. The needs for public expenditures in the way of water
and sewer improvements, street widenings and paving will in part
be gauged by the present housing problem. Such need in turn will
be reflected in programming public improvements and budgeting ma-
jor capital expenditures in carrying out the program.

19-

The 1960 U.S. Census showed a total of 457 housing units*
in the Town of Andrews; 287 of these units were owner occupied,
the average value of all units being $7,500; 23 units were vacant
and available for occupancy.

The Census enumerators classified all housing units into
three broad categories: Sound, Deteriorating, or Dilapidated^-*
The units were judged strictly on the physical characteristics,
both inside and outside, and did not take into consideration
such other factors as neighborhood environment, age of the struc-
ture, race or color of the occupants, or adequacy and availability
of such community facilities as parks, playgrounds, schools, street
conditions, and the like.

Of all housing units in Andrews, only fifty-seven percent
were rated as in Sound condition; 146 were classified as Deter-
iorating and 51 as Dilapidated. The determination of what is con-
sidered "Standard" housing or " Sub- s tandar d " housing is usually a

* Living quarters were enumerated as housing units or group quar-
ters. Usually a housing unit is a house, apartment, or flat; how-
ever it may be a trailer or a room in a hotel. A "housing unit" is
considered a house, an apartment, or other group of rooms, or a sin-
gle room "when it is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate
living quarters, that is, when the occupants do not live and eat
with other persons in the structure and there is either (1) direct
access from the outside or through a common hall, or (2) a kitchen
or cooking equipment for the exclusive use of the occupants of the
un it."

** Sound housing is defined as that which has no defects, or only
slight defects which normally are corrected during the course of
regular maintenance. Deteriorating housing needs more repair than
would be provided in the course of regular maintenance. Such hous-
ing has one or more defects of an intermediate nature that must be
corrected if the unit is to continue to provide safe and adequate
shelter. Dilapidated housing does not provide safe and adequate
shelter and in its present condition endangers the health, safety,
or well-being of the occupants.

-20-

subjective matter, depending often on who is doing the evalua-
ting and perhaps depending on the occupant's own rating as to
the adequacy of his structure. The community of Andrews may
perhaps enact into law an ordinance which would define what it
considers as Standard or Sub-standard housing, based on local
determination. For the purposes of analysis and comparison,
however, the classes of housing designated as Deteriorating and
Dilapidated denote conditions which decidedly need correction
and will be considered as Sub-standard. The break-down of hous-
ing characteristics appears in the table on page 22.

Education

It is almost a truism to say that education is the key
to the future growth of an area. Education is so basic in con-
tributing to the attraction of new industry to an area that it
is distressing to note the casual concern with which many treat
this need. The present state administration has devoted itself
to a concentrated effort to up-grade education standards at all
levels.

public schools

gifted and exceptionally qualified

mentally retarded and handicapped

adult training and re-training

Some communities have discovered that those who attend
the public schools, graduate from high school or even from col-
lege will in many instances leave their town because of a lack
of job opportunities. The community thiis loses those whom they
can least afford to lose.

This "vicious cycle" is a difficult one to break. The
needs the community faces may be summed up as:

-21.

^

c/;

o

s

u

2:

Oi

^

a

o

^

1^

<

u

a

:^

O

Di

u

x

u

g

o

e-

a.

j«

s

u

E-

J

J

<

>

J

:^

<

U

o

W

X

Pi

w

o

<

J

(X

E-

s

H

^H

o

^

><

X

a,

Cu

K

s

:d

H

s

w

to

o

c

X

H

O

X

S

<

Q

Oi

D-,

^

3

<

u

pa

bC

u

o

<u bo

o

E C

z

O H

W

HH

in J3

CD

H

e

H

<

bO D

■M

a;

C -H

-H

o

0) bO
E C
O '^

w ja
E =

b£ D

-22.

to encourage those in the public school system

to complete high school;

to find means by which every person so desiring

can receive a college education;

to provide basic education needs to the adult

population;

to provide training and re-training programs

for the unemployed.

Precise quantitative and qualitative measures of the
above needs are difficult to come by for a given area^ As
further research is accomplished by state and regional plan-
ners it is hoped that the results will enable Andrews and
Cherokee County to more carefully pin-point its education needs
and tailor its efforts on a broad scale to meet the needs of
its citizens.

Several measures concerning the number of years of pub-
lic schooling attended by the present adult population 25 years
or older will provide an insight into the status of education
in the area.

The level of educational attainment is somewhat lower in
Cherokee County than in Rural North Carolina. The contrast is
more striking when comparisons are made with overall state aver-
ages and with the levels attained in Urban North Carolina. The
median number of school years completed in the county was 7.8
(half the population completed more, half less than this figure)
This compares with 8,3 years in Rural North Carolina, 8,9 in the
state overall, and 10.4 in Urban North Carolina. Valleytown
Township, while slightly above the county average, (8.1) remains
lower than that for Rural North Carolina.

The table on page 24 shows comparisons of educational
levels within the township and the state^ It should be noted
that in almost every category, all townships rank below the low-

-23-

est of the State averages (Rural North Carolina). Valleytown
Township's is the highest ranking in one area - the number who
have a high school education or beyond. The percentage of 26.1
ranks slightly higher than Rural North Carolina.

SCHOOL GRADES COMPLETED
ADULTS 25 YEARS AND OVER

MEDIAN SCHOOL
YEARS COMPLETED

7o
COMPLETED
LESS THAN 5 YEARS

COMPLETED
12 OR MORE YEARS

Cherokee County

7 .

,8

Beaverdam T

wp

6,

.1

Hot House

7 ,

,8

Murphy

8,

. 1

No tt la

7,

.2

Shoal Creek

6,

,5

Vail ey town

8,

.1

State of N.

C.

8,

.9

Urban N. C.

10,

.4

Rural N. C.

8,

.3

18.9
34- 9
18.9
17.7
11.5
28,5
I7»9
13.4
10.6
15,4

22,0
8.2
15.5
25.2
14.1
12.0
26.8
32,3
40.7
26.2

Source: Unpublished U. S. Census Data - 1960

A Post-Script on Population Characteristics

The characteristics of the population of Andrews and of
the larger areas of which it is a part are inter-related. Hous-
ing conditions, for example, cannot be separately studied and
considered as an isolated factor in community development. The
extent and type of employment, labor skills, educational attain-
ment, income levels, housing conditions; each affect, and is
affected by, the others. Improvement in any one of these areas
will bring about improvement in the others.

-24-

The population profile of Andrews as depicted in the
sketches above present a challenge to community leaders. Im-
provements have been made in many areas, but, paraphrasing
Alice in Wonderland, a community has to run fast just to stay
in the same place. Comparisons as to the "quality of living",
using such quantitative measurements as are in evidence, show
a populace not yet sharing in the general accomplishments of
contemporary America.

While not the only determinant affecting the quality
of living, the level of economic activity plays a major role
in influencing and affecting material well-being. An examina-
tion of the economy of the area will therefore be of value in
further identifying community problems and setting forth com-
munity goals and plans.

•25-

E

C

0

N

0

I

\

ECONOMY

The identification of the primary economic activities in
an area is helpful in pin-pointing growth problems, and in antici-
pating and taking advantage of new opportunities. The primary
economic activities — sometimes referred to as the economic "base"-
are those activities which account largely for the existence of
the community, for its economic and physical characteristics, and
their growth or decline will have a marked influence on the dis-
tribution of future community income and the resultant number and
characteristics of the population.

It is significant that Andrews' economy evidences a slow
evolution from its original dependence on the primary industries
(agriculture and related industries) to manufacturing and com-
merce. To understand better the present day economy in Andrews,
it is of value to examine some of the trends taking place in
Cherokee County.

Sources of Employment in Cherokee County

The total number employed in the county dropped to 4,170
in 1960 from the peak of 5,027 reached in 1950. Agriculture,
forestry, and fisheries accounted by far for the largest number
of employed in 1940, rose slightly in 1950, but suffered a severe
drop in the ensuing decade. The table below shows the number em-
ployed in major sectors during this period. The proportion of
employed engaged in agriculture and related industries declined
from 43% in 1940 to only 14% in 1960, while manufacturing made a
surprising gain (from about 117o to 27%).

-26-

TABLE SHOWS
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY FOR
CHEROKEE COUNTY 1940 1950 1960

Agr icul ture ,
Fores try &

Fishery

Manuf ac tur ing

Mining

Construction

Transportation

Commerce

Personal Services

Professional

Other or not given

TOTAL

1940

1825

7o of
Total

43.0

1950

1876

7o of
Total

37.3

% of
1960 Total

584

14,0

462

10.

,9

688

13.7

nil

26.6

50

1.

,2

208

4,1

247

5.9

601

14.

,2

329

6.5

315

7,6

155

3.

,6

260

5.2

201

4.8

451

10,

,6

793

15,8

787

18,9

257

6,

.1

317

6.3

261

6,3

358

8,

.4

486

9.7

564

13.5

84

2,

.0

70

1.4

100

2.4

4243

100,

. 07o

5027

100. 07„

4170

100,07o

Comparable data is not available for Valleytown Township
prior to 1960, The previous decade, however, was the period in
which manufacturing came to employ a substantial number, as noted
above. In 1960, manufacturing accounted for about 347> of all gain-
fully employed. The great majority (339) were employed in the tex-
tile and apparel manufacturing plants.

-27-

The table below shows the summary of employment in major
categories in the township in 1960.

VALLEYTOWN TOWNSHIP - EMPLOYMENT DATA

1960

To ta 1 emp loyed

1236

Agriculture, forestry,

f is

hery

151

Manuf ac tur ing

417

Lumber, furniture, etc.

62

Other durables

16

Textiles

TT =;

Apparel

Print ing

4

Mining

8

Construction

108

Transportation

80

Railroad

15

Other transportation

25

Commun ications

40

Commerce

183

Who 1 e sa 1 e

20

All retail

142

Business & repair service

21

Personal Services

88

Private household

65

Other personal, hotel.

en ter ta inment

23

Pro f ess iona 1

137

All educat ion

44

Medical, hospital & oth

ler

prof.

47

Public administration

46

Other or not given

64

Source - Unpublished Census Data

-28-

The heavy dependence on textile manufacturing in the
township is accented in noting the proportion of all workers
employed in this category as compared with the proportion in
the state. North Carolina, heavily committed to textile manu-
facturing, saw a significant increase in total worker- during
the 19A0-1960 period, 15.9% of all being so employed in 19 60.
Valleytown Township's total of 335 amounted to 27.1% of all
gainfully employed. Comparable figures are included below for
Cherokee County and the state,

NUMBER OF WORKERS EMPLOYED

IN

TEXTILE MANUFACTURING IN THE STATE,

CHEROKEE COUNTY AND VALLEYTOWN TOWNSHIP

1

940

7o

OF ALL

WORKERS

State

196

,301

16.3

Cherokee

42

1.0

County

Va 1 ley town

N.A.

__

Twp .

1950

229,489
63

N.A.

% OF ALL
WORKERS

1960

% OF ALL
WORKERS

15.7
1.3

254,736
512

15.9
12.3

335

27.1

Worker Mobility for Cherokee County

With improvements in our highway systems and increasing
use of the automobile, the job seeker no longer is tied down to
his place of residence. Dependent on the availability and the
attraction of the job, workers are more and more willing to com-
mute to and from their source of employment. Likewise, the
economies of adjacent areas (be they towns, townships, or coun-
ties) are directly related to one another. Workers (and spenders)

-29-

are free to cross political boundaries and a new industry or a
construction boom in one town will affect the population and
economy of adjacent towns.

The enumeration of sources of employment by industry as
reported above considered the job occupations held by the resi-
dents of the county. The majority of those employed worked in
the county, but a surprising eleven percent (463) found work
outside the county. The table below shows the county and the
number of Cherokee residents to which commuting occurred.

CHEROKEE COUNTY RESIDENTS
GOING OUT OF COUNTY
TO WORK IN:

Macon County

Graham

Clay

Union County, Ga .

Fannin County, Ga .

Polk County, Tenn.

Swa in County

Knox County, Tenn.

E 1 sewher e

24

4

26

13

24

205

8

4

155

463

The table on page 31 shows a break-down by township of
employment of residents. There is an extreme variation within
the county of the percentage of workers by township who have
jobs outside the county. The table below shows the total em-
ployment by plgce of residence, together with the number and
percentage of those who have jobs outside Cherokee County.

-30-

TOTAL NUMBER RESIDENTS WITH X

EMPLOYED JOBS OUTSIDE COMMUTING
COUNTY

Beaverdam Towns

;h ip

158

17

10.7

Hot House

228

150

65.8

Murphy

1 ,

,836

78

4.2

Not t la

397

45

11,3

Shoal Creek

315

75

23,8

Va 1 1 ey town

1;

,236

98

7.9

Total Cherok

ee

County

k,

,170

463

11,1

These figures do not reveal (nor are such figures gath-
ered) the extent to which residents travel from one township to
another within the county to work. In considering the willing-
ness of workers to travel from residence to place of work, how-
ever, the Employment Security Commission uses a twenty-five mile
radius as a rule of thumb measure to locate potential labor force.

Agricul ture

Although the number gainfully employed in agriculture
has continued to decline in both the County and Valleytown Town-
ship, the sale of farm products has shown a fair increaseo In
common with trends throughout North Carolina and the nation, in-
creasing use of farm machinery and more efficient soil cultivation
methods have resulted in higher yields and more efficient produc-
tion.

While the number of farms in the county has declined and
average farm size has increased only slightly, the value of farm
products has increased substantially in recent years.

-31-

In 1900, the U. S. Census reported 1731 farms in Cherokee
County, with an average size of 120.4 acres. This number rose to
a high of 2,227 in 1925.

The table below reveals significant trends in recent

years

1944

Number of Farms

2007

Average Size of

66.6

Farms

Average Value Farm $213
Products Sold

Total Value All 427 , 741
Farm Products
Sold

All Crops Sold 85,746

1949

1954

64,308 168,534

1959

1940

1638

825

64.9

71.1

96.6

$353

$582

$2063

14,997

930,897

1,654,661

266,618

The large gain made in the value of farm products sold
between 1954 and 1959 is due principally to an 82 7o increase in
the sale of livestock and livestock products. Poultry and
poultry products likewise more than doubled in value in the
same period.

CASH VALUE OF SELECTED FARM PRODUCTS SOLD
CHEROKEE COUNTY, 1954-1959

1954

All Farm Products Sold

All Crops Sold

Forest Products & Horti-
cultural Specialty

All Livestock & Livestock
Products

Poultry &. Poultry Products

Dairy Pr oduc t s

Livestock &. Livestock Pro-
ducts other than Poultry
&c Da iry Pr oduc t s

1959

7o Increase

$930,

,897

1,654,

,661

77.7

168,

,534

266,

,618

58.2

49,

,591

102,

,622

106.9

762,

,363

1 ,388,

,043

82. 1

419,

,619

939,

,381

123.9

178,

,258

132,

,769

25.5

164,

,486

315,

.893

92,0

-32-

Unemployment in the Area

The specter of chronic unemployment and under-emp 1 oymen t
has long faced the residents of the southern mountain region.
State, federal and regional development programs of many kinds
have been designed to stimulate the region's economy and to up-
grade the standard of living among the under-developed groups.

With the passage of the Area Redevelopment Act in 1961,
the U, S, Congress placed in motion a concerted effort to coor-
dinate the work of agencies at the federal level by several
methods .

technical assistance in identifying new opportunities

for economic growth;

financial assistance in the form of loans and grants

to provide capital investment in job-producing enter-
prises;

job retraining programs for the technologically

unemployed or for those needing new job skills.

Cherokee County was classified in 1961 as a "development"
area and thus eligible for federal assistance under this program.

The Accelerated Public Works Act followed in 1962 by
which federal loans and grants were made available to govern-
ments or governmental agencies which undertook specific needed
public works which would offer employment in the development
coun t ie s .

A substantial amount of federal assistance has come to
the area under these programs. Cherokee County, as of early
February 1964, had received the largest amount of any county
in Western North Carolina for a variety of projects aimed at
providing needed public facilities and improving the unemploy-
ment situation.

■ 33-

The government planners have realized that the problem
they face is a difficult one and will require a maximum of coop-
eration (and coordination) with local leaders, and governments
at the local and federal level. It is too soon to begin an
evaluation of the long-range impact of these programs on the
overall economy. It can readily be seen, however, in the short
run that these programs have served to pump new investment and
income into the area and to this extent have tended to ameliorate
the depressed conditions.

Unemployment in the county ranged from about 10% to 19%
of the work force in 1963. (See table below) The efforts of
local community leaders in the area, combined with outside assis-
tance should be aimed at creating permanent job opportunities for
this substantial portion of the population.

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
CHEROKEE COUNTY, 1963

January

February

March

Apr i 1

May

June

July

Augus t

Sep tember

October

November

December

17.9%
19.0%
1 9 . 0%

I 9 . 0%

I I . 8%
13.6%
13,6%
13.6%
10.2%

11

11

14.3%

Source: State Employment Commission

-34-

F

R

E

C

T

S

PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE

What prospects hold the greatest potential for the fu-
ture development of the economy of Andrews? Others have long
recognized the dire consequences of over-dependence on any one
segment of the economy and have strived for economic diversifi-
cation. Andrews' economy--still at a low level--is character-
ized by heavy dependence on industries which primarily employ
women. The extent to which enlightened community leadership in
Andrews can identify and promote job-producing opportunities
will determine the rate and character of future growtho From
its early specialization in the extraction and processing of
the natural resources in the area, Andrews has achieved some
measure of maturity and diversification in its economy, but as
reported above, its economy is still at a level too low to pro-
vide jobs sufficient in number and wage scales to retain its
population and to maintain satisfactory growth.

As evidenced by the establishment of two new industries
in the past decade and intensive efforts toward more, community
leaders are well aware of the need to bolster the economyo Every
community desires to "grow" and Andrews has failed to receive its
share of the post-war prosperity evidenced in most of America,

THE NATURE OF "GROWTH"

As the Planning Board--and the community — anticipate
and prepare for the future, the question which should be faced
is what kind and degree of growth is meant. Town boosters
have frequently been prone to cite growth figures in terms of
an ever-increasing population as being desirable in itself.
Likewise, some have equated the physical growth of a town as

-35-

measured in geographical terms according to the extension of
the town 1 im its.

The present planning program will include an analysis
of the land comprising the municipality and the surrounding
area. It will be shown that comparatively little "growth" has
taken place within the town in the recent pa s t-- ind eed , a
striking contrast is noted between development outside the
town and inside the town. If Andrews is to grow, then, how
shoul d it gr ow ?

.... by more intensive utilization of land areas
within the town?

.... by continued development of areas outside

the town with extension of the town limits?

.... by stimulation of new, job-producing indus-
tries within and outside the town borders?

It is suggested that the type of "growth" toward which
all Andrews should subscribe is a growth--or improvement-- in
the quality of living for the inhabitants of the area. No one
indicator of economic activity will measure this type of growth
with preciseness. Overall, however, the quality of living is
improved and enhanced when a community can offer its residents:

1. Improvement in economic well-being (as measured in
such quantitative terms as per capita income)

This can come about through education and re-
training of workers together with job opportuni-
ties commensurate with their increased skills.

2. Opportunities to obtain decent housing in protected
residential neighborhoods free from debilitating
influences.

3. A variety of cultural and social amenities.

With a sound concept of these community goals and an
understanding of the growth problems facing Andrews, local
community planners can develop plans and policies to meet these
goals.

-36-

Future Growth

Over the nation as a whole, the economy has progressed
through a series of economic stages sometimes regarded by
economists as an evolution from primitive to mature development.,
This classification often regards industries as falling into
one of three sectors, ranging from low income (and productivity)
to high income as:

PRIMARY -- Agriculture
Forestry
Fishery

SECONDARY - Manufacturing
Mining
Cons true t ion

TERTIARY - Commerce
Finance
Transportation

This simple classification and definition of economic
maturity is marked by many exceptions, of course, since there
exist high paying agricultural jobs and low-paying service
occupations. The nation has seen, however, overall decreases
in the number employed in the Primary Industries concomitant
with steady increases in real income and this past decade
marked a period where for the first time the number employed
in services exceeded all other categories.

Growth & Planning

Andrews' far-sighted civic leaders are presently en-
gaged in a number of planning and development efforts on a
broad front. Major improvements to the water and sewer sys-
tem were overwhelmingly approved by the voters, and these
improvements will go far toward meeting future requirements.
Another federal-aided project will provide a much-needed com-
munity center to serve as a focal point for community life.

-37-

The present comprehensive planning program now underway
will give the community the opportunity to examine in detail its
present land use problems and policies and to develop meaningful
and realistic plans for the future, Andrews must carefully bud-
get its resources and a comprehensive series of guidelines,
realistically appraised and ranked in order of priority, will
help civic and government leaders in their day-to-day decision
making. The Land Use Plan to be produced in the current plan-
ning program will need careful study as to desirable ways of
implementation in addition to the codes and ordinances and po-
licy recommendations.. Careful consideration should be given
to continuing the planning process as a normal day-to-day func-
tion of government. The adequacy of all community facilities
should be carefully analyzed and needs anticipated well in
advance.. By such study, the community can determine in ad-
vance areas of financial responsibility. With the completion
of a program of public improvements, coupled with a capital
budget projecting major needs six years ahead, the town can
determine the order of priority of needed items and realisti-
cally budget itself to provide the necessary finances.

Public Housing & Urban Renewal

This report has provided basic information on the ade-
quacy of existing housing- The succeeding report on land use
will further document the present deficiencies and will make
recommendations for the up-grading of existing facilities and
the overall improvement in the living environment in residen-
tial neighborhoods. A community has many tools to use in im-
proving housing conditions. In addition to local action, the
federal government, through the Housing and Home Finance Agency,
offers a variety of aid programs to those communities which
evidence a desire to improve housing conditions and eliminate

• 38-

the causes of slum and blight.

Public housing and urban renewal are perhaps the two
best known programs designed to help at the local level. Nei-
ther should be considered as a single-purpose "project'' de-
signed to take care of one problem <rea. Both can be used as
part of the community's overall improvement program to up-grade
the quality of living in the community by improving the environ-
ment and stimulating economic growth-,

Manufacturing

In the nation overall, manufacturing is no longer ex-
panding in employment. Opposite trends have been in evidence
in the southeast.

The township and the county have, it is seen, experienced
unusual growth in this sector in the past decadeo Indeed, while
textile manufacturing in the Unites States declined 2 2% in the
1950-1960 decade, the Andrews township saw an unprecedented ex-
pansion with employment amounting to over 300,

In coming years, opportunities will continue to present
themselves for new and expanding industries. Many of the so-
called "foot-loose" industries are not tied down to a particular
area. If Andrews can continue to offer a combination of good
trainable labor, ample quantities of water and other municipal
services, guaranteed and protected plant sites, it is reasonable
to expect the town to obtain its share of new industrial devel-
opmen t ,

New Fr on tiers

The rapidly expanding technology of the space age offers
new frontiers for growth opportunities. Research and develop-
ment, electronics, medical centers, space age technology, pre-
sent challenges to regions and communities to become increasingly

-39-

aware of their own combination of resources that will attract
and hold such enterprises.

Across the state efforts are underway to capture a
larger portion of the consumer's expenditures for food pro-
ductso While ranking high in agricultural production, the
state (and the region) have barely tapped the potential
market in the food processing industry. Technical and finan-
cial assistance is offered to interested areas and groups.

The Growing Tourist Market

Andrews and Cherokee County, blessed with scenic
mountains, rivers, lakes, historical lore and abounding in
recreational opportunities, have been long handicapped by an
inadequate highway system. The market for tourism is growing,
as documented by recent reports on the Western North Carolina
region. Projections of tourist visitations and expenditures
present a promising opportunity for areas to prepare for the
increasingly sophisticated wants of the modern day traveller.
Many areas have discovered that the income generated from the
tourist income represents a greater potential for development
than reliance upon new industrial payrolls.

-40-

A

P

P

E

N

D

1

I

APPENDIX

The material included in this Appendix is intended as
supplementary to the Population and Economy report. Much of
the statistical information collected by governmental agencies,
including the U« S. Census, is provided on a county or township
basis. The report attempted to stress the inter-relationships
between adjacent areas and larger political units, A great
deal of the information for these larger areas will, therefore,
be of interest or value in better understanding the economy of
Andrews .

Following is a listing of the material contained in
the Append ix .

A. Population Losses in Cherokee County

B. Population Projections, Cherokee County, 1970-1980

C. Age Composition of the Population of Cherokee County,
1960

D. Age Composition of the Population of Valleytown
Township, 1960

E. Age Composition of the Population of Town of
Andrews

F. Trends in Retail Trade, Cherokee County, 1939-1958

G. Trends in Wholesale Trade, Cherokee County,
1939-1958

H, Ratio of Male to Female Residents, Cherokee County,
I960

I. Distribution of Family Income by Townships and
County, 1959

J, Distribution of Family Income, State of N. C. 1959

K. Income Measures, Townships & County, 1959

L. Employment by Industry for Cherokee County and
Minor Civil Divisions

-41-

APPENDIX A

Population Losses in Cherokee County

While not available by township or town, the informa-
tion revealed by the U, S. Census concerning the population
loses incurred from 1940-1960 in the county are of interest
since out-migration has and is occurring in Andrews on a
sma ller scale^

The following table shows the excess of births over
deaths and the net migration for the two decades.

CHEROKEE COUNTY 19^0-1950 1950-1960

Excess of births over deaths 4,069 2,247

Net Migration -4,588 -4,206

A total of 8,794 persons have migrated out of Cherokee
County during this period. The natural increase in population-
if there had been no in or out-migration-would have seen a rise
from 1940 to a 1950 population of 22,882 and a 1960 population
of 25, 129.

-42-

APPENDIX B

Population Projections

It is hazardous to attempt an estimate of the population
of a small area over a long-range period- The present popula-
tion of Andrews is the result of a number of past influences,
some of which could not possibly have been predicted. This
report has attempted to analyze existing trends in the economy
and in the population. While certain long-range trends have
been observed (for example, the decline in agricultural pur-
suits) other factors which have contributed to Andrews' present
economy (the addition of two manufacturing plants in the past
decade, for example) present no basic trend which could be ex-
trapolated into the future.

Population projections for large areas (such as the
nation as a whole) can be made with a reasonable degree of
accuracy over fairly short periods of time. Similarly, area,
county, or town projections could be derived by assuming that
each smaller area would exhibit the same growth trends as the
larger area of which it is a part. This type of projection
has been used by the Division of Community Planning of the
Department of Conservation and Development. Assuming that
the past provides a strong clue to the future, such a projec-
tion yields the following for Cherokee County.

■ 43-

Appendix B Continued
CHEROKEE COUNTY &. MINOR CIVIL DIVISIONS-POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Beaverdam Twp.
Hot House Twp .
Murphy Twp „
Nottla Twp„
Shoal Creek Twp,
Valleytown Twp.

Cherokee County

1950

1960

1970

18,294 16,335 14,247

1980

1 :

,145

:798

541

345

1,

,097

913

7 41

579

7 ,

,353

6^

,626

5,

,770

4,956

1:

,736

1;

,535

1,

,311

1, 110

2,

,036

1,

,596

1.

,225

925

4,

,927

4,

,867

4,

,659

4,414

12,329

Andrews Town 1,397 1,404 1,929 1,872

Rest of Valleytown 3,530 3,463 2,730 2,542

Tabulated and compiled by Research Special Project Section-DCP
Source-1950 and 1960 U, S, Census

Using another approach to the problem of economic de-
velopment and opportunity, the regional study conducted by
Hammer and Company Associates* pointed out that a reversal of
past trends with accelerated development efforts could result
in significant increases in employment and population over the
coming decades. Based on this reasoning, their projections,
for Cherokee County show an upturn in population during the
1960's, climbing to 17,000 in 1970 and to 18,000 in 1980.

* THE ECONOMY OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, Hammer and Company
Associates, Atlanta, Georgia (1961)

-44-

Their report pointed out that these projections are made on
the basis of reasonable assumptions concerning what might occur
in the area under the impact of both internal and external
forces of change c

-45-

APPENDIX C
AGE COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION, CHEROKEE COUNTY

Age

WHITE

WHITE

NONWHITE

NONWHITE

GROUPS

MALE

%

FEMALE

Q.

0

MALE

%

FEMALE

%

0-4

786

9,9

756

9.5

19

9.9

20

10,4

5-9

826

10.4

803

10,0

16

8,3

21

10.9

10-14

990

12,5

930

11.5

19

9,9

24

12,5

15-19

814

10,2

765

9,6

22

11,4

12

6.3

20-24

426

5.4

43 5

5.4

12

6,3

12

6.3

25-29

377

4,7

403

5.0

13

6.8

7

3.6

30-34

440

5.5

485

6,1

12

6.3

10

5.2

35-39

452

5.7

511

6.4

18

9,4

13

6.8

40-44

479

6.0

498

6.2

9

4.7

16

8.3

45-49

456

5,7

458

5.7

11

5.7

12

6.3

50-54

430

5.4

450

5.6

14

7.3

9

4,7

55-59

351

4.4

374

4.7

6

3,1

14

7.3

60-64

294

3.7

301

3.8

5

2.6

7

3.6

65+

826

10,4

835

10.4

16

8.3

15

7,8

TOTAL

7,947

8,004

192

192

Compiled by Research - Special Projects Section - DCP

-46-

APPENDIX D

AGE COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION OF
VALLEY TOWN TOWNSHIP = 1960

AGE
GROUP

WHITE
MALE

^

OF
TOT AL-

WHITE
FEMALE

OF
TOTAL

NONWHITE
MALE

— T—

OF
TOTAL

NONWHITE
FEMALE

OF
TOTAL

0-4

247

IO, 4

211

8,7

2

8,0

5

12.8

5-9

242

10.2

234

9,7

3

12.0

5

12,8

10-lU

309

13,0

259

10,7

3

12,0

6

15,4

15-19

229

9.6

230

9,5

1

4,0

1

2,6

20-24

128

5,4

129

5,3

2

8,0

1

2,6

25-29

110

4o6

139

5,8

3

12,0

1

2,6

30-34

131

5.5

148

6,1

—

—

2

5,1

35-39

126

5,3

155

6,8

3

12,0

1

2,6

40-44

12 5

5,2

145

6,0

1

4,0

—

—

45-49

130

5,5

13 8

5,7

2

8,0

2

5,1

50-54

137

5,7

128

5,3

1

4,0

4

10.2

55-59

95

4,0

102

4.2

2

8.0

4

10,2

60-64

94

3,9

97

4.0

1

4,0

4

10.2

65+

280

11,7

295

12,2

1

4,0

3

7.7

TOTAL

2383

100,0

2420

100,0

25

100,0

39

100,0

Compiled by Research - Special Projects Section DCP
Sources 1960 U„S, Census

-47-

APPENDIX E

AGE COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION OF
TOWN OF ANDREWS - 1960

AGE
GROUP

MALE

OF
TOTAL

FEMALE

1—

OF
TOTAL

TOTAL

OF
TOTAL

0-U

69

10.2

67

9,2

136

9,7

5-lU

139

20,5

127

17,5

266

18.9

15-24

104

15.3

91

12,6

195

13.9

25~3U

76

11,2

87

12.0

163

llo6

35-1+1+

73

10 c 7

102

14.1

175

12.5

45-54

84

12,4

80

11.0

164

11.7

55-64

53

7,8

63

8.7

116

8.3

65 +

81

11,9

108

14,9

189

13 0 4

TOTAL

679 100„0 725 100.0
Nonwhite Population -- 5

1404 100.0

Compiled by Research - Special Projects 5.ection DCP
Source: 1960 U.S. Census

-48-

APPENDIX F
TRENDS IN RETAIL TRADE FOR CHEROKEE COUNTY

1939 1948 Increase 195H Increase 1958 Increase

Number of

Establishments 167 199

Annual Payroll

(in $1,000) 114 398

Retail Sales

(in $1,000) 1580 6398

Number of
Employees

178 291

+19o2 173 »13„1 185 +6o9

+249„1 656 t67.3 718 +7,8

+280,8 10093 +57.8 10413 +3.2

+63,5 365 +25„8 328

-10.4

-49-

APPENDIX G

TRENDS IN WHOLESALE TRADE FOR CHEROKEE COUNTY

1939 1948 Increase 1954 Increase 1958 Increase

Number of

Establishments 11 12 +9,1 17 +41,7 20 +17 „6

Annual Payroll

(in $1,000) 40 259 +547,5 176 -32.0 211 +19.9

Wholesale Sales

(in $1,000) 1404 5224 +272,1 6186 +18,4 5874 - 5,0

Number of

Employees 35 121 +245,7 70 -42,1 110 +57,1

50-

APPENDIX H
RATIO OF MALE TO FEMALE RESIDENTS IN CHEROKEE COUNTY - 1960

NON-

NON-

AGE

TOTAL

TOTAL

WHITE

WHITE

WHITE

WHITE

GROUP

MALES

FEMALES

RATIO

MALES

FEMALES

RATIO

MALES

FEMALES

RATIO

0-U

805

776

103o7

786

756

104.0

19

20

95.0

5-9

842

824

102,2

826

803

102,9

15

21

76.2

lO-lU

1009

954

105,8

990

930

105,5

19

24

79,2

15-19

836

777

107.6

814

765

106.4

22

12

183.3

20-2U

438

447

98,0

425

43 5

97.9

12

12

100,0

25-29

390

410

95,1

377

403

93.5

13

7

185.7

30-34

452

495

91,3

440

485

90.7

12

10

120,0

35-39

470

524

89.7

452

511

88,5

18

13

138,5

40-U4

488

514

94.9

479

498

96,2

9

16

56.3

1+5-49

467

470

99 „ 4

456

458

99,6

11

12

91,7

50-54

444

459

96.7

430

450

95,6

14

9

155.6

55-59

357

388

92,0

351

374

93,9

6

14

42,9

50-64

299

308

97.1

294

301

97,7

5

7

71,4

65 +

842

850

99.1

826

835

98.9

15

15

106,7

TOTAL

8139

8196

99,3

7947

8004

99.3

192

192

100.0

Compiled by Research - Special Projects Section DCP

-51-

Pi o
u o

00 a-CNUD<7>OC0C0OC0

O t^ U3 in ro CM M

r- CM CN --I CM a- ^
in ro ID <T) ro lo IT)

CM CM M -H .H

Cn ID J- CTl O CD d-
O ID J- CO ^ M

i-H :^ cn in z)- CM d-
tn H CM 3- n CM

d- r- !> CO o o CM
O CM o zf o OJ J-

J" CM CO CM ^ "H

CT> CD

e

o

(U

CD CD

o

o

e

0> CJl CD CT>

CD

CD CD CD

CD cn CD

fw

o

0>

c

o

CD CD CD CD

CD

CD <D CD

CD « •

<u

c

E

n

o

CD CD CD CD

(D

CD O^ CD

CD d- d-

>

n

o

c

» * <k «

*

<Jk «B «»

-rH CM

o

o

>,

n

o

^ C\i CO J-

LT)

ID r- CO

CD -CO- </>

>,

c

^

o

<Si <jy <j> <rt

•cn-

<j> <j> <j>

<y>

-a

•-{

t-H

•H

>,

o

o o

c

•H

E

■H

•

o o o o

o

o o o

O +J 4-"

n3

e

H

m

•H

-H

•M -M -H +->

•p

•(-•■»-'+-'

<-■

(0

^

u,

E

oooooooooooo

tnOOOOOOOOOOOO
0)000000000 »••

CM CM CO
CD ^ ID

in n

en d- cr>

C -H CM ro d- in
3 <y> </></> c/> </>

CD rH rH CM

</> to- <r> </>

C -en-

Mh

o

<A

D

T3

o

o

T3

O

c

•

o

c

W •P

ro

(1)

CO

¥>

m

<u

E

■en-

H O

o

o

o

o

-1 o

o

o

u

o

o

H o

o

c

Q)

o

o

E •

»

l-H

T)

•

•

<0 CO

CO

C

CO

CO

u. </>

<A

o\°

n

<f>

<A

-52-

APPENDIX J

DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY INCOME,

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

INCOME

INCOME

TOTAL 100,0

Under $1,000 11.6

$1,000 - $1,999 12,3

$2,000 - $2,999 13,2

$3,000 - $3,999 13.4

$4,000 - $4,999 11.8

$5,000 - $5,999 10.3

$6,000 - $6,999 8.0

$7,000 - $7,999 5,7

$8,000 - $8,999 4.1

$9,000 " $9,999 2.5

$10,000 - $14,999 4.7

$15,000 - $24,999 1,5

$25,000 & Over 0,7

$1,091,656

126,803

134,365

144,411

146,748

129,241

112,765

87,065

62,291

44,330

27,78 5

51,175

16,715

7,962

MEDIAN INCOME

3,956

-53-

APPENDIX K

INCOME MEASURES FOR CHEROKEE COUNTY
AND TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS - 1959

Percent Distribution
of Families by Income

Per

Capita

Family

Income

Under
$3,000

$3,000-
7.999

$8,000

TOWNSHIP

Mean

Median

6 Over

County Total

$803

$3,230

$2,395

59,2%

34.2%

5,6%

Beaverdam Twp,

$545

$2,211

$1,773

78.9%

19.1%

2.0%

Hot House Twp,

$827

$3,172

$3,048

49,4%

47.2%

3,4%

Murphy Twp,

$937

$3,743

$2,511

57,3%

33.2%

9.5%

Not t la Twp,

$595

$2,175

$1,479

71,7%

25,4%

2,9%

Shoal Creek Twp,

$505

$2,403

$1,856

66,2%

30.8%

3,0%

Valley Town Twp,

$822

$3,297

$2,679

54,3%

39,4%

6.3%

Compiled by Research - Special Projects Section DCP
Sources Unpublished Census Data

-54-

w ^

H O S
IT] E- f-

m <u a
O 0) s

C/1 o

■M S

•M E-
O

D, D.

LO f^ r~ CO CO

(T>

S. S

(■0 CN ID CO ^

<Tl

D 5-

00 ^ ^ J-

.H

cx

CO CN CN

s

CN] .H 00

H

CM

ocor^m.Ht^vO^
r~ UD :* ^ .H ro ^

tH 1/5 CM n .H J-

U3 .H CO CO r^ CM

ui zr CT> J- cj) r^ I I

■H <T) IT) CN J- CO I I

r^rOCN 3-.HCntDlD00d-rHr-t

d -H II CO

in J- I in in o o ^

>-) CN 3- CN

* «CN( t I^OO;tOfN(:J-maOOIJ-0
l«^lll) ICSII CSII M

d- ID I :!■

en I CN c- I 00 I CTi 1 in 00

e J in CO J-

r- zf J- J S-- I J- j-

r^^OJOinocococNoooconiD
■—I coinood-inininooiDCNOOiDco

CN f ;!- ^ CO in

CD iJD CO CN O ID I t
in CN >H CO t^ J B

I I CO if

( a- d- ^ t I ^

o

+J

X)

T3

-o

o

o

o

<u

X)

«■

O

o

d)

o

w

TO

•H

W

en

4-1

o

a,

P

fn

•H

o

^

>

0)

O

o

H U3

-a

CU

H

o

c

CU

u

o

X)

c

C

s

3 X>

o

r-i

>^

C

c

a>

■H

CO

(U

o

cr o

b

-M

<

4)

10

O

TO

bO

CO

>

<u

4-1

•H

c

•

to

u o

a.

0)

M

3

•H

C/3

C

0)

to

b

o

TO

4-1

rH

b

0)

o

f<

U5

XI

rH

-t-"

•H

XI

ti

XI

(V

•H

—1

TO

U

(U

•H

c

-a

ID

ID

•H

TO

us

^

TO

•H

.-1

C/3

>

(U

U

C

X)

u

0 <u

Q)

(X

•

tj

TO

■P

0)

c

^

TO

o

^

Di

4->

H

e

+J

■H .H

t.

Q,

*•

3

Di

^

•

X)

•H

E-

a.x;

^

0)

10

s.^

bO

3

to

V /3

X)

<

XI

■a

O

.H

TO

u

0)

Q)

TO

LO

u3

•H

T3

c

c

►J

3

ro IT)

C

3

c

XI

O.

•H

U

o

•H

Pi

W

C

c

c

0)

0)

o

•H

X)

>.

+j s^

■H

ua

Oh

o

C

w

4-"

H

>H

3

O

-H

-H

CO

5^

fn

-H

f.

u3

c

s<

f^ p

i^

2:

TO

c

3

XI

TO

u5

O

w

TO

Mh

e

3

o

D

4->

D

h-i

0)

O Q

0)

•

TO

0)

c

4-'

X

t.

m

C

O

T3

XI

■H

+->

O

+J

<*

c

IX

U5

.H

c

•

XI

U

•

M

TO

0)

W

<u

•-\

O

^

<

c

a-H

3

O

<>

—i

'H

^n u

•H

•M

u

TO

E-

o

TO

Oi

CO

0)

0-,

TO

•H

CU

n

e

3

bO

(^

IT)

c

IB

^

C 0)

•o

^J

c

Q)

O

c

W

bO

0)

4->

4-'

4-1

CJ

w

O

C

4-^

Mh

^4

*->

u

IT) x:

O

X

-H

x;

U

t.

p

0)

C

^4

c

TO

u

■rH

TO

^

•H

(^

H

'H

W

P

3

0)

m

ti ■!->

_o

(U

t,

4-"

M

<U

e

^

•H

0)

•rH

>

0)

<x

O

0)

^

(V

^

^

c

c

C

Ui

s

E

E- O

U-i

H

CU

o

'H

x:

E

o

4-"

x:

w

H

x:

Ui

3

x;

XI

J3

It)

M

°H

o

m

TO

4-1

O

TO

4-"

3

J^

4-"

o

X3

4-"

3

4-'

o

<

s

o

s

Pi

o

CJ

^

u

o

CQ

CU

O

a::

W

O

CU

o

-55-

STATE LIBRARY OF NORTH CAROLINA

lllll'rlii mill II lill'illF. I'll .11 iillll llll III '

3 3091 00747 5825