By John Hood
RALEIGH — As a proud native of the Charlotte area who has happily lived most of my life in the Raleigh area, I am overjoyed to report that North Carolina’s recent growth extends far beyond our two most-populous communities.
According to State Demographer Michael Cline, the two counties adding the most residents from 2020 to 2023 were, indeed, Wake (65,548) and Mecklenburg (46,634). But their combined rise in population represented only a bit more than a quarter of the roughly 400,000 net increase in North Carolinians. Other counties exhibiting particularly robust growth so far this decade include Johnston (25,055), Brunswick (23,745), Union (19,448), Cabarrus (17,089), Iredell (15,353), and Gaston (12,877).
Now, it’s true that all but Brunswick neighbor Wake or Mecklenburg. The greater Charlotte and Triangle regions are clearly economic and population powerhouses. Keep in mind, though, that they aren’t the only drivers of North Carolina’s growth — and most of the people who reside in these regions neither live in the largest municipality nor consider themselves to be “urban” dwellers.
First off, Cline reports that 74 of the state’s 100 counties experienced net population growth during the period. In 21 counties, the growth rate from 2020 to 2023 matched or exceeded 5%. These included Wilmington-area counties (New Hanover, Pender, and Brunswick), other beach counties (Currituck and Tyrell), mountain counties (Clay and Alleghany), and Triangle, Sandhills, and “Carolina Core” counties (such as Franklin, Chatham, Harnett, Moore, and Alamance).
Here’s another interesting indicator: an annual inbound/outbound study by United Van Lines of metropolitan areas. In 2024, North Carolina’s Wilmington MSA had the highest percentage of inbound movers in the country: 83%. Other popular destinations for relocating Americans included the Hickory region (#9 in the country, with 75% inbound), Greenville (#11, 74% inbound), and the Piedmont Triad (#17, 65% inbound).
Within North Carolina’s fastest-growing regions and counties, most new (and existing) residents choose to live in suburban developments, not urban cores. You can see that in the housing data as well as surveys of how residents describe their own communities. In the latest High Point University poll, for example, 44% of North Carolinians said they lived in a suburb, 19% in an urban area, and 36% in a rural area.
In spotlighting these facts, I don’t mean to suggest Raleigh, Charlotte, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and other North Carolina cities ought not to offer truly urban living to those who desire it. I’ve long been in favor of lifting lot-size minimums and otherwise permitting companies to build in and up, rather than artificially pushing development out.
As a practical matter, however, most consumers are looking for something else. Policymakers ought not to suppress market responses to these signals, either, by devoting disproportionate public resources to mass transit or urban amenities.
More broadly, the General Assembly and the new Josh Stein administration should continue North Carolina’s recent practice of spending state dollars in a matter most likely to maximize the success of our communities and the wellbeing of our residents. In addition to the obvious priority of rebuilding infrastructure damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Helene, we should upgrade water and sewer capacity while completing long-promised highway and bridge projects across the state.
Just as realism should temper the demands of “Smart Growth” proponents, however, it also tells us that dynamic change is inevitable, that some industry sectors and specific businesses can’t be reborn and some rural counties will continue to shrink in population. Over the past several years, the General Assembly has increasingly appropriated funds for purely local projects best funded by counties, municipalities, or private entities. That’s not economic development. It’s wasteful spending.
Prudent public policy is mostly about responding to public preferences, not shaping them. Those who believe otherwise are entitled to their opinion — but they aren’t entitled to use government power to bend others, including taxpayers, to their will.
Such attempts typically cost far more than anticipated and deliver far less than hoped. They produce not a dream walking but a nightmare stumbling.
John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His books Mountain Folk, Forest Folk, and Water Folk combine epic fantasy with American history (FolkloreCycle.com).
