Qualitative analysis of housing conditions, 1973, city of Gainesville, Florida

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Qualitative analysis of housing conditions, 1973, city of Gainesville, Florida
Physical Description:
xi, 100 l. : illus. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Gainesville (Fla.) -- Dept. of Community Development
Slater, Daniel E
Publisher:
Available from the National Technological Information Service, Springfield, Va.
Place of Publication:
Gainesville;
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Housing -- Florida -- Gainesville   ( lcsh )
Housing surveys -- Florida -- Gainesville   ( lcsh )
Genre:
local government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available in electronic format.
General Note:
"Daniel E. Slater, principal author."--P. ii.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 022655525
oclc - 05488993
lccn - 79308957
Classification:
lcc - HD7304.G34 G34 1973a
ddc - 301.5/4/0975979
System ID:
AA00024743:00001

Full Text


FL3AIachua -----~ .G142
50
1973/2

c.Z Qualt iv -Analysis
.--. -.ve


of


IUM Housing Conditions






FL A

STRICT W *-~ E011BTRFLOTD
to



U3!

OF ENSUS .O~COCO~IYO MUM UM~TCNOSIIT



b.~
Ua -IT ;r C

PLANNING..2..
blgh ef--dDITIC 1 7


LJ-atmn of. Comunt Development



























QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS, 1973

CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


























DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

The preparation of this report was financed in part through a comprehensive planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
CPA FL-04-30-1018.








City Commission
James G. Richardson, Mayor-Commissioner Richard T. Jones,* Mayor-Commissioner Neil A. Butler Courtland Collier* Joseph W. Little Russell W. Ramsey W. S. Talbot

Plan Board
Samuel HolIloway, Chairman Michael Adams Thomas Coward Dr. James W. Crews Dr. Ira J. Gordon John Jennings Forrest F. Lisle, Jr. Herrick Smith* Mrs. Daniel Ward

City Manager
B. Harold Farmer

Department of Community Development
Norman J. Bowman, Director Dottie Hunt, Secretary Ill

Planning Division Rihrd --TTy-, Director Richard W. Collins, Planner Ill T. Jeff Browning, Planner 11 Randolph A. Long, Planner 11 Daniel E. Slater, Planner 11 John V. Carlson, Planner I V. Miles Patterson, Planning Aide If Louie Wilson, Administrative Clerk Chaque L. Russell, Planning Aide I Elaine Fletcher, Secretary 11

*Former Members




BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA I1. Report No. 12. 3. Recipient's Accession No.
SHEET GE FDCD 73 02
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
September, 1973

Qualitative Analysis of Housing Conditions
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Rept.
See #9 below ; Daniel E. Slater, principal author No. GF DCD 73 02
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Pro)ject/Task/Work Unit No.
Planning Division 402.0
Department of Community Development 11. Contract/Grant No.
Post Office Box 490
Gainesville, Florida 32602 CPA FL-04-301018
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period
Department of Housing and Urban Development Covered
Peninsular Plaza Final
661 Riverside Avenue 14.
Jacksonville,_Florida_32204_________15. Supplementary Notes


16. Abstracts This Housing Study highlights in detail. the quality and quantit-y
of the housing stock in the City of Gainesville. Such data serves as a
valuable tool in identifying specific geographical areas by census
tracts, enumeration districts, and most important, by blocks, as to
their housing conditions. An inventory was made of the federally assisted housing programs completed and their vacancy ratios. Analysis
is also given to the City's Housing Code Enforcement Program. In addition to the examination of geographical areas, an analysis is made regarding the general social and economic characteristics of the resident
population, particularly where the most blight appears; there exists
here a high concentration of Black residents. These areas, as previously defined by several studies on housing conditions in the City,wiill
demand the most immediate attention. Lastly, several most important
references were utilized in the p2rep)aration of t-jbic sc1-vidv. 17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors











17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Housing (conditions, policy considerations, alternative programs)






17c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement 19. Security Class (This 21. No. ot Pages
Available to the public from the National Report)
UNCLASSIFIED 113
Technical Information Service, 2285 Port 20. Security Class (This 22. Price
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 2211 PgUNCLASSIFIED
FORM NTIS-35 iREV. 3-72) USCOMM-O)C 14952-P72








QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS, 1973
CITY OF GAINESVILLEr FLORIDA


Table of Contents

Page

Abstract ii

List of Tables vii

List of Charts ix

List of Maps x

BACKGROUND xi

City's Pursuit of Housing Goal

Adoption of Minimum Housing Code

Creation of Housing Board

Creation of Gainesville Housing Authority

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. SUMMARY 2

III. PURPOSE AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS 3

A. Field Survey

1. Evaluation of structural conditions

2. Evaluation of plumbing conditions

3. Evaluation of electrical conditions

B. Rating Scale

1. Promote reliability and objectivity

2. Minimize subjectivity and inconsistency

IV. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS 5

A. Selection of Geographical Problem Areas 6

1. Enumeration district analysis

a. Planning district origin






Pa!Ze

b. Neighborhood d housing conditions

(1) Age of units

(2) Type of construction

(3) Quality of construction (4) Density or concentration

(5) Home-owner or renter maintenance

2. Census tract analysis (1970 Census Data) 11

a. Social and economic characteristics 20

(1) Housing

(2) Population

(3) Poverty status of families, households and persons

b. Environmental quality of census tracts 24

(1) Concentration

(2) Overcrowding

(3) Sanitary facilities

(4) Street condition

(5) Street lighting

c. Blight defined 27

(1) Absentee ownership

(2) Housing shortage

(3) Ineffective codes (4) Lack of services

(5) Mixed land uses

B. Detailed Evaluation of Housing Quality 29

1. Enumeration Districts

2. Blocks 37




IV








Page

V. COMPARISON OF HOUSING CODE ENFORCEMENT RESULTS 44

A. Housing Survey (1972)

1. Quantity of units 2. Quality of units

B. Housing Survey (1969) 45

1. Number of substandard units

2. Breakdown by condition

C. Neighborhood Analysis Study (1965) 44

1. Standard units

2. Substandard units

VI. HOUSING AVAILABILITY 48

A. Subsidized Housing: Low and Moderate Income 4-0

1. Housing Board's conclusions

2. Subsidized projects completed and vacancy
statuses a. City

(1) Public

(2) Rent supplement and interest subsidy

b. County

3. Poverty status of families and households

a. Families receiving public assistance
income

b. Median dollar value of housing unit

c. Median gross rent

d. Families with female head

B. State's Role 55

1. Housing in Florida Research Report (1973)


v








Paae

2. Five (5) Strategies

C. Alternative Programs in Housing 55

1. Kansas City Plan

2. Ohio Fair-Share Plan

3. New Towns

VII. COMPARISON OF HOUSING STUDIES RESULTS 59

A. North Central Florida Regional Planning
Council (1972)

B. Housing Division, City of Gainesville (1972)

C. U. S. Bureau of the Census (1970)

VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND SOME PRELIMINARY POLICY COITSIDERATION~S 63

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS 66

References 68

Agencies Interviewed and Major Contributors 71

Appendix A 72

Appendix B 85

























vi








Tables

Number Page

I Summary of Quality and Quantity of Housing
Conditions (City), 1973 5

Ii Average Housing Condition of City Per Enumeration Districts, 1973 7

III Structural Characteristics (Age) of Housing
Units for Selected Census Tracts, 1973 12

IV Dwelling Characteristics of Selected Census
Tracts, 1973 13

V Racial Composition of Census Tracts, 1970 15

VI Average Housing Condition Per Census Tract,
1973 16

VII General Housing Characteristics for City, 1950, 1960, 1970 22

VIII Percentages Overcrowded and Plumbing Deficient
Units for Census Tracts, 1970 25

IX Dilapidated Housing Above City's Average (0.2%)
Per E.D., 1973 31

X Major Repair Housing Above City's Average (3.1%)
Per E.D., 1973 32

XI Minor Repair Housing Above City's Average (2.0%)
Per E.D., 1973 33

XII Standard Housing with Minor Defects Above City's Average (11.1%) Per E.D., 1973 34

XIII Standard Housing Below City's Average (84%) Per E.D., 1973 35

XIV Rank of Enumeration Districts by Various Housing Conditions, 197332

XV Rank of Ten E.D.'s with Housing Averages Greater
than (Ratings 1-4) and Less Than (Rating 5) the
City's Average (Mean), 1973 39

XVI Comparison of Quality and Quantity of Housing
Conditions in City (1965-1972) 46

XVII Low and Moderate Income Housing Completed in City, 1973 50


vii






Number Page

XVIII Vacancy Status for Low and Moderate Income
Housing for City, 1973 51

XIX Comparison of Dwelling Unit Counts by U. S.
Census Bureau and Gainesville's Building
Permits, 1973 5

XX Comparison of Dwelling Unit Counts in Census
Tracts by Housing Division, U. S. Census
Bureau and North Central Flori.a Regional
Planning Council for the City of Gainesville,
1973. 62

Appendix Tables

1 Housing Condition of City and Enumeration
Districts by Units, 1973 73

2 Neighborhood Designation Descriptions, 1965 74

3 Poverty Status in 1969 of Families and Persons:
1970. 75

4 Poverty Status in 1969 of Black Families and
Persons: 1970 78

5 Income Characteristics of the Population: 1970 81

6 Economic Characteristics of the Black Population:
1970 (Census Tracts wvith 400 or More Black Ponulation) 82

7 Financial Characteristics of Housing Units by
Census Tracts: 1970 83

8 Financial Characteristics of Housing Units with
Black Head of Household: 1970 (Census Tracts
with 400 or ."lore Black Population) 84

9-21 General Housing Characteristics 1-y Census Tracts:
1970 86

22 Housing Condition Percentages of Enumeration
Districts and City, 1973 99












viii







Ch arts

Page

Chart 1 Range of Dilapidated Units 36

Chart 2 Range of Major Repair Units 36

Chart 3 Range of Minor Repair Units 3Chart 4 Range of Minor/Slightly Defected units 36

Chart 5 Range of Standard Units 36












































ix







Maps

Number Page

1 Enumeration Districts with Average Housing
Condition Below City Mean (4.8), 1973 8

2 Planning Districts, City of Gainesville, 1965 9

3 Housing Conditions, City of Gainesville, 1965 10

4 Planning District I, City of Gainesville, 1965 11

5 Planning District V, City of Gainesville, 1965 14

6 Census Tracts with Average Housing Condition 17
Ratings Below City Mean (4.8), 1973

7 Planning District VI, City of Gainesville, 1965 19

8, Corporate and Population Growth, City of Gainesville, 1853-1973 23

9 Average Housing Condition by Enumeration
Districts, 1973 30

10-13 Rating of Housing Condition by Blocks, 1973 40-43

14 Residential Structural Ratings for the City of
Gainesville, 1972 61


Appendix Maps

I Census Tracts, Gainesville Urban Area, 1970 100

II Generalized Housing Conditions, 1967. A Survey
by the Alachua County Health Department. 101


















x







.BACKGROUND


For the past several years, the City of Gainesville has maintained an active program in pursuit of the goal of a decent and suitable living environment for all*its citizens. This action has been launched primarily through the enforcement of the City's minimum Housing Code and the provision of federally subsidized housing.

In 1964, the City adopted a minimum Housing Code, and instituted a systematic housing enforcement program in 1966. Along with the adoption of the Housing Code, a Housing Board was established to study and make recommendations on housing problems and needs in the City.

The City Commission in 1966 approved an emergency resolution creating the Gainesville Housing Authority. This was the Local Public Agency (LPA), charged with the responsibilities of construction and maintenance of public housing. '-17he resolution also approved the appointment of Commissioners of the Gainesville Housing Authority.


































xi










CHAPTER I

INTRODUCT ION

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

The housing study highlights the detailed findings on the existing quality and quantity of dwelling units within the City of Gainesville. The primary or major data for analysis was provided through the inspection records of the Housing Division, Department of Community Development.

Mobile homes are included in the total number of housing units surveyed. This type of housing makes up a small proportion of the City's total housing stock, and the majority of it is found in sound condition.

Although there has been a significant decrease in the total number of substandard dwelling units in the City from 1965 to 1972, there has not been an adeauate increase in the total number of housing units constructed for low and moderate income families and households for the same period.

The "housing problem" (programs) must be dealt with in total spectrum, that is, in the social, economic and political arenas, which are inseparable. It is important to keep in mind, while reading this housing study, that housing is directly related to several environmental and social factors, such as mental health and deliquencv. In addition, it has also been pointed out in several research studies that there is a direct correlation between housing and other social ills. These include poverty, chronic diseases, overcrowding, crime and unem~ployment, etc. Such factors will he given a more detailed analysis in the Environmental and Social Indicator Study, also just completed by the Department of Comm-unity Development.

No data is provided for Census Tract 9 because it contains only the University of Florida's housing. Census T'ract 13 is not included because it contains housing that is owned, bythe State for use by the personnel of LSunland Training Center. Tracts 14 and 15 arp not included, whereby, they are not a part of the City of Gainesville.







CHAPTER II

.SUMMARY

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS.OF HOUSING CONDITIONS, 1973
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

Looking at the City's physical housing stock as a whole does not in itself create cause for alarm, for it is found that 34 percent is standard and 11 percent with minor or slight defects (conservation housing). This aualitative analysis of housing was directed toward the 5.2 percent that is substandard. Th-is consists of 2 percent needing minor repair, 3 percent needing major repair, and 0.2 percent dilapidated. Detailed examination of this latter category revealed that the most blighted neighborhoods have remained basically the same over the past years.

In addition, the average (mean) physical condition of dwelling units in the City was found to be 4.8,, that is standard,when rated on a scale of 1 through 5. The significance of these findings becomes apparent when compared with the averages (means) and percentages of housing conditions by quality with each enumeration district and each, block.

Sixteen of the City's forty (40) enumeration districts surveyed had an average meana) housing condition which fell below the City's mean of 4.8. By isolating these enumeration districts, attention was directed toward the specific quality of housing therein. In using this method, it was possible to pinpoint areas demanding the most immediate attention. (SEE MAP 1)

The enumeration districts (E.D.'s) which have the greatest amount of dilapidated, deteriorated and/or aged housing units when compared with the City's total housing stock are as follows: E.D. 1618 with 2.7 percent dilapidated housing, E.D. 1657 with 25.2 percent housing needing major repair, E.D. 1649 with 15.6 percent housing needing minor re-pair, E.D. 1648 with 63.6 percent housing with,- minor or slight defects and E.D. 1648 with only 12 percent standard housing.

There were four.(4) Census Tracts whose overall average housinc condition fell below the City's average (mean) of 4.8. Ranked in order, they include tracts 1, 6, 7, and 2. For all practical purposes, these might be considered the most blighted census tracts. Tracts 5, 3, 4, 12, and 8 in order, fall with the average range of 4.8 to 4.9. The remaining tracts 10, 17, 16, and 11 by ranked order, all had a rating of 5.

Lastly, it should be pointed out th-at census tracts are rnot in every case homogeneous geographical units and that a diversity of housing conditions may be -found within any given tract. Such diversity of housing conditions b-y enumeration district and by block-s has been the focal point of this study.


2








CHAPTER III

PURPOSE AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS


The primary purpose of this study is to aid the City's decisionmakers in analyzing and devising housing policies and programs in the City. This study approach entails the following:

(1) Objectively evaluating the physical condition
of the community's housing stock by examining
the results of the Housing Study (1972) as
conducted by the North Central Florida Regional
Planning Council (NCFRPC), the 1970 Census of
Housing and Population, and the inspection
records (1972) of the Housing Division, Department of Community Development.

(2) Comparing the results of these three (3)
elements in order to further justify the
narrowing of attention to more specific
geographic problem areas.

In order to better determine the number, type and condition of dwelling units within the City of Gainesville, the housing inspection records, together with a field survey of the exterior condition of dwellings, was conducted by the Housing Division, Department of Commnunity Development.

To minimize subjectivity and inconsistency, the survey inspectors were instructed to evaluate only the structural, plumbing, and electrical conditions of each dwelling unit and to avoidO considering any other physical environment deficiencies (such as trash on the premise, lack of a dequate landscanina and buffering between adjacent structures, inappropriate setback requirements, etc.). A numerical rating1 of 1 to 5 was assigned to each dwelling unit. These ratings are described as follows:

(1) Denotes a totally iphabitable'unit; a dilapi-*
dated structure, or one that does not provide
adequate shelter and is a serious detriment to
the health, safety and well-being of the occupants.

(2) Denotes an inhabitable unit if major repairs
are performed or where one or more of the
following is needed: correction of a sag or
lean of a structure; reroofing; ref loorina;


1 The 1 to 5 scale is generally used by social scientists as an optimal scale (Delbert C. 14iller Handbook of Research Design and Social M%'easurement, 2nd edition, New York: David Mc~ay Company, Inc., 19070, p. 96) All other footnotes are listed in the Table of References.








complete resurfacing of interior walls or ceilings;
replacement of load bearing members; major additions to dwellings; complete rewiring; installation of additional outlets or fixtures; connection to city sanitary sewage system.

(3) Denotes a deteriorating condition but the structure
is still inhabitable as long as minor repairs are performed; minor rehabilitation would probably be
recommended under this classification. 'MYinor
repairs would include one or more of the following:
repair of a minor nature to the electrical system;
repair or replacement of plumbing fixtures (tub,
shower, lavatory, flush toilet, water heater);
repair of a minor nature of structural pocrtions not to include bearing members such as leaks in
roof; replacement of rotted or damaged boards in the flooring and/or exterior walls; repair holes
in interior walls and ceilings; repair broken windows, doors, screens; and minor repair to
porch or steps.

(4) Denotes a structure that has only minor or slight
defects which should be repaired as a part of normal and adequate maintenance (such as lack
of closet or floor space) but is one that meets
the absolute minimum code reauirements.

(5) Denotes a structure that has no defects at all;
a unit that surpasses the minimum code requirements.

Numbers four (4) and five (5) would aid in delineating conservation districts.

The primary purpose for using the 1 to 5 rating scale was to promote reliability (i.e. the scaling system should be sufficiently precise, clear, and simple so that all persons using the procedure would achieve the same results). In addition, it afforded sufficiently adecouate demarcations by being broad enough to cover the entire spectrum or": conditions, but narrow enough to be able to classify "condition" of dwelling units as consistently and objectively as possible. If a larger range were provided (say 1 to 100), a greater possibility for divergence by raters would occur, thus promoting subjectivity and discouraging consistency and reliability. Provision of numerical representations would also aid the computerizing of results.

This particular scoring system also provides a means of determining the percentage of structures receiving a rating of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 for each district. Tlhese results, when compared with the results of the NC-FRPC's Housina Study (1972) and the 1970 Census of Population and Housingq, will be used in determining significant and specific geographic housing problerai areas.

4







CHAPTER IV

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS
CITY OF GAINESVILLEr FLORIDA


After an examination of the existing physical or structural characteristics of housing within the City of Gainesville, it was found that 84 percent of the dwelling units are standard or surpass the minimum Housilng Code requirements. By combining this proticn of housing with the 11 percent that is standard but with minor of slight defects, it may be said the 95 percent of the City's housing stock is standard, while 5 percent is substandard. Of the substandard dwelling unitsO.2 percent are dilapidated, 3 percent need major repair and 2 percent need minor repair. (SEE TABLE I)

Considering the total number of housing units by condition for each enumeration district, the findings show that on an average there is 1.0 dilapidated, 15.4 needing major repair, and 10.0 needing minor repair, per enumeration district. (SEE TABLE I, APPENDIX A)

Further analysis revealed that the average condition per dwelling unit in the City is 4.8, i.e. standard, when compared to the scale of 1 to 5, as mentioned in the methodology of study. These and the above findings become even more significant when compared with the specific housing conditions in each enumeration district of the City.

TABLE I

SU114ARY OF QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF HOUSING CONDITION'St 1973 CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

Total
Units %

All Housing in City 20,492 100.0

Combined Standard 19,410 94.7

Standard 17F143 83.6

With Minor or Slight Defect 2,267 11.1

Substandard 1,082 5.3

Dilapidated 42 0.2

Needing Major Repair 631 3.1

Needing Minor Repair 409 2.0

Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of
Community Developr-ent from the inspection records
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville, Florida.






Of the 1,040 dwelling units in need of rehabilitation (i.e., major and minor repair) it is estimated by the Housing Division that at least 10 percent or 104 are of sufficient worth to warrant rehabilitation. The cost of rehabilitating "major repair" housing units is estimated to range from $500 to as high as $6,000. This is dependent on whether the unit needs major roofing, wiring, etc. To bring most "minor repair" housing up to the City's Housing Code, it is estimated that it would cost between $0 and $500. Such work would involve repair of a leaking roof, steps, painting, etc. The cost of clearing a building ranges from $200 to $500. Dilapidated housing, as is obvious, would be beyond repair. It is important to note that labor costs, more so than building materials, have the major bearing on the minimum cost of repair.


Selection of Geographical Problem Areas

Enumeration District Analysis


In this analysis, not only is attention focused on the number of standard dwellings but also the number that are substandard. These numbers will be considered in light of their enumeration districts and as to how they compare with the City's average (means). From this point, comparisons will he made as to how the average housing condition rating for a given block compares with that of the City. It was hoped that this would provide for the most objective and reliable evaluation.

In this study the enumeration district becomes a major unit of analysis. Enumeration districts are srn.all areas into which census tracts have been divided for statistical purposes.

Using the procedure of comparing each enumeration district with the City's means of 4.8, it was possible to isolate those areas of the City maintaining the greater degree of deteriorated and dilapidated housing, i.e. blight. Close examination revealed that there were sixteen (16) of a total of forty (40) enumeration districts studied that fell below the City's mean of 4.8. These districts, distinguished and ranked by their means are included in Table II. The acccripaning map (Map 1) illuminates the sixteen areas.

From this point, it was possible to more specifically identify the areas of deteriorated and dilaDidated housing. Three (3) enumeration districts show average housing conditions ranking less that 4, that is, standard housing with only minor or slight structural defects. Further attention is given to tTese areas as each enumeration district is examined. Identified and ranked by their average housing condition, they are enumeration districts 1657, 1648, and 1644.





6








TABLE II

AVERAGE-HOUSING CONDITION BY ENUMERATION DISTRICTS, 1973
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Total Total
E.D. Units Mean E.D. Units Mean

(1) 1657 139 3.6 (21) 1624 577 4.9

(2) 1648 360 3.7 (22) 1626 .950 4.9

(3) 1644 939 3.9 (23) 1633 319 4.9

(4) 1660 326 4.0 (24) 1634 179 4.9

(5) 1649 275 4.1 (25) 1652 407 5.0

(6) 1654 347 4.4 (26) 1619 736 5.0

(7) 1656 733 4.4 (27) 1621 400 5.0

(8) 1659 321 4.4 (28) 1627 725 5.0

(9) 1618 74 4.6 (29) 1628 660 5.0

(10) 1653 26 4.6 (30) 1629 760 5.0

(11) 1655 1,364 4.6 (31) 1630 546 5.0

(12) 1635 562 4.7 (32) 1631 411 5.0

(13) 1640 46 4.7 (33) 1632 590 5.0

(14) 1645 369 4.7 (34) 1641 627 5.0

(15) 1658 807 4.7 (35) 1642 965 5.0

(16) 1661 313 4.7 (36) 1643 510 5.0

(17) 1622 729 4.8 (37) 1646 481 5.0

(18) 1625 507 4.8 (38) 1647 761 5.0

(19) 1620 701 4.9 (39) 1650 80 5.0

(20) 1623 548 4.9 (40) 165i 322 5.0

CITY 20,492 4.8

Source: Inspection records of the Housing Division, City of
Gainesville.



'7






+4

44
















IaI
-v*too Air- ~ZZ~
- _~ ~ K L(

............
..........
............v r~
~$-t~ L.1 ..........~ ~ J



.-. mi*Z 1LL
~ W
+I





_ 7















LiiI







o



Ai n








In an attempt to explain the quality of housing in these enumeration districts, attention might be focused on what generally are five (5) major indications of housing conditions:

(1) Age of unit,

(2) Type of construction (e.g. frame or brick),

(3) Quality of construction (shoddy or superior),

(4) Density or concentration, and

(5) Home-owner or renter maintenance of housing unit.

Prior to the 1970 Census, housing in the City of Gainesville was studied in relation to planning districts because Census Tracts had not been designated. For comparative Purposes attention is drawn to the most imortant three (3) of the eleven
(11) districts outlined in the Gainesville 'Neiq~hhorhood Analysis study (1965)27. (SEE M4AP 2) As was noted in this study, generally areas with the same designation have residents with similar life styles. Adding to that, although certain characteristics such as income and emnplovment may be similar, for purposes of description, the White and Black areas were identified separately. Appendix Table 2 describes the types of housing and major non-residential areas which were designated.



PON

39 /hA
__ I












7 7





-~JIf, IMAP 2

PLANNING DISTRICTS
-~ CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA












0
a- z
cr


Z 0 Ir z w i
z
W
U) Ix






-, W

t L6
4AJ ul Ae
> AM
W
X: A 0
'Ir
to
CD
f4_706

'IS NIVW 4w,




10 sm- too#
7 'i E_ Sl,:,

v -.LS H


4lt





t-W L)


0
4c

=27 N z z
-0 Z A . .......... 0 Ld

CL 0
0
Z _J
7- > >


w w 2
cc
Ir w

z
o
ct
HIt7i A



-7
in (n



cn







Census Tract Analysis

Evaluated first, both E.D.'s 1648 and 1644 fall within Census Tract 2. It lies in North Gainesville, west of Main Street. An examination of the 1970 Census reveals that .78 percent of the housing stock for Tract 2 was built before 1959. (SEE TABLE III) The majority of housing in this tract are frame units.

It is assumed that some units were not adequately constructed. Coleman and Gutheim submit, in a paper prepared for the 1949 Conference on Family Life, that for both new and remodeled buildings, standards of space, design, and construction were critically lowered as a result of the war conditions and postwar years. These conditions, they point out, aggravated the problem of blight in most American cities.26 This could be a most significant factor when we look at the home-owner or renter maintenance of such units; wherein, many are inhabited by families or households receiving public assistance of various forms. (SEE APPENDIX TABLES 3 AND 4)

According to the Gainesville Neighborhood Analysis (1965), E.D.'s 1644 and 1648, located in Planning District I, (neighborhood designations 8-a and 8-b, respectively),are the oldest Black neighborhoods in the City, dating back to the 1890's. (SEE MAP 4)




1~ .... L /
~~2.JJ

N.W.8TH AVE.

S ,,i ..! - '
M A P r m m o-no'-orm2- as







-EST~. UNV AVE.!~~5V

.PLAN NING ^::"
.-* b t, 1



P"LA.rt'CGRAffiT F14CM THE
L.~D A i!E Of I/ 1 "_-4P

DISTRICT I "'":::. ; -::"1.



'1








TABLE III

STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS (AGE) OF HOUSING UNITS I FOR SELECTED CENSUS TRACTS, 1970
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA Year Average (Mean)
Tract Structure Built Units %Housinqr Cr'nition

March 1970-1960 0 0
1 1959-1939 or 4.10
earlier 279 100

Total 279 100

March 1970-1960 534 21.96

2 1959-1939 or 4.46
earlier 1,898 78.04

Total 2,432 100 March 1970-1960 807 32.71

3 1959-1939 or 4.85
earlier 1,660 67.29

Total 2,467 100 March 1970-1960 198 10.01

5 1959-1939 or 4.80
earlier 1,780 89.99

Total 1,978 100 March 1970-1960 713 54.57

6 1959-1939 or 4.20
earlier 596 45.53

Total 1,309 100 March 1970-1960 1,089 60.7

7 1959-1939 or 4.45
earlier 705 39.3

Total 1,794 100 Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and
Housing: 1970 Census Tracts, Gainesville, Florida;
Inspection Records of the Housing Division, City of
Gainesville.






Coleman and Gutheim further state that once the inhabitants of such blighted areas had a "reasonable choice" in the housinar market, they would facilitate flight from the city. Such, on any large scale, has yet to occur in these neighborhoods.

The' description further states that these older neighborhoods have many housing and environmental problems. In addition, it
*points out that although most residents have low incomes, there are also middle income and professional people living here.
*The majority of the low income residents work for the University of Florida, the Medical Center, Sunland Training Center, the Veterans Administration and in other labor and household services. A more detailed employment study would be necessary to determine exact numbers of this labor force by occupational categories.

There are several small businesses in the area, but there is no large scale development by Blacks in a commercial/retail sense and an absence of adeauate open space and recreational facilities. The dominant dwelling type for Census Tract 2 may be characterized as high density (i.e. the area contains a large number of single family apartments) renter-occupied. (SEE TABLE IV) The racial composition for this tract, as reported by the 1970 Census, shows 45.7 percent of the residents were Black. (SEE TABLE V) The average housing condition rating for Census Tract 2 is 4.5, as compared to the City's average of 4.8. Table VI ranks the average residential dwelling condition for each census tract in the City. (SEE MAP 6)


TABLE IV

DWELLING CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED CE-NSUS TRACTS, 1973
CITY OF GAINIESVILLE, FLORIDA


Census Tract Total Units Dominant Dwelling Type

1 275 _21edlium dornsitv coirercia1 and
industrial

2 2,910 High density renter-occupied

6 2,236 High density owner-occupied

7 1,767 Medium density owner-occupied

7,188

Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of Community Development -fromn the 1970 Census Of
Housing and Population and the inspection records
of the Housing Division (1972).






13








The second area of comparison lies in East Gainesville, east of Waldo Road. E.D.'s 1655, 1656,and 1657 are located in Planning District V, (neighborhood designations 6-f, U-c, and 8-do respectively) all falling within Census Tract 6. (SEE MAP 5) Notably, 46 percent of the dwellings here were built before 1959. The Neighborhood Analysis study characterizes neighborhood designation 8-d the same as the two E.D.'s previously mentioned, that is, one of the older ones for Black residents, dating back to the 1890's. It should be noted, however, that recently new construction has been evident in this area.







U







-.. ".. ... *1i ..



-- ]7]Fri fd i !! :"i,-'
/.ij{TT .I-H AV~EAS NI.AV.


}ULi




PLANNINGW
I -lf 1 U ..

... .. I L EAST U I AV --- ,




LI



DISTRICT


THE PREPARATION OF THIS NMAP WAS FINANCED IN PART
THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE
PLANNING GRANT FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING '. AND URBAN DZVVLOP*1EXT.


14








Cp 00 r-I co



T C14 cq %D Ln 4


r- en 4
cn r4


"4
H

0
Ln Ln LO 0 r-q
r-i 00 44
tn
V-4 C


r-i

rn cn co C) >
4 C) U)
(n
C'J C

r-4

%D CN CN r-i En
-4 C) (D 4-)
u
C C

Vd E-4

all 00 %D En
0 rn ::$
00 r- EO


U
a,

co r- cli C







H
ch Ch 0 00 U)

E-4 cc cl ( cl 0
U a Ul) 1-4 Im
H
9 z P 0
1.4 ko %D Ln
U) r14 CI C r::) r-i
U) 0
z pq 4 H
> 43 4 4J
() 4 ru
44 H
4 44 > C:) r9Q 0 ul v cq m a
9c W 0) ock 0
E-1 Z Z u-) 134
0 --zr
44
ko 0

V) r14
00 %D CD cn
4 Lr) LO
P H

0 E,

tn

r-q C) 0 en En
Lr) C) 0 IM r- CN w





m r- 41

1 C C 44
%.0 cn C14 0



C CO 0
a, r-I r, m Ln IV "I



(d U

0

4 41

(D
u (1)
4 U
r-I 41 C) 0) 4

0
U)







15







TABLE VI

AVERAGE HOUSING CONDITION PER CENSUS TRACT*, 1973
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

Total
Tract Units Mean

1 275 4.10

6 2,236 4.20

7 1,767 4.45

2 2,910 4.46

5 1,182 4.80

3 2,361 4.85

4 1,911 4.88

12 950 4.90

8 2,148 4.93

10 2,061 4.95

17 660 5.0

16 1,306 5.0

11 725 5.0


CITY 20,492 4.75


Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of
Community Developirent from the inspection records
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville, Florida.


*Census Tract Numbers 9, 13, 14, and 15 do not contain any private housing, and thus were not included.






A.




m 1, 4=


(D




.. . . . . .

... ......

O'I


....... ......
I -.........
I bill .*. .. .......
... . ... ..



~ -- z0

... .....
4f,>vu ml
-f ......JS rr
E Ti ....... .....27 I.*'r

I7'\.~> 2~5(3-A.~ K (~9~ji


-77' a

{~~~~*;-~~~7 -11_ W Iu

f.. cow= j!:l ,


4X AIDL ~t~f~







The first neighborhood designation, 6-f in the Neighorhood Analysis, is described as a Combination Neighborhood, such that characteristics of both established areas and informal suburban areas are combined. The designation further states that these neighborhoods are primarily house working 'Class families, often with small town or rural backgrounds. The second designation,U-c, means it was undeveloped in 1965. Census Tract 6 or Planning District V also contains the neighborhood designation 7-a. This is the oldest suburban Black neighborhood. As the description states, the suburban areas were developed between 1957 and 1965, and are located adjacent to schools in the Southeast and Northeast.

Housing in this suburban neighborhood was built under FHA 221
(d) (3), (i.e., rental housing) and some was later acquired 1by the Gainesville Housing Authority which was created in 1966. The area designated as U-c, in Planning District V. has subsequently been developed into a suburban neighborhood under FHIA 235, (i.e., private-owner housing program). These areas are serviced by small stores in the neighborhood, and adequate open space is absent.

Census Tract 6 differs somewhat from that of Census Tract 2, in that most of the housing here was built after that in Tract 2. The 1970 Census shows approximately half, 46 percent, of the housing units in Tract 6 were built before 1959. The tracts are similar to the extent that both contain a majority of housing of frame construction. The dominant dwelling type for Census Tract 6 is high density owner-occupied, single family, and the tract is 77.3 percent Black. It scored an overall housing condition rating of 4.2 in the housing survey.

Analysis also was given to the neighborhood designated C-a, in Planning District I or Census Tract 1. At the time of the study, 100 percent of the units were built before 1959. The neighborhood designation states that the dominant dwelling type is medium density commercial. According to the Census, 30 percent of the population in Tract 1 is Black. This tract had an average housing condition rating of 4.10, compared to the City's average of 4.8.

The next area for analysis, Planning District VI (neighborhood designation 8-e) lies within Census Tract 7. (SEE MAP 7) This neighborhood also is described as one of the older Black residences.

Notably, 39 percent of the dwellings there were constructed Yeforp 1959. It is primarily medium density single family, owner-occumied An attempt was made for a planned commrercial/retail shopping C-ntcnr in Tract 7, which subsecuentlv did not prove to be completely -uccessful. As was renorteic in the l97f Census data, 81.7 percort of the population here is :lack. It was reported by the local FKA office that no additional federal funding of housing will b-e allowed in Census Tracts 6 :ind 7. Table IV shows the dwelling characteristics of selected census tracts.

















o is "I c .0 ;V,
ct
ta
03' La a
5 -C C'14 Z












IW I -I,



.zz
















AL.












co










ovll w
40S







At this point, the geographical areas demanding the most concentrated attention, have been located. In summary,they are listed below:
Neighborhood Enumeration
Designations -Districts

*8-a 1644

*8-b 1648

*C-a 1649

6-f 1655

*U-c 1656

8-d 1657

8-e 1660

These areas, as highlighted by the asterisk (*) on the City's Land Use Plan Map4 (1970) were to be given a more thorough and detailed analysis as stated in the Comprehensive Development Plan5 (1970) Gainesville Urban Area. More detailed attention is given these enumeration districts in this study. T-he areas listed above are essentially the same ones that were pointeO out by the Generalized Housing Conditions survey map (1967) by the Alachua County Health Department. (SEE APPENDIX MAP 2) So it becomes evident at this point that there is a definite correlation among the five factors mentioned regarding the condition of housing in any city. These entail the following:

(1) Age of unit,

(2) Type of construction -(frame or brick),

(3) Quality of construction (shoddy or superior),

(4) Density or concentration, and

(5) Home-owner or renter maintenance of housing unit.

It ii important to keep these factors in mind as one looks at the overall complexion or quality of housing conditions in each of the specifically mentioned enumeration districts under concentrated analysis.


Social and Economic Housing Characteristics

The 1970 Census provides useful data on the population and housing characteristics by census tracts. Reported also within the 1970 Census,is data that should be considered in the overall


20







evaluation of this housing study. Such relates to income characteristics of the population, poverty status in 1969 of families, households and persons, and financial characteristics of housing units for the aforementioned census tracts. Separate data is provided on the characteristics for Blacks. (SEE APPENDIX TABLES 3-8)

Table VII, General Housing Characteristics, show the occupancy condition, and financial characteristics of housing units in the City for 1950, 1960, and 1970. After the 1960 Census, data was no longer furnished on housing condition. It is not possible to make comparisons of the income characteristics of the population for 1950 and 1960 with that of the 1970 Census. The reason is that the City annexed an additional 20 square miles to its area of 5.0 square miles over this period. Such annexation occurred shortly after the 1960 Census count. (For data on general housing characteristics by census tracts for 1970? SEE APPENDIX TABLES 9-21).

Map 8 shows the corporate and population growth of the City of Gainesville from 1853 to 1973.







TABLE VII

GENERAL HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


1950 1960 1970
OCCUPANCY

All Housing Units 6,998 8,395 20,309

All Occupied Units 6,742 7,749 18,777

Owner Occupied 2,694 3,598 9,235

Percent of all
occupied 40.0% 46.4% 49.2%

Cooperative or
condominium S

White 2,079 2,915 7,733

Black 614 683 1,482

Other races

Renter Occupied 4,048 4,151 9,542

White 3,010 2,946 7,663

Black 1,036 1,205 1,777

Other races 2

Non-Resident
Dwelling Units 7

Vacant 249 646 1,532

COND IT ION

Sound 4,942 6,385
(70.6%) (76.1%)

Deteriorating 1,120 1,416
(16.0%) (16.9%)

Dilapidated 936 594
(13.4%) (7.1%)

F INANC IAL
CHARACTERISTICS

Median Dollar
Value $8,832 $13,000 $15,800

Median Contract
Monthly Rent $ 54.90 $ 61.00 $ 95.00

Median Gross
Monthly Rent $ 41.90 $ 59.00 $ 68.00


Source: Compiled by the Planninq Division, Department of
Community Development.3, 36, 37



22




































~~~~~~~~~~~. .i .i . ... . .iiilii~ii ~i i~iiiii









GROWTH
LEGEND-GROWTH
POPULATION AREA

1855- 275 .25 SQUARE MILES
1900 --3,644 1.75 SQUARE MILES 195 1910_ 6,183 5.0 SQUARE MILES

------- 1960 1920 ..-------...6,860 5.0 SQUARE MILES
192 1930 O-------0,465 5.0 SQUARE MILES

------1967 1940 .------- 13,757 5.0 SQUARE MILES
-------1972 1950 ------26,861 5.0 SQUARE MILES
1960------29,701 6.5 SQUARE MILES 1967- 60,000 25.98 SQUARE MILES
SCALE I INCH- I MILE
1972 ------.... 68,984 26.25 SQUARE MILES
MAP 8
CORPORATE AND POPULATION GROWTH


GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1973







Environmental Quality of.Census Tracts

Concentration, Overcrowding, and Sanitary Facilities


The local FHA office in Jacksonville made a decision in accordance*with the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing policy as it related to racially impacted areas. The local offices indicated to developers that FHA will not allow or fund any further concentration of housing units under it federally subsidized housing programs within Census Tracts
6 and 7, as previously mentioned.

Four (4) of the City's thirteen (13) census tracts (41, 2, 6, and 7) analyzed in this housing study contain 96.3 percent of .the total Black population. Tracts 6 and 7 alone, located in the in Southeast and Northeast, contain 70.1 percent of the City's Black population. As reported in the 1970 Census, 18 percent of the City's population is Black. (SEE TABLE V)

With regards to overcrowding within Census Tracts 6 and 7. the latter shows the highest percentage, 17.2 percent, of its 1,794 dwelling units with 1.01 or more persons per room, while in the former this is the case in 16.7 percent of its 1,309 dwellings. The 1970 Census reported the City with 6.3 percent of its 20,309 dwellings with 1.01 or more persons per room. In terms of the total number of units lacking some or all plumbing facilities, Census Tract 6 reveals the highest percentage, 13.0 percent, while Tract 7 contains 12.8 percent, as compared with 4.0 percent for the City.

It also may be noteworthy to point out that while the oldest developed neighborhoods in the City of Gainesville (in comparison with later developed neighborhoods in Census Tracts
6 and 7) fall within Census Traci 2, which shows 8.3 percent and 9.8 percent out of a total of 2,43-1 dwelling units that are overcrowded and lack some or all plumbing facilities, respectively. In any event, it may be concluded t1-at generally neither overcrowding nor plumbi'a deficiencies (i.e. elements cf blight) correlate with th age ok the housing unit. (SEE TABLE VIII)















24







.TABLE VIII

PERCENTAGES OF OVERCROWDED AND PLUMBING DEFICIENT UNITS FOR CENSUS TRACTS, 1970
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

Census Number % Number % Total

Tract Overcrowded Overcrowded Deficient Deficient Units

1 17 5.7 16 5.4 296

2 201 8.3 238 9.8 2,432

3 84 3.4 29 5.8 2,467

4 76 4.8 9 0.6 1,597

5 58 3.0 25 1.3 1,960

6 218 16.17 170 13.0 1,309

7 309 17.2 229 12.8 1,794

8 110 5.8 2 0.1 1,896

10 48 2.1 72 3.2 2,242

11 7 1.2 565

12 41 5.1 3 0.4 802

16 29 2.3 6 0.5 1,251

17 11 1.7 1 0.2 645


Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of
Community Development from the 1970 Census of
Population and Housing.

















25








Street Conditions


Another element which one must review in examining the environmental quality of a community is street conditions. This is an element in various neighborhoods that relates to health and safety.

In light of the 1972 housing survey data, an examination was given to several blighted enumeration districts to determine whether a relationship existed between deteriorated housing and street conditions in 1969. Types of streets in the City were :

(1) Asphalt, with curb and gutter,

(2) Asphalt only,

(3) Limerock, and

(4) Dirt.

Enumeration districts which show some physical relationship between the two variables are listed below. Comparison is made with the 84 percent of standard housing and the 0.2 percent dilapidated housing in the City. (SEE APPENDIX TABLE 22)

Enumeration Dominant Standard Dilapidated
District Street Type Housing Housing

1648 Dirt 12% 1.7%

1655 Dirt 75% 0.3%

1656 Dirt 66% 0.8%

1657 Limerock 22% 0.7%

1659 Limerock 58% 0 %

1660 Dirt 35% 2.1%

Several enumeration districts, despite the fact of having asphalt paved streets with curbs and gutters, show a significant deviation from the City's percentage of standard and/or its percentage of dilapidated housing which is 84 percent and 0.2 percent, respectively. E.D. 1618 had the highest percentage of dilapidated housing of the forty (40) enumneration districts studied. (SEE APPENDIX TABLE 22)







Enumeration Dominant Standard Dilapidated
District Street Type Housing Housing

1618 Asphalt with 84% 2.7%
curb and gutter

1635 Asphalt with 79% 0.4%
curb and gutter

1644 Asphalt with 23% 0.3%
curb and gutter

1645 Asphalt with 74% 0.3%
curb and gutter

The City initiated a semi-pave program to elimanate all unpaved streets in 1971. The 1971-72 program included portions of E.D.'s 1634, 1635, 1644, 1661, 1655 and 1656.

E. D. 1644 encompassed what is known as the "5th Avenue Community."' In 1972, Skip Perez and Stacey Bridges reported in a special report in the Gainesville Sun, "Inner City Blues"25 that this was "Gainesville's Black ghetto 180 acres in the heart of town where almost half of its families are on welfare and human density per acre is three times as great as most other city residential areas." The 1970 Census reported, as was pointed out in the article, that seven out of ten of the residents live in rented units, while virtually 90 percent of the area's population was Black.

The authors note that the "best known of four major Black communities, the NW 5th Avenue Comm~unity, is the smallest in size, the largest in population,and the most heavily concentrated with dilapidated housing." They added that greater than 38 percent of all the streets here are unpaved, in other words, 16,400 feet of dirt and limerock roads. Few sidewalks also were reported in the Community by the authors.

Street Lighting

Generally, the City's streets provide adequate lighting for the various neighborhoods on the basis of available data.

Various issues and similar findings concerning housing conditions that are discussed within this chapter were also given intensive analysis in developing the "Chicago Model Cities Program: Five Year Forecast," as edited by Ira MI. Robinson in Decision-MaJking in Urban Planning (An Introduction to New Methodologies) 6

Blight Defined

The Gainesville Housing Code states that blighted areas exist which contain dwellings that have been faultily designed or built; improperly maintained or repaired; lack sanitary facilities,


27







lighting, ventilation, or heating; or a combination of these factors with improper management so that the buildings become so deteriorated, dilapidated, neglected, overcrowded, or unsanitary as to be unfit for human habitation or to imperil the health, safety or morals of the occupants or the surrounding area.2 Several of these elements have been pointed out in the neighborhoods just analyzed.

Further noted is the impact of blight on the community. Such includes structural deterioration; deficient sanitation facilities; accumulation of trash and rubbish in yards; lack of community facilities such as paved streets, water,and sewer systems and storm drainage facilities; mixtures of incompatible land uses and impractical layout of blocks, lots, or streets. Blighted areas generally are related to social indicators such .as high rates of juvenile delicruency, police and fire calls, and welfare assistance. They also demand rather costly amounts of public services. Virtually all of these environmental conditions and the factors cited below were documented as contributors. to blight by Coleman and Gutheim in a paper prepared for the 1949 National Conference on Family Life.

Factors believed to influence the formation of blight are:

(1) Absentee ownership. When a property owner is
living away from his holdings; he often lacks
information about changing conditions and needs,
and lacks pride in the dwellings, causing neglect.

(2) Housing Shortage. Lack of decent housing at a
price which can be afforded,often forces people
to seek shelter in substandard housing and encourage's overcrowding, improper conversion of
older houses, and lack of pride in the dwellings,
causing neglect.

(3) Ineffective Codes. Poor ordinances or ineffective
enforcement can allow the development of blighting
influences such as mixing of industrial and residential land uses, structural deterioration, unsafe
buildings, and unhealthy sanitation practices.

(4) Lack ofServices. Failure to provide regular garbage collection, proper street maintenance, and
adequate water and sewer service can lead to
neighborhood decline.

(5) IMixed Land Uses. Growth often places older residential areas next to incompatible commercial and industrial land uses. Spot zoning or over-zoning for industrial and commercial uses make this problem worse as
nearby homes are allowed to deteriorate.




28







Thus, it may readily be concluded that blight not only affects the "Quality of Life" for the residents of such areas, but also for the community as a whole.


Detailed Evaluation of Housing Quality

Enumeration Districts

Next, in this analysis of housing conditions, the auality of housing in each enumeration district was examined while making comparisons with the City's average (mean) housing conditions as a whole. As noted earlier, a ranking scale of 1 to 5 was utilized in accessing the physical codition of dwelling units. Each rank in this scale entails the following:

(1) A totally uninhabitable unit; a dilapidated structure or one that does not provide adequate shelter
and is a serious detriment to the health, safety,
and well-being of the occupants.

(2) An inhabitable unit if major repairs are perf ormed or
where one or more of the following is needed: correction of a sag or lean of a structure; reroofing; reflboring; complete resurfacing of interior walls
or ceilings; replacement of load bearing members;
major additions to dwellings; complete rewiring;
installation of additional outlets or fixtures;
installation of one or more required plumbing f ixtures; connection to City sanitary sewage system.

(3) Denotes a deteriorating condition but the structure
is still habitable as long as minor repairs are
performed; minor rehabilitation would probably he
recommended under this classification. Minor repairs
would include one or more of the following: repair
of a minor nature to the electrical system; repair
or replacement of plumbing fixtures (tub, shower, lavatory, flush toilet, water heater); repair of
a minor nature of structural portions not to include
bearing members such as leak-s in roof; reDJacernent of rotted or damaged boards in the flooring and/or exterior walls; repair holes in exterior walls and
ceilings; repair broken windows, doors, screens;
and a minor repair to porch or steps.

(4) Denotes a structure that has only minor or slight
defects which should be rapaired as a part of normal and adequate maintenance (such as lack of closet or
floor space) but is one that meets the absolute
minimum code requirements.

(5) Denotes a structure that has no defects at all;
a unit that surpasses the minimum code requirements. Numbers four and five would aid in delineating conservation districts.







E.D. 1618 contained the largest percentage of dilapidated housing (2.7 percent) when compared with the City's average (mean) for dilapidated housing of 0.2 percent. The greatest deviations from the City's averages were E.D.'s 1657, 1649, and 1648. These areas, compared with the City's mean, within parenthesis, had the greatest percentages of housing needing major repair 25.2 percent (3.1 percent), needing minor repair 15.6 percent (2.0 percent), and of housing with minor or slight defects 63.6 percent (11.1 percent), respectively. The smallest percentage of standard housing was found in E.D. 1648 with 11.7 percent when compared to the City's average (mean) of 84 percent standard. Appendix Table 22 ranks housing condition percentages of enumeration districts and compares them with the City's averages. map 9 shows the average housing condition rating for all forty (40) enumeration districts surveyed.

Tables IX XiI ranks the enumeration districts by percentages of housing (dilapidated, major repair, minor repair, minor or slight defects) receiving a rating of 1 to 4 that exceeded the City's average (mean) for each rating, respectively. In addition, Table XIII ranks enumeration districts by percentages of housing (standard) receiving a rating of 5 that fell below the City's average (mean) for such category.



MAP 9
AVERAGE HOUSING CONDITION BY ENUMERATION DISTRICTS
GAINESVILLE. FLORIDA/


3~11 1. 39TH AM




..i AVE
P.,....
inmmmmurnrn~~u.,.u~rnuA t ~ ...ua mmii

SUBSTANDARD 1 *
I.--,s 4L deIE3 4..





SUSTANDARD cari.- \~1 7








TABLE IX

DILAPIDATED HOUSING ABOVE CITY'S AVERAGE (0.2%) PER E.D.
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

Dilapidated Total
E.D. %Units Units

'(1) 1618 2.7 2 74

(2) 1660 2.1 7 326

(3) 1648 1.7 6 360

(4) 1656 0.8 6 733

(5) 1657 0.7 1 139

(6) 1658 0.7 6 807

(7) 1623 0.4 2 548

(8) 1635 0.4 2 562

(9) 1644 0.4 4 939

(10) 1645 0.3 1 369

(11) 1655 0.3 4 1,364


ALL E.D. 's 0.01 41 6,221


Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of
Community Development from the inspection records
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville, Florida. Of the forty enumeration districts studied, eleven have percentages of dilapidation that exceed the City's mean of 0.2 percent. As is apparent in Table IX above, E.D. 1618 has the higest percentage of dilapidation, 2.7 percent. Even though E.D. 1623 housing condition rating of 4.9 was not one of the sixteen previously mentioned enumeration districts with a rating~ below that of the City, 4.8, it had the seventh highest percentage of dilapidated units of all enumeration districts in the City.









31







TABLE X

MAJOR REPAIR HOUSING ABOVE CITY'S AVERAGE (3.1%) PER E.D.
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Major Repair Total
E.D. % Units Units

(1) 1657 25.2 35 139

(2) 1644 16.6 156 939

(3) 1648 15.6 56 360

(4) 1656 12.3 90 733

(5) 1660 10.4 34 326

(6) 1618 8.1 6 74

(7) 1640 6.5 3 46

(8) 1655 6.2 85 1,364

(9) 1654 6.1 21 347

(10) 1659 5.6 18 321

(11) 1661 4.8 15 313

(12) 1649 4.0 11 275

(13) 1658 3.6 29 807


ALL E.D.Is 0.09 559 61044


Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of
Community Development from the inspection records
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville,
Florida.


Table X shows that there are thirteen enumeration districts whose percentages of major repair housing exceeded the City's mean of 3.1 percent.







TABLE XI

MINOR REPAIR HOUSING ABOVE CITY's AVERAGE (2.0%) PER E.D.
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

Minor Repair Total
E.D. % Units Units

(1) 1649 15.6 43 275

(2) 1654 8.9 31 347

(3) 1648 7.5 27 360

(4) 1660 7.4 24 326

(5) 1657 7.2 10 139

(6) 1635 6.0 34 562

(7) 1625 4.1 21 507

(8) 1633 4.1 13 319

(9) 1656 4.0 29 733

(10) 1653 3.8 1 26

(11) 1661 3.2 10 313

(12) 1622 3.0 22 729

(13) 1655 2.8 38 1,3F4

(14) 1659 2.8 9 321

(15) 1618 2.7 2 74

(16) 1658 2.7 22 8P7

(17) 1623 2.2 12 548

(18) 1640 2.2 1 46

(19) 1645 2.2 8 369


ALL E.D.'s 0,.05 345 8,165

Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of
Community Development from the inspection records
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville, Florida. The table above shows that there were nineteen enumeration districts whose percentages of minor repair housing exceedeC the City's average of 2 percent.









TABLE XII

STANDARD HOUSING WITH MINOR DEFECTS ABOVE CITY'S AVERAGE
(11.1%) PER E.D.
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

Minor Defected Total
E.D. %Units Units

(1) 1648 63.6 229 360

(2) 1644 58.6 550 939

(3) 1649 47.3 130 275

*(4) 1657 45.3 63 139

(5) 1660 44.8 146 326

(6) 1653 34.6 9 26

(7) 1659 33.6 108 321

(8) 1654 25.4 88 347

(9) 1645 20.9 77 369

(10) 1656 17.3 127 733

(11) 1655 15.6 38 1,364

(12) 1635 14.6 82 562

(13) 1661 12.5 39 313

(14) 1634 11.2 20 179


ALL E.D. 's 0.27 1,706 6,253


Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of
Community Development from the inspection records
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville Florida. As pointed out by Table XII, fourteen enumeration districts had percentages of housing with minor or slight defects (conservation housing) that exceeded the City's average of 11 percent.







TABLE XIII

STANDARD HOUSING BELOW CITY'S AVERAGE (84%) PER E.D.
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

Standard Total
E.D. % Units Units

(1) 1648 12 42 360

(2) 1657 22 30 139

(3) 1644 23 213 939

(4) 1649 33 91 275

(5) 1660 35 115 326

(6) 1654 60 207 347

(7) 1659 60 186 321

(8) 1653 62 16 26

(9) 1656 66 481 733

(10) 1645 74 274 369

(11) 1655 75 1,024 1,364

(12) 1635 79 443 562

(13) 1661 80 249 313

(14) 1640 83 38 46


ALL E.D.'s 56 3,409 6,120


Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Denartment of
Community Developnent from the inspection records
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville, Florida.


Table XIII shows the fourteen enumeration districts that contain less tha 84 percent of standard dwelling units. E.D. 1648 has the lowest percentage of standard housing in the City.






From these charts, it is possible to statistically group the various percentages of housing by type and categorize them in regards to deviation from the City's average (mean). For example, the following charts show the range of average scores, while the second column will delineate the degree of desirability.

Chart 1

Range of Dilapidation Category

2.7 2.0 most undesirable
1.9 1.4 more undesirable
1.3 0.9 undesirable
0.8 0.5 least desirable
0.4 0.2 less desirable

Chart 2

Range of Major Repair Category

25.2 12.4 most undesirable
12.3 6.6 more undesirable
6.5 4.9 undesirable
4.8 3.7 least desirable
3.6 3.0 less desirable

Chart 3

Range of Minor Repair Category

15.6 7.6 most undesirable
7.5 4.2 more undesirable
4.1 3.7 undesirable
3.6 2.9 least desirable
2.8 2.2 less desirable

Chart 4

Range of Minor Defects Category

63.6 45.4 most undesirable
45.3 25.5 more undesirable
25.4 17.4 undesirable
17.3 12.6 least Oesirable
12.5 11.0 less desirable

Chart 5

Range of Standard (%) Category

11.7 22.7 most undesirable
22.8 35.4 more undesirable
35.5 59.9 undesirable
60.0 73.9 least desirable
74.0 83.7 less desirable







Appendix Table 22 also allows the ranking of each of the forty (40) enumeration districts by various housing conditions. Such
ranking is displayed in Table XIV wherein the following is
found: E.D. 1618 ranks first in total percentage of dilapidated housing (2.7 percent); E.D. 1657 ranks first in total percentage of housing needing major repair (25.2 percent); E.D. 1649 ranks
first in total percentage of housing with minor cr slight defects
(63.6 percent); and E.D. 1648 ranks lowest, fortieth, in total
; percentage of housing that is standard (12 percent).

At this point, it is possible to isolate and ran: for closer o examination those enumeration districts whose average housing
conditions with regards to dilapidation, major repair, miner repair, and minor or slight defect, are greater than the City
averages. In addition, one can look at the ranking of enumera.tion districts by the lowest percentages of standard housing.
(SEE TABLE XV) These would be the enumeration districts which
would demand the most immediate attention.


Blocks

Table XV facilatates the isolation of nine enumeration districts by blocks, on the basis of numerical Oilapidation and deterioration of housing units. (SEE MAPS 10-13) These enumeration districts include the following:

1618 1645 1656

1635 1648 1657

1644 1655 1660

The housing conditions by block in these enumeration districts
are rated en the scale of 1 to 5. The ratings and descriptions utilized are as follows:

1.00 1.59: primarily clearance;

1.60 2.59: scattered clearance and major rehabilitation;

2.60 3.59: primarily major rehabilitation;

3.60 4.59: major rehabilitation and minor rehabilitation; and

4.60 5.00: conservation.











37








TABLE XIV

RANK OF ENUMERATION DISTRICTS BY VARIOUS HOUSING CONDITIONS, 1973
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Major Minor -Mino-r
Dilapidated Repair Repair Defects Standard
E.D. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

(1) 1618 1 6 15 24 27
(2) 1619 0 0 0 0 1
(3) 1620 0 0 24 20 19
(4) 1621 0 16 0 30 14

(5) 1622 12 18 12 17 24
(6) 1623 7 20 17 22 21
(7) 1624 0 23 20 21 20
(8) 1625 0 14 7 18 25

(9) 1626 0 24 22 19 22
(10) 1627 0 0 29 35 8
(11) 1628 0 0 0 0 2
(12) 1629 0 22 30 33 11

(13) 1630 0 0 0 0 3
(14) 1631 0 0 0 31 10
(15) 1632 0 19 25 28 19
(16) 1633 0 25 8 29 18

(17) 1634 0 0 23 14 23
(18) 1635 8 26 6 12 30
(19) 1640 0 7 18 15 28
(20) 1641 0 21 26 26 16

(21) 1642 0 0 0 0 5
(22) 1643 0 0 0 34 7
(23) 1644 9 2 21 2 39
(24) 1645 10 is 19 9 32

(25) 1646 0 0 27 25 13
(26) 1647 0 0 0 27 12
(27) 1648 3 3 3 1 41.
(28) 1649 0- 12 1 3 38

(29) 1650 0 0 0 0 6
(30) 1651 0 0 0 32 9
(31) 1652 0 17 28 23 17
(32) 1653 0 0 10 6 34

(33) 1654 0 9 2 8 35
(34) 1655 11 8 13 11 31
(35) 1656 4 4 9 10 33
(36) 1657 5 1 5 4 40

(37) 1658 6 13 16 16 26
(38) 1659 0 10 14 7 36
(39) 1660 2 5 4 5 37
(40) 1661 0 11 11 13 29

Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of
Community Development from the inspection records
of the Housing Division, City of Gainesville, Florida.







TABLE XV

RANK OF TEN ENUMERATION DISTRICTS WITH HOUSING CONDITIONS GREATER THAN (1-4) AND LESS THAN (5) CITY AVERAGE (MEAN)
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

Major Minor Minor
Dilapidated Repair Repair Defect Standard
E.D. (1) E.D. (2) E.D. (3) E.D. (4) E.D. (5)

1618 1 1657 1 1649 1 1648 1 1648 1

1660 2 1644 2 1654 2 1644 2 1657 2

1648 3 1648 3 1648 3 1649 3 1644 3

1656 4 1656 4 1660 4 1657 4 1649 4

1657 5 1660 5 1657 5 1660 5 1660 5

1658 6 1618 6 1635 6 1653 6 1659 6

1623 7 1640 7 1625 7 1659 7 1654 7

1635 8 1655 8 1633 8 1654 8 1653 8

1644 9 1654 9 1656 9 1645 9 1656 9

1655 10 1659 10 1653 10 1656 10 1645 10


Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of
Community Development from the inspection records
of the Housinq Division, City of Gainesville, Florida.








RATING OF HOUSING

CONDITIONS BY BLOCKS

MAP 10



7TH~


iJ~z AVE. ". ....~...
__________ ________- I 7TH.. -t A4



A 4a At A A A. 4.A A i~
AA 4 55 .T 44A A A A 4 I
A A A.JL.A B t
L~ ALA71 A AA ..~J[
-'- A. I4 A IA

]ZA L0 Fs ~,-4___ ~ L .~ L 1 ~ 1 i L ~ A

WEST ~

UNION -764S
LAJZI



UNVESIYOFFLR DA INER. ..... .....

L> -~- -----McCAP]L wJ F-1- . i
w




RD~z 9TH VE K VE9TH

MA LA IACDI A.




E 1.00 -1.59 3.60 -4.59 THE PREPARATION OF 711!-4
THROUGH A COMkPRH!:,XS7.*E
PLANNING GRANT Fl:(C:.I -11.60I2.5 4.60 S.00 DEPARTMENT OF IICLSIN
AND URBAN DEVELOP ~;7

:7- *.0-3 : STANDARD








RA-TING OF HOUSING



CONDI-TIONS BY BLOCKS



MAP 11




I16 H
L~IL~LIL .~~ A, 4 -1
~~ L.Z LZJ ~~~~~~~AVE ~L.~ ULN_________4 U L:






PL 'vj U) U (I)


8THJIT A

--P
~~~~- L--W A A ~ ***..,

x~ AL A.~. A~ A~_AI AA1 I A

TXA A-Al A A ZT

4J A. A, L [_ A
A A___ AA, I

A~~ rA.'





1W /i; A. -AS A\I AA. A
A II

LIZu~w. ... ...
IF~ Z7V A'








7TOH ACMREESV





2.035 41 E








RATING. OF HOUSING

CONDITIONS BY BLOCKS MAP 12


AlJl AVE]I lIS ID I I / ~
~~~DZ~1 ~JE~1DU~ UNVERSITYjj~LIV/L

L~u1 J ~I AVE 'S TLFAWD AVATMI]






ULE I M~W It;_A IL









12TH LiL .








MAP 1A 1NXE IN APIRT
THOGHAVE.!ESV





SUBSTANDARD

MA S V N' NPR







RATING. OF HOUSING
CONDITIONS 8Y BLOCKS MAP 13



tp cc~ .

NE Lt PLw







II



'jI


A "I





26 4TH V
I-L
I-N2N AV I- ; Ok





A PL. TRAINING CENTER)
AVE, UWIION U
SUBSTANDARD /W/cRJ~
.0-.9 F7760-45 THE PREPARATION OF THIS
MAP WAS FINANCED IN PARlT
THROUGH A CO*MPRlfLLXSIVE PLANNING GRANT FPC*OM THE
1.60 -2.59 4.0S0 EATETO OSN
AND URBAN DEVELOP' MLNT.
-~ STANDARD









CHAPTER 5

COMPARISON OF HOUSINL'G CODE ENFORCEMENT RESULTS

Comparison of past studies conducted by the City of Gainesville tend to reflect how it has maintained an active program in the
pursuit of the goal of decent housing and a suitable living
environment for all of its residents. As previously mentioned,
this has been tremendously aided by the City's adoption and
Strong enforcement of a Minimum Standard Housing Code, in addition to assisting in the provision of federally subsidized
public and private-owner and rental housing.
The City, in 1966, adopted a Minimum Standard Housing Code Enforcement Program24 which would permit the first cycle of housing inspections to be completed by late December, 1971.
Several problems were met in an attempt to secure compliance from low income property owners; therefore, as a measure to
facilitate compliance, the City extended the the time for
completion of the first cycle of housing inspections to the


In a recent report, seven years after the beginning of the
first cycle of housing inspections, the Housing Division reported its progress. Over this period of time a total of
3,934 of an estimated 16,155 dwelling units had been cited
for housing code violations. The enforcement program had
resulted in 2,862 or 73 percent of the dwelling units in
violation to be brought in compliance with the Minimum Standp ard Housing Code and rec'uired the demolition of 508 dilapidated
dwelling units, that is 13 percent of the substandard dwellings.
Also at the end of this period, the Housing Division reported 564 or 14 percent of the City's original substandard dwellings
still in violation of the code.

Occupancy status of these latter units was given as follows: Ii 234 units were vacant; 60 units were occupied by owners,
classified by the Housing Division to be hardship cases; 199
units were occupied by owners who have not completed the
required rehabilitation but were completing the work as raoielv
as time and their incomes would permit; the remaining 71 units
were tenant occupied. The Housing Division noted that these tenant occupied units in violation of the housing code which
were not being rehabilitated,were being vacated for non-compliance. The shortage of low income rental housing makes vacatingq
units a lengthy process.

In 1965, the Gainesville :; eighborhood Analysis study revealed' that the City consisted of 15,655 dwelling units of which 24.1
percent were considered standard or conservation dwellings, and
15.9 percent were substandard. (SEE S"ABLE XVI) This latter category consisted of 15.2 percent in need. of rehabilitation
(major and minor repair) and 0.7 percent dilapidated. The percentage of substandard housing units reported in 1966 (24 percent) was significantly higher than it was in 1965. The reason










for this discrepancy may .be that the Housing Division based
its 1965 housing condition ratings (scale) on the 1962 County's
Tax Accessor Records, which were numerically higher than they
were in 1966, and were based primarily on age.
Four years after the neighborhoodd Analysis study was conducted,
another housing survey was conducted by the Department of
Community Development. It concentrated only on areas with
significant numbers of substandard housing. The survey found
that there were 1,650 or 8.5 percent substandard dwelling units
within these areas, a decrease of 703 dwellings from 1965 if one assumes few or none of the substandard units lay outside
of the surveyed areas.

The 1969 housing survey28 also revealed that approximately
1,500 of these substandard dwellings were in need of rehabilitation to bring them up to the standards of the Minimum Housing
Code. Following this activity, another housing survey was
taken in 1972 which found 1,040 or 5.3 percent of the substandard dwellings in need of rehabilitation (rajor or minor repair),
a reduction of 460 units. Also in 1969, 150 units were considered to be dilapidated beyond repair versus only 42 at the
end of the 1972 survey. (SEE TABLE XVI)

As of January, 1973, most of these substandard units had been either brought into compliance with the Minimum Housing Code,
'vacated, or demolished.

Analysis of the first cycle (1966-1972) of the housina code
enforcement inspections reveals that an average of 409 dwelling
units were brought into compliance per year, or an average of
34 units per month. Over the same period, an average of 73
units were demolished per year or 6 units per month as compared
to approximately 10 per month in 1 973. Fed:erally subsidized housing, both private-owner and rental, has aided in filling
the critical shortage for low and moderate income priced housing.

In reference to Table XVI,there was an increase of 4,837 dwelling
units in the City of Gainesville between 1965 and 1972. Most of
)of these units, 3,858, were constructed between 1965 and 1969.
Many private home owners and renter-occupants were aided by the
federal housing subsidy programs to be discussed later in this
study.

Several of the dwellings cleared over the past years may have
been preserved prior to becoming dilapidated beyond repair had
poverty level households been financially able, and had absentee
owners shown more pride in their dwellings.

iSince 1970, Gainesville Neighborhood Development, IncorporateO.
(GNDI), a volunteer grcup, has been instrumental in providing
loans to low income households for home improvements. Loans
L fall within the range of $35 $2,000. Title I of the Federal
Housing Act aided some banks in providing home -improvement loans
to low income families.











LO
Lf) C) r-q G) r- CN
%D 0 0
0-1 C) qzr U L p
r-I c co 44 4-4
C 0
r 4-) >1
p cn 4-) T;
0 rq z :
En LO (Y) m LO m Q) 4-)
t7 fTJ 4-)
CN L) 0 41
ON r-i 4J -r-i r- 4 En
H oll 0 LO CN 0) as
JF:4 E-1 :D 04 U)
Ln Lr) F U)
LO
t.C iz Q
cyll >1
H
4-J F:4
-r-I ai
z 110 ru
: m 0
z C) Ln 00 r-i 0
0 E .jF-4 C C C; 0 4
E-i >1 0
F-f Ci C) a) Q
m %D do 14.4 > S-z 0) 0 4
0 0:4
H 4J
1:4 r. >1 C C) C)
z 0 -r-I (1) Ln U-) 0
En > f15 4-J Ln ko
ul Z4 4 4J 1% 4-J 'r-I -i
D 0 ::% c _: m r-q r-4 4 U) r-i
u) E U. (1 ::I --i
r-4 0 >
> 1.4 a; = U)
X rZ4
0
>
U-1 0 (D 4-)
E-4 W
E-4 C) r-i C) ul rH
z f< -r'
(D CN L4 c r4 c > 4-J 4-)
D r*- C) co >1
044 CN a) 15
0 > F
4 04
: 0
>1 U)
E-1 >1 C14 a M r- C14 CN r-i m
-A 11 C) co C) 4-)
to > fZ 4-J l:T N CD ko IV r >
E-4 l A 4-J --i c C)
0 0 z C) -r-q E
D CN 04 U) 04
-ri 0 >1
> r-i 4-)
'i Q)
4J >
44 a)
0 >1
>1 c
EO rO CO 4-)
4 4-3 4 -4 Q) : --i
0 u 0 0 r--i 0 r. 4-4
Q) rO .,i ,4 :1 0
-4 4-4 a) 0.' 4J
0 Q 4J
04 E
1 71 (1 0 0
0 A ru CF) 41 Q)
0 4-J r 4J m -r-q 4 4 E
ra rz C: 7j 04 4J
5:: (0 rc 75 m 4
r--4 4.J -H (0 rH 0 24 Q) a4 m
r--i -rq Q) V u P-4
cn 4
5
0 0
U) ul









As revealed by the earlier detailed analysis of the geographical
problem areas (census tracts), not only is this where the most
blighted housing is located, but also is where many poverty status
Families and public assistance recipient households reside.
Noted also was the fact that much of such housing was built around
1890.

An examination of all available data indicates that the incomes
of these families and households has not significantly increased to date. The Housing Division, Department of Community DevelopI ment submits that 90 percent of the owners whose housing violate
the Housing Code are hardship cases. In addition, 90 percent
of the vacant units have not been cleared. There exists insufficient relocation housing within the financial capability
of these low income households.

It is evident that the M"inimum Housing Code Enforcement Program
has aided the increase of the City's percentage of standard
housing units even though several home-owners and renters still
live in substandard housing. Enforcement of the Housing Code,
as is now apparent, provided for the elimination of the privies,
substituting for it indoor toilets. In addition, an ordinance was passed requiring housing units that had not been connected
Ito the City's sanitary sewer system to do so. Low income
families were permitted to spread the cost of such hook-ups
over a long period of time.

In conclusion, one must note that such studies and surveys
from past to present gives a general view of the City's
progress in decreasing the total number of substandard housing Units within the City, but not its ability to correspondingly
increase the number of dwelling units for low and moderate [ imcome households by mustering public and private support.

Strong enforcement of the Housing Code in itself with the provision of many federally funded rental programs is not enough. Such activity must be coupled with more concrete
financial support and cooperation from both publ-lic and private sectors in meeting the unmet hou!:ing needs of low and
moderate income families. This oointL- will be given further
attention in the following chapter on Housing Availabiltiv.










CHAPTER 6

HCOUS ING AVAILABILITY

Subsidized Housing: Low and Moderate Income

Housing Board's Conclusions

As of January, 1972, all housing programs funded through the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development were frozen. In regards to federally assisted, private ownership housing, as mentioned previously, a high degree of concentration exists in Census Tracts 6 and 7, and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) local office has indicated that no further federally assisted low and moderate income housing will be allowed in these areas of Gainesville. The Housing Board23 concluded that the termination of funds may be attributed to tight budget limitations and primarily to "the failure of previous programs to solve the low income housing problem," adding that a result of such programs have been "instant ghettos," financial fiascos and unhappy citizens, both within and without the federally subsidized projects.

A report, Housing in Florida,32 prepared by the Office of the Governor and others, reveals that there was a total of 394 Section 235 Home Mortgages and 2,121 rental units approved by FHA for and subsequently constructed in Alachua County from 1969 to 1972. As was previously notec3,the City of Gaiensville had a construction boom in federally subsidized housing between 1965 and 1970. The various federal subsidy programs aiding in the provision of home ownership include t",e following:

(1) Section 235, Homneownership Program;

(2) Section 221 (h) and 235 (j), Rehabilitation Programs;
and

(3) Farmers Home Administration Homeownership Programs.

For a more detailed description of each, see Housina in Florida, Vol. 5, as prepared by the Office of the Governor, the Governor's Task Force on Housing and Community Development, and the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs.

Of the sixty-seven (67) counties in the State of Florida, Alachua County ranks better than 65 of these in terms of the lowest ratio of the number of poverty level families per subsidized housing unit (1.5: 1). The State's ratio is 2.8: 1.

It is estimated that a single family housing unit can not be built in the City for less than $17,000 without federal suh-sidy. Thus there has been a decrease in the number of housing units priced at $20,000 or less since 1971, without any noticable increase in construction to date.







Subsidized Projects Completed and Vacancy Statuses

city

Table XVII shows the number of low and moderate income multiple family type housing units constructed in the City under federal housing programs between 1968 and 1973. Notably, 83 percent of the City's public housing, and 64 Percent of its rent supplement or interest subsidy dwellings were constructed between 1968 and 1970.

There appears to exist a shortage of rental housing in the City of Gainesville in the lower price ranges. Table XVIII lists the vacancy ratios and the number of applicants on waiting lists for various public, rent supplemental, and interest subsidized housing facilities in the City. As of June of this year, the Gainesville Housing Authority, which has worked diligently in the provision of public housing, reported a waiting list of 1,539 applicants. Some duplication may exist among the 358 applicants on the wainting list for other subsidized housing. The Housing Authority had an application for 300 additional units pending at the time of the HUD freeze. There are 585 public housing units owned by the Gainesville Housing Authority,. and 788 subsidized (rent supplement and interest subsidy) units in the City. Subsidy programs which facilitate the provision of low income rental housing include:

(1) Public Housing;

(2) Section 202, Rental and Cooperative Housing for the
Elderly and Permanently Handicapped;

(3) 221 (d) (3) Below Market Interest Rate (EMIR) and
Rent Supplement Programs;

(4) Section 236, Rental Housing Program; and

(5) Farmers Home Administration Rural Rental Programs.

It might be significant to note hkere, that unlike some other large colleges in small cities, the University of Florida houses only 38 percent of approximately 213,CQJ) students. The point is that 62 percent of the University's student population in 1970 souahl-t housing in the private sector, ir some instances competing with other low income persons for the limited housing available to this sector.

The Gainesville Housing Survey (1972) reveals that a significant number of students live within the neighborhoods designated 5-a and 5-b or E.D. 1645, (SEE IADP 4) located in Census Tract 2, which are adjacent to the geographical areas recommended more concentrated attention in the Land Use Plan (1970). These neiahborhoods are in close proximity to Z-- Universitv of Florida. Should there be an increase in housing demands from students for available low cost housing in these neighborhoods, there might occur a reduction in the amount and quality of low cost housing for poorer families or households.












t7l t3l
r. ul c tn
rq U -4
4J 4J 4J 41 4j 4J 4.) x r-4 x 1-4 % -4
04 04 134 04 04 04 04 a) -4 0) -l Q) >4 Q) -i
to 4-; r-4 a) -1 a) -rq i (a r-4 C)
04 04 : 04 3: U 4 4-J. Q, : 04
>4 >4 >1 >1 >4 >4 :3 :3 ro .14 (1) a) :3 ra 0 04
0 4J 4-) 41 41 -1-1 4-J 4-) ro a 44 rO ra ro ro (13
04 -H -4 rl H >1 -4 -1 .1-1 ro 4-4 r-q a
>1 U) ri) (1) to 41 cn En En >4 >1 0) (1) >1 >1 (1) >1 >4
E-4 9 9Z z $4 H C: r. z 4-J 4-) r 41 4- 4J 4J
(D 0) cu Q) U) a) a) a) -4 -H () (1) 4 -4 U) .14
01 q ro ra 10 r- 90 ro rO V) (0 U) (a A 0 cn tT) En
CD r. 4-) Z 4-) -H 44 c 9z 4-)
E rz rz E ra E E e a) a) a) a) p a) -,i c 0)
r-q :J ::j 0 0 :1 :1 :1 ro rTj ra V En 10 r--i rc V a ra
rl -i lq .,I H .14 .,1 r 4-1 r-q
ra 10 ra ra tr 10 ro T a ra tp.H : a; 3: ra
G) 0 C: 0 r- r 0 : 0 r 0 0



44 >
0 L) ro 10 ro ra ra 10 TI ro ra ro
0 a) a) 0) a) 0) 4) a) W a) Q)
EF) ra -1 H .14 .14 H rq .14 .14 -1 -4 .14 .1-4 H rq
:) CL 04 04 .04 L 04 Q 04 04 Q4 04 CL L
4J :3 0 ::j ::1 0 z z :$ :3 z
to V u 0 U U 0 u u 0 U U
4J U u u L) u u U u u u ul u U 0
U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ol 0 0 0 0



44-4
0 rA CN 0 %D C) 0 C) 0 0 0 0 -1 0 4= co %D
4J rl 0 en C
6 H 1-1 r-4 1-1 r-i 1-4 1-1 '1
*r
z r


t7l ty) C-1 0*1 m
E-4 >1 >4 >4 >4 >4 z
a ro a 10 rc to) En U) U) M M En 7
4 4j -rq -1 -4 rq .,j :3 z ::5 lj l z z
C) 0 en tn m U) M U) U) (n U) 0 0 Of 0 0 0 0

n Q) CO En m 03 (j) (n a) Q) 0)
r-I ro -4 1-1 -1 -1 -4 I-f
0 0 fTJ 104 4-) 4J 4J 4-) 41 4J -4 >i r-i >4 -q >, -I >, --I >, r-4 >,
z -l Q) 04 U) En cn U) En -4 4-) -H 4-) -,q 4.) -H 4-J -H 4j -A 4J -4 4-)
a) t-D 1.0 > > > .14 > > > >
ul U) CN 4 (N 4 r4 rn 4 M 4 M 4 rn w to p U) 4 U) 4 U) w CJ) 4 U) 4 U) 4
--4 N a) r4 a) C\j r4 0) C14 a) CN a) a) (1) 0 C) 0 cu 0 0) 0 C) 0 c (1) 0
0 w a) 41 4-) 4.) 4J 41 41 41 z = 9 C: r. r z C z = Z z X >
H > C -,q 4J -,4 4J -H 4J -r-I 4J -4 -W -,I 4 -H 4J
> H H x H H H H (a :3 ffi ::I (a :I (a 7 ra z
am]) 04 r4 rx-4 W CL4 P4 44 0 4 (D 0:4
>
0 U)
U ril z z

w > >
E-1 4 4 w
44 ro (1)
0 4 w 4J 4J 4J rq rq C E-1
4-) 4J M U') cq 41 V) LO c c 4-J
co OD CN r-q r-i kD -1 D Q) a) 4-J Ln C
0 E-1 ro ra 00 CN 4J
H .,j .,1 44 ko
U) z z rn z 3: z z w ul w U) 4.4 C14
4; 7
0 z
z 44 44 44 44 44 44 4-4 4-4 .9-- 4-4 4 U) 4-3
0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 41 0 41 4-4 =s 41 Z
0 :J 4 0 ra ri
-14 -Y -14 19 -14 0 1 4 0 r.
L) ri u U 14 -4 (11 E-1 (n C:
u u u U) u z 7r. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4J fu
0 -1 r-I r-i 0 -4 -1 Z r-i z c 4J ";I' I-.11 .0 Q Q 0 Q 0 z En 4J j
4J .14 41 Ln Ln
a CD Cl CD CD a CD C 0 1-1 rj,) cli CN
C, CD CD > (D CD C C) 0 C) C CD a) C) -1
0 LO r- r-4 r.-I -i 4J Ln 4-3 C) > r-i 41 -4 4J %D > .D > 0 > m -H 4j a)
CN CQ -4 U) -i La co < m w m (a CN < CN m U) E-4



$4
0
to
ri)
En ro !4 ul -14 0
a) w U) 4 ::3 4
Ei ro 0 m 0 ril
0 w z 0 4 4 0 r:
(a 0 u u 4 ra a4
4 ra !4 >1 ro W
4-J C) w 4 I-i c _q 4-J
U) w 41 0 tr U) E--f M 4 -r-I W rl -4
W Q) N ro a) a4 C) CZ C) -i
> 4 0 4
4 4 4 4 4
0 0 :s C) c 0
U) > a4






5







TABLE XVIII

VACANCY STATUS FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING, 1973
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Total Year Number on Vacancy
Name Units Completed -Waiting List Vacancies Ratio
-Rent
Supplement, Interest
Subsidy)

Kennedy
Homes 172 1968 15 0 0

Gardenia
Gardens 100 1968 55 (est.) 0 0

Glen Springs Manor 136 1969 0 21 0.154

CarverGardens 100 1970 120 0 0

Sunset
House 40 1971 0 0

Village
Green 100 1971

Forrest 150 (est.)
Green 100 1972

Hoionzon
House
40 1971 18 (est.) 0 0
Total Rent Supplement 358
and Interest Subsidy
(Public)
Lake
Terrace 100 1960-Pine
Meadows 80 1970

Oak Park
(Elderly) 101 1970

Woodland
Park 170 1970

Sunshine
Park
(Elderly) 70 1972

Forrest
Pine 36 1970-Caroline
Manor 28 1971


Total for all Public Housing 1,539 0 0


Source: Planning Division, Department of Community Development,
June, 1973.



51







Furthermore, a recent ruling by the Florida State Legislature grants all legal rights to those persons 18 years of age. As a result, many freshman and sophomores are not restricted to live on campus. Without additional construction of low and moderate income housing, the community might be faced with an even graver prob-lem than presently exists.

It has been estimated by the Department of Community Development that there are presently some 1,700 vacant, decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling units in the City. The exact number of single family and multi family type dwellings is undetermined. The 1970 Census reported 966 year round units vacant for rent. The vast majority of such housing is doubtless beyond the financial ability of of poverty and below, poverty families to secure. In June, the Housing Board reported that the community needed 1,800 units to house low income families. A Kansas City Plan or housing allowance has been suggested by the Housing Board to aid these groups while assisting the City in achieving its housing goals.22


Poverty Status of Families and Households

Lack of mobility, hence accessability, of Blacks and poor Whites to various areas of the City where such units are located might be a problem in this solution, not only because of race, in a social context, but also because of economic ability. Of the 13,689 families in the City in 10-6-, thcrc were 18 percent or 2,480 families that were Black and 82 percent or 11,209 White families, according tc the 1970 Census. The percentage of these families receiving public assistance income was 13 percent for Blacks and less than one percent for Whites. Especially critical is the fact that of the 1,917 families with incomes less than poverty level, 1,031 or 54 perc-rnt are Black, while 886 or 46 percent are W\hite. In addition, there were 4,034 households below the poverty level, 2,601 (64 percent) of which were white. Further comparisons of poverty characteristics of families, households, and persons in Gainesville between Blacks and Whites yield similar results. (SEE APPENDIX TABLES 3 and 4) The national poverty threshold in 1969 for a non-farm family of four was $3,743.33

Census data for 1970 points out the financial characteristics of owner occupied housing in the City by Census Tract. (SEE APPENDIX TABLE 7) Of the 974 poverty status ($3,743) owneroccupied households (which is 10.7 percent of all owner-occupied households), 545 or 57.6 percent are Black. Most Blacks pay6 a higher percentage of their annual income for buying homes.6

As a consequence, a smaller proportion is spent for food, clothing, transportation, recreation, and other amenities. The median dollar value of housing units in 1970 for Blacks was reported at $9,600; while for the City it was $15,800, according to thel97O Census.




52__ _ _







As reported in the FHA Techniques of Housing Market Analysis 6 by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, in areas in the northeast region of Florida, the vast majority, if not all, of its families with annual incomes less than $6,000 tend to pay an amount of up to 3 or more times their annual incomes for the purchase of homes. The ratio is around 2.5 times annual income for higher income groups.

It is also significant to note that renters in the lowVer income ranges pay a much higher percentage of their income for rent. Of those with incomes less than $5,000, 85 percent pay more than 25 percent of their income for rent. For those with incomes below $10,000, 64 percent pay more than one-fourth of their income for rent. In the same category for Blacks,, the percentage is almost 88 percent.

In the category of renter-occupied housing, of 9,242 households, there are 1,647 or 18 percent that are Black, and 7,595 or 82 percent others. Most significant is the amount of monthly rent paid in 1970 by all the City's households. For the City as a whole, the median gross rent was $119, while for Blacks it was $68. For Black households below the poverty level,th-e median gross renrt was not given. Thus, the need for a housing allowance or rent supplement housing program particularly for poor Blacks and poor Whites becomes more apparent.

In addition, it is significant in noting that of the 1,917 poverty level families, 761 are families with a female head, and that 584 or 77 percent of these are Black. (SEE APPENDIX TABLES 3 and 4)

Any housing policy or program devised should come only after serious consideration of these socio-economic factors.* For the groups mentioned, the provision of decent, safe and sanitary housing alone is not a panacea, but must be accomnpanieO b1-y other supportive services such as child care, legal aid, low-cost transportation, employment, etc.

Table XIX gives a comparison of dwelling unit counts by thre 1970 Census of Housing of the Gairesville Urban A rea and the City of Gainesville Building Permi-ts (1972). It reveals a gradual decrease in the percentage of single family units constructed from 1970 to 1972. Conversely, there has been a slight increase in the percenta e of multi family units and mobile homes. The City's Land Use Pla.n (1970) states that several factors influence the drastic change in dwelling unit composition in the Urban Area. The most significant one it lists, as obvious, is cost. Due to cost of building materials, landA and labor, the traditional single family house is now beyond the reach of many.

This fact bears significance in that alternative types of housing that must be considered in relation to present zoning for such types. For example, figures reveal that the majority of existing mobile homes are in the Urban Area but not in the City proper.







It must be pointed out that t ere has been no zoning for such housing type to any significant degree.


County

The Alachua County Housing Authority has constructed five projects. The list below shows the towns where these five (5) public housing projects are located, in Alachua County.

Town Units

Archer 30

Hawthorne 40

Newberry 30

Waldo 20

Alachua '80

Total 200

TABLE XIX

COMPARISON OF DWELLI14G UNIT COUNTS
BY U. S. CE".ISUS BUREAU AND GAINESVILLE'S BUILDING PERMITS
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

City of U. S. Bureau
Gainesville of the
Type Building Permits % Census* %

Single Family 13,216 56.83 12,617 62.13

Multi Family 9,418 40.50 7,347 36.18

Mobile Homes 620 2.67 345 1.70


Total 23,254 100.0 20,309 100.0


Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of
Community Development from the building permit records (1970-10.72) of the City of Gainesville and
the U. S. Bureau of Census, 1970.


Totals reflect figures for Census Tracts 9 and 13.







54







In June of 1973 the were .142 applicants for this public housing on the waiting list. The Alachua County Housing Authority had a pending application for 200 additional units of public housing prior to the federal housing freeze. The Authority pointed out that 58 percent of the currently housed families had female heads. All of the towns listed above contain day care facilities, with the exception of Waldo.

Alachua County does not presently have a minimum housing code. It has been recommended that when such a code is adopted, the County give 60 to 90 days notice in requi ring property owners to upgrade their structures because of the shortage of low income units. In addition, it was strongly advised that demolitions should be withheld until other decent, safe, and sanitary housing is made available. The County's present building code does not affect existing old and blighted dwellings.


The States Role

The report Housing in Florida pointed out five (5) alternatives considered in developing a State Housing Plan. They include:

(1) Cash vouchers,

(2) Housing vouchers,

(3) Public housing,

(4) State support of low income mortgages, and

(5) Tax abatements to landlords.

The report states that alternatives (1), (2), and (5) involve a degree of consumer choice, while (3) and (4) require a major physical planning role for the State. The housing finance agency was evaluated as being most ecuitable.

Further, the report noted that because of zoning and other problems it is frcauently difficult fcer soonsors of housing to acquire sites that will meet E'UD/FHA site selection criteria. In the article "Emerging Social Problems," Cities in a Race With Time,10 Jean R. Lowe points out that zoninga has always been used as a negative tool, which is largely done to benefit only the single family type dweller. However, the report concluded from a survey that 38 percent of the local housing authorities report that they have really had "no trouble" in acauiring a site that met HUD/FHA site selection criteria.


Alternative Programs in Housing

The U. S. Congress passed and the President signed, the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970. One of its major components


55







was Section 501, which stated The Secretary shall undertake on an experimental basis a program to demonstrate the feasibility of providing families of low income with housing allowances to assist them in obtaining rental housing of their choice in existing standard housing units."15,


Kansas City Plan*

In 1969, the model cities agencies in Kansas City, Missouri and Wilmington, Delaware decided to fund relatively small-scale housing allowances experiments. Enrollment of the allowance families for the three year programs got under way in 1971. Under this program the government pays the difference between 25 percent of an eligible tenant's adjusted income and the ,market price of the standard unit which the tenant finds and rents.

The Kansas City Plan, directed bv Joe L. Mattox. established a maximum rental amount schedule. After the first years program evaluation, he reported in "Rent Allowances"16 that the program was a complete success. Even though the maximum rent allowable for an efficiency unit is $75, the average payment has been only $62. For a one bedroom unit, the maximum is $125 and the average payment has been $94. The maximum for a two bedroom unit is $150 and the average payment has been $113. The maximum for a three bedroom unit was $200 and the average payment has been $143. For the four bedroom unit, there was a maximum rental allowance of $210.

Program evaluation also reveals that the program has given some low income families a choice of decent housing, be it in a house or an apartment, in the city or the suburbs. Most important is the fact that since the families had a choice, they have not saturated blocks nor do they pose a threat to neighborhood stability and real estate. r2he City of Gainesville's current vacancy ratio for higher priced multi family type dwelling would be a factor of major importance in the success of this particular housing program. Actualization of such housing allowance program would fall in line with what Alice 1. Rivian in Systematic Thinking for Social Action calls "systematic experiments" with different ways of delivering social services.12'


Ohio Fair-Share Plan

The Dayton Plan was devised to equitably distribute a regions allotment of subsidized housing between the various communities in that region. The plan was unanimously adopted in September,

Just prior to this report going to press, the Gainesville City Commission approved the expenditure of a modest sum of revenue
sharing funds for an experimental program based on the so called
"Kansas City Plar.. "



56







1970, by the elected officials serving on the 42 member Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC), who developed the plan.

In Gainesville, as well as in major cities across the country, such as Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Harlem, and Watts, it becomes easy for planners to determine that there exists a shortage of sound low and moderate income housing units in the city. Difficulty arises in deciding how to allocate the greatly needed housing to the communities of the city.

MVRPC's Ann Shafor, in an article by Lois Craig, "The Dayton Area's 'Fair Share' Housing Plan Enters the Implimentation Phase,"19 outlines a six factor allocation method based on the regions 53 "planning units." The method entails:

(1) Equal share;

(2) Proportionate share of the county's households;

(3) Proportionate share of the county's households making
less that $10,000 annually (or less than $7,000 in the
three more rural counties);

(4) The inverse of (3);

(5) A share based on the assessed evaluation per pupil
of the school districts covering the planning units;
and

(6) A share based on the relative overcrowding of the
school districts.

Upon evaluation, Ms. Shafor submits that "for the purposes of the initial housing plan, a six factor allocation method has proven relatively satisfactory, although not perfect." She further pointed out that the important things are: "First, that the distribution was made in hard figures and second, that the formula reflected enough factors to make it sensitive to a few critical characteristics of the planning units." Since Gainesville has no legal suburbs, this plan might be facilitated on a regional level.


New Towns

"New Towns" are now being planned or built throughout the U. S.. The initial concept was developed by Ebenezer Howard in the 1880's in Britian. A New Town writes William H. Thite in The Last Landscapel is a planned community that is balanced alcg social, economic, and racial lines, encompassing maximum use of open-space and green-belts and: local emp!oVment.

Two of the most notable ones are located in Columbia, Maryland and Reston, Virginia. Since Columbia comes closer to meeting


57






this idea of a "balanced" community, attention is focused briefly on it here, as it related to this housing study.

Columbia, Maryland lies halfway along the Washington-Baltimore corridor and had a population of 10,000 as of January, 1971. This New Town has been planned to encompass liOFOOO residents, and enough industry to be self-supporting. In "A City Made to Human Measure," 1 John Dominis presents photographs and comments on the housing types and the diverse architectural designs.

Columbia has made tremendous headway in providing decent housing for low income households. It has the first federally subsidized housing units within a New Town, designed as townhouses, in the country. Space was made available for 300 of such housing types ,for poorer families in Columbia. The rents range from $99 monthly for a one bedroom apartment to $151.50 for a four bedroom townhouse, including heat, air conditioning and utilities. The homes overall fall in the price range of $15,000 to $128,000.

The three housing programs discussed herein are just a few of the many alternatives and not panaceas, which cities throughout the country have adopted or may consider implementing. The issue the City of Gainesville is faced with is which of the sound alternative methods it will choose to actualize.
































58







CHAPTER 7

COMPARISONS OF HOUSING STUDIES RESULTS


A part of the proposed methodology of this study was to make a
comparison of the City of Gainesville's29 and the North Central
Florida Regional Planning Council's (,NCFRPC)30 findings on
housing conditions in Gainesville, Florida. Considerable differences appear in the data of the two agencies. This study
focuses on the City, while NCFRPC's concentrates on the Gainesville Urban Area (GUA).

Data for analysis in the City of Gainesville's housing survey
was acquired from the inspection records of the Housing Division,
Department of Communtiy Development and by actual field survey.
The NCFRPC study was based upon the records of the Alachua County
Tax Assessor.

The NCFRPC study utilized a rating scale of 0 through 100 in designating the residential structure conditions in the GUA.
These ratings, found in the Alachua County Tax Assessor records,
are based on the general structural condition of the buildings,
as well as age. Units rated between 0 and 59 were considered to
be dilapidated, 60 79 deteriorating,and 80 and above sound. This
breakdown was tested by sample field survey. It was felt that they should be at least as accurate an indicator as a complete
field survey would be.

The Housing Division, City of Gainesville, used a rating scale of 1 to 5 to designate the physical condition of each dwelling
unit. Inspectors were told to completely avoid any other
physical environment deficiencies. These include rubble in the
front yard and/or on the porch, lack of adequate landscaping
and buffering between adjacent structures, inappropriated
setback requirements, etc.

With all of these factors taken into consideration, one mnay
move toward a comparison of our sources of data. For clarity,
it must be re-emphasized the NCFRPC's findings are based on
the GUA, while this report focuses on the City only.
Results of NCFRPC's study on housing conditions in the GUA
L reveal that 19.1 percent of the rated residential structures
were rated as dilapidated, 18.1 percent as deteriorating, and 62.8 percent as sound. (SEE MAP 14) As was noted in NCFRPC's
study, the proportion of units classified as dilapidated appears hig h because these percentages apply to structures, rather than units. By applying the number of structures rated less than 60
to the total number of dwelling units in the GUA, they found
approximately 10 percent of the housing units were dilanidated.
By comparison, the findings of the City show that of the total I number of units rated 1 through 5 that there is 0.2 percent
dilapidated, 3 percent needing major repair, 2 percent needing



59







minor repair, 11 percent.with minor or slight defects (standard), and 84 percent standard or surpassing the City's minimum housing code. These findings appear relatively unalarming until we compare them with the individual percentages of housing condition ratings for each enumeration district in the City.

Another comparison might be made in regards to the average housing conditions rating for each census tract. Using the averages (mean) as the sole basis, it may be said that Tracts 11 2, 6f 7 were the most blighted of fourteen studied. The rationale for this statement being that in each of these tracts, the average (mean) housing condition rating fell below the City's average (mean) dwelling unit rating of 4.8.

Through measuring housing conditions in the Gainesville Urban Area by the average residential structural condition rating, the NCFRPC reported Census Tracts 1, 2, and 5 as being the worst. (SEE MAP 14) These tracts had an average rating that was less than 60. As is evident, both studies come up with two of the same tracts, numbers 1 and 2. The City's method of rating the physical housing conditions was considered to be much more reliable and valid, in as much as it was specifically based on a condition survey, whereas the NCFRPC study was based on data gathered for another purpose.

Lastly, a comparison was made of the total number of dwelling units in census tracts reported by the City's Housing Division, the U. S. Bureau of Census, and the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. (SEE TABLE XX).

The various percentages of error intrinsic to making total counts of housing units in the City must be given careful consideration in making comparisons among the three sources of data. This varies accordingly to the time frame in which the studies were conducted. Also, differences in dwelling unit counts occur by way of the methodology used; whereas, one source may count units into the total housing stock when it is only partially constructed, uninhabited, or simply miss a unit; the other miah.t not.

In conclusion, it was found that the figures given by the Housing Division generally compare favorably with those reported by the 1970 Census. Numerical differences, as in the Housing Division's figures, may appear greater in one tract and less in another than the 1970 Census' figures but generally can be explained upon detailed analysis.











60











44
IL


R's








Nsl
I Z --1 --1
j .. 6 -,;
I










jr
Ir


iL LL
fj

J
4:;Z










wi km m icmi Itco


_j vi

Z z
w 0 Ld
0 a] 0









(D CD









TABLE XX

COMPARISON OF DWELLING UNIT COUNTS IN CENSUS TRACTS*
BY HOUSING DIVISION, U. S. CENSUS BUREAU AND
NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS

Housing
Tract Division 1970 Census Difference NCFRPCO

1 275 279 4 297

2 2,910 2,432 478 3,167

3 2,361 2,467 106 2,469

4 1,911 1,594 317 1,642

5 1,182 1,978 796 1,943

6 2,236 1,309 927 1,539

7 1,767 1,794 27 2,652

8 2,148 1,896 252 1,957

9 984 0

10 2,061 2,242 187 2,518

11 725 553 172 950

12 950 814 136 1,210

16 1,306 1,241 65 1,355

17 660 654 6 1,404


CITY 20,492 20,237 255 23,130

Source: Housing survey (1972) by the Housing Division, Department of Community Development, City of Gainesville;
U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and
Housing: 1970 Census Tracts, Gainesville, Florida;
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council's
study on Housing Conditions (1972).
o Figures are given for the Gainesville Urban Area. (-)
University owned, tax exempt housing not included.

* Census Tracts 9, 13, 14, and 15 do not contain any private
housing, and thus were not included.

62









CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSIONS AND SOME PRELIMINARY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS


The purpose of this qualitative analysis of housing is to serve as a useful tool in identifying the most blighted geographic areas of the City of Gainesville. Of the City's 20,492 units, only 42 were found to he completely dilapidated, while 631 were in need of major repair. Only two counties in the State, Orange and Seminole, have a better ratio of subsidized housing units to poverty level families. Considering that most of the subsidized units are in the City and comparing the County's poverty families, the picture is even better.

Although this study gives detailed information and facts as to the condition of housing units, it does not provide the data that expresses the "feeling of community identity a social and traditional value which can not be easily appraised by appearance alone or in relation to dollars and cents.

This study utilized for its aforementioned purpose, in combination with the Environmental and Social Indicator Study, prepared by the Department of Community Development, should be given the most serious and careful evaluation by decision-makers before any attempt is made at developing a comprehensive housing policy or program for the City. Housing is an area of continuous attention in the City's planning program, and Housing Policy and Program Development is the name of a major continuous study element under which specific policies and programs will come under consideration.

Even with the establishment of the Gainesville Housing Authority in 1966 and subsequent subsidize 71 private ventures, there has not been an adecTuate increase in t he total number of housing units constructed in the City for low and moderate income families and households. Despite the City's active pursuit of its housing goal to provide standard housira for all of its citizens, a shortage still exists. _Many poverty level families are not capable cf securing decent, safe, anO sanitary housing because of financial restraints. In addition, a significant number of families and households can not afford to purchase homes at present mortgage interest rates, even if federal funding was available. As is apparent from the findings in this study, neither the provision of public housing nor the provision for mobile hor-es will be a cure-all for the Citv's housing problem.. Housing alternatives which encompass broad supportive services would be most desirable. The City of Gainesville will need additional financial assistance if it is to rid itself completely of substandard housing.

Urban renewal, as performed. in otl-er cities in the past, has proven to be a long and tedious process and frequently only transferred the housing problem from one to another geographical location. Urban planner and architect, Carl Feiss, in "Inner


63









City Blues" by the Gainesvillb Sun, submits that "what we haven't
learned is how to replace over-used buildings without destroying
the element of the neighborhood."25

Desparately needed housing for these groups must be constructed in non-concentrated areas, which may subsequefitly stimulate the City's growth and the "filtering" down of housing to different income groups. A policy implication inherent here is that the
construction of low and moderate housing would mandate the
concept of a "balanced" community rather than two apart and
separate ones, states Canty in A Single Society: Alternatives
to Urban Apartheid,9 1969. In 1968, the report of the National A-dvisory Commission on Civil Disorders stated that "Our nation
is moving toward two societies, one Black, one White separate
and unequal."

The majority of the poor families in larger cities such as
Detroit, Newark, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Harlem, etc., live in
the "inner city," whereas in Gainesville, the majority of such families are geographically located near the City's periphery.

The Housing Board22 noted that the only solution to the ghetto
problem would be the distribution of low income families in either "mini-projects" or in individual dwellings throughout
the middle income community which is racially segregated. It
submits that for success, social and economic elements must be considered and maximum input and public acceptance must
be secured. If the Housing Board's proposal were to be implemented, it would call for the removal of any zoning obstacles
which may exist in implementing a housing plan, and more
importantly, to overcome the high cost of land which frequently
provides the most significant barrier. These obstacles were
reported to exist in Black Jack, Missouri and other cities by Harry Waters in a Newsweek special report entitled "The Battle
of the Surburbs."20

Regretably, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has curtailed its funding of all federal housing programs.
Such was prompted by the rash of mismanagement and scandalous
activities of private sponsors and federal appraisers as reported
by Jerry M. Flint in a ewYork Times article entitled "Romney
Says His Agency Can't Solve Eousing Problem; Concedes Errors.",14 This will, of course, have significant influence on any housing
program devised.

A lack of economic development in the highly concentrated Black
suburban areas,as well as the older Black communities of the I City, in commercial and retail enterprises, has a direct influence on the type of employment, the level of unemployment
and underemployment. Such development would inevitably generate
employment for this sector of the overall community and hopefully
stimulate some training programs by entrepreneurs throughout the
City for the unemployed, underemployed,and unskilled within the
area.



64









Finally, the City of Gainesville can not truly reflect on its record of clearance or removal of substandard and dilapidated dwelling units from the City with pride until it has accordingly mustered both public and private sectors in providing needed housing for all 6f its ill-housed. Thus, strong enforcement of the Housing Code, in itself, is not enough This must be coupled with more concrete financial support and cooperation among the City, County, and State governments, in that order.

Each of the issues and problems stated hereinmust be considered and assessed thoroughly in prescribing any housing plan for the City of Gainesville. It is extremely important to remember that housing must not be dealt with singularly, but in regards to other social, economic, and political factors as addressed in this report, and even more thoroughly in the Environmental and 'Social Indicator Study, recently completed by the Department of C immunity Development.








































65









CHAPTER 9

RECOMMENDATIONS


These recommendations are given in light of the policy-relevant research findings of this housing study. The include the following:

(1) Neighborhood survey be conducted to measure the "sense
of community" feelings of residents in geographical areas designated for concentrated attention before
any attempt at wholesale land acquisition or clearance.

(2) Immediate construction of low and moderate income
housing units be encouraged, combined with the acquisition of open space land for parks and playgrounds, and
urban beautification projects, to meet current and
future needs of the poorly housed. Such housing must
be within the financial means of low and moderate
income groups, accessable to employment, public
transportation, schools, shopping centers and other
amenities.

(3) "Maximum feasible participation" in policy planning by
the residents in designated blighted areas, which might
be subject to any housing programs or redevelopment.

(4) Low and moderate income housing must be dispersed
throughout the City to avoid further concentration
among various segments of the Community with a minimum amount of social, economic, and psychological
conflict.

(5) Monitor closely the experimentation with the Kansas
City Housing Allowance Plan, which will be conducted
using Revenue Sharing Funds.

(6) Revisions of the zoning ordinance, currently underway,
include measures where feasible to insure that no
unnecessary constraints are placed on the construction
of low cost housing. Positive measures aimed at reducing costs,such as PUD ordinances, should be encouraged.
Consideration should also be given to requiring that a
certain percentage of low cost housing units be required with large projects, with or without incentives such as
allowing density bonuses.

(7) Large as opposed to small scale economic development
of the concentrated black community. Seek support of
the local businesses and the Office of Ainority Business
Enterprises (OMBE), in Washington, D. C.

(8) The possibility of zoning additional land for mobile
home use, including mobile home subdivisions in the


66









City to accommodate interested families and households
unable to afford the market price of a privately constructed unit should be explored.

(9) Coordination by the City and County governments in efforts to improve low income housing with emphasis
on the improvement of personal, social, and economic
conditions for low income groups.

(10) Utilization of revenue sharing funds in addition to
any other available funding sources, such as nonprofit groups and banks, to assist home-owners with
rehabilitation grants for upgrading their property in
accordance to the Cit I 's minimum Housing Code.

(11) A concentrated employment study should be conducted
on the most blighted areas discussed in this housing
study.

(12) Increase the residential areas of choice for minority
groups, while increasing their percentages in owneroccupied units.

(13) Low income neighborhoods, which frequently can not
petition for community improvements (such as street
paving) due to limited incomes, should be given
priority consideration in the allocation of revenue
sharing or other sources of funds.





























67








REFERENCES

General

(1) Inspection Records of the Housing Division, Department
of Community Development, City of Gainesville, Florida,
1972.

(2) Housing Code, Chapter 15-A. Code of Ordinances, City of
Gainesville, Florida, 1960.

(3) City of Gainesville Building Permits, 1970-1973.

(4) City of Gainesville. Land Use Plan, 1970, Gainesville
Urban Area, Gainesville, Florida.

(5) Planning Division, Department of Community Development.
Comprehensive Development Plan, 1970, Gainesville Urban
Area, Gainesville, Florida.

(6) U. S_. Department of Housing and Urban Development. FHA
Techniques of Housing Market Analysis. Washington, D. C.:
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

Books

(7) Miller, Delbert C. Handbook of Research Design and Social
Measurement, 2nd Edition, New York: David McKay Company,
Inc., 1970.

(8) Robinson, Ira M. (ed.). "Chicago Model Cities Program; FiveYear Forecast," Decision Making in Urban Plannin (An Introduction to New Methodologies), Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1972.

(9) Canty, Donald. A Single Society: Alternatives to Urban
Apartheid, New York: Proeaer Publishers, 1968.

(10) Lowe, Jeanne R. "Emerging Social Problems," Cities in a
Race With Time, New York: Vintage Books, 196',.

(11) Whyte, William H. "The New Towns," The Last Landscane,
New York: Doubleday and Company, 1970.

(12) Rivlin, Alice M. Systematic Thinking for Social Action,
Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution, 1971.

(13) Campbell, Alan K. (ed.). The States and the Urban Crisis,
The American Assembly, Columbia University, Englewood Cliffs,
N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.

Periodicals

(14) Flint, Jerry M. "Romney Says His Agency Can't Solve
Housing Problems; Concedes Errors," The Npw York-Times,
(March, 1972), Section 20:3.


68
A










(15) Beckham, Robert. "The Experimental Housing Allowance
Program," Journal of Housing, No. 1, (January, 1973),
pp. 12-17.

(16) Mattox, Joe L. "Rent Allowances," Journal of Housing,
No. 9, (October, 1971),pp. 482-487.

(17) "Newark," Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), (July, 1971),
pp. 16-20.

(18) Zelnick, C. Robert. "Gibson of Newark: Quiet Diplomat on
a Racial Battleground," City, (January/February, 1972),
pp. 10-22.

(19) Craig, Lois. "The Dayton Area's 'Fair Share' Housing
Plan Enters the Implementation Phase," City, (January/
February, 1972),pp. 50-56.

(20) Waters, Harry. "The Battle of the Suburbs," Newsweek
Special Report, Novemberr 15, 1971), pp. 61-70.

(21) Dominis, John. "A City Made to Human Measure," Life,
Vol. 70, No. 1, (January 8, 1971), pp. 76-83.

(22) Gainesville Housing Board."Annual Report to the City
Commission," (May 1972-May, 1973).

(23) Gainesville Housing Bcard."The Gainesville Housing
Board 1973," Memorandum, (June 7, 1973)

(24) Housing Division "Report First Cycle Housing Code
Enforcement 1966-1972," Memorandum, (January 4, 1973).


Surveys, Studies

(25) Perez, Skip and Stacey Bridges. "Inner City Blues,"
Special Report, Gainesville Sun, (February 27, 1972).

(26) Woodbury, Coleman and Frederick Gutheim. Paper Prepared
for the 1949 National Conference on Family Life.

(27) Planning Department, Gainesville, Florida. Gainesville
Neighborhood Analvsis, 1965.
(28) Department of Com.unity Development, Gainesville, Florida.

Housing Survey, 1969.

(29) Housing Division, Department of Community Development,
Gainesville, Florida. Housing Survey, 1972.

(30) North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Gainesville,Florida. Housing Conditions, 1972.




69








(31) Alachua County Department of Health, Alachua County
Florida. Housing Survey, 1967.

(32) The Office of the Governor, the Governor's Task Force
on Housing and Community Development, and the State
of Florida, Department of Community Affairs. Housing
in Florida, Vols. 1-5, 1972.


Census Data

(33) U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population and
Housing: 1970 Census Tracts, Gainesville, Florida,
W-ashington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office,
1972.

(34) U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Housing: 1970,
Vol. I, General Housing Characteristics, Florida,
Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office,
1971.

(35) U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Housing: 1960,
Vol.1, States ard Small Areas, Florida, -iashington,
D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962.

(36) U. S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Housing:1950,
Vol. I, General Characteristics, Florida, Washington,
D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1952.

(37) U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970,
General Social and Economic Characteristics, Florida, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office,
1972.

(38) U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing: 1970,
Detailed Housing Characteristics, Florida, Washinaton,
D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972.






















70









Agencies Interviewed and Major Contributors Housing Division, Department of Community Development Community Affairs Department, City Manager's Office North Central Florida Regional Planning Council Alachua County Health Department Gainesville Housing Authority Alachua County Housing Authority .Gainesville Neighborhood Development, Inc. (GNDI) Public Works Department Utilities Department University of Florida Research Library University of Florida Housing Division Gainesville Housing Board Local Builders, Developers, and Contractors Local Banks



Special Thanks:

To the secretarial staff, particularly Mrs. Fletcher, for preparing this study.



DES/ef















71






































APPENDIX A































72











APPENDIX TABLE

HOUSING CONDITION OF CITY AND ENUMERATION DISTRICTS BY UNITS, 1973 CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Dilap- Major Minor Minor
dated Repair Repair Defect S.tandard
Total
E.D. (1) (2) (3) Units

(1) 1618 2 6 2 2 62 74
(2) 1619 0 0 0 0 736 736
(3) 1620 0 0 4 38 659 701
(4) 1621 0 6 0 3 391 400

(5) 1622 1 7 22 61 638 729
(6) 1623 2 5 12 23 506 548
(7) 1624 0 3 10 29 535 577
(8) 1625 0 14 21 34 438 507

(9) 1626 0 5 14 63 868 950
(10) 1627 0 0 1 1 723 725
(11) 1628 0 0 0 0 660 660
(12) 1629. 0 5 1 2 752 760

(13) 1630 0 0 0 0 546 546
(14) 1631 0 0 0 3 408 411
(15) 1632 0 6 2 6 576 590
(16) 1633 0 1 13 3 302 319

(17) 1634 0 0 1 20 158 179
(18) 1635 2 1 34 82 443 562
(19) 1640 0 3 1 4 38 46
(20) 1641 0 5 1 9 612 627

(21) 1642 0 0 0 0 965 965
(22) 1643 0 0 0 1 509 510
(23) 1644 4 156 16 550 213 939
(24) 1645 1 9 8 77 274 369

(25) 1646 0 0 1 9 471 481
(26) 1647 0 0 0 10 751 761
(27) 1648 6 56 27 229 42 360
(28) 1649 0 11 43 130 91 275

(29) 1650 0 0 0 0 80 80
(30) 1651 0 0 0 2 320 322
(31) 1652 0 5 1 13 388 407
(32) 1653 0 0 1 9 16 26

(33) 1654 0 21 31 88 207 347
(34) 1655 4 85 38 213 1,024
(35) 1656 6 90 29 127 481 1,364
(36) 1657 1 35 10 733
63 30 139
(37) 1658 6 29 22 70 680 807
(38) 1659 0 18 9 108 186 321
(39) 1660 7 34 24 146 115 326
(40) 1661 0 15 10 39 249 313

TOTALS 42 631 409 2,267 17,143 20,492

E.D.'s
MEA14S 1.0 15.4 10.0 55.3 418.1

CITY
MEA14S 0.20 3.07 1.99 11.06 83.65 100%

Source: Compiled by the Planning Division, Department of Community Development from the inspection records of the
Housing Division, City of Gainesville, Florida.



73















APPENDIX TABLE 2

NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATION DESCRIPTIONS (GAINESVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS, 1965) CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Neighborhood
Designation Description

1 Older established neighborhood. These areas make up "Old Gainesville," the
ntrally located, fine old houses of the early years, now often in transition
to other uses. Built up around the turn of the century, some houses date back
to 1890.

2 Established neighborhood. These areas were the second ring of growth, still
near the center of the City. Located in the northeast, they were the "suburbs"
of the 1930's and 1940's.

3 Newer established neighborhood. These middle and upper income neighborhoods
are distinguished from more recent subdivisions by their stable, established
character. Developed since World War II, they contain many professionals
and faculty members.

4 Suburban neighborhood. Suburban areas, developed since the mid 1950's, are
recognizable by their newness and appearance o having been built as a unit.
Located in outlying areas of the City, they have a predominance of middle
and upper income residents.

Student neighborhood. Located near the University for the most part, these
areas contain a high proportion of University students and their families
along with faculty and others associated with the University, and a number
of older established residents.

6 Combination neighborhood. Combining characteristics of both established areas
and informal suburban areas, these neighborhoods primarily house working class
families, often with small town or rural backgrounds. Some of these are in
transition to student apartment uses. Development has gone on from the 1930's
to the present.

7 Suburban Black neighborhood. These suburban areas were developed between
1957 and 1965, and are located adjacent to schools in the Southeast.

8 Older Black neighborhood. Dating back to the 1890's, these older neighborhoods have many housing and environmental problems. Although most residents
have low incomes, there are also middle income and professional people living
here.

9 Mixed areas. These areas consist of combinations of commercial or industrial
uses and residential uses. Many are in transition to non-residential development.

10 Apartment neighborhood. These areas have concentrations of apartments planned
or underway. Probably, most of them will be student neighborhoods when they
are occupied.

I Industrial area.

C Commercial area.

U Undeveloped area.


Source: 27




74









APPENDIX TABLE 3

POVERTY STATUS IN 1969 OF ALL FAMILIES AND PERSONS: 1970
CITY OF GAINESVILLEr FLORIDA


All Income Levels

Families 13,689

Percent receiving public assistance income 5.5

Mean size of family 3.36

With related children under 18 years 7,906

Mean number of related children under 18 years 2.16

Families with female head 1,917

With related children under 18 years 1,325

With related children under 6 years 628

Percent of heads in labor force 71.3

Family Heads 13,689

Percent 65 years and over 9.4

Civilian male family heads under 65 years 10,678

Percent of heads in labor force 83.6

Persons 55,969

Percent receiving Social Security income 6.F

Percent 65 years and over 6.2

Percent receiving Social Security income 70.1

households 18,092

In owner-occupied housing units 8f850

Mean value of unit $18,617

In renter-occupied housing units 9,242

Mean gross rent 8 123

Percent lacking some or all plumbing 2.8





75









APPENDIX TABLE 3
(continued)

POVERTY STATUS IN 1969 OF FAMILIES AND PERSONS: 1970
WITH INCOMES LESS THAN POVERTY LEVEL
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Families 1,917

Percent of families 14.0

Mean family income $ 1,942

Mean income deficit $ 1,549

Percent receiving public assistance income 20.6

Mean size of family 3.77

With related children under 18 years 1,365

Mean number of related children under 18 years 2.71

Families with female head 761

With related children under 18 years 640

With related children under 6 years 363

Percent of heads in labor force 64.2

Family Heads 1,917

Percent 65 years and over 13.8

Civilian male family heads under 65 years 986

Percent of heads in labor force 6-0. 6

Persons 12,706

Percent of all persons 22.7

Percent receiving Social Security income 8.8

Percent 65 years and over 7.6

Percent receiving Social Security income 68.5

Related children under 18 years 3,683

Percent living with both parents 44.8




76









Appendix Table 3
Poverty Status in 1969 of Families and Persons: 1970 With Incomes Less Than Poverty Level City of Gainesville, Florida (continued)


Households 4,034

Percent of all households 22.3

In owner-occupied housing units 947

Mean value of unit $10,747

,In renter-occupied housing units 3,087

Mean gross rent $ 118

Percent lacking some or all plumbing facilities 7.6


Source: 37



































77









APPENDIX TABLE 4

POVERTY STATUS IN 19639 OF ALL LACK FAMILIES AND PERSONS: 1970 CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


All Income Levels

Families 2,480

Percent receiving public assistance income 13.3

Mean size of family 4.10

With related children under 18 years 1,772

Mean number of related children under 18 years 2.76

Families with female head 939

With related children under 18 years 747

With related children under 6 years 430

Percent of heads in labor force 71.2

Family Heads 2,480

Percent 65 years and over 13.5

Civilian male family heads under 635 years 1,344

Percent of heads in labor force 88.9

Persons 11,368

Percent receiving Social Security income 7.1

Percent 65 years and over 7.7

Percent receiving Social Security incom-e 63.1

Households 3,150

In owner-occupied housing units 1,503

Mean value of unit $10,557

In renter-occupied housing units 1,647

Mean gross rent $ 70

Percent lacking some or all plumbing 12.7









APPENDIX TABLE 4
(continued)

POVERTY STATUS IN 1969 OF BLACK FAMILIES AND PERSONS: 1970 WITH INCOMES LESS THAN POVERTY LEVEL
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Families 1,031

Percent of Families 41.6

Mean family income $ 2r159

Mean income deficit $ lr621

'Percent receiving public assistance income 32.0

Mean size of family 4.19

With related children under 18 years 796

Mean number of related children under 18 years 3.18

Families with female head 584

With related children under 18 years 487

With related children under 6 years 291

Percent of heads in labor force 68.Family Heads 11031

Percent 65 years and over 18.7

Civilian male family heads under 65 years 343

Percent of heads in labor force 75.8

Persons 5t002

Percent of all persons 44.0

Percent receiving Social Security income 11.1

Percent 65 years and over 11.8

Percent receiving Social Security income 62.4Related children under 18 years )1546

Percent living with both parents 33.57





79









Appendix Table 4
Poverty Status in 1969 of Black Families and Persons: 1970 With incomes Less Than Poverty Level City of Gainesville, Florida
(continued)


Households 1,433

Percent of all households 45.5

In owner-occupied housing units 545

Mean value of unit $ 8,497

.In renter-occupied housing units 888

Mean gross rent $ 66

Percent lacking some or all plumbing facilities 18.9


Source: 37


































80














w r- Ln r r- %C 17 Ln Ic Ln m C) 0 rn 1-1
m U) w w r Ln W w %Ll -W C Ln C) 1-4 m %D
W-7 M r4 M 1-4 Cl

0; C;


ul
Mtn I w I C) r, (A
M 14 m qw C4 r- m m 0 Q M -W w C %D m
Ln -4 r4 ri 1 W I't ai 1 Ili

M Ln N m %0 %D
r-I q r.4 -4
to). V). V)- V). V), V).


en (4 %D W r, -W -W r. -W -4 (311 r C In Q %D IT r- 00 Ln Lm t- W
14 q C4 r4 (4 r4 1.1 r tD -W %lD -T co 14 fn r, rn 0 -4 CN en o
(IN -4 1-4 CN 00 %r m 00 (14 Im m tN

C4 v -I M -4 N -W
14 r-4 r-f
CO. 401). V)- V). V). V).


(n C14 Ln en C4 en -W co -W r- m CN tn Ln I I r- r -m r- -W 1-4 -4 r,
4D C4 m en Ln CN Ir Lr) %D W LO co r, Ln C) r- kD Lm C) C) en en
%0 a CN co CN -W 'C,4 M Ln

C; 0; rto). V). V).


fn r- cn (n
-4 Cj C14 00 0) r-4 CO Ln co w co OD kDoo
Ln r, r, Ln Cli o -W -4

C r: r:
-4 el -4 1-4
Q). Ar V). 46 Vj V).


Ln 0 Ln en Ln co (N a %.D N Ln (14 Ln Ln r M %0 C) en %.0 Ln co co
-W r w Ln r Lr) co m r 4 C4 %r r, (14 m C14 CFN r- 1.0 IT Im 4
q r4 m r4 M co r- 0 CN (n OD N

1 1; 1 1; C
1-4 r4 -4


C>
Ln qT -W 0 M m 0 1-7 a M co r- 4m M Ln M M w C. %r ko Ln CIO co
C> CA 14 -W Ln .10 v. r Ln 00 00 00 -4 Ln Ln %0 M -W 1-4 r-I


ON en m -4 r CN -4


c 0 ea
" w
E lz E (3% co %,o Ln -w c) %D (::p %D Ln cj Cj %n C> rn I w (D r-i m in N rl -V

50 (:> oo cD rn un r- m r- f- r- m -i f, tn -4 Ln %0 r- %D Ln %D -W
to -W

Ln tr r,

r4 A. a))

ca .4 WMNWW r. Ir q r, kD 0 C, C) (- I I Ln V. -4 f, r- Ln %D co
oc N %D m m %D I" a w w r, w m lw 14 r- (" rn 00 co CD -7 1-4
E- > M -4 4 (n r- M M m (7s rW
x ru w


z cn oc r- M Lm %D 1w r- 0 (n W Ln 47 fn 00 r- c tn (IN a M Ln %C eq a, Ln
u u fn C4 M Ln m r, C r, m C cc m C) -4 ko w Ln r14 rn 47N -7
1-4 -W r-4 C14 C4 CN c r- r- en I
E- rt
c
1.4 1-4
Vi.


U U ON Ul %D co %L C, -tr r -tr (,I CN V) rq r Lr) c c Ln C, r m c r LI)
cli m C14 00 00 C> r r, co c CN c r- fn C14 Iz %D cr,
1-4 -1 14 C-4 eq r4
C Ui Oi 1 -4 -i
c Im C)




C, 00 w r- w CD m r- m C> C4 c V) I Ln CN co 00 a, (N
Ln N qT %0 ON -W 7 Lr) r (D I.C C%4 11 OD q 00 CN rn 0 00 C 00

1 -4 -4 r-4 q -I CIA r-q C C Lfi C C CO UZ L
-4 rl 00 (14 %L r. Cq m
V) (f). V). Q'I V V)qr cN rn -4 t -7 c> m cD c) c,4 co r, c) i w r4 co (n -IT r 0 C14
CD r- -4 M M a, 00 (n %D %0 r- W CN Lr) OD c a. --7 0 cli "

-1 r4 1 1 Oi r C C 1 1
Lr) w fn m N -1 C14
V). V). V). V). ka.


C14 r- CD %D C) C) I 1 00 r- Lr) 1 -4 w I r r, qT C) ko CN r-I w
C11 -4 -4 C14 -4 Cq -4 r r- V) C) T en r C.
C', ', 1-1 Ci 1
en
(f).



-4
-4
-H rc;
E rc a) V)
f 41 -4
> ra (a
CN
U) (011, cm Im m m 0 m m m 0 m C m Q)
0 r a) c) (7 m M 0-, m C C-, c, C-N m m m a, 4
rl C, Q) >
-1 Cl 1-4 N M 7 Ln ',D r- M C -4 C 4 .14
U V lt ID Q)
V v, vi 4 E ? r_ 1) E
r-4 4-) G a) En r. 0 -14 r- Q en
M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w E u -4 u
lz r4 4J 4J 4J 4J P -0 4J 4J 4J .0 4J 4-J 4J 0 0 r- lu c
(D r-4 M () m :3 r. V z
4 1-4 ;4 (D L CD C) CD C> 0 C) C (D (D CD CD C) C: a) 71 3 I
W r < -W CD c) C-, CD r) CD C) CD C, 0 0 C:) CD CD -4 -,A -E C) C) (D C) C, cn, C c C, CD C C. C)
0 0 Q)
In 4 C 1 1; ll Is r: ; C C 1 1; L c; :7:
u 0 En lu
C) rl L.) r) C) 0
1-4 ai U). V U-* V V)- (/). V)- v> vi- V V). U). (/> -, :.: Ul






81








APPENDIX TABLE 6

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BLACK POPULATION: 1970
(CENSUS TRACTS WITH 400 OR MORE BLACK POPULATION)
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


(2) (6) (7) City

All Families 574 682 1,047 2,480

Less than $1,000 42 63 76 280

$ 1,000 to $1,999 118 75 92 286

$ 2,000 to $2,999 81 75 135 315

$ 3,000 to $3,999 61 52 122 256

$ 4,000 to $4,999 74 87 123 314

$ 5,000 to $5,999 55 74 86 228

$ 6,000 to $6,999 46 52 63 178

$ 7,000 to $7,999 13 76 67 159

$ 8,000 to $8,999 18 46 54 128

$ 9,000 to $9,999 5 24 68 104

$10,000 or more 61 58 161 303

Median Income: Families $3,754 $4,874 $4,801 $4,554

Families and unrelated
individuals $2,465 $4,068 $4,164 $3,439


Source: 33


















82











+
9 t
Ln M 4 a) -M 0 47, Ln r, 14 w Ln -T 1-1 C)
tn co CN (n 0 ID Ln m tri w Im %D %D r, cli
,q 'IT en r, q en ri C w Ln 4
47 Ln en C4 1.4





en





Ln Ln Ln 0 Ln C4 o -q (n qr qw m
w n M C4 rn -1 N -W a qw CN
Ln -4 r-4 C4 14





-.0 %0 1 -T CD N tA 0 0 -T -4 ON %D Ch
Ln -w N I-q -4 m Ln r- IT -4 1-1 -4
rn -4




Ln %0 r- r1l Ln



+

co co it) 0% C) 1-4 m Ln (n C Ln -4
(" OD Ln co lw rn r- Ln Ul C4
00 qT cn



+
E4 0 -4
w fn LI) al N 4 V; 00 r, -T -IT 1-4
r. co (D r, m fn C14 N m Im 14

co



z 4
a In 14
H 4J f- m Ln -W 0 OD C4 0; N 14 tn kD
co C) -4 r- N %0 rn N w C4 -4 -7
%D Ln Iq 'A 14 -4 -4


Z
H co 14
M r4 f, CN r- m qw %o c4 Ln -4 u4
C4 1-4 -W en m 4 CN M co 1-4 V) 1-4 r-4
ul 4n m -4 -4 14


0 ;E;
+
C co
u 0
H %0 00 1 -T OD m en L C M tn co -4 C14
E- 4. Ln r, C, cli r- in Ln M cn m co
ul 0 eq

E-4
E-4 H C%
rn CN 1 0 C14 ko kc co %D c 9
CN (n CN q 0) r4 m -4 04
C4


+

u m 1.4 qw Ln r-I W tA V) M N c C) C) Iq A
z m r- 0 C14 m a, rn ID co -4 (14
4 ;; C -T fn -4 -4
Z





a% 00 ID m CN co m Ln _q 00 Ln co Ln Ln a%
Ul co P- %D V. -.C r" M -W co co -T 1-1 1-4
00







Ln m C14 Ln N m Ln Ln CN Ln
m C) -4 -4 1-4 tn
1-4 14




41 4.)
4-1

4 4
u 4 4 41 41 0 $4 41 41 0
$4 0 0 w r- r- w C; r- E
Q) u 41 (n C) Q V w a) a, C) Q)
a4 %Z 4J C) u u 4 0 0 U 4
0) -4 CD C) -A 4 0 rc a% CD 4 4 0
w a 0 w CN w 0)
:3 Ln 4J 4J C 4-1 .0

41 en r r a) ril M 0) 04
r_ N rn u E 0 j:: CN m () r;
CU 4 4-) C) 41 4J 4 0
9z 0 -4 a, C.; 0 C) 0 0 Q) u
0 u ::) 41 0 4J 4-1 ol CD (n 41 4J CL
r Q) u w 4.) r) C, m 4J L)
tn H CL () cn r) a Ln Ln 0 C CD (D C) in Ln 0 4
0 CA 0 M 4 rj ra m :1
4 1.4 Ln 0
0






83









APPENDIX TABLE 8

FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSING UNITS
WITH BLACK HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD: 1970
(CENSUS TRACTS WITH 400 OR MORE BLACK POPULATION)
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Census Tract

Gross Rent as Percentage of Income By Income

(2) (6) (7)

Less than $10,000 631 359 557

25 percent cr more 382 158 253

35 percent or more 286 80 153

Not computed 8 19 32

Median 32.3 23.9 24.4


Sou--ce: 33































84





































APPENDIX B































85











4-)
r.
C) QC IzZi' Clr) CC L' V% V-1
4 C C4,1 r- C', C C 00 Lf) qr rj M Lr)
la) c N -44
04 r-H
4-)


C, CD
4-4 a kc CD CD C
0 a a 6 .
%Ll r- C\4 %.c CN a: CO r--i kL, -4. -tz c r- M r-i (-- r- kcl
4 4 M 1,0 CN M CN 00 C r-i r-i r- r-i CD V) rC11
C>

z z






cn


0
rZ4

E-i W
U) _q 4-)
9Q H Jq 0
04 H 0
W > 4 4
E-4 U) P co
u ri; 4
;4 U) t7l a)
H ::I Q4
z f< U)
PA 0 i En
a4 u a) r
44 u 1:: rz F4 ::3 0
c 0 r ::5 :$ rIQ r--i r--l r4
E 0404 to
3 4-J
Q4 r-i
ro 4
4 0
4 4 0 ro
ft 0 0 4-) C)
4 U) -r-i -r 4J
0 4-)
0 E F 0 ri
0 0 En -4 0 4 4-)
M U) C) :l W u r
Ul -, r 0 JP Q)
ZD) tP r En 0 1 U 4
7 rc r -ri E M 4 (0
,., ) C) C)
17' rC' H -H 4 0 4 0 4 CO
U) C) (1) -r-4 -r-4 4 -4 0 4-) 0 C) 4-) (1)
4-) --1 P-4 )4 U 0 (0 -H 4 2, r. 0
Q4 :24 ::1 4 M (a r- 3: 0 c 4
5 3 u r--i r-f 4-4 44 ty)
u 0 u u 44 00
u 0 0 >1 m M ro cl) 4-1 0 >1 (Y)
H 0 0 1 1 >1 -1 4-1 0 -rq -r-i 4 4 r-i r--q
4-) 1 1 4 4 4J >i M H -r-A ) c 0 C) c lc r_ %
-4 -4 4 Q) C) 5: -i Q) U) r- a4 .5 :3 :: -P 4-)
M 4-) 4J -r 4-) ::1 : U r-i r r.
4 15 -r-I 0 U 44 :5 M C) 0
c r5 u 0 0 r- > r4 r
-P 0 (D 4 4 > 44 j 0 1
C) Q) 1 4 4 rr-' V -4 C) r--' r--' -H r-' r--q 1-4 C) (Ij r r5 (0
4 r7 4j U 4J U M 4J -4 (1 -'3 C) 4-) -r-I -H 4
4-1 H r H r 41 4-) 1:" E li j riz; IC5 rz:; r; ,,
c 0 0 0 0
u E-4 E-4 0 0 z