The above identified efforts have certainly had a positive impact on the city.  For example, several agencies report the city’s willing compliance with fair housing laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act.  In fact, Behavioral Connections, a local non-profit agency, reports that it has never had an issue with getting the city to support the establishment of dwellings for persons with disabilities.  In other communities, this has been a problem.

            Complaint trends at the Fair Housing Center reveal relatively few complaints filed by consumers.    During the 2000-2001 fiscal year,   the Center received 3 complaints of housing discrimination.  All three dealt with the rental market.  Two alleged discrimination based on race.  One alleged discrimination based on disability.  These complaints were resolved to the satisfaction of the parties.  During the 2001-2002 fiscal year, the Center received one complaint of housing discrimination.  This complaint alleged disability discrimination in the rental context and is still pending.  During the 2002-2003 fiscal year, the Center received two complaints of discrimination.  Both were based on familial status in the rental market.  These complaints are pending resolution.

            Because of the small number of complaints filed,  it is difficult to identify many trends or patterns.  Complaints were filed based on three basis:  race, familial status and disability.  However, all of the complaints involved the rental market.  This suggests that there needs to be a continued focus on fair housing training and education for rental housing professionals.

Back to top

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

            Bowling Green Ohio is a relatively small city with a population 29,636[2] in 2000. This notwithstanding it dominates most of Wood County. Bowling Green is located almost exactly in the center of the county and contains the county seat, sheriff’s office, hospital, courthouse, and other county offices. Interstate I-75, which runs north and south, cuts the county in half and goes straight through Bowling Green. The maps at the end of this section show Bowling Green’s location in the state and in the county.

            Wood County is a rural county with many acres of farm land and many farmers. The County is full of small villages and towns. Although it has a modest population, Bowling Green is by far the largest city in Wood County. Perrysburg in the northern part of the county is the second largest city with a population of 16,945 in 2000. Perrysburg, because of its proximity to Lucas County, is more often associated with Toledo than with Bowling Green. In fact all of Wood County is part of the Toledo Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). While Bowling Green is not a suburb of Toledo, it is considered as a part of Toledo’s outer-ring. Bowling Green is about 20 miles from downtown Toledo.

Bowling Green State University is a major part of the City of Bowling Green. The campus consumes much of the east side of the city with over one hundred buildings and a large amount of off-campus housing. Bowling Green easily fits into the category of a college town. The university is the largest employer in the city. The students who study at the university are counted in the U.S. census as residents of Bowling Green, because they spend most of the year there. In 2001 there were 18,900[3] students enrolled in the fall semester. Because of Bowling Green State University an unusually high number of African-Americans and Asians live in Bowling Green.   Although the University also boasts a number of Latino students, information gleaned from local sources and University data reveal that many of Bowling Green’s Latino residents are not affiliated with the University.

There are 23 civil divisions or municipalities in Wood County. They are Bloom, Bowling Green, Center, Fostoria, Freedom, Grand Rapids, Henry, Jackson, Lake, Liberty, Middleton, Milton, Montgomery, Northwood, Perry, Perrysburg, Plain, Portage, Rossford, Troy, Washington, Webster, and Weston.  (See Civil Division map at the end of this section.

Given Bowling Green’s central location in Wood County and the easy access to major transportation routes such as I-75, and State routes 25 and 6; Bowling Green is the perfect choice for the county seat. In fact Bowling Green is not only the county seat, but is also the home of all the county office’s including County Auditor and County Sheriff.

Bowling Green is a growing city, but it is growing slowly. The population has increased by 4,000 for the decades from 1980 through 2000, from 25,728 to 29,692. This represents a 13% increase over 20 years.   The chart and graph below depict this growth trend.

  As the charts depict, Wood County is growing along with Bowling Green. In 1980 the county population was 107,372.  By 2000 the population had climbed to 121,065.  The state’s population has increased as well from 10,797,630 in 1980 to 11,353,140 in 2000.  One reason why Wood County has experienced this population growth is related to the population decline Lucas County and the city of Toledo are experiencing. People in the Toledo MSA are moving away from the city into the periphery.  They are leaving the city center and moving into the suburbs and outer-ring areas like Bowling Green.

With this kind of trend in Northwest Ohio, Wood County and Bowling Green are the benefactors of Lucas County and Toledo’s loss. With the added population in Bowling Green taxes, revenues, and income for the city of Bowling Green increases.   

            People within Wood County are moving to Bowling Green. Many of the small rural communities such as Portage, Luckey and Wayne do not have such amenities as  gas stations, grocery stores or banks.  Residents of these places must come to Bowling Green to or other areas to conduct their shopping or take care of other business. Every year families move from these communities to Bowling Green to be closer to stores, schools,  jobs, or to take advantage of other services and amenities that Bowling Green can provide.

Back to top

RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS

Bowling Green is not very  racially diverse as compared to the rest of the Country.  It is however more diverse than Wood County as a whole. In 2000 Bowling Green’s percentage of Caucasians was 3% lower than that of Wood County, while the percentage of African-Americans was 1.5% higher than in Wood County. Latino and Asian populations also had higher percentages in Bowling Green than in Wood County in 2000. The charts at the end of this section show the comparison in populations for Bowling Green and Wood County. One can clearly see that Bowling Green is more diverse than the county.

Bowling Green’s diversity is somewhat credited to Bowling Green State University. In 2000 61% of Bowling Green’s population was B.G.S.U. students, thus the student population influences the city’s population a great deal. The University attracts students from all over Ohio and other states. There are also many international students. In 2000, there were over 100 students from China alone.  The University boasts students from over 100 different nations including India, Bosnia, Cyprus, Ghana, India, Malaysia, and Romania.  Three percent of the student population are international students.  The countries traditionally representing the  largest number of international students are China, Canada, France, India, Japan, and Russia.  Because B.G.S.U. has so many international students, these students affect the diversity of population in the city.  Were it not for the presence of the diverse student body, Bowling Green’s population would more closely reflect that of  Wood county.   The City’s diversity is also impacted by the University professors who live in the City.  The diversity among University employees is certainly reflected in the City’s population. The charts and graphs below illustrate the impact of B.G.S.U. student population on the City and the impact of the student population on the City’s diversity.

  The above chart and graph depict some of the relationship between the University’s  diversity and the city’s diversity.  There is a very close relationship between the University’s African-American population and the city’s African-American population.  Using the latest census data and University records for the year 2000 there were 837 African-Americans in the city of Bowling Green.  Of those 837, approximately 789 were students at the University.

  University records also help explain the city’s Native American population.  According to the 2000 census, there were 62 Native Americans in the city.  University records reveal that there were 40 Native American students on campus in 2000. 

University records do not clearly depict a relationship between student and city population for Hispanics and Asians however.  According to University records, a fairly large portion of students, 1,032 in 2000, did not report their ethnicity[4].  BGSU reports that in 2000, there were 409 Hispanic and 150 Asian students.  However, census data reveals that during that time, there were 1,031 Hispanic and 543 Asian persons living in the city.  If one assumes that a  portion of the students who did not reveal their ethnicity were Hispanic and Asian, this would explain some of the variance between the counts.  However, it does not explain all of the variance. 

While the city’s African-American, Hispanic, Asian and Native American population are not all students at the University, clearly, a large percentage are.  Bowling Green owes a great deal of its diversity to the University. This also helps to explain why the city has greater racial and ethnic diversity than the county. 

            The percentages of each ethnic group have remained rather stable over the past 20 years. Caucasians or whites represented the majority of the population in 1980 at 93.9%. By 2000 Caucasians were still the majority.  The Caucasian population increased  from 24,159 in 1980 to 27,219 in 2000.  However, the percentage of Caucasians as compared to the overall population dropped slightly from 93.9% in 1980 to 91.8% in 2000.  The African-American population has decreased slightly and its percentage of the population has declined as well. In 1980, 900 or 3.5% of the residents of Bowling Green were African-Americans. In 2000, 837 or  2.8% of Bowling Green’s residents were African-American. 

On the other hand, the Latino and Asian populations have grown significantly in proportion to their population sizes.  The Latino population has grown from 463 in 1980 to 1,031 in 2000.  This represents a growth of 123% in the Latino population from 1980 to 2000.  As can be expected with the amount of growth in the population, the Latino percentage of overall population has grown as well.   In 1980 1.8% of Bowling Green’s population was Latino. In 2000 Latinos represented 3.5% of the population, passing the number of African-Americans to become the largest minority group in the city. The Asian population has grown from 257 in 1980 to 533 in 2000.  The percentage of Asian population grew from 1.0% to 1.8%  between 1980 and 2000. The Native-Americans in Bowling Green represent a very small portion of the population. Their numbers did double however from 1980 to 2000, from 28 total to 62, or 0.1% to 0.2%. 

            The following charts and graphs depict the Bowling Green population by ethnicity between 1980 and 2000.

Back to top

POPULATION CHANGE

             Bowling Green is in a unique position. It is not a substantially large city; it is not a suburb to a larger city. It is its own entity. The above tables and charts show an interesting trend.  An immediate assumption might be that the growth in Bowling Green’s population, particularly given the vast growth in the Latino and Asian populations, is attributable to growth in the student population at Bowling Green State University.  This is not the case. 

Bowling Green State University’s fall enrollment has not gone up that much in the last 20 years. The number of full time students enrolled in the university has remained relatively constant since 1980.  The total population however has increased by almost 4,000 since 1980. Bowling Green State University students still represent more that half of all residents in Bowling Green, but that number is declining. The percent of the population in Bowling Green that are B.G.S.U. students has dropped from 69% in 1980 to only 61% in 2000. So the population growth that Bowling Green is experiencing is not because of more students attending B.G.S.U., but rather, for another reason. 

There are several reasons for an increase in total population without an increase in student population. One is, like mentioned before people are moving into Bowling Green from more remote communities like Wayne and Portage. Another reason is that people are moving to Bowling Green from the Toledo area.   Additionally, employment opportunities have brought people to Bowling Green.  The city boasts a number of small businesses.  With the general rise in the number of small businesses across the nation, it stands to reason that Bowling Green would benefit from this trend.  Yet another reason, discussed in greater detail below, is the increase in Latino and Asian residents in the city. 

While the actual data[5] shows that Bowling Green is growing slowly, further research indicates that the population maybe stagnant or even declining slightly. For the decade from 1990 to the year 2000 the population of Bowling Green only increased by 1460 people. For a ten year period that is a relatively small number. While there will not be another count taken of the population by the U.S. Census Bureau until 2010, there are however formulas that can be used to estimate the population of given places during intermediate years.  On July 10, 2003 the U.S. Census Bureau released the population estimates for all of Ohio’s incorporated places[6]. This table includes population estimates for July 1, 2000, July 1, 2001, and July 1 2002. A part of this table (labeled Table 7.) is shown below.  The city of Bowling Green is highlighted in red. This table shows that the population of Bowling Green has been decreasing for the last three years. The Census Bureau’s population estimates depict that the Bowling Green population decreased by 154 from the time the population count was taken on April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002.   The expected trend for Bowling Green is a stabilizing or slight decrease in population.

Back to top

POVERTY RATES

            The percentage of a population that is either above or below the national poverty level is an excellent measure of the economic growth of a community or area. Poverty rates therefore become very important in the analysis of an area. The United States Census Bureau calculates poverty rates when they collect income data during the 10-year census. Income data is always given for the previous year (for instance census 2000 has 1999 income data), because the census is taken on April 1^st of the census year.

The definition of poverty in the United States is a difficult to pin down[7]. The definition was originally set by the Social Security Association in 1964. That definition was based on the dietary needs of a family and how much of their income was spent on food. The definition was revised in 1969 and in 1980.  Currently the Census Bureau uses 48 income thresholds or cutoffs and depending on the size of the family or number of persons in the household, the Bureau calculates the poverty level of the family size. For example, in 1999 for a family of 4 people the income threshold was $16,895.  If a family of  4 made less than that amount of money they were considered below the poverty level.[8]

In the state of Ohio the percent of people below the poverty level decreased from 1989 to 1999. The percentage dropped from 12.5% to 10.6%, while the percentage of families above the poverty level increased from 87.5% to 89.4%. Wood County also improved the percentage of people above the poverty level during that decade. Wood County increased from 89.4% of the people above the poverty level to 90.4% from 1989 to 1999. 

Additionally, Bowling Green  increased the percentage of its population above the poverty level. The percent above the poverty level increased from 73.0% to 74.7%, while the percent of people below the poverty level decreased from 27.0% to 25.3%. It is a good trend that the income level of Bowling Green residents is rising. What might be of concern is that the percentage of the population of Bowling Green below the poverty level is so much higher than that of the state of Ohio or of Wood County (25.3% vs. 10.6% and 9.6% respectively)  The answer can be found in breaking the population down into age groups and racial groups. The 1990 U.S. Census has the 1989 poverty level status broken down into age groups; they are shown in the table below.

  Over 80% of all the people below the poverty level in Bowling Green in 1989 were in one six-year age group, 18 to 24 years. Again Bowling Green State University shows its effect on the population. College students are usually ages 18 to 24; because B.G.S.U. dominates Bowling Green’s population, this age group has the highest number of persons living below the poverty level. Many students who attend B.G.S.U. do not work or have an income. Those students who do work generally only work part-time and have relatively little income. Therefore many students’ incomes fall below the poverty level.  The chart below shows the number of people below the poverty level in each age group.

  Clearly the students ages 18 to 24 are the reason why Bowling Green has such a high percentage (27.0% in 1989) of people below the poverty level.  Finally many of the students at B.G.S.U. are supported by their parents or have scholarships and loans to help pay their expenses. So while their income shows them below the poverty level, they are not actually poor.

              One group that may be impacted by real poverty status are Latino residents.  Many Latinos have moved to Bowling Green to work as seasonal laborers or in other low-paying fields such as hotel, restaurant or service industries.  Compiling specific information about the true poverty status of these residents is extremely difficult, in part, because many Latino residents are undocumented.  There is a more detailed discussion of this population group in a later section.

              Another group that definitely impacts Bowling Green’s poverty level is African-Americans, most of whom are University students.  Only 47.7% of African-Americans in Bowling Green were above the poverty level while 75.3% of Caucasians were above the poverty level.  Comparatively, 81.5% of Asians were above the poverty level and 74.3% of Latinos (documentable) were above the poverty level.

            Below are several graphs that depict poverty levels for Ohio, Wood County and Bowling Green.[9]

Back to top

AGING AND HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS

            While people are living longer and the United State’s population is getting older, the median age of the population is increasing. Ohio is no exception to this norm. The median age of Ohio in 1990 was 35.1 years of age, in 2000 the median age grew to 36.2 years. Below are a table and chart showing the median ages in 1990 and 2000 of Ohio, Wood County, Bowling Green, and Shaker Heights.

The decade from 1990 to 2000 showed no increase, however, in the median age of Wood County residents. In 1990 the median age in Wood County was 32.6 and in 2000 it remained 32.6.  It is unusual that the median age remain exactly the same over a ten year period.  Because of population growth, migration, aging and longevity trends, one would expect some change in median age whether an increase or a decrease.

            Bowling Green once again is an exception, and once again, it is because of Bowling Green State University. The median age of Bowling Green’s population in 1990 was a low 28.2 years. That figure is not too low considering that most of the city’s population is B.G.S.U. students; in fact it almost seems high. In 2000 the median age of Bowling Green dropped down to 22.4 years of age. While the population of the United States is growing older, Bowling Green’s population is getting younger.

Among Ohio’s 177 cities with a population of at least 10,000, Bowling Green ranked third in lowest median age in 2000. Bowling Green was third behind Oxford, Ohio home of Miami University and Athens, Ohio home of Ohio University. The low median age of 22.4 years obviously is a reflection of the numerous college students in Bowling Green, but there are still many older people in Bowling Green and many Grad-students who are older than 22.  There are several possible reasons why the median age dropped so low in Bowling Green. One explanation would be an increase in students. However, we know that the student population only increased by 18 during that decade and the total population increased by 1460. So, there was no increase in students. One possible explanation could be the impact in the growth in the Latino community.  Most of the Latino residents migrating to Bowling Green tend to be younger and this may have contributed to the age impact on the city.

Finally to show that the low median age of Bowling Green has nothing to do with the size of the population we look at Shaker Heights. The city of Shaker Heights Ohio is located in Cuyahoga County and had the closest population number in 2000 to that of Bowling Green (a difference of only 200 people) among all the Ohio cities.  It virtually has the same population of Bowling Green. The median age of Shaker Heights in 1990 was 38.1 and that number grew to 39.6 in 2000.  These median ages are much higher than those of Bowling Green in the same years. So we can see that median age of a population has nothing to do with the size of the population.   But, rather, as stated BGSU has significant impact on the median age in Bowling Green.

Back to top

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

            In Wood County in 2000 there were a total of 13,334 people ages 65 and over. That number increased 16.3% from 1990 to 2000. The number of elderly in Wood County increased by 48.4% from 1980 to 2000. The increase in the number of persons over 65 demonstrates the increasing age of the population.  These trends track with aging trends for the nation as the general population is aging.  There are a number of explanations for the increase in the number of persons over 65 which include improved health care and an increase in facilities that service elderly populations.  

In Bowling Green in 2000 there were 2,266 people ages 65 and over. The number of elderly increased 18.7% from 1,909 in 1990 to 2,266 in 2000. The number of elderly residents in Bowling Green increased by 62.3% from 1980 to 2000. This is a significant increase in the number of elderly residents. Bowling Green has accommodated however to this increased demographic.  The city of Bowling Green has retirement communities and assisted living facilities designed to service older residents.  In addition, there are a number of subsidized housing facilities which service the elderly.  These include Section 8 units managed by the Henry Housing Authority, Bowling Green Manor, Amherst Village, Fairview Manor, and Cedar Park.  Cedar Park, Fairview Manor and Bowling Green Manor are specified to provide housing for older persons[10].  However, most people aged 65 and over live in their own homes or with family.  

Back to top

FAMILY HOUSEHOLD ISSUES

            Wood County experienced a 13.8% increase in the total number of households from 1990 to 2000. It is important to remember that the number of households and the number of housing units are different. There are many housing units that are vacant and are not counted as households. The increase in Wood County came mostly in the form of non-family households and many single headed households with children households. The number of married couples with children households actually decreased by 6.1% from 1990 to 2000.  

            In Ohio and Wood County most of the households are families of one sort or another. In 1990 70.8%[11] of the households in Ohio were families. In Wood County that percentage was 69.3% in 1990. However, Bowling Green was different. In 1990 the percentage of households that were families in Bowling Green was 46.3%. Non-family households represented 53.7% of the households. The number of non-family households grew to 56.8% in 2000. 

The large difference in the percentage of non-family households between Bowling Green and Ohio or Wood County is do to so many students living in Bowling Green. Most of the students at Bowling Green State University live in Bowling Green as has been mentioned. Most of those students either live in the B.G.S.U. dormitories or in houses and apartments off-campus.  Either way, their roommates or housemates are not family. So these students live in non-family households. Again Bowling Green State University manifests its effect on the demographics of Bowling Green. 

It is for this same reason that there are a lower percentage of households with married couples with children in Bowling Green. The percentage of households of married couples with children in Ohio in 2000 was 22.4%. In Wood County the percentage was 24.6% in 2000. Bowling Green had a considerably lower percentage (13.8%) of households with married-couple families with children. 

One might think that because the population of Bowling Green is so much younger than the populations of either Ohio or Wood County that there would be a lower percentage of single-parent families or single mothers.  However, that is not the case.  The percentage of single-mother households in Ohio in 2000 was 7.3% of all households. In Wood County in 2000 the percentage of households with single mothers was 5.4%. In Bowling Green in 2000 that percentage was 5.1%. Compared to the percentage of single-mother households in Ohio, Bowling Green’s percentage is a little lower. However, compared to the percentage of single-mother households in Wood County Bowling Green’s percentage is about the same. This means that the younger age of the population has no effect on the number of single mothers. 

            Female-head-of-house represent the majority of single-parent households. In 2000 in Ohio 78.1% of single-parents were female. In Wood County, 73.6% were female-head-of-house and in Bowling Green 79.9% of single parents were single mothers.  

The income for women is significantly less than that of men. The median income for all people in Ohio in 1999 was $23, 949.00. The median income for males in Ohio in 1999 was $30,781.00 and for females it was $18,170.00. That is a difference of over $12,000.00 a year. The income gap is even more significant when we compare single female’s annual income to that of a family’s annual income. Again the single female’s median income is $18,170.00, and the median family income in Ohio in 1999 was $50,037.00. The difference between single female households and family households is $31,867.00 annually. 

In Bowling Green the difference between single males and singles females is not as big of a gap as in Ohio. Male’s median annual income is $10,577.00 and female’s median annual income is $6,721.00. That is a total annual difference in 1999 of $3,856.00. However, the income gap between single females and families is even larger than in Ohio. In Bowling Green in 1999 the median family income was $51,804.00, and the single female’s income was $6,721.00. The income gap between these two groups in Bowling Green in 1999 was over $45,000.00 annually.  The gap in income has several effects on the life of single mothers.  With less income single mothers have fewer choices when it comes to locations to live and types of housing.  They also are limited in their choices of schools for their children, services, and amenities.

<<Family Household Issue Figures>>

Back to top

ECONOMIC CLIMATE & SERVICES AND AMENITIES

            The city limits incorporate 10.2 square miles.  Because of Bowling Green’s small size there is really not much difference in the services available in different parts of the city.  One can easily travel from one side of the city to the other in about 10 minutes.  In terms of traveling Bowling Green is a non-friction zone.  A non-friction zone is one where the price of traveling (i.e. traveling time, cost of gasoline, and wear and tear on the car) is not a factor in one’s decision to travel. 

            Residents in Bowling Green with access to a car have all the same services available to them as everyone else in the city. There are however, many students at Bowling Green State University that do not have a car and there is a slight problem for those students. Bowling Green is relatively small, but it is still a long walk from one side of the city to the other.  The university provides cafeterias and restaurants on campus so that students do not have to walk too far to eat. There are also a number of stores on the B.G.S.U. campus, but those stores do not have everything. Students can often be found walking to and from Meijer, which depending on the dorm they live in can be up to 2 miles away. 

BGSU has a bus system. There are a number of buses that have different routes and are free to students.  The bus routes are fairly restricted with most serving the campus and near campus area.  There are buses that also transport students from off-campus housing complexes to the University.  One of the buses goes north on state route 25 to Woodland Mall and passes many restaurants, shops, and grocery stores.

The City has a demand-response transit system which provides trips for the general public who call its toll free number and make a reservation.  The transit service operates Monday through Friday between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. and on Saturday between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.  The one-way fare is $2.50.  The one-way fare for elderly and disabled consumers with an identification card is $1.25.  This service has been in place since 1988, and makes approximately 50,000 trips per year.

            Bowling Green also has the added bonus of being the county seat. All the county offices including County Auditor, Coroner, Court House, Sheriff, and many more are all located in Bowling Green. The Wood County Hospital is also found in Bowling Green.  Bowling Green has 2 fire stations and it is estimated that the police and fire department can arrive at any location in Bowling Green within 2 minutes of a 911 call.   These are all benefits for the city and make access to public services and amenities a benefit for all residents.

            Bowling Green has a healthy economic climate and benefits from its close proximity to the City of Toledo as well as two major universities, BGSU  and the University of Toledo.  Bowling Green is home to a number of leading small to mid-sized businesses.  Bowling Green State University is the largest employer in the City.  Wood County Hospital is another large employer.  With a number of profitable mid-sized companies, such as Green Manufacturing, Phoenix Technologies, Life Formations and Century Marketing, the City has a sound economic base.

            There are a number of companies who announced expansion plans in 2003.  Toledo Molding & Die has a $4.1 million dollar expansion plan.  Absorbent Products Co. has a  $.825 million expansion plan, and FSP/Argo Manufacturing announced its expansion of 15,000 square foot building  with BGSU Research Park.

            The City has low unemployment, when viewed in light of the impact of the student population.  The table below illustrates Bowling Green’s unemployment rates broken down by census tract.  The unemployment rate in census tract 1800 spikes upwards drastically at 50% while the unemployment rates for the other tracts are between 1% and 5%.  Clearly, the large number of BGSU students residing in census tract 1800 skew the results.  If the data for census tract 1800 were excluded, Bowling Green’s unemployment rate would be 3.62%.

Back to top

INCOME DATA

              The 1999 per capita income for Bowling Green was $15,032.00.  That is an increase of 45.2% from 1989 when the per capita income was $10,354.00.  Despite this significant increase, Bowling Green’s current per capita income is low compared to the rest of the county and the state.  The per capita incomes in Ohio and Wood County in 1999 were $21,003.00 and $21,284.00 respectively.  As previously stated, Bowling Green has a much higher percentage of the population below the poverty level than does Ohio or Wood County. This also explains why there is a lower per capita income in Bowling Green. Below is a table containing the 1999 household income in Wood County and Bowling Green.   Bowling Green’s low per capita income, as with it higher level of poverty, can be attributed to the student population at BGSU.
 

            When comparing Bowling Green to Wood County, one can see that Bowling Green has a higher percentage of households with incomes under $35,000 than does the County.  For incomes over $35,000, the opposite is true.  Wood County has higher percentages of households with incomes over $35,000 than does Bowling Green.

Bowling Green has an unusually high percent of people below the poverty level.  Studying the level of household income makes this clear. In Bowling Green 48.9% of the household’s annual income is less than $30,000.00, while in Wood County only 32.4% of the households make less than $30,000.00 a year. In Wood County 44.3% of the households have an annual income of at least $50,000.00, but in Bowling Green only 29.3% of the households earn at least $50,000.00 a year. Below is the chart of 1999 household income by the percentages of households. It is easy to see that Bowling Green has higher percentages of its population in the lower incomes.   Again, this phenomenon is a result of the BGSU student population’s effect on the city.

             Socio-economic indicators such as income comparisons between the city and county, changes in median household income, and the number of people living below the poverty level are usually good measures of an area’s quality of life especially when looking at low income families.   Again, due to the impact of the student population on the city, Bowling Green is an exception when compared to the county.   The median household income in 1999 for Wood County was $44,442.00 and in Bowling Green that same year it was only $30,599.00. Over 25% of the population of Bowling Green was living below the poverty limit in 1999. 

While Bowling Green’s household income level is much lower than the county’s, the numbers alone do not tell the whole picture.  As pointed out previously,  many students in Bowling Green work part time, have scholarships, and are assisted by their parents.  Many of these students are not consider poor within the context of their familial units.  In fact, a fairly large number of the students are supported, and their incomes are supplemented by, their families. The students represented 61% of the population in 2000 so they have a large affect the census data. 

While Bowling Green’s income data is low and there are high percentages of poverty this does not really reflect the quality of life in Bowling Green. If the population ages 18 to 24 is eliminated from the 1989 poverty data, the percent of the population living in poverty drops from 27.0% to only 8.0%. Eight percent is lower than either Ohio or Wood County for that year.

            Still there is poverty in Bowling Green and there are families who are struggling to get by.  Evidence of this is the number of persons and families who receive subsidized housing or other assistance.  There are over 500 families in Bowling Green received subsidized housing.  There are also over 200 more families on waiting lists trying to obtain housing assistance.

There are also differences based on race among those considered poor in Bowling Green. The following table shows the poverty in Bowling Green in 1999 broken down by race.

            In 1999 there were 5,139 Caucasians below the poverty level, compared to only 310 African-Americans, 85 Asians, and 200 Latinos. However, looking at the percentages of each racial population reveals that African-Americans and Latinos both have higher percentages of people living in poverty.  According to percentages African-Americans by far have the highest level of poverty in the community, with over 50% of their population living in poverty.  Below is the chart of the percentages of people from each ethnicity living below the poverty level.

            Not only do African-Americans have the largest percentage of population below the poverty level, they have by far the lowest median household income of any racial group in Bowling Green.  Across the state, in Wood County, and in Bowling Green, African-American households make far less money than do Caucasian, Asian, Native-American and  Latino households. Below is the table of 1999 median household income by race.

             In Wood County African-Americans make about half that of Caucasians. In Bowling Green in 1999 the median income of African-American households was only $13,024.00, which was less than half of median income of Caucasian households. Below is the chart of 1999 median household income by race.

            There is obviously a significant income gap between African-Americans and other races. This income gap is present everywhere and is especially true for Bowling Green.   This statistic is probably reflective of two trends.  First, African-Americans in general earn less than other groups in the county, state and nation.  Second, African-American families with higher incomes are not settling in Bowling Green.  The African-Americans who primarily live in Bowling Green do so to attend school while this is not necessarily true for other racial groups.

Back to top

HOUSING PROFILE

            Between 1990 and 2000 the number of households in Wood County increased by 5,495. Bowling Green also increased the number of households during the 1990’s by 1,764. For Bowling Green that was an increase in households by 20.7%.

            In most cities in the United States the majority of occupied housing units are owner occupied. In 2000 in Ohio 69.1% of occupied housing units were owner occupied. In Wood County in 2000 69.9% of the occupied housing units were owner occupied houses.  However, in Bowling Green the trend is quite the opposite. The majority of occupied housing units are renter occupied. In 1990 57.8% of all occupied housing units were renter occupied. In 2000 the number of renter occupied housing units increased by 1,015, but the percentage of housing units that were renter occupied remained the about same at 57.7%. This trend is not really unexpected for Bowling Green, because most students rent apartments either on or off campus. In 2000 61% of the population was Bowling Green State University students, so 57.7% of the housing being renter occupied seems about right.

            In Bowling Green in 1990 there were a total of 2,926 houses under the category of specified owner-occupied housing units.  Of those 2,926 the majority, some 1,803 were valued between $50,000 and $99,999.   This group represents 61.6% of all owner-occupied houses in Bowling Green. The second largest value-group, with 629 houses was those houses valued from $100,000 to $149,999. They represented only 21.5% of all owner-occupied houses in Bowling Green.

In 2000 the total number of owner-occupied houses increased by 21.6%, from 2,926 to 3,559. Houses valued between $50,000 and $99,999 numbered 1,803 in 1990.   In 2000 that number declined 51.0% to only 883. The largest value-group in 2000 with 1,508 total homes was those houses valued between $100,000 and $149,999. This value-group had 42.4% of all the owner-occupied housing units in Bowling Green. In fact the median value of owner-occupied houses in 2000 was $130,300, which falls in the largest value-group.

            In Ohio in 1990 the median value of owner-occupied housing units was $62,900.  In Wood County for that same year the median value of owner-occupied houses was $71,900.  In Bowling Green the median value was higher yet at $81,900. In 1990 the median value of owner-occupied houses in Bowling Green was $19,000 higher than that of the state of Ohio. The median value of owner-occupied housing units increased everywhere in 2000.  In Bowling Green alone the median value increased by $48,400. This increase can be explained by a number of reasons. One is inflation.  While inflation can explain some of the increase, it in no way explains all of the increase in value.

 Another reason that partially explains the increase in median value is that new higher-end housing is being built in the city.    Almost all of the new housing in the United States is built as upgrade housing for families who can afford more expensive homes. A much smaller percentage of new housing starts are low and moderate income residences. These new homes are consistently more expensive than the homes of previous generations, so they drive up the median value of homes. A third reason is that there is high demand for housing in Bowling Green  High demand drives prices up. Below is the table showing the median values in Ohio, Wood County and Bowling Green for 1990 and 2000.
 

            The 2002 National Association of REALTORS® Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers [12] reports that the median sales price for existing single family homes in 2000 was $139,000.  The median sales price for homes in the Midwest was $123,600 for the same period.  While the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) does not have figures for Bowling Green, the median value for specified owner-occupied houses as detailed by census data can be used as a proxy.  For 2000, the median value of owner-occupied houses in Bowling Green was $130,300.  

            This would indicate that while Bowling Green’s homeownership rate is much lower than the national average, the low rate does not seem to negatively reflect on the value of housing.  Indeed, the median value of housing in Bowling Green appears to be a little higher than that for the Midwest region.  The median value of housing in Bowling Green is certainly higher than that of Ohio ($103,700) and Wood County ($120,000). 

            There is a slight difference in Bowling Green in the median value of owner-occupied housing units among different ethnicities. For example the median value of an owner-occupied home where the householder is African-American was $121,600 which was $9,000 less than a home where the householder was Caucasian. Below is the table of the median value of owner-occupied houses broken down by ethnicity.
 

The ethnicities that stand out in the table above are Asians and Native-Americans. The median value of houses with Asian householders was over $50,000 higher than any other ethnicity. The median value of houses with Native-Americans as householders by far had the lowest value at only $85,000. This would seem odd considering that the median income level of Native-Americans was much higher than that of African-Americans.  

In the case of Bowling Green, the same reason can explain both theses extremes. Bowling Green is a small city and the populations of Asians is relatively small.  The number of Native-Americans is even smaller.  Furthermore, the actual number of African-Americans who own homes in Bowling Green is extremely small.  With small populations the averages are more extreme than with larger populations because one or two cases can greatly affect the end result. For example in Bowling Green the median value of a home with an Asian householder was $181,900 in 2000 but in Ohio  the median value was only $155,300,  much closer to the overall median value. Still there is a difference in value of homes of different ethnicities. Below is the chart broken down by ethnicity of the median value of houses in Bowling Green in 2000. 

  In Wood County in 2000 the vast majority of the housing structures were over 20 years old.  Of all housing edifices in Wood County, 71.1% were built during or before 1979 and 20.7% of the housing structures were built in1939 or earlier.  That means that the housing stock of Wood County is relatively old. Bowling Green is on par with the county.   In Bowling Green, 71.7% of the houses were built prior to 1980 and  15.7% of the housing structures in Bowling Green were built in 1939 or before. Only 12.6% of the housing stock in Bowling Green was built after 1980.  While the majority of housing was build prior to 1980, Bowling Green has experienced housing growth and new development.  From 1990 to march of 2000, 1,781 new structures were built in Bowling Green.  

            As mentioned before Bowling Green has more renter-occupied housing units than owner-occupied housing units. As explained earlier, this is because of Bowling Green State University and the number of students residing in the city. Because of the high demand for apartments in Bowling Green, the rent is slightly higher in Bowling Green than in other communities nearby. The median rent in Bowling Green in 2000 was $495. In the city of Rossford in Wood County the median rent in 2000 was $461. In the city of Northwood also in Wood County the median rent in 2000 was an even lower $439, $56 less than the median rent in Bowling Green. 

            The high rent combined with the low income levels discussed earlier means that people and especially students in Bowling Green put a very large portion of their income towards housing or rent. In fact in 2000 39.6% of all renter-occupied houses paid more than 35% of household income toward rent.  Fifty-four percent of renter-occupied houses paid at least 25% of their household income in rent. 

            The city of Bowling Green also has lower housing vacancy rates.  However, this may change.  According to the 2000 Census, Bowling Green had a housing vacancy rate of 4%, slightly lower than the county’s vacancy rate of 4.8%.  But several housing professionals believe that Bowling Green’s vacancy rate is increasing.  They indicate that, with the high number of newly developed housing developments, older housing units are being left unfilled.  Students desiring  new developments and taking advantage of the transportation bus system are opting to live further from the University.  The lower level of demand may also impact rental rates driving them down. 

Back to top

HOME OWNERSHIPS RATES

              Home ownership rates across the county have been increasing.  In fact 2002 saw the highest national home ownership rate since the U.S. Census Bureau start reporting these statistics in 1965.[13] The home ownership rate is calculated by dividing the number of owner-occupied housing units by the total number of occupied housing units. The national home ownership rate in 2002 was 67.9%.  In Wood County in 2000 the home ownership rate was 69.9% which is about the same as the national average. However, in Bowling Green the home ownership rate is much lower. Bowling Green had more renters than home owners in 2000. The home ownership rate of Bowling Green was 42.4% in 2000. That rate is well below the national average and below that of Wood County.  Again, the impact of a young, low-income student population can be seen. 

            In most cases the home ownership rate is a good measure of the development of a community. The percentage of people who can afford homes and the change of that percentage indicate the growth of the area. If the home ownership rate of an area increases that tends to mean increased neighborhood stability.  Increased home ownership means a larger number of people are obtaining mortgages.  More mortgages means that more people in the area or coming to the area have  sufficient credit to obtain financing and this  is generally associated with more wealth. If the homeownership rate decreases, however, it may mean that the opposite is true for that area.

In the case of Bowling Green the home ownership rate in 1990 was 42.2% and it has remained relatively the same.  While this rate is low there is no reason for concern since the majority of the population are students.  This does not mean that all the permanent residents in Bowling Green own houses.  Indeed, there are many who do not and can take advantage of homeownership opportunities. 

The quality of housing in Bowling Green has been positively impacted by the City’s aggressive housing program.  This program, which has operated for 14 years, has focused on reducing the number of sub-standard houses in the City.  An annual Health Department survey concluded that the number of sub-standard houses in the City is very low. 

The City uses CDBG and other federal grant sources to invest in housing rehabilitations projects available for low-to-moderate income individuals.  These programs have consisted of the following: 

Ø      assisting consumers with down-payment assistance for new purchases,

Ø      down-payment and rehab assistance for the purchase of dwellings that need repair,

Ø      rental rehabilitation programs designed to help keep rental units affordable,

Ø      mobile home repair program to repair these affordable homes, and

Ø      elderly emergency home repair for senior home-owners 

These programs have helped to sustain the value of housing stock in the City and to maintain homeownership opportunities for low and moderate income persons.  For example, the Mobile Home Repair program rehabbed over 50 mobile homes, a significant number of which were owned by very low income and minority families. 

Back to top

REAL ESTATE HOUSING PRACTICES

According to the National Association of Realtors® Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers,

Homebuyers in 2001:

• Forty-two percent of homebuyers purchased a home for the first time.
• The typical homebuyer household consisted of a married couple aged 36 years old with a household income of $71,300.
• The most important reason for purchasing a home was the “desire to own a home.”
• The typical home purchased was an existing single-family detached house located in the suburbs.
• Nearly four out of five homebuyers used a real estate agent as an important information source and to assist in the transaction.
• Buyers were most likely to learn about the home that they ultimately purchased through a real estate agent.
• More than eight  out of ten homebuyers received recommendations from their real estate agent about sources for other real estate related services and/or products.

Home sellers in 2001:

• Eighty-four percent of repeat homebuyers sold their previous home at the same time they purchased their new residence.
• Repeat homebuyers needed only four weeks to sell their previous home.
• Nearly 4 out of 5 homeowners sold their previous home with the assistance of a real estate agent.
• The most widely reported marketing tools for agent-assisted transactions were yard signs, newspaper advertisements, and the Internet.
• Thirteen percent of homes were sold by the owner directly.

The NAR study demonstrates a great reliance on real estate professionals for those purchasing homes.  The real estate professional acts as a gatekeeper to homeownership.  Thus it is imperative that Realtors® practice fair housing principles and fully comply with fair housing laws when selling or marketing homes or assisting homebuyers in their housing purchase and fair housing education remains an important priority and necessity for the real estate community. 

In addition to these considerations, it is important to identify barriers to homeownership in the Bowling Green community.  Since the vast majority of people become homeowners through their ability to obtain a mortgage loan, a detailed analysis of lending patterns in Bowling Green is provided.

Back to top

MORTGAGE LENDING ISSUES

            Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data provides a good picture of lending patterns in Bowling Green.  HMDA  was enacted by Congress in 1975 and is administered by the Federal Reserve Bank.  HMDA data is the most comprehensive data source publicly available to discern and analyze lending trends.  Certain lending institutions are required to report lending record data to the Federal  Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFEIC).      Institutions must report data based upon their size, the extent of the institutions business within a certain MSA, and whether the lending institution is in the business of residential mortgage lending.  For example, certain institutions who do not sell loans to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or who do not make loans that are insured or guaranteed by a federal agency do not have to report the data. 

            While HMDA data provides a lot of information, it cannot tell the whole picture.  For example, HMDA data does not depict the amount of subprime versus prime loans made in a given area.  It also does not report the number of loans made by lenders who are not required to report the data.  Finally, since the FFEIC compiles the data and disseminates the information in a series of reports, not all data is available in a detailed fashion. 

            According to the 2001 HMDA data, there were approximately 541 VA/FHA and conventional loan applications made in Bowling Green.  As the table below illustrates, of the 543 VA/FHC and conventional loan applications, 394 or 72.8% were approved or originated.  Ninety or 16.6 % were denied; 40 or 7.39 % were approved by the lender but not accepted by the borrower, 16 or 2.95% of applications were withdrawn and 1 (.18%) loan application was closed for incompleteness. 

VA/FHA and Conventional Loan Information

            HMDA data also reveals information about loan refinances and home improvement loans.  In 2001, there were 1,094 refinance loan applications made in Bowling Green.  Of these, 787 or 71.9% were originated, 117 or .10.7% were denied, 63 or 5.8% were approved and not accepted, 105 or 9.6% of the applications were withdrawn and 22 or 2% were closed for incompleteness.  In addition, there 73 home improvement loan applications made.  Of these, 30 or 41% were originated, 28 or 38.3% were denied, 9 or 12.3% were approved but not accepted by the borrower, 4 or 5.5% of the applications were withdrawn, and 2 or 2.7% were closed for incompleteness. 

            Clearly, the overwhelming lending business occurring in Bowling Green happened in the refinance market.  There are a number of reasons for this trend.  First, interest rates remained relatively low and lower interest rates fuel loan refinances as borrowers attempt to shave dollars off their mortgage payments.  Second, many more lenders have entered the refinance business.  There is a large interest on Wall Street to securitize these loans and thus, the refinance business has ballooned over the past five years.  Third, there are many more lenders who have entered the refinance lending market including mortgage brokers who want to take advantage of the spike in business.  Fourth, refinance loans have metamorphosed over the years to an expanded purpose.  Traditionally, refinance loans were made to lower consumer’s interest rates and therefore, lower monthly payments.  However, more and more, the loans are being used as Cash-Out Refinances so that consumers can tap the equity in their homes to make home improvements, pay college tuition, make major purchases, and other uses.  Lenders are using aggressive marketing techniques to attract consumers to these loans. 

            The increased use of refinance loans is a contributing factor to the smaller use of home improvement loans.  Most borrowers can obtain a refinance loan for home improvement purposes and in some cases, refinance loans are less burdensome for the lender and borrower and therefore, may seem like a more attractive option. 

            HMDA data is not available at the census tract level to detail specific information such as the number of applicants based on gender, race or income or to identify what the key barriers to loan approvals were.  However, FFEIC does provide this data at the MSA level.  Due to the unique nature of Bowling Green demographics, it might not be very helpful to review race data at the MSA level as a comparison for Bowling Green.  However, a look at the MSA level data for overall loan denials might be helpful in identifying general barriers to homeownership and loan approval.

            At the MSA level, in 2001, the overwhelming reason for loan denials, regardless of the type of loan, was credit history.  The vast majority of borrowers seeking to obtain loans were denied based on their credit history – far and away above any other reason.  For conventional loans, home improvement loans, and FHA/VA loans, the second highest reason for loan denials was excessive debt-to-income ratio meaning that borrowers were requesting loans that would have carried an excessive debt load for them.  For conventional and home improvement loans, the third highest reason for loan denials were insufficient collateral.  In other words, the collateral which was securing the loan did not meet lending guidelines.  This would be primarily because either the appraised value of the home did not support the loan amount or because the property was in disrepair.  Finally, insufficient cash and insufficient employment history, were the remaining reasons why conventional and home-improvement loans were denied.  

            A slightly different picture exists for VA/FHA loans.  For these loans, the third and fourth highest reasons for loan denials were tied.  They were insufficient cash and insufficient employment history.  Typically, borrowers will need cash on hand to cover closing costs.  Borrowers with insufficient cash to pay for closing costs will be denied the loan.  Furthermore, lenders typically require two years of steady employment.  Borrowers with less than two years of credible employment or unstable employment histories will be denied on these grounds.  Finally, insufficient collateral was the remaining reason why VA/FHA loans were denied. 

            Refinance loans were denied for different reasons than the other category of loans after accounting for the loans denied based on credit history.  The second highest reason for refinance denials was insufficient collateral.  Again, if a borrower is attempting to refinance his/her loan and obtain additional equity that the borrower believes he/she has accrued in the property, the borrower might be inclined to request an inflated loan amount for the refinance.  Additionally, borrowers might be encouraged by aggressive loan brokers or originators to tap their homes for available equity.  If the appraised value of the home is not high enough, the loan will be denied.  (As stated earlier, another reason for collateral denials could be the poor condition of the property but more often than not, loans are denied for collateral basis when the appraised value of the home is not high enough.) 

            The third highest reason for refinance loan denials is debt-to-income ration.  The fourth highest reason for denials is employment history and the remaining reason for denials is insufficient cash.  The table below illustrates reasons for loan denials based on loan type and ranks the reasons from highest to lowest for each loan type.  Also, the Appendices include detailed HMDA tables for the Bowling Green area. 

Back to top

SUBSIDIZED AND ASSISTED HOUSING

              Bowling Green has a variety of assisted or subsidized housing complexes that help service the housing needs of low and moderate income persons.  Additionally, the city administers various housing programs, based on available funding and the need of the population, that help to supplement the needs of this population.

              The city does not have its own Housing Authority but rather contracts with the Henry Housing Authority (HHA) to administer its subsidized housing program.  Although the Housing Authority is located in Napoleon, Ohio, the agency has portable services.  Housing Authority staff travel to Bowling Green regularly and use the city’s facilities to meet with consumers.  The Housing authority also has a 1-800 number so Bowling Green patrons can readily access the agency. 

            This collaboration between Bowling Green and HHA maximizes efficiency as small housing authorities earn very small administration fees from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  Pooling resources and building consortiums creates economies of scale and allows for greater efficiency.  Thus far, HHA has received superior ratings from HUD for its administration of Bowling Green’s program. 

            HHA manages 119 subsidized Section 8 vouchers for Bowling Green under the Housing Choice Voucher program.  There are currently over 200 families on a waiting list to participate in the Bowling Green voucher program. 

            HHA reports that it is facing an immediate crisis due to Congressional budget constraints.  The Section 8 voucher program is funded by HUD.  Under the new 2004 budget (which was adopted late by Congress) Congress cut funding for the voucher program.  Those cuts have been passed on to the Housing Authority.  While HHA is certain that it will not be able to issue new vouchers for Bowling Green, it is not certain how much the budgetary cuts will impact the city.  HHA is presently estimating that Bowling Green will lose 24 vouchers.  This will cut the number of vouchers fro the city from 119 to 95.  HHA projects that it will also need to raise rents for low and moderate income families in the program.  The problem may worsen next year as the Administration has warned of deeper cuts in the 2005 budget. 

            The cuts in HUD’s budget are not only impacting Bowling Green.  The Lucas County Metropolitan Housing Authority does not yet know the number of vouchers that will be cut from its program but is projecting major cuts.  The Housing Authority in Columbus, Ohio is projecting it will have to drop about 1,000 families from its program. 

            While these cuts will dampen the city’s efforts to meet the needs of the lowest income individuals, Bowling Green may realize some relief from Sandusky, Ohio.  Sandusky has approximately 60 vouchers that it has not used.  HUD has requested that the Sandusky Housing Authority and Bowling Green Housing Agency exercise portability to allow Bowling Green to utilize Sandusky’s available vouchers.  Both the Sandusky Housing Authority and BG Housing Agency Board of Directors have agreed to the arrangement.  This arrangement will provide some relief for the 200 families on the waiting list in Bowling Green. 

            Historically, HHA has averaged 29 new admissions per year.  Of its new admissions, it has been successful at reaching low-income residents.  About 75% of new admissions have been in the 30^th percentile for median income.  Approximately 25% are in the 50^th percentile for median income. 

            In addition to the Housing Choice Voucher Program administered by HHA, Bowling Green has other subsidized housing facilities.  Amherst Village is a Section 8 housing complex with 100 units.  Fairview Manor is also a Section 8 housing complex that houses elderly and disabled consumers as well as families.  Fairview Manor has 92 units.  Cedar Park, another Section 8 facility, has 150 one-bedroom units and houses elderly and disabled consumers.  Behavioral Connections houses 150 disabled consumers in its programs.  Additionally, Bowling Green Manor is a Tax Credit project for elderly consumers.  This assisted care living facility has 100 beds. 

            Currently, there are approximately 300 persons on waiting lists to obtain assisted housing. As mentioned earlier, this situation will worsen if Congress continues to cut housing funding.  The city, along with other communities will be forced to identify alternative housing options for very low income families.  There is likely some overlap between the waiting lists as some consumers may place their names on multiple lists in hopes of obtaining some type of housing.  However, overlap is minimal particularly since some of the facilities only service elderly or disabled consumers. 

            The chart below provides a snapshot of the assisted living facilities in Bowling Green and identifies the type of facility.