Toledo Impediments Analysis 2000

Independent Analysis 2000
Click here for printer-friendly PDF version (346 KB; opens in a new window)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

This Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice was developed by the Fair Housing Center in conjunction with Lucas County, the City of Toledo, the City of Oregon, the Ohio Department of Development and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Jurisdictions that receive federal dollars, either directly or as a pass through, are required to complete an Analysis of Impediments. The Analysis of Impediments process is prescribed and monitored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The state’s Department of Development has some monitoring responsibilities as well.

The City of Toledo, Lucas County and the City of Oregon took the initiative to collaborate in this regional Analysis of Impediments. Developing a regional Analysis is by far the best approach as often impediments cross over district lines. And designing solutions to address those impediments will inevitably require the participation of the entire community, not just one jurisdiction.

The analysis is a comprehensive review of barriers in the community that inhibit consumers from acquiring the housing of their choice based on race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability. The process for identifying impediments was broad based and included a series of community forums to solicit public comments, interviews with housing providers, consumers and public officials, research of local zoning codes and ordinances, and document reviews.

The Analysis of Impediments will be used as a jumping board for the region to develop a Fair Housing Plan. The Fair Housing Plan lists action items that will be completed in order to curtail and eliminate the impediments identified in the Analysis.

The Analysis is broken down by factors that impact open housing choice and provides a discussion of any identified impediments and follows with conclusions and recommendations for addressing the impediments.

There were a number of Impediments identified in seven areas. These areas include; Market Conditions, Economic Development, Transportation, Education, Assisted Housing, Homeless, Fair Housing Enforcement and Zoning and Code Issues. Lucas County has suffered as a result of the area’s inelasticity and fragmentation. The isolated evolution of the suburban communities surrounding Toledo has resulted in the concentration of racial minorities and the poor in the urban center and have exacerbated negative social conditions in the urban core. There are, as a result, huge disparities in housing access and quality of life issues between Toledo and the surrounding communities.

What’s more, the growth in the suburban districts has not occurred according to a comprehensive regional plan, but rather has happened in a more piecemeal fashion. In fact, some of the growth, and parallel economic and residential loss in the City of Toledo, occurred due to racial considerations. Long held beliefs in the housing industry, government, and general public, that the most stable community was a racially homogenous one, have spurred much of the flight from Toledo into surrounding districts. As a result, northwest Ohio is extremely segregated and housing choices are limited and impacted by those segregation patterns.

Over the past several decades, the City of Toledo has experienced a decline in population, while adjacent communities experienced a surge in population. However, the adjoining jurisdictions did not absorb all of Toledo’s loss. The entire region has experienced a drop in population, and for the first time, Lucas County’s population has dropped.

Moreover, the City of Toledo maintains a diverse population of Asians, Hispanics and African Americans. A number of these individuals dwell in neighborhoods of higher socioeconomic value and live in the adjacent suburban jurisdictions. However, segregation remains high. Segregation does more than divide white and minority populations. Careful and systematic examination of numerous issues affecting fair housing choice demonstrate minorities are also isolated from one another.

In addition, income differential between white households and Hispanic, African-American, and Asian households is a significant factor contributing to residential segregation. However, this report will demonstrate that public and private sector policies bare responsibility.

Poor planning has contributed to the fractured growth as well. Many racial and ethnic minorities argue that their concerns are not central in the development plans of local jurisdictions and that some districts have adopted zoning codes that purposefully exclude them. They argue that exclusions are camouflaged under the guise of economic stability and progress. Consumers are also concerned that districts have lost a considerable amount of farm land and have not adopted smart land use policies.

But in order to address segregation and alleviate the extreme social tax on the City of Toledo, all of the jurisdictions in Lucas County need to operate with a regional focus and better coordinated goals and resources. The recommendations outlined in this Analysis provide a basis for suggesting ways in which the districts in Lucas County can work together to expand housing opportunities.

A summarization of the recommendations that are detailed in this document include:

· Affirmative Measures to Improve Market Conditions: All of the districts need to collaborate to stem and reverse the residential loss trends the region has been experiencing. The economic and residential losses should be considered catastrophic and require bold initiatives. Districts should adopt affirmative measures such as adopting affordable housing goals, conducting aggressive marketing and regional image campaigns, adopting a strategic, comprehensive plan for land utilization that includes Brownfield development, establishing pro-integration initiatives, and improving housing stock and services and amenities in under-served areas.

· Economic Development/ Transportation: The districts should work together to attract higher-paying jobs to the region with special emphasis placed on under-served areas. The districts should also work with the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority to assess the need and feasibility of expanding into additional markets.

· Education: Due to negative publicity and other factors, the broader community perceives the Toledo Public School system to be a troubled organization while problems that plague other districts are rarely highlighted. All of the school districts should adopt a regional approach to addressing the educational needs of area children and to improve the public’s image of local school systems.

· Assisted Homeless Housing & Homeless Issues: In conjunction with LMHA and the Toledo Area Alliance to End Homelessness, the districts should adopt an affirmative affordable housing plan that targets geographic dispersal.

· Fair Housing Enforcement Goals: The districts need to ensure that comprehensive fair housing programs are operating within each community. Housing industry professionals and groups should adopt fair housing goals and affirmative measures designed to eliminate prohibitive practices.

· Zoning and Code Issues: Each district should immediately assess its codes to ferret out any violations of fair housing statutes and take action to eliminate the impediments identified in this document.

Adopting these measures will ensure that the region will not only eliminate artificial barriers to consumer choice but improve overall market conditions and poise Lucas County for a healthy, economic and social environment.

INTRODUCTION

Since 1968, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has been under a federally mandated obligation to affirmatively further fair housing and to ensure that the entitlements and jurisdictions who receive HUD dollars comply with the same obligation.

The state of Ohio, in an effort to more thoroughly define what would qualify as “affirmatively furthering fair housing”, laid out the standards it expected for non-entitlement communities who received federal or state dollars.

To enable jurisdictions to meet their fair housing obligations, both HUD and the state of Ohio have mandated communities to complete an Analysis of Impediments to fair housing as a part of the fair housing planning process. The Analysis of Impediments identifies barriers that preclude residents in the community from having equal and fair access to housing.

Lucas County, the City of Toledo and the City of Oregon have chosen to adopt a regional effort and collaborate on the identification of impediments to fair housing choice. The communities have selected the Fair Housing Center to identify the impediments to fair housing choice in their jurisdictions.

An Analysis of Impediments is a comprehensive review of a community’s laws, regulations, administrative policies, housing market, and housing practices to determine whether there exists any barriers to fair and equal access to housing. It requires an analysis of how local laws, the market conditions, and housing practices affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. It is an assessment of private and public conditions affecting fair housing choice.

“Impediments” are defined as any actions, omissions, or decisions taken that would inhibit a person’s access to housing because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin, or ancestry.

The Impediments Analysis is not just an examination tool. It is also a resource. It includes recommendations that a jurisdiction can take to begin to address and cure the impediments identified in the document.

The Impediments Analysis should be used as a jumping board from which a community can develop its Fair Housing Plan. The Fair Housing Plan includes a comprehensive strategy to effectively address and eliminate barriers in the marketplace that impede access to housing. It also includes benchmarks that the community can use to measure its progress and determine how well it has accomplished its fair housing goals.

HUD and the state of Ohio encourage communities to assess themselves in a holistic fashion. They believe that a regional approach to identifying impediments and developing recommendations and solutions to expand equal housing opportunities can best be accomplished when communities do so in collaboration with one another. Typically, what happens in one community affects what is happening or will happen in another. Communities, while artificially separated by invisible boundaries are really interwoven. The market conditions in one community ultimately have consequences on the marketplace in another. When communities recognize their inter-connectedness, they can jointly develop win/win proposals that benefit the entire metropolitan area.

This document focuses with broad issues as they affect the larger region, Lucas County, and then addresses with the smaller segments of the larger area and how those smaller segments may be impacted by particular practice or circumstances.

Likewise, the recommendations that are more broad in nature are listed first followed by more specific recommendations for each jurisdiction.

The Center considered a variety of data to identify impediments. Those data sources included:

HUD Intake & Complaint data
Ohio Civil Rights Commission Intake & complaint data
Fair Housing Center Intake & Complaint data
Board of Community Relations statistics
FBI statistics
Toledo Police Department statistics
Community Development Corporation Strategic Plans
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data
Auditors’ records and data
Homeowners Insurance Questionnaire data
Public Interviews
Farmland Preservation data
Demographic data
Census data
Community Reinvestment Act data
City of Toledo Consolidated Plan;
Lucas County CHIS ;
City of Oregon CHIS;
2020 Plan;

This Analysis of Impediments for Toledo, Oregon, and the remaining districts in Lucas County utilizes a thematic approach to explain the existing barriers to fair housing opportunities. The housing patterns of the City of Toledo resemble the Concentric Zone Model as devised by E. W. Burgess in the 1920s to help explain the racial distribution patterns found in Chicago. According to the Concentric Zone Model, a city expands outward from its central area. Five concentric circles that represent five zones Burgess identified represent this growth. The innermost zone is the Central Business District (CBD). The second zone is called the zone of transition that contains industries, businesses and housing for low-income families. The third zone is comprised of homes for middle-income families. The fourth zone has newer and more spacious homes for upper-middle income families. The fifth zone is called the zone of commuters –where upper-income families reside and commute to-and-from work.

In addition, the Analysis looks at the elasticity and inelasticity of the Toledo metropolitan area as described by David Rusk, the former mayor of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Lucas County, in following the Concentric Zone Model, is a community with low elasticity. That is, the region is fragmented with many municipalities with restrictive borders. Both the region’s inelasticity and parallel to the Concentric Zone Model have stifled growth and development and caused the concentration of African-Americans and Hispanics and low-income residents in Toledo’s central city.

The Concentric Zone Model is helpful in explaining racial diffusion patterns found within a community. The highest percentage of African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians reside within the core of the city of Toledo. In addition, the largest percentage of low and moderate income individuals reside within this core. Though the City of Toledo has high-income residential areas in the southern and western sections of the city, the highest concentration of wealth is located within the suburban cities and townships.

This model proved appropriate after the research for the Analysis of Impediments was completed. Qualitative evidence was collected through three public forums and numerous interviews with community leaders, politicians and private citizens. A staff member for the Fair Housing Center recommended a formation of a committee to address the issue of improving interagency coordination. This commission should consist of the Fair Housing Center, the Community Development Corporations (CDCs), nonprofit organizations that deal with housing issues, law enforcement agencies, the Attorney General of the State of Ohio and HUD. Furthermore, every individual who contributed to this report urged for devising better education about credit and the available programs that exist to help people purchase homes. Above all, the contributing individuals expressed a concern for generating more public interest in knowing and battling the barriers to fair housing choice.

The information these people provided was further supported by the maps produced through the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for the report. The GIS maps visually tell a viewer the prevailing patterns and trends found within the City of Toledo. Essentially, the text for this Analysis of Impediments supports the visual maps.

BACKGROUND

With the passage of the Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act), Congress mandated the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer all housing and urban development programs in a manner that would affirmatively further fair housing. Accordingly, every program managed by HUD includes provisions that require recipients to comply with the Fair Housing Act and adopt fair housing goals. HUD has required recipients of HUD dollars to certify that they affirmatively promote fair housing. Further, HUD has strongly encouraged recipients to analyze impediments to fair housing that exist in their jurisdictions and to develop measures that sufficiently address those barriers.

Recognizing that barriers to open and free housing continue to exist, the past three administrations under Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton have engaged measures to enhance and encourage compliance with fair housing laws. President Reagan signed into law the Fair Housing Amendments Act that broadened the authority of HUD to promote and execute the statute.

The Act also increased the responsibility of the Justice Department and strengthened its enforcement role. Assistant Secretaries Judith Brachman and Jack Stokvis issued a memorandum to all Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Communities outlining their duty to affirmatively further fair housing. This memorandum, the first of its kind, strongly encouraged municipalities to conduct impediments analyses, develop mechanisms to address them, and create partnerships with fair housing organizations.

During President Bush’s administration, Assistant Secretaries Gordon Mansfield and Anna Kondratas reissued this memorandum citing the recent passage of the National Affordable Housing Act and its requirement that all participating jurisdictions certify their intention to affirmatively further fair housing. Moreover, Secretary Kemp and President Bush made fair housing one of six priorities at HUD.

On January 17, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12892 entitled, “Leadership and Coordination of Fair Housing in Federal Programs: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.” The order was signed to enhance the promotion of fair housing in all federal programs as well as activities relating to housing and urban development. The Order reiterates the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development’s role in furthering fair housing and underscores the responsibility of the head of each executive agency to ensure “its programs and activities relating to housing and urban development are administered in a manner to affirmatively further the goal of fair housing …” The Order also established the President’s Fair Housing Council consisting of all Cabinet members, the Chair of the Federal Reserve, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The President’s Executive Order expands the authority of the Secretary of HUD to take necessary measures to provide leadership and coordinate efforts in all deferral programs to make fair housing a reality.

In an attempt to better manage the various programs it administers and carry out the President’s Order, HUD merged the following application and planning documents into one document – the Consolidated Plan. The implementing regulations for the Consolidated Plan expressly state that each jurisdiction must certify that it will affirmatively further fair housing. This mandate is not new. However, what is new is the expressed charge for each jurisdiction to conduct an analysis of fair housing impediments and to develop strategies that address identified impediments. According to the implementing regulations for the Consolidated Plan, the first analysis was to have been completed by February, 1996.

Likewise, the state of Ohio has adopted aggressive fair housing goals for those who receive federal or state dollars. The Ohio Department of Development created definitive fair housing standards in 1993. HUD’s mandate that communities “affirmatively further fair housing” sometimes left the state wondering exactly what HUD meant by this declaration. Thus, the state decided to adopt specific standards that would clearly define the mandate for small cities, who were not entitlements, to meet their fair housing obligations.

The state’s standard is clear. Appendix A includes a detailed description of the state’s minimum requirements. In summary, each community must have:

General Information Contact so that residents can call someone regarding fair housing issues;
Fair Housing complaint Intake and Referral System;
Education and Outreach on Fair Housing Rights and Definition of Housing Discrimination;
Impediments Analysis

The Training and Technical Assistance Section of the Ohio Department of Development monitors small cities to ensure their fair housing compliance. According to the Civil Rights Specialist with the Training and Technical Assistance Section, neither Lucas County nor Oregon have ever had a violation with respect to fair housing requirements.

Each municipality has met and exceeded the fair housing requirements established by the state. Each also incorporates other fair housing tools, such as ensuring that there are accessibility and affirmative marketing requirements associated with the housing projects they oversee.

Both HUD and the state of Ohio strongly urge communities to conduct Impediments Analyses and to conduct them using a regional approach. For entitlement communities creating a fair housing plan is an integral part of the requirements to affirmatively further fair housing.

In spite of these attempts all too often, fair housing has not been a reality in many of America’s communities, even those benefiting from support from federal dollars. In its guide on fair housing planning, HUD writes:

“We also know that the Department itself has not, for a number of reasons, always been successful in ensuring results that are consistent with the Fair Housing Act[sic]. It should be a source of embarrassment that fair housing poster contests or other equally benign activity were ever deemed sufficient evidence of a community’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing. The Department believes that the principles embodied in the concept of ‘fair housing’ are fundamental to healthy communities, and that communities must be encouraged and supported to include real, effective, fair housing strategies in their overall planning and development processes, not only because it is the law, but because it is the right thing to do.”[1]

HUD realized that in order to develop effective and appropriate strategies for securing fair housing throughout America, that the impetus for developing those strategies had to start at the community level. In order to develop effective and appropriate strategies, one must first identify those strategies. It is those who live in the communities who can best identify and gauge what barriers exist in their locales. If fair housing is to become a reality, it is also those in the community who will have to effect it. As HUD so aptly put it, “The goal of devolution of responsibility in the area of fair housing means that communities will have the authority and the responsibility to decide the nature and extent of impediments to fair housing and decide what they believe can and should be done to address those impediments.”[2]

ABOUT THE CONSULTANT

The Fair Housing Center is a professional, non-profit, civil rights agency dedicated to the elimination of discrimination and the enforcement of fair housing laws by assuring equal accessibility to public accommodations, lending, insurance, and choice of neighborhood for all persons. The Center accomplishes these goals by conducting multiple educational outreach programs, providing housing counseling services, advocating for the rights of victims, investigating and litigating allegations of housing discrimination, and facilitating neighborhood tours. It is the only agency in northwest Ohio that conducts fair housing enforcement, training, outreach and victim’s assistance activities.

The Center was founded on the principles of community, tolerance, and justice. It was a commitment to these principles that ignited the League of Women Voters and the Old West End Neighborhood Association, along with several concerned citizens and community groups, to establish an organization that would combat discriminatory housing practices. In 1975, the Center took its first steps toward fulfilling a mission of eliminating housing discrimination. Over the past 25 years, the Center has carried out its founding principles through the investigation of over 7,500 complaints. Through the litigation of complaints, resulting in over $21 million in damages for the victims of housing discrimination, the Center has demonstrated a talent for setting national precedents that have expanded housing opportunities for millions of Americans.

The Center has extensive experience in investigating lending complaints and eliminating barriers in this area. Eleven lending lawsuits and dozens of administrative complaints have been successfully resolved through the Center’s efforts. The Center also recently completed the nation’s first full-application lending testing project. This project enabled staff to analyze and document the experiences of bona fide applicants and resulted in the expansion of services and opportunities for historically under-served communities and applicants.

The Center has also worked to remove systemic barriers in the insurance industry that often precluded urban residents from obtaining quality insurance. The Center’s endeavors to eliminate barriers in the insurance industry have proven equally successful. The agency has conducted hundreds of insurance tests and investigated over 100 complaints of insurance discrimination and redlining – more than any other fair housing organization in the country. The Center pioneered the insurance testing methodologies used in its investigations and its procedures and testing forms became the basis for the National Fair Housing Alliance’s (NFHA) insurance testing program. The Center’s staff provided the first insurance testing and investigation training for the sub-contractors NFHA used in its first national insurance testing project.

Because of the Center’s activities, hundreds of consumers have received insurance in the voluntary market instead of the residual or FAIR plan market. Insurers have also become aware the fair housing implications their policies and procedures raise. Because of the Center’s activities in this area, the Ohio Department of Insurance started a program to address fair insurance issues. Department representatives traveled to Toledo to meet with the Center’s staff and to discuss an outline of the department’s program. As a result, the department has sponsored forums across the state on fair insurance issues.

The center has entered into agreements with major insurance companies, like Allstate, State Farm, Nationwide and Liberty Mutual, that have resulted in a change in discriminatory underwriting guidelines. These changes have increased insurance coverage for hundreds of thousands of Americans. Additionally, the Center’s partnerships have resulted in tens of millions of dollars of investments in urban neighborhoods.

An extremely capable staff has placed the Center in a pioneering role and has enabled the Center to establish precedents in every facet of the housing industry. The agency and its staff has been recognized for their fair housing abilities on a local, regional and national level. The Center has received a number of fair housing awards from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and units of local government. Staff has provided fair housing training for HUD, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, the Federal Reserve Bank, the Center for Community Change, the Alliance of Allied Insurers, the National Fair Housing Alliance and a host of other fair housing, community and housing industry organizations. The Center has also been invited by the Senate's Bank & Lending Committee and the House of Representatives' Committee of Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs to testify concerning issues of housing discrimination including lending and insurance discrimination.

While its advancements in the lending and insurance areas have garnered the most media attention, the Center has established precedents in every segment of the housing arena. The Center tried the first sexual harassment case in the country under the Fair Housing Act. Additionally, the Center has made great strides in the areas of rental and real estate sales. Finally, the Center has expanded housing opportunities for persons with disabilities and families with children. The Center remains a national leader in the fair housing movement.

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

Lucas County is one of the largest counties in northwest Ohio. Situated on Lake Erie and the Michigan state line, Lucas County is home to a number of major corporations and is an important transportation hub for northwest Ohio as well as the states of Ohio, Michigan and Indiana. The County map, located in Appendix A, depicts the major transportation thoroughfares that cross through Lucas County. They include major highways, I-75 and I-475, the Ohio Turnpike I80-90, and major routes.

Lucas County is also the business mecca for northwest Ohio in particular because of its choice situation on Lake Erie and its transportation ease. The region’s largest city and urban community is located in Lucas County, the City of Toledo. Lucas County is also the most diverse county in the region with the region’s largest African-American, Asian and Hispanic populations located in the county.

There are 23 civil divisions. They include the County, Maumee City, Oregon City, Sylvania City, Toledo City, Village of Berkey, Village of Harbor View, Village of Holland, Village of Ottawa Hills, Village of Waterville, Village of Whitehouse, Harding Township, Jerusalem Township, Monclova Township, Providence Township, Richfield Township, Spencer Township, Springfield Township, Swanton Township, Sylvania Township, Washington Township, Waterville Township, and the Village of Swanton. (See district map at the end of this section.)

Toledo is the largest city in Lucas County with a population of 309,115. The city is located at the northern most tip of the County located between other jurisdictions. Toledo abuts the Michigan state line. The city is also geographically split in two by the Maumee River with the bulk of the city located to the west of the river and a small portion of Toledo situated to the east of the river.

Oregon is the largest suburb in Lucas County at 28.5 square miles and a population of 19,136. Oregon has approximately five miles of shoreline along the Maumee Bay and Lake Erie.

A close examination of the population of Lucas County reveals a significant trend. Since 1970, the population for the districts surrounding Toledo have experienced growth while the City of Toledo and the County as a whole have experienced a decline in population. In 1970, the population in the Townships of Lucas County numbered 58,768, while projections for 2020 estimate the townships population will be at 88,840. However, in 1970 the City of Toledo had a population of 383,818 people. The projections for 2020 estimate the population would stabilize at 307,842.

The Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Government (TMACOG) estimates the 1999 population for Lucas County at 447,514 and the City of Toledo at 309,115. TMACOG estimates the populations for the cities of Maumee, Oregon, and Sylvania at 14,955, 19,136 and 17,664 respectively. In addition, the village communities of Berkey, Harbor View, Holland, Ottawa Hills, Swanton, Waterville and Whitehouse numbered 261, 137, 1210, 4214, 207, 4854 and 2711 people respectively. The total population of all townships of Lucas County numbered 71,153.

However, because of the severe decline in population in the City of Toledo, the overall population for the County has decreased since 1970. Lucas County’s population peaked several decades ago. However, since 1970 Toledo has lost over 70,000 residents. This has had a major impact on population demographics for the County as a whole. The decline continues. In 1990, Lucas County population was 462,361. The Ohio Department of Development (ODOD) estimates that Lucas County population for 1998 dropped to 447,514. This represents a 3.21% reduction in the County’s population.

These figures indicate the desire and willingness of individuals to reside outside the principle urban area. The population decline of the urban area also means a loss of taxes, revenues and income for the city of Toledo. In addition, the population figures also show how the elongation of the concentric zone model is taking place. People who can afford to, move to the adjoining communities. Historically, these smaller cities, villages and townships were once rural, but now are transforming themselves into residential communities.

Toledo is a medium-sized city and the regional center of Lucas County. The 1990 Census indicated the population for the City of Toledo was 332,943. For 1999, the Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research (ODOD) and the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG) indicated that 309,115 people resided in the city. This represents a reduction of 23,828 people or a 7.2% population reduction for the City of Toledo since 1990.

Between 1990 and 1999, the total number of whites in the City of Toledo declined by 12.6 percent or 37,129 people. During this same time period the populations of African-Americans and Hispanics have increased by 5.6 percent or 3,641 people and 31.1 percent or 3,715 people, respectively. In raw numbers, the Hispanic population increased more than the African-American population.

This pattern of declining population in the City of Toledo has been occurring since the 1970s. Between 1980 and 1990, the population of Toledo decreased six percent. During the 1970s, the population of Toledo decreased by 13.5 percent.

While the Caucasian population is decreasing in Toledo, the African-American and Hispanic populations are on the rise. Comparatively, the population in the remainder of the jurisdictions of Lucas County is increasing. While a number of people are leaving Toledo and moving to other parts of the region, most of Toledo’s population is relocating across jurisdictional lines into adjacent cities or townships.

While Toledo has decreased in population, the City of Oregon, the second largest city in Lucas County has increased. The 1998 population estimates by the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Government (TMACOG) had the population of Oregon at 19,136. In 1990, the population of Oregon was 18,334. In comparison, Oregon’s population in 1970 was 16,563. Between 1990 and 1999 Oregon increased in population by 4.3%. Projections for 2004 indicate that Oregon’s population will grow slightly to 19,385.

The charts below depict the residential patterns, by race, for Lucas County, the City of Toledo and the City of Oregon from 1970 to 1999.

Given its locale (Oregon is accessible to the Ohio Turnpike, State Route 51, Pearson Park, Maumee Bay State Park, and I 80-90) and the growth of economic opportunities in recent years, Oregon has experienced a growth in population. This trend has occurred for a number of reasons. As stated later in this document, the University of Toledo has assessed why suburban areas like Oregon have gained in popularity. The reasons include, the availability of higher priced and larger homes, the availability of larger lot sizes, amenities, quality of schools, safety issues, and racial issues.

In addition, transportation has become more accessible, and since the end of World War II, the City’s overall infrastructure has improved considerably. The events taking place in Oregon illustrate the negative and positive implications of people adhering to the economic principles summarized by the Tiebout model. The Tiebout Model was introduced by Charles Tiebout in 1956. Essentially argued that citizens act as consumers when choosing where they will live. The amenities of services provided to residents, the quality of education and the types of work and recreation opportunities thus become “selling points” meant to lure those who can afford it to the communities that consumers believe have those attributes.

However, a considerable price is paid for this transformation. Agriculture was the historical foundation of the economy of Oregon. With the changing pattern of where people desire to live, these communities transformed themselves into suburban dwelling places. In order to accomplish this transformation, farmlands became real estate lots or prospective sites for gated communities. Therefore, issues of farmland preservation and smart growth policies have emerged in Oregon. Moreover, these issues are further intertwined in the economic and political pursuit of maintaining the whole of Lucas County as a healthy region. Simply put, the major issue Oregon faces is developing a set of policies to maintain its growth, preserve its natural and agricultural resources and to work with the remaining communities of Lucas County in balancing the economic and physical integrity of Northwest Ohio.

As a result of the changes taking place in Lucas County, an increasing dialogue is occurring among the communities of Northwest Ohio to consider regional cooperation as a desirable and achievable goal. An important step in this dialogue is the cooperation that took place between Lucas County, the City of Toledo and the City of Oregon in developing this Analysis of Impediments.

The surge of homebuilding over the past six years in Toledo's suburbs represents an exodus from the City that rivals the urban blight during the 1950s and 60s. If the present trend continues, by the year 2000, Toledo will have lost one out of every four people since 1970. The current flight from Toledo - loss of people and property taxes - has taken a toll on public services and schools and has led to a dramatic rise in unsightly and abandoned homes that number nearly 12,000 according to University of Toledo Urban researchers. The substantial loss of urban population has taken and will continue to take its toll on the City of Toledo and the entire region.

The loss will have a negative impact on the County as a whole. As pointed out earlier, this will be the first decade that Lucas County will experience a loss in population. A 3.21% reduction in the County’s population and a corresponding 7.2% reduction in the City of Toledo’s population will no doubt result in a lower tax base for Toledo and the County. It may also have negative repercussions for federal and state dollars coming into the area.

ELASTICITY MEASURES

David Rusk, in his book Cities Without Suburbs, ascribes an elasticity grade to cities (over 200,000 in population) measuring population and economic growth. Rusk pictures communities as being drawn on a rubber sheet. If there is existing vacant land available for development within the city’s existing limits, the area’s density will probably be low, and the area has room for additional growth. The city is elastic; it can stretch to accommodate new growth. On the other hand, if the area is already densely populated with little existing available land, the city will not be able to accommodate additional growth and is inelastic. Rusk categorized the City of Toledo as having medium elasticity. However, over the past several years, the City has probably moved to a grade of low elasticity. While the inelasticity label is applied to the City of Toledo, it also negatively impacts the surrounding communities.

Generally, elastic cities tend to gain population while inelastic cities tend to lose population. Growth for areas with low elasticity occurs outside of the major urban area – in the surrounding suburban communities. When a city stops growing, it starts shrinking. This is largely because post-war American consumers have opted for low-density living environments. If a city is already densely populated, with little room for movement or growth, consumers will turn to suburban communities searching for low-density living opportunities. The real estate community recognizes this and often uses the low-density attributes of suburban or outer-lying areas as selling points describing them as “quiet,” “spacious”, and lacking the “hustle and bustle” of an urban setting. Suburban communities are described in idyllic terms while their urban counterparts are not.

As a result, inelastic cities are viewed and described differently than elastic cities. For example, cities like Toledo and Detroit are described in much different terms than Columbus and Charlotte. Toledo and Detroit are both inelastic areas which have lost population and jobs while Columbus and Charlotte have both considerably gained in population and jobs.

Understandably, elastic cities absorb and capture suburban growth while inelastic cities lose growth to their suburban neighbors. This pattern can be seen very plainly in the demographic migration patterns for the metropolitan Toledo area. Many of the people leaving the city of Toledo simply migrated to suburban communities surrounding Toledo. Toledo lost its population to its suburban neighbors.

Coupled with the region’s inelasticity is the severe loss of farmland and the suburbanization of historical farmland. Between 1960 and 1990, land in Lucas County was consumed at a rate 3.5 times greater than the population growth rate.

RACIAL PATTERNS

Race has played a major role in shaping growth patterns. And, in fact, inelastic cities tend to be more segregated than elastic cities. Compare Toledo to Columbus. Approximately 87% of the African-American population in the Toledo metropolitan area is concentrated in the central city while only 65% of the African-American population in the Columbus metropolitan area is concentrated in Columbus’s central city.

Rusk assigns a Dissimilarity Index to cities across the country. The Dissimilarity Index reveals the level of concentration or segregation of African-Americans. Toledo’s Dissimilarity Index is 74 indicating that in order for there to be racial parity, 74% of the African-American population would have to move into areas where their race did not predominate. Columbus’s dissimilarity index is 67.

The University of Toledo’s Urban Affairs Center conducted a survey of all Lucas County homeowners who sold homes between June 1, 1990 and December 31, 1990 to determine what factors contributed to the city’s population loss.[3] Respondents were asked a series of questions related to their reasons for moving and their level of satisfaction with city services and quality of life issues.

The responses were very telling. The Urban Affairs Center was able to identify a number of factors, which it categorized into two areas – “push” and “pull”. “Push” factors are elements that drove residents from the city. “Pull” factors are factors that enticed home purchasers to move to an area. The four “push” factors that compelled residents to move to suburban communities were: 1)Safer neighborhoods; 2) Better schools; 3) Better city services; and 4) Racial issues. Revealingly, racial issues turned out to be a major “push” factor that drove residents from the City of Toledo. It is unfortunate that such a large segment, 24%, of those who responded would list race as a major factor in their decision to relocate.

While this statistic bodes a deep concern for the plight of our communities, this is not a trend limited to Lucas County. In a Detroit study of racial segregation, researchers discovered that whites held three beliefs about integrated neighborhoods:

“Stable inter-racial neighborhoods are . . . rare; once a few blacks move in, whites believe more will follow and that the neighborhood is destined to become largely black.”
“Residential property values are lowered by the presence of blacks, and whites [sic] consider it risky to own housing in a racially changing neighborhood.”
“Crime rates are higher in black neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods and [sic] if whites were in an area with a black majority, they would be exposed to a high risk of victimization.”[4]

Rusk also points out in his research that inelastic areas that segregate blacks also tend to segregate Hispanics. While Toledo’s Hispanic population is not as heavily segregated as its African-American population, the Hispanic population is concentrated in the near East side and south side of Toledo. (See population maps at the end of this section.)

In general, Toledo's African-American and Hispanic populations have increased by 30% from 1980 to 1990. The African-American population represented 17% of the total population in 1980. In 1990 it represented 20% of the total population. In 1999, it represented 22% of the total population.

The Asian and Native American populations have seen a 150% increase from .7% of the total population in 1980 to 1.3% of the total population in 1990. In contrast, Toledo's White population has decreased by 10%. In 1980, Whites represented 80% of total population and in 1990 whites represented 77% of total population. In 1999 Whites represented 71% of the total population. While the populations of African-Americans, Hispanics, and other ethnic groups are increasing, these groups are not locating in integrated communities. Toledo’s population is highly segregated.

SUBURBAN – URBAN INCOME GAPS

There is another attribute of inelastic communities that impedes the economic growth in the larger metropolitan area. Inelastic cities experience severe city-suburb income gaps. However, studies [5]show that the smaller the income gap between city and suburb, the greater the economic progress for the whole metropolitan community.

Toledo has a comparatively wide suburb/city income gap. For example, the city-suburban income gap for the Toledo MSA is 70% compared to 81% for Columbus. The per capita income for the Toledo suburbs is $17,014 while the per capita income for Toledo is $11,894. Some elastic cities like Albuquerque and Raleigh actually have higher per capita incomes in the city as compared to suburban areas.

Poverty is more concentrated in inelastic cities than in elastic cities. According to the 1990 census, 15.4% of Toledo’s population is below poverty. While in both Maumee and Sylvania, only 2.2% of the population is below poverty. In Oregon, 5.7% of the population is below poverty.

In addition, elastic areas tend to have a higher educated workforce and higher job growth than inelastic areas[6] and higher job growth. The higher job growth occurred even among cities that may have suffered the same global economic catastrophes. For example, both Toledo, Columbus, and Cleveland have suffered from the loss of many manufacturing jobs. However, Columbus, a city with high elasticity, has boomed while Toledo and Cleveland, cities with low elasticity, have not faired as well.

BOND RATINGS

Finally, Rust discovered that elastic cities had higher bond rates than inelastic cities. The bond rating for the City of Toledo is A as is the bond rating for Cleveland. The bond rating for Detroit is BA1. However, the bond rating for Columbus is AA1.

POPULATION GROWTH PATTERNS

New census data show that the nation's population may grow even faster than previously projected, reaching 392 million by 2050. The new projection is contained in a Census Bureau report entitled, Population Projections of the United States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2050 (p25-1104). Jennifer Day, author of the report says, "Particularly striking in these new projections is greater growth in births in Hispanic communities. After 1996, the Hispanic population is projected to add over 870,000 people to the nation's population each year. By 2010, the Hispanic origin population may become the second largest race/ethnic group. Other information contained in this report includes:

1) The number of babies born in the U.S. is projected to decrease slightly as the century ends,

2) The racial/ethnic distribution of the nation's population is expected to continue changing. By 2050, the White portion of the population is projected to decline from today's 75 percent to 53 percent,

3) Asian Americans and Native Americans will continue as the fastest growing segment of the population (over 4 percent a year - making up 10 percent of the population in 2050),

4) The African-American population is projected to grow from 12% in 1990 to 16% by 2050. After 2012, this report projects that more African-Americans will be added to the population each year than Whites (LaPrensa Weekly - October 6-12, 1993).

These trends are mirrored in Toledo’s population patterns. While the city’s white population steadily erodes, the African American and Hispanic populations are growing. Both groups have experienced actual growth in terms of population numbers and percentage of total population. In the 1980 census, Toledo’s African American and Hispanic population were 17% and 3% respectively. In the 1990 census, African American and Hispanic populations grew to 20% and 4% respectively.

The maps at the end of this section indicate Lucas County by racial and ethnic demographics. The maps depict the composition for the entire county and then are broken down by the cities of Toledo and Oregon.

Aging & Household Demographics

Lucas County residents, like the rest of the nation, are getting older. This holds true for the larger metropolises like Oregon and Toledo and for smaller areas like Berkey Village and Harbor View. Many factors contribute to the aging of these communities. They include better health coverage, improved health care facilities, accessibility of health care facilities, and preventive health care. In addition, as the baby boomer population ages, America ages,and the Lucas County region is no stranger to this national trend.

The 1990 Census further indicated that the median age in Toledo rose to 31.7 years of age from the 1980 Census figure of 29.3 years of age. In particular two age group categories experienced growth, 25-44 years of age and 75 or older years of age.

The median age in Lucas County rose to 32.5 in 1990 from the 1980 Census figure of 29.5 years of age. Likewise, in Oregon, the median age rose from 30.7 in 1980 to 35.8 in 1990.

In the vast majority of the municipalities in Lucas County, including Toledo and Oregon, the largest population numbers can be found among people aged 20 – 59 years, a 39 year span. On the whole, in Lucas County, according to the 1990 Census, there are 244,142 people in the County between the ages of 20 – 59. The remaining 210,059 are below the age of 20 or 60 and over.

This holds basically true for most of the communities in Lucas County. For example, in Berkey Village, with a total population of 250, there are 137 people between the ages of 20 – 59. There are 109 people in the other age categories. In the City of Maumee, there are 8,691 people between 20 – 59 while there are 6,672 people in the other age categories. Likewise, in the City of Oregon, there are 9,737 aged between 20 – 59 and 8,287 people in the remaining age categories. In the City of Toledo, there are 173,963 people between the ages of 20 – 59 and 152,409 people in the remaining age groups.

There are several communities whose populations are even older. Harbor View Village, Holland Village, and Ottawa Hills Village all have larger representation among those aged 40 and above than those below 40. Harbor View has 69 persons aged 40 and above and 53 persons below the age of 40. Holland has 623 persons aged 40 and above while only 571 aged below 40. Comparatively, Ottawa Hills has 2,386 persons aged 40 and above and 2,131 below the age of 40.

While the trends point to a general aging of the population and longer longevity for the community’s residents as a whole, there are still gaps when aging information is analyzed by race or ethnicity. Generally, African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians have lower median ages that whites. The median age of all white persons in Lucas County is 33.7. The median age for whites in Oregon is 36.1; and the median age for whites in Toledo is 33.2. However, these numbers don’t hold true when compared to Hispanics, African-Americans or Asians. The following chart depicts the median age based on geography and race or ethnicity.

Median Age

	LUCAS	TOLEDO	OREGON
WHITES	33.7	33.2	36.1
HISPANICS	22.4	21.9	26.4
AFRICAN- AMERICAN	27.1	27.1	*******
ASIAN	26.2	25.8	*******
AMERICAN INDIAN, ESKIMO OR ALEUT	29.8	28.9	*******

Median Age by Income

*** Figures not available.

The age disparities are due to several reasons, disparities in access to quality health care, immigration patterns, and family constituency. African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics, on average, have more children per household than whites.

In addition, people newly migrating to the Lucas County area from other countries tend to be younger. Therefore, for groups that have higher new immigration percentages, like Asians and Hispanics, there tend to be more people of a younger age.

The disparity between whites and African-Americans is more likely due to the disparity in health coverage, health awareness, access to quality health care, health care costs, and access to preventative treatment and the disparity in family constituency than new immigration.

FAMILY HOUSEHOLD ISSUES

Toledo experienced a 10% increase in family households. This included a 19% increase in female-headed households with children and a 6% increase in overall single-headed households.

Approximate