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

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 and feedback, research of local zoning codes and ordinances, review of foreclosure records, an analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and other data, interviews with housing providers, compliance agencies, consumers and public officials, and document reviews.

The Analysis of Impediments will be used as a jumping board for the City to develop and implement 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 several areas. These areas include: Economic and Employment, Education, Assisted Housing, New Immigrant Issues, Housing for Persons with Disabilities, Real Estate Sales, Lending (Predatory Lending and Foreclosure Issues), Insurance, Zoning and Public Policy, and Rental.

This study reveals the emergence of three major areas regarding impediments to fair housing: predatory lending, foreclosure issues, and issues regarding new immigrant populations.

The amount of lending in the sub-prime market has risen substantially. This is a cause for concern because, while predatory lending practices are not restricted to the sub-prime market, predatory lending is much more prevalent in the sub-prime market than it is in the prime or conventional lending market. Moreover, foreclosure rates are much more higher in the sub-prime market versus the prime market. Furthermore, the sub-prime market is highly unregulated whereas the prime lending industry is regulated by federal and state agencies.

The higher rates of sub-prime and predatory lending are being reflected in the increasing numbers of foreclosures in Toledo and Lucas County. Foreclosure rates have more than tripled since 1998.

Toledo is experiencing an increase in the number of new immigrants relocating to the area. New immigrant groups are a welcome site as their presences helps to buttress population levels. Housing providers need to be sensitive to the needs of this community however, and advocacy and law enforcement groups need to beef up enforcement measures as these groups are often targeted for exploitation.

The Analysis includes a summary of responses from community leaders and housing providers regarding fair housing issues. Respondents stated time and again the need for ratcheting up education efforts around home-buyer, financial management, loan process, credit-scoring and insurance-scoring. Those interviewed felt that a lack of education had a more devastating effect on historically under-served populations. Respondents also commented that they still see barriers in the housing market that prohibit access to housing and housing related-services.

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. Indeed 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 the Lucas/Wood County region need to operate with a regional focus and better coordinated goals and resources.

Finally, this report concludes with a series of recommendations under each of the impediment categories identified in the document.

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.

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.

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.

HUD favors a regional approach to developing the Impediments Analysis and Fair Housing Plan, however, the planning cycle for the various Lucas and Wood county jurisdictions were incongruent. As a result, the City of Toledo moved forward with beginning the Impediments Analysis process and adjacent communities had not yet begun their processes. While this plan focuses on the City of Toledo and is not meant to be a regional analysis of fair housing barriers, the Center has, in some cases, identified impediments that exist in the City of Toledo in their broader context and as they may relate to adjacent reasons. At times this is done for comparison purposes to demonstrate disparities or similarities in market conditions and housing practices.

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
Community Interviews with community based organizations and housing providers
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;

The earlier 2000 Impediments Analysis examined very closely the Concentric Zone Model as proffered by E. W. Burgess which helped to explain the racial distribution patterns of urban cities like Chicago. Toledo fits within this model well. According to the Concentric Zone Model, a city expands outward from its central area. Five concentric circles that represent five zones identified by Burgess represent the this growth. The innermost zone is the Central Business District (Downtown). 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.

While Toledo has taken steps to create a shift in this type of pattern, for example, creating more spacious lots for upper-scaled homes within the central city, or the second zone, progress has been slow and Toledo continues to exhibit the zones identified in the CZ Model.

This updated Impediments Analysis does not review the CZ Model as did the 2000 Analysis, however, the Impediments and market conditions outlined in this Analysis clearly demonstrate the effects of this phenomenon.

The earlier Analysis also looked closely 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.

While this Analysis does not include a detailed discussion the theory of elasticity and inelasticity, since it was covered so thoroughly in the first Analysis, the demographic and socio-economic patterns in the Toledo metropolitan area, as described in this Analysis, clearly underscore Toledo’s lack of elasticity and the effect that has on the city and the region.

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, George H.W. 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 George H.W. 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 George H.W. 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

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 housing discrimination and to the expansion of neighborhood choice for all persons. It strives to ensure equal opportunities and access to housing, neighborhoods, public accommodations, lending and insurance. The Center provides education, advocacy and enforcement, and it helps to shape public policy.

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 30 years, the Center has carried out its founding principles through the investigation of over 8,320 complaints. Through the litigation of complaints, resulting in over $24.97 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.

he 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 220 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

The City of Toledo is located in Lucas County in northwestern Ohio, approximately 75 miles east of the Ohio-Indiana border. Toledo, which serves as the county seat, is located at the northern most tip of the Lucas County. Toledo covers an area of 84 square miles and borders on Lake Erie to the east and the State of Michigan to the north. Toledo 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.

Many cultural and recreational opportunities are available in the City and the County. The Toledo Museum of Art is a privately endowed, nonprofit institution. In 2001, the Museum of Art celebrated its 100th anniversary and in 2002, the Museum announced plans to construct a new 57,600 square foot Center for Glass, celebrating the City's role as the Glass City.

The Valentine Theatre which boasts a 900-seat auditorium is located in downtown, serves as the home of the Toledo Symphony, the Toledo Ballet and the Toledo Repertoire Theater, which provide a variety of musical, dance and theatrical productions annually.

Toledo has long been regarded as a great place to raise a family and has no shortage of family oriented activities. The Columbus-based Center of Science and Industry (COSI) operates a science museum in the former Portside Festival Marketplace in Downtown Toledo along the Maumee River. The museum features both permanent and traveling exhibits.

The Toledo Zoo is owned and operated by the Toledo Zoological Society, a nonprofit organization. The Zoo has received national attention for its many exhibitions. In 2000, the Zoo opened what was then its largest exhibit, the $11.5 million Arctic Encounter; however in 2004 it unveiled the new12-acre Africa! Exhibit.

Toledo owns and operates 144 parks covering 2,367 acres, and the Metropolitan Park District of the Toledo Area operates eight parks covering 6,879 acres in the County.

The City is the home of the Toledo Mud Hens, a Class AAA professional baseball team whose parent club is the Detroit Tigers. In 2002, a new 10,000-seat County-owned baseball stadium for the Mud Hens opened in the Toledo Warehouse District. The City is also the home of the Toledo Storm, an East Coast Hockey League professional hockey team affiliated with the Detroit Red Wings. The Toledo Storm play its home games in the Toledo Sports Arena located near the Downtown area of the City.

Toledo is the largest city in Lucas County with a population of 313,619 according to the 2000 U.S. Census. This population makes Toledo the 4^th largest city in Ohio and the 57^th largest in the country.

Ninety-seven percent (97%) of Toledo residents were born in the United States. Of those who are foreign born, 40.6% are from Asia, 23.8% from Latin America, 21.3% from Europe, 7.2% from Northern America and 6.7% from Africa. Ninety-two percent of Toledo’s population over the age of five speaks English exclusively. Of those speaking a language other than English at home, 33 percent spoke Spanish and 67 percent spoke some other language; 37 percent reported that they did not speak English "very well."

POPULATION MIGRATION PATTERNS

Approximately 80% of the Lucas County population resides in incorporated municipalities; however there is a movement toward the unincorporated areas. This occurrence leads to a decline of the tax base of the incorporated areas. These municipalities are then forced to either raise taxes to make up for the loss in the tax base or leave the taxes as they are and allow the infrastructure to further deteriorate. Either option may serve to alienate its corporate and residential citizens and provide them with an incentive to relocate to an unincorporated area. The population decline for Toledo which started in the 1970s has continued though the most recent census. According to the US Census Bureau, the City of Toledo has lost 19,324 people or 5.8% of its residents between 1990 and 2000. The population has shifted to other municipalities within Lucas County as well as locations outside of the county.

Population Changes in Lucas County, 1970-2000

Lucas County	1970	1980	1990	2000	% Change
Toledo	383,062	354,635	332,943	313,619	-18%
Suburban Cities
Maumee	15,937	15,747	15,561	15,231	-4%
Oregon	16,563	18,675	18,334	19,355	17%
Sylvania	12,031	15,527	17,301	18,670	55%
	44,531			53,256	20%
Villages
Berkey	294	306	267	264	-10%
Harbor View	238	165	124	99	-58%
Holland	1,108	1,048	1,210	1,306	18%
Ottawa Hills	4,270	4,065	4,543	4,564	7%
Waterville	2,940	3,884	4,517	4,828	64%
Whitehouse	1,542	2,137	2,528	2,733	77%
	10,392			13,794	33%
Townships
Harding	719	631	593	724	1%
Jerusalem	3,405	3,327	3,253	3,161	-7%
Monclova	3,340	4,285	4,547	6,767	103%
Providence	1,856	2,702	3,016	3,454	86%
Richfield	1,218	1,095	1,178	1,359	12%
Spencer	1,925	1,744	1,665	1,708	-11%
Springfield	10,909	15,043	18,835	22,817	109%
Swanton	3,026	3,379	3,508	3,354	10%
Sylvania	16,496	17,534	22,682	25,583	55%
Washington	2,146	4,000	3,803	3,574	67%
Waterville	1,634	1,813	1,958	1,958	20%
	46,674			74,459	60%
Total	484,496	471,579	462,545	455,054	-6%

Source: The University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center

As the Table above shows, adjacent cities, villages and townships continue to be the beneficiaries of Toledo’s population decline. However, while the dwindling of Toledo’s population has been well documented, the county as a whole has also lost residents since 1970 and the trend is projected by the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG) to continue.

This continuing shift in population out of the urban area is consistent with the other major cities in Ohio with the noticeable exception of Columbus. From 1990 to 2000 Cincinnati has lost 32,755 residents, Cleveland lost 27,213 residents and Dayton lost 15,865 residents. During this same period of time Columbus gained 78,560 new residents – primarily due to the annexation of adjacent territory.

What is also evident is that all groups are not leaving Ohio’s major metropolitan areas at the same rate. The percentage of African American residents has increased consistently as a result of the rate at which Caucasian citizens have disproportionately left the city.

In Toledo for example the percentage of African American residents has increased from 17% in 1980 to 20% in 1990 to 23.5% in 2000. This is not the result of the African-American population growing at a much faster pace, but rather the result of Caucasians leaving the city at a greater rate.

Any report discussing demographics during the period preceding and subsequent to 2000 would not be complete without analyzing the growth of the Latino population. In 1990 there were 21.9 million Latinos in the United States. That number increased to 35.2 million in 2000 – an increase of 61%. The U.S. as a whole only grew by 13%. Latinos are now considered to be the largest minority group in the country surpassing African Americans. Mexican Americans make up 59% of those identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino.

The percentage of Latinos in Toledo has increased steadily from 3% in 1980 to 4% in 1990 to 5.5% in 2000; however, the local experience has not matched the rate of increase nationally. The Latino population grew by 30% from 1990 to 2000. It should be noted that some pubic officials and community-based organizations believe that the figures presented by the Census Bureau for the Latino population fall well below actual numbers. Even more believe that the Latino population in Toledo and its surrounding communities will continue to grow and may even out-pace the representation by other ethnic minority groups.

While African-Americans and Latinos make up the largest racial minority groups in Toledo, there is a measurable Asian population in the city. Asians represent 1.03% of the Toledo population.

Source: U. S. Census

AGING AND HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS

The City of Toledo residents represent an aging population. This is consistent with the national trend. The reasons continue to be better health care coverage, better education on health related issues and improved access to preventative health care. In 1980 the median age in Toledo was 29.3 years. That figure rose to 31.7 in 1990 and 33.2 in 2000.

While the median age continues to increase locally, Toledo still remains relatively young when compared to the second largest city in the county, the county itself and the United States as a whole. The median age in Oregon is 39.6, well above the numbers in Toledo, the median age in Lucas County is 35.0 years and the national median age is 35.3 years.

In 2000 the largest age group in Toledo was 25 to 34 at 15.2% followed by 35 to 44 at 14.6% and 45 to 54 at 12.2%. The numbers for the United States as a whole are similar; however, the 35 to 44 age group is the largest and not the 25 to 34 group. Nationally the largest age group is 35 to 44 at 16% followed by 25 to 34 at 14.2 and 45 to 54 at 13.4%.

The chart depicted below reveals that this aging trend is continuing. The chart depicts the percentage of age categories as of 2003 and shows that the largest age group is 25-44 representing 30% of the population. Twelve percent of Toledo’s population is 65 or older.

A further examination of the numbers provides insight as to how the population in the state of Ohio is distributed from the standpoint of age. The median age for the state is 36.2 years. However, all of the major cities in the state are significantly younger than the statewide median age. Columbus, Cincinnati and Dayton are the youngest with median ages of 30.6, 32.1 and 32.4 respectively. Cleveland, Toledo, and Akron with median ages of 33.0, 33.2 and 34.2 respectively are the oldest major cities in the state.

It follows then that the bulk of the older citizens in the state reside somewhere other than in the urban areas. Rural areas in Ohio such as Bucyrus 38.0 years and Walbridge 39.5 years in addition to Toledo suburbs such as Maumee 38.2 years, Sylvania, 38.5 years, Waterville 38.9 years and Ottawa Hills 43.1 years, all have median ages above that of the state.

For the sake of comparison, Ohio as a state is older than many of its adjoining states with the exceptions of Pennsylvania 38.0 years and West Virginia 38.9 years. Michigan, Indiana and Kentucky with median ages of 35.5 years, 35.2 years and 35.9 years respectively are all younger than the Buckeye state.

Family Household Issues

According to the U. S Census there were a total of 130,883 households in Toledo in 1990. In 2000 that number decreased to 128,925. Based on 2003 projections, the number further dwindled to 125,000 households.

Of the 128,925 households in Toledo in 2000, 77,378 or 60% are considered family households. From 2000 to 2003 the numbers changed slightly. Families made up 59 percent of the households in Toledo that year. Non-family households made up 41 percent of all households in Toledo. Most of the non-family households were people living alone, but some were comprised of people living in households in which no one was related to the householder.

	Toledo 2000	Toledo 1990	Lucas County 2000	Lucas County 1990
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS	128,927	130,883	182,847	177,500
FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS	77,378	84,344	116,330	119,709
NON-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS	51,547	46,539	66,517	57,791
FAMILIES W/ CHILDREN	38,365	40,985	56,921	58,691
MARRIED W/ CHILDREN	20,983	26,443	35,798	41,309
FEMALE HEAD W/ CHILD <18	14,189	12,455	17,002	14,737

Source: 2000 Census

Of those family households 49,255 are headed by married couples as opposed to 22,138 headed by female householders with no husband present. The preponderance of female-headed households with children has serious implications for the well being of families in Toledo. The income for women is substantially less than that of men.

The median income for full-time employed males in Toledo is $35,407, while the median income for full-time employed women in Toledo is $25,023. This pattern holds true for the County as well as the country. The median income for full-time employed males in Lucas County is $39,415, while for women it is $26,447. Nationwide the median income for full-time employed males is $37,057 while it is $27,194 for full-time employed women.

Additionally, the gap in income is further illustrated when examining the effect it has on families’ overall economic status. The disparity is even wider for families in general as compared to female headed households. For example, in Toledo 14.2% of families live below the poverty level as compared to 35.6% of families with a female head of house.

This gap in income suggests that there are fewer opportunities available for female headed households. This, in turn, has an impact on quality of life issues such a housing affordability and housing choice. This has a negative impact on families with children that are headed by women.

The average household size in 2000 and 2003 was 2.38 people. The average family household in 2000 was 3.04 people.

Housing for the Elderly

In 2000, 45,797,200 Americans or 16.3% of the population were over the age of 60. There were also 1,963,489 Ohioans (17.3%) and 162,239 or (17.5%) of residents of northwest Ohio over 60 according to the 2000 Census.

Additionally, in 2000 there were 52,189 persons in Toledo age 60 and above according to the US Census. That number represents 16.6% of the population in the city. Toledo mirrors the national numbers for this age group.

A further examination of the numbers reveals how closely Toledo actually reflects the country with respect to the extent to which the numbers are consistent. In Toledo the population percentage for the following age groups are as follows 60 to 64 3.5%, 65 to 74 6.6%, 75 to 84 4.9% and 85 years and over 1.6%. The national numbers are as follows 60 to 64 3.8%, 65 to 74 6.5%, 75 to 84 4.4% and 85 and over 1.5%.

	60 – 64	65 – 74	75 – 84	85 & Over
TOLEDO	3.5%	6.6%	4.9%	1.6%
UNITED STATES	3.8%	6.5%	4.4%	1.5%

The Area Office on Aging of Northwestern Ohio, Inc. (AOoA) is a nonprofit agency responsible at the local level, for the development and implementation of a comprehensive and coordinated service delivery system for the older adults residing in Northwestern Ohio. Transportation and nutrition are the most frequently requested services according to an AOoA 1998 Needs Assessment Survey. Also, other issues arise as the population grows older. Of Ohio's age 65 and over population, 32.8% experience some degree of physical disability according to the Scripps Gerontology Center at Miami University.

The table below displays some key findings. First, women greatly outnumber men as they get older. The Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research revealed that 74% of persons age 85 or over in Northwestern Ohio are women. Also, the sixty plus population will continue to increase into the future.

Sixty Plus Population

County	Total	Male	Female	Minority	2010 Projection
Defiance	6,926	2,971	3,955	365	11,445
Erie	16,175	7,369	8,806	1,224	26,444
Fulton	7,083	3,028	4,055	247	11,595
Henry	5,428	2,288	3,140	217	8,458
Lucas	77,565	31,813	45,752	11,870	125,415
Ottawa	9,001	4,023	4,978	322	14,394
Paulding	3,530	1,563	1,967	170	5,889
Sandusky	11,875	5,008	6,867	729	18,581
Williams	7,134	3,074	4,060	131	11,502
Wood	17,522	7,388	10,134	357	30,404
Total	162,239	68,525	93,714	15,632	264,127

Source: Area Office on Aging, Of Northwestern Ohio, Inc.

In Toledo there are 2,167 subsidized units, 808 private pay units, 788 assisted living units and 3,609 nursing home units targeted for senior citizens. In Lucas County there are 2,388 subsidized units, 914 private pay units, 1,504 assisted living units and 1,855 nursing home units.

For subsidized units, 30% of the individual’s income is applied to their rent. The rent for private pay units ranges from $269 per month for an efficiency to $995 per month for a two bedroom unit.

Assisted living units range from $1,200 per month for an efficiency to full service at $4,000 per month. Additional fees are included for additional services. Nursing home rooms range from $171 to $240 per day.

SERVICES & AMENITIES

While the City has worked to improve conditions in under-served areas, there still remains a large gap in the quality, quantity and type of services available to residents in under-served communities. The caliber of services and amenities varies dramatically between urban and non-urban areas. For example, community development corporations and neighborhood groups report that they have long advocated for quality, large-chain, grocery stores in the urban center. Currently, there are small grocers that operate in urban communities. However, these stores lack the inventory and variety of products available at larger stores. In many cases, the prices in these stores are higher than those at larger stores.

There is one large grocery located in the Cherry-Bancroft-Sherman corridor. The CBS corridor is located in the central city and connects the TOTCO, Warren-Sherman and Lagrange Central communities. However, there are recent rumors that this grocery may be closing because the grocery chain may be leaving the Toledo area.

This means that in areas where the majority of African-American and Hispanic residents live, there is one accessible large grocery store. As stated above and as depicted on the racial demographic maps, these are areas concentrated in the urban core. More importantly, residents who reside in central city areas have to travel long distances to adjacent communities in order to shop for grocery and household items.

Residents also argue that there are a lack of services that contribute to quality of life issues. For example, many pizza shops do not deliver to neighborhoods in the central city. The central city lacks other types of services that are in abundance in outer-lying areas such as conveniently located bank branches, shoe repair shops, movie theatres, movie rental stores, and department stores.

Prevalent in urban centers are auto supply stores, furniture and appliance rental companies, check-cashing facilities, and liquor stores. Residents of urban communities argue that the lack of quality services and amenities in their neighborhoods contributes to residential flight and the deterioration and devaluation of their properties.

Of more importance than quality of life issues are those services that contribute to the safety and well-being of central city residents. Contributors have commented that the deteriorating city infrastructure is a real detriment to the city. Many of the raods, bridges and other facilities are in disrepair.

Income & Poverty Data

In 1990 the median household income in Toledo was $24,819 according to the Census. That number grew to $32,546 in 2000 for a total increase of $7,727. Over the same period of time the median household income for Lucas County increased from $28,245 to $38,004 while the median income for Oregon increased from $34,704 to $45,777 for an increase of $9,759 and $11,073 respectively.

The per capita income in Toledo in 2000 was $17,388 as compared to $20,518 in Lucas County and $21,587 nationally.

Census data revealed median income and personal asset levels of African-Americans and Latinos were significantly lower compared to other racial populations. This trend parallels the migration trends of Toledo residents leaving the city. Caucasians continue to leave Toledo, especially the central city area, while African-Americans and Latinos remain.

In 2000, 14.2% of families in Toledo lived below the poverty level. By comparison 10.7% of families in Lucas County, 7.8% of Ohio families and 9.2% of families in the country shared this distinction.

Source: 2000 Census

Overall income figures reveal the existing and varying economic opportunities in the area. The poorest households are located within the central city. There are close correlations between race and poverty level as well as gender and poverty level. There are a higher percentage of African-Americans and Latinos (as compared to group population figures) living below the poverty level than Asians and Caucasians. Additionally, there are significantly more female-headed households living below the poverty level than male-headed households. As previously noted, the median income for full-time employed males in Toledo is $35,407, while the median income for full-time employed women in Toledo is $25,023.

According to the 2000 Census figures, the City of Toledo had 54,903 people living below the poverty line. That number represents 18 % of the total population of the city. This percentage is considerably higher than both the 13.9 % figure of Lucas County and the 12.4% of the nation’s total population living below the poverty line. The higher rate in Toledo reflects the household patterns prevalent within the community. The presence of female-headed households with children is a prominent explanation for the income disparities. Female heads of households often obtain employment that pays lower wages.

In 2003, 20% of people residing within Toledo were in poverty. Thirty-six percent of related children under 18 were below the poverty level, compared with 12 percent of people 65 years old and over. Seventeen percent of all families and 45% of families with a female householder and no husband present had incomes below the poverty level.

The lack of affordable, quality childcare services remains an obstacle. Without this service, women are forced to balance school and work while caring for their children. Reducing and even eliminating this source of poverty requires long-term programs to train and educate female workers, reward companies and businesses that provide quality childcare opportunities and flexible work environments to employees, and to develop skills necessary to empower female-headed households with children.

Housing Profile

There are a total of 139,880 housing units in Toledo. The majority of those structures (64%) are single family units with detached garages. The greater part of the housing stock in Toledo is older. Most of these homes are more than fifty years old. Very few of the homes in the city were constructed within the last quarter century. Of the homes in Toledo 64.8% were built prior to 1960.

Comparatively, in Lucas County 67% of the homes are single family dwellings with detached garages and 55.3% of the homes were constructed prior to 1960. The figures nationally are similar for the percentage of single family dwellings 60.3%; however there is a much newer housing stock. Only 35% of the homes were constructed prior to 1960 nationally.

The homeownership rate in Toledo is 59.8% as compared to 65.4% in Lucas County and 69.1% in Ohio. By far the highest level of owner-occupied units was found with homes valued between $50,000 and $99,000. Fifty-one percent of dwellings are in this category. Comparatively, 41.1% of the dwellings in Lucas County valued between $50,000 and $99,000 are owner-occupied. In the state of Ohio 39.3 % of the dwellings valued between $50,000 and $99,000 are owner-occupied.

Moreover, homeownership rates in Toledo’s urban core and the near east side are significantly lower than other areas of the city. The table below depicts homeownership rates for various areas of the city. The orange columns are west Toledo census tracts. The blue columns are south Toledo census tracts. The green columns are east Toledo tracts and the violet columns are central Toledo tracts.

Census Tract

82.01

72.03

73.03

Homeownership Rate

77.6%

85.5%

93%

74.8%

41.5%

47.4%

47.3%

49.9%

Homes in Toledo still remain affordable. In 2000 the median value of owner-occupied units was $75,300 compared to $90,700 for the county and $103,700 for the state.

There are 51,785 renter-occupied units in Toledo. The largest category of renters, 38.9%, pay between $300 and $499 per month for their units, followed by 31.8% of renters who pay between $500 and $749 per month.

An independent research group conducted a rental market study of the central Toledo area in 2004 to investigate options for low-income housing development with tax-credit financing. The study included an analysis of market-rate and subsidized apartment units, by size, vacancy rates, and median rents. The study revealed that the average two-bedroom apartment, which makes up 44% of the total rental market, rents for $515 per month. Given the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) housing affordability index, a household’s total housing costs (rent or mortgage and utilities) should not exceed 30% of the total household income.

In order for the average two-bedroom apartment to meet the housing affordability index, the household renting the unit must bring in $1,717 in income monthly, or $20,604 annually. Any household living in a two-bedroom apartment that does not at least meet this income threshold would experience a housing cost burden. Almost 30% of families in Toledo make less than $25,000 per year. This suggests that a significant number of Toledoans are experiencing housing cost burden.

There is a strong push at the federal level to decrease funding for housing subsidy programs. The Section 8 Voucher and Certificate programs are included in proposed budget cuts. HUD has changed its methodology for calculating payments to housing authorities and this has had the effect of straining dollars available for housing subsidies. Housing authorities, including Lucas County Metropolitan Housing Authority, are dealing with the dilemma of either reducing the number of families it serves or increasing the amount of rent tenants will have to pay. If the housing authority chooses the later option, many tenants will need to pay in excess of 30% of their monthly income for their housing expense. This will undoubtedly increase the number of Toledo residents experiencing housing cost burden.

The numbers seem to indicate that homeowners are more conservative or as is probably the case, homeowners just have more financial flexibility than renters. Only 14% of homeowners reported that their mortgages were more than 30% of their monthly incomes. In fact, the majority of homeowners (59.3%) reported that 19% or less of their monthly income went to pay for their mortgage. By contrast, 31.1% of renters, more than twice that of homeowners, reported that 30% or more of their monthly income was designated to pay their rent.

Economic Climate & Employment Issues

Toledo is served by diversified transportation facilities, including: four Interstate Highways; 11 State and U.S. Highways; four rail systems and its own commercial airport (Toledo Express). The Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority provides mass transit bus service in the City and surrounding areas, and the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority provides cargo facilities for ships using the Port of Toledo at the mouth of the Maumee River and operates the City's commercial and general aviation airports.

Four major acute care hospitals are located within the City: The Toledo Hospital (744 beds); St. Vincent Hospital and Medical Center (573 beds); Medical College of Ohio Hospital (215 beds); and Riverside Hospital (90 beds). St. Anne Mercy Hospital (142 beds), a community hospital was established in August 2002.

In 2000 63.5% of residents 16 years of age or older were in the workforce in Toledo. The vast majority of Toledo residents 82.1% drive to work alone whereas 10.7% carpool. A much smaller percentage utilizes public transportation or walk to work 2.5% and 2.3% respectively.

In terms of types of employment an increasing number of people are moving to the sales and services occupations. Over 26% of Toledo residents were involved in sales and office employment, 25% were in management, professional and related jobs, 21.3% in production, transportation and material moving occupations and 17% in service careers. In terms of employment sectors, 83.6% of the workforce was private wage and salary workers, 12% government employees and 4.2% were self-employed.

While it seems as if Toledo has shifted from its traditional role as a blue collar, manufacturing city by the occupations of its citizens, there is still a significant manufacturing presence. The major industry in Toledo is broken down as follows; 21.2% Educational health and social service, 18.4% manufacturing, 12.7% retail trade, 9% arts entertainment, recreation accommodations and food service and 8.7% professional, scientific, management, administrative and waste management services.

With regard to income in Toledo, 56.5% of households earn between $25,000 and $74,999 annually. That income range can be broken down further: 14.6% of households earned between $25,000 to $34,999, 16.3% earned between $35,000 to $49,999, 18% earned between $50,000 and $74,999 and 7.6% earned between $75,000 to $99,999 annually.

A noteworthy portion of the households in Toledo are still severely lacking in income. While the reported incomes for the many households were comfortably above the median household income ($32,546), 38.3% of the households made less than $25,000 per year. It remains the case that everyone is not in a position to partake in all the community has to offer an equitable level from an economic standpoint.

An analysis of the relationship between the median household income and the median cost of a home may add some insight into the access to housing strictly as a financial matter. The median household income in Toledo was $32,546 and the median value of a home was $75,300 – a difference of $42,754. The median value of a home in Toledo is more than twice the median household income.

A comparison of how the median household income and median cost of a home relationship plays out across the state as well as nationally shows us how Toledo stacks up from a housing affordability standpoint. The median household income for the state of Ohio was $40,956 and the median value of home was $103,700 – a difference of $62,744. The median value of a home in Ohio is more than two and one half times the median household income.

As we move from city to state to country the trend away from affordability continues. The median household income nationally was $41,994 and the median value of a home was $119,600 – a difference of $77,606. The median value of a home nationally is almost three times more than the median household income.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

The Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG) produced a Regional Transit Study in September 2004. This section of the Analysis of Impediments is taken from the study.

The study is the region’s response to perceived shortcomings in the public transportation systems. These include a perceived lack of transportation options for growth areas and a lack of mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities, and other people who need or desire public transportation.

The purpose of the study was to determine whether there are unmet needs for public transportation in the region and the extent and nature of these needs. The study area includes Lucas and Wood Counties in Ohio and Erie, Bedford and Whiteford Townships in Monroe County, Michigan. Project sponsors include a wide range of local governmental agencies, transit providers, and non-profit entities from throughout the study area.

The Executive Committee, made up of representatives of the funding agencies, was the primary governing body of the study. A Study Committee, made up of representatives of the funding agencies, plus representatives from other agencies and concerned citizens, assisted in guiding the study and provided technical input. The study was managed day-to-day by TMACOG staff.

The study revealed and documented a number of needs that are not being met by the existing transit services in the region. These needs were documented through analysis of the market for transit in the region, the transit services now operating in the region, and the public’s perceptions of their public transportation services. The study verifies that current public transportation does not provide a comprehensive system that serves all the needs of the region.

About 90 percent of the region’s land area is not served by the fixed-route bus network provided by the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (TARTA). Other transit providers, including dial-a-ride services and university transit systems, serve some of these areas. However, most of these providers cover only small local areas, are not

linked to TARTA or to one another, and provide little or no evening or weekend service. As a result, transit users cannot travel between many of the region’s important trip generators, such as between Bowling Green State University and The University of Toledo.

CITY OF TOLEDO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

SERVICES & AMENITIES

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION