HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-12-18-FHC-rpt.pdf C
v ,
1
ii
5' , of tc t
PROPOSED
TOWN OF LEXINGTON
FAIR HOUSING PLAN
December 18, 1980
Submitted by the Fair Housing Committee
Albert Zabin, Chairman
Robert Pressman
Natalie Miller
William S Sullivan
Leona Martin
Jonathan Doran
Ronald S Y Chi
ges nonNipe
il1.---f�y)Ag
1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02173 TELEPHONE(619) 962-0500 �'kRjoTO/
J
TOWN OF LEXINGTON
FAIR HOUSING PLAN
SUMMARY
GOALS OF TOWN HOUSING POLICY
OBJECTIVES OF THE FAIR HOUSING PLAN ii
ACTION PLANS
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF HISTORY 1
COMMUNITY PROFILE 3
I Preface
II. Local Housing Market
A. Quality of Housing
B. Cost of Housing
III Housing Occupancy Patterns
A. Presence of Subsidized Housing
B The Local Population
1 Racial Characteristics
2 Income Levels
3 Age Distribution
4 Female Head of Households
IV Lexington's Share of Regional Housing Needs
PROBLEM AREA IDENTIFICATION 14
I Financial Pressure
II Discrimination Patterns
III Affirmative Action
IV Conclusions
FAIR HOUSING PROGRAM 18
I Preface
II Lexington Housing Policy
III Implementation and Monitoring
APPENDIX. TABLES & MAPS
SUMMARY
The Fair Housing Committee was established in September, 1979 in order to draft
a Fair Housing Plan for the Town of Lexington The Committee explored the Town's
local housing market, the housing occupancy patterns, the zoning by-laws, and
the occupancy patterns and availability of subsidized housing The Committee
also met with local planners, developers, and realestate agents, and conducted
a survey of Lexington's minority residents
It was found that the greatest barriers to having a greater proportion of
minority families and elderly in the community stem from the lack of availhbility
of low and moderate priced housing and the lack of articulated affirmative
action goals and plans; therefore the Committee has recommended certain goals,
objectives and action plans A description of the Committee's investigation
and analysis follows the suggested goals, objectives, add action plans
GOALS OF THE FAIR HOUSING PLAN
Ensure that the Lexington citizenry is a heterogeneous and diverse mix
of various types of persons, with the goal of achieving a minority ratio
similar to the Greater Boston SMSA within five years
Promote the diversity and vitality of neighborhoods by spreading low
and moderate income housing throughout the Town
Ensure that long-tern Lexington residents, who now may be on a "fixed"
income, can remain Town residents
Ensure that potential new residents are not excluded from living in
Lexington solely because they are of low or moderate income
Satisfy local housing needs and address regional housing needs while
preserving the character of the Town minimizing environmental damage
from new construction or rehabilitation, and maintaining the historic
and aesthetic qualities of Lexington
i
OBJECTIVES
I. Expand the Town inventory of suitable low and moderate income housing
II Eliminate any institutional barriers to equal access to housing
ACTION PLANS
1 The Town Meeting should adopt a Fair Housing Policy Resolution for the
Town and its governing bodies
The policy should, inter alia, set forth the reasons why a more racially
diverse population will benefit all residents; require each unit of
government to consider the impact of its actions on the racial diversity
of the Town; establish a presumption against actions which may adversly
affect racial diversity; and require affirmative action in the selection'
of tenants or owners of all housing administered by or made available
by the Town
2 Achieve compliance with the Housing Policy adopted by the 1979 Town Meeting
a First Priority Managed growth of low and moderate income family housing.
Operational Objective Increase the number of subsidized family units
of all variety of forms of housing assistance to a total of 174 units
by the end of 1983 or, on the average, by 25 family units each year
b Second Priority Managed growth of low and moderate income elderly'ihousing
Operational Objective Increase the number of subsidized elderly units
of all variety of forms of housing assistance to a total of 238 or, on
the average, by 15 elderly units each year
c These family and elderly subsidized housing units should be located on
scattered sites and in small multi-unit housing, and, in some cases, in
larger developments when these developments are well designed and
compatible with the surrounding area
3 Adopt rezoning policies and practices to permit greater density allowances
and other incentives for private developers and non-profit corporations
to construct lower cost housing or allocate a portion of their development
to subsidized housing
4 Adopt land use practices which will encourage the development of cooperative,
housing, congregate housing, and accessory apartments In particular the
Town should adopt zoning ammendments that make it easier to convert single
family dwellings into two family dwellings and easier to create accessory
apartments
5 Establish a procedure and standards for legalizing existing, unapproved
apartments
6 Cease the practice of refusing to approve units with densities greater
than three and four units per acre, and approve some developments of up
to twelve units per acre
ii
7 Require any new multi-unit development to contain provisions for a 207
set aside for public housing,
8 Require developers, as a condition of securing approvals necessary for
their project, to agree, in an enforceable manner, to take affirmative
steps to attract minority buyers and tenants
9 Establish a policy that, in considering the acquisition of conservation
land, the suitability for low and moderate income housing should be weighed
against the environmental needs of acquisition for conservation purposes
10 Identify suitable parcels of land, including unused school sites, for the
development of subsidized housing Make available two such sites in the
next three years to the Lexington Housing Authority, private developers,
or a combination of these
11 Reuse existing structures and Town Buildings for low and moderate income
housing. In particular, the Fair Housing Committee urges that the Adams
an and Muzzey schools be used for housing, in light of the fact that the C=itizens
Advisory Committee on Housing Policy Report of December. 1978 suggested the
Adams school as an appropriate facility for the development of subsidized
housing.
12 Expand the rental subsidy program under the jurisdiction of the Lexington.
Housing Authority
13 Investigate and make use of any and all available state arid federal subsidy
programs for low and moderate income housing.
1' The Lexington-dousing Authority should establish the goal for minority occupancy
that the population should reflect the Greater Boston SMSA demographic breakdown
as revealed in the 1980 census, by treating race as a positive factor as units
become available. In view of the make-up of existing elderly units, the Lexington
Housing Authority should make particular efforts to place minority persons in
those units as vacancies occur, and in the Countryside project
15 Establish and aggressive outreach program in order to expand the number
of minorities who choose to live in Lexington This will include
a) creating an information packet for potential tenants of the Lexington
Housing Authority, which will provide information about Town housing
opportunities, their housing rights under state and federal law, and
the support services that are available;
b) advertising in newspapers of general circulation in minority communities
and contacting appropriate minority organizations; and
c) a counseling program with an adjustment/orientation ombudsman to
assist new minority families in Lexington
16 The Selectmen should devise a mechanism for monitroing relevant activities,
and the Selectmen should report, to annual Town fleeting, on progress in
achieving fair housing objectives
17 Establish an administrative mechanism to receive and process, investigate
and conciliate complaints of alleged housing discrimination
13 Evaluate municipal and regioanl public services to ensure they are adequately
and equitably provided to all Lexington neighborhoods
iii
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF HISTORY OF LEXINGTON HOUSING POLICY
For over a decade Lexington has attempted to deal with the inadequacies of local
housing Certainly, virtually all of the housing stock is decent, safe and
sanitary; however, the present mix of mostly high priced and expensively maintained
housing has put a financial strain on low and moderate income families, and elderly
residents who may be on a "fixed" income The motivation to address this problem
has come from a combination of State gove;:nment prodding end local. initiative
In 1969, the State legislature enacted Chapter 774 which established a mechanism: for
developers who were intent on building subsidized housing to circumvent local land
use controls that many times obstructed this type of construction In response to
this new State policy, in 1970 the Lexington. Planning Board puiJished a subsidized
housing program which would meet the need for low and moderate income family housing
in the Meagherville area of Lexington Town Meeting never adopted the plan and this
project was never started, however, these Planning Board proposals formed the basis
for future consideration of Town Housing policy
During the past ten years the Lexington Housing Authority (LHA) has played the major
role in establishing subsidi;zed elderly housing In 1968 one hundred units were
constructed in a development named Greeley Village In 1973 Vynebrook Village was
conpleted with 48 elderly housing units In addition groundbreaking has taken place
for the LHA to construct a 60 unit elderly and handicapped housing development called
( Countryside
The Housing Authority has also established some low and moderate income family
housing -- some of these as part of joint ventures with non-profit corporations -
so that at Present, Lexington has 26 subsidized family units scattered throughout
tee Town There are also 48 Section 8 rentals in Lex_ington., In addition the T.IIh
will receive 12 units in two private projects and seven units in the conversion of
the Parker School These 19 units will all be owned by the LHA as condominiums. It
is expected that all these units will be ready for occupancy in 1981
The Housing Authority has developed eubsidited housing fur the elderly even while
the Town establishes growth and housing policies which will allow continued local
control over future development In 1976, the Lexington Growth Policy Committee
prepared a Local Growth Policy Statement which identified local growth management
problems and priorities This Statement specified that a fundamental objective of
any Town policy should be to preserve the character of the Town Undeniably, the
historical qualities which distinguish much local housing are important features of
Lexington However, another important characteristic of the Town is the desire of
its residents to make Lexington a modern community with a wide range of housing oppor-
t neties, particularly for long-term elderly residents and low and moderate income
families, while maintaining the amenities and esthetic qualities of the Town In
addition, in August 1978, the Board of Selectmen signed a Memorandum of Agreement wit)
the :assachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) which documented the Town'
cern itment to prevent and eliminate any housing discrimination and affirmatively
promote fair housing policies
1
in December, 1973, the Lexington Joint Government and Citizens Advisory Committee
on Housing Policy, published a report which assessed local housing needs and re-
commended actions to fulfill these needs The Report also described the increasing
c--oasis that the State and Federal government bre placing on communities to meet
local and regional housing needs Failure to work to meet these needs can lead to a
loss of funding for other Town needs, perhaps unrelated to housing So, in the
sc_rit of fulfilling our local housing goals and recognizing that our housing policy
well Impact other Town activities, the 1979 Annual Town Meeting adopted a Housing
Plan with quantifiable goals for the future development of subsidized housing
The Present Fair Housing Plan is the next step in establishing a program so that
Lexington can ensure that future housing development and access to local housing is
according to the aforementioned community goals and commitments
k
2
COMMUNITY PROFILE
I PREFACE
This community profile has two purposes First it will analyze existing housing
patterns to determine if overconcentration or underpresentation existseither
within certain neighborhoods or within the community as a whole Second, it will
consider whether or not there is housing discrimination or unequal access to
Lexington .housing
Local needs for housing are determined by both the characteristics of the Town.
population which demands certain types of housing, and the features of the
present housing stock which may or may not meet this demand for housing The
first two sections of the community profile will identify the characteristics
of the Lexington housing market The next section will consider housing
occupancy patterns to determine if there may be discrimiinat_ionor unequal access
to local housing
The 4th section of the community profile will consider Lexington's housing needs
as defined by State and Federal agencies, as the adequacy of local housing must
also be considered from a regional perspective Lexington's housing market is
one part of the Boston metropolitan housing market.. Federal and State govern-
ment policies now stress that regional housing needs can only be solved if
each community provides a share of the metropolitan housing requirements Of
course, regional requirements can only be satisfied by providing accessible
housing opportunities for those families and individuals in need of housing
Hence, it is -incumbent upon us to recognize local and regional housing needs,
local housing inadequacies, and access to housing services in formulating
Lexington's housing program. This awareness was a factor in the recent Town
Meeting action that established an official Town Housing Policy
II THE LOCAL HOUSING MARKET
Information on the local housing market was obtained from the Report of the
Joint Government and Citizen's Advisory Committee on Housing Policy, December,
1978, and from the 1970 Census of Population and Housing The most important
factors to consider in this analysis are
® The quality of housing
The cost of housing
- Housing occupancy patterns
The presence of subsidized housing
Throughout the profile, most community characteristics will be reviewed on a
geographical basis to determine whether certain areas of Town have more severe
housing inadequacies, or a higher concentration of minorities, elderly, or
other "vulnerable groups with special housing service needs In 1979, Lexington
had 8855 housing units of which 8744 or 99% were occupied Even though the town
is divided into 7 census tracts, these housing units are divided among only 6 of
3
these tracts, since Tract 3582 in completely occupied by a Metropolitan State
Hospital The census tracts divide the Town sufficiently to detect any concen-
tration of housing needs or inadequacies
A. The Quality of Housing
Overall, most Lexington housing is well-maintained and high quality. Data
from the 1970 Census shows that only 82 units or 9% of all units lacked
some plumbing facilities (See Table 1) These units were evenly divided
among owner and rented occupants; one of these units was occupied by a
Black family Almost half of these inadequate units were located in, Census
Tract 3584, one of the oldest sections of Town Similarly, only 56 units or
6% of all units lacked complete kitchen facilities Over half of these
units were located in Tract 3584
The Director of the Lexington Health Department believes that in. the last
ten years many of these inadequate units have been upgraded or condemned so
that, at the present time, there are even fewer structurally inadequate units
than in 1970 Another aspect of housing quality is the presence of suffi-
cient space for the occupants The 1970 data shows there were 224 over-
crowded units or 2 6% of all occupied units These units were distributed
fairly evenly throughout the Town In the last ten years, it is probably
fair to expect that these overcrowded conditions have improved since the
average Lexington family size has decreased
B The Cost of Housing
A review of all housing sales in Lexington for the year 1977 shows that the
median sales price for a single-family house was $62,000 and that the
average price for new construction was $71,000. The median sales price of
homes in Lexington nearly doubled between 1970 and 1976, from $32,000 in
1970, to $59,000 in 1976 As illustrated in Exhibit I, housing in the lower
price ranges, $32,000 to $40,000 represents only a small fractionof the
total housing inventory Realistically, in 1977 one must have expected to
pay from the mid-fifties and up for a single family home The cost is higher
in 1980, with most houses selling for over $100,000.
The availability of units in apartment houses is very limited and
rental prices are high The turnover rate for apartments in Town has been
so low that none of the apartment complexes is currently accepting rental
applications Emerson Gardens, the least expensive of the Town's apartment
complexes, has a waiting period of two to three years As a result of
inadequate supply and excessive demand, the rental prices of Town apartments
have been inflated. A review of rental units in the surrounding communities
reveals that comparable units are renting for up to 30% less The following
is a breakdown of rental prices for some of the non-subsidized units in
Lexington
1
4
Captain Parker arms Minuteman Village Emerson Gardens
1 bedroom $396 1 bedroom --- 1 bedroom $375-$400
2 bedrooms $491-$501 2 bedrooms $435-$480 2 bedrooms $425
3 bedrooms $612
Housing and rental costs only become relevant when compared against the ability
of people to buy or rent. Therefore, the minimum income level needed to permit
a person to buy or rent a home in Lexington was computed to determine the income
level below which people are economically excluded from Lexington The basis
on which this computation was made is as follows
1. 141/2% interest on mortgage (25 year loan)
2 25% down payment, plus one point
3. $25 per $1,000 assessed valuation tax rate
4 Maximum of 25% gross income for housing *
Based on this criteria, a family would have to earn at least the following
income to purchase a home at the following prices
$26,900 per year for a $50,000 home
$31,000 per year for a $60,000 home
$36,500 per year for a $70,000 home
4
$42,000 per year for a $80,000 home
d
:when comparing the income required to buy a home against the existing housing
stock, it becomes apparent that a family would have to have an income well
4 in excess of $30,000 per year to have a reasonable chance of finding a home in.
Lexington,
Assuming that a person should not pay in excess of %25 of his yearly income
for housing, the following incomes would' be required to rent an apartment here
Rent/Month Income
1 bedroom $390 $18,720
2 bedrooms $460 $22,080
3 bedrooms $612 $29,376
• When one exceeds 25% of his gross income for housing, at the lower end of
the income scale, most financial institutions consider it to be economically
unfeasible
5
III HOUSING OCCUPANCY PATTERNS
0
As previously noted, in 1970 Lexington contained 8855 housing units for a
copulation of 31,886 Almost 86% of all units were owner-occupied while less
than 13% were rental units The rental units that are available are
distributed throughout the Town The low vacancy rate of 1% is indicative of
the high demand for Lexington housing In the last ten years, new construction
of both owner-occupied and rental units has occured, however, the pattern of
development is much the same as in 1970 This development pattern is
different than the 1970 Boston SMSA as-a-whole where only 51% of all units
were owner-occupied, almost 46% of the units were renter-occupied, and 3 5%
were vacant year round,
A. The Presence of Subsidized Housing
As of January 1980 there were 148 units of subsidized elderly housing and
26 units of subsidized family housing plus 48 Section 8 rentals under the
jurisdiction of the Lexington Housing Authority (See Table 2 ) Private
non-profit corporations in Lexington administer an additional 14 units of
subsidized family housing Most of the elderly housing is divided between
two major developments Greeley Village, 100 units built in 1968, and
Vynebrook Village, 48 units built in 1973 The construction of a third
major elderly housing development, Countryside to contain 60 units isin
final planning stages
The subsidized family units are on scattered sites throughout the Town
The Housing Authority and Planning Board have made a conscious effort to
integrate these subsidized units in many neighborhoods To this end,
during the summer of 1979, the Housing Authority constructed 17 low and
moderate income family homes on tax-title scattered site lots and funds are
sought for 12 more scattered sites units Furthermore, the Planning Board
has reestablished its policy of requiring private developers to include
some low and moderate income subsidized housing in their proposals Due to
this policy, ten new subsidized family units in one private development and
two units in another development will be constructed in 1981 and then
administered by the Housing Authority, if HUD or the State, makes the funds
available The LHA also has approval for 13 more condominium units
In all, during 1979-1981 Lexington will have made significant additions to
its stock of subsidized housing The number of elderly homes will increase
by 60 units or almost 40 percent The number of subsidized family homes
will increase by 44 units or almost 90 percent These new family units
will be located throughout the Town Finally, the Lexington Town Meeting
has established a Housing Policy which sets quantifiable goals for the
future development of low and moderate income family and elderly housing
These housing goals were designed to meet Lexington's housing needs
B The Local Population
In addition to population data in the 1970 Census Lexington is fortunate
to have had a 1978 Human Service Needs Assessment of Lexington provided by
graduate students at the Boston College School of Social Work These
students conducted original survey research which provides a much more
i
up-to-date profile of the Lexington population This study discovered
the following population mix
while -
0
1) over 76% of all household's have a member with a College degree
or better,
2) over 36% of all households have an income over. $30,000 and
3) over 72% of all households have a member employed in a
professional or mangcrial job
however -
4) over 8% or 772 households make an income under $10,000
(38% of elderly have incomes under. $10,000)
5) over. 4% or 366 households have persons who are seeking employ-
ment, and
6) over 6% or 549 households have persons who have attained only
an elementary school education
These findings indicate that despite the majority of households which con-
tain well educated, affluent professionals there is an identifiable
portion of Lexington's population which is uneducated, low income, or
unemployable The study suggests that these latter families are "at risk"
o;,, "vulnerable to the exigencies of the economy and other sociological
factors We nay suggest that these families are also the ones who may have
distinct housing needs in the future
In order properly to assess local housing needs, the following subsections
will look more closely at the following population characteristics
1 Racial characteristics
2 Income levels
3 Age distribution
4 Finailies "at risk" Female Heads. of Households
These population characteristics are in a dynamic relationship with, the
local housing stock The particular features of the Town population are
both determined by the available housing and, at the same time, effect
what type of housing is available The purpose of the local population
profile is to discover areas where the available housing still does not meet
the needs of residents
1 Racial Characteristics
The racial occupancy pattern of Lexington housing is different from that
in the Boston SMSA. In 1970, only 1 5% of all Lexington housing was
occupied by a black or other minority group family ,- while 5 1% of the
SMSA units were ovvupied by minority group families (Table 3) . Further-
more, the tenure of these two population groups is different Almost 78%
of minority group families in the SMSA occupy rental units, while only
7
20% of minority families in Lexington rent. Minority family concentration in
Lexington rental units is only slightly higher than that of white families, where
almost 13% rent their homes In the SMSA, 44% of all white families occupy rental
units However, in Lexington, where the availability of rental units is smaller
than in the Boston region, a large majority of both white families (87%) and
minority group families (80%) own their homes Finally, Table 5 shows that the
minority group rental and the owner-occupied units are evenly dispersed throughout
the twon There is no concentration of minority families in any one area of
Lexington This is prima facie evidence that minority group families have not been
intentionally discriminated by being overconcentrated in any one area, even though
the overall underrepresentation of black individuals indicates that there are
special features of the local private housing market which inhibit black families
from moving to Lexington
Table 3
Lexington and Boston SMSA Racial Composition 1970
Boston SMSA % Lexington
White 2,602,741 94 5% 31,331 98 2
Negro 127,035 4 6 274 9
Others 23,924 9 281 9
Total 2,753,7000 100 31,886 100
The minority occupancy of the existing subsidized family housing is greater than
that in the nonassisted subdivisions in Town There arel5 family units (18%)
occupied by minority families three in the eighteen LHA owned family units;
six in the twelve units of 707 family housing, and six in the 48 Section 8
rentals However, only one of the 148 elderly units is occupied by a minority
Table 4
Minority Population in Subsidized Housing, 1980
number units number minority
LHA owned Elderly 148 1
Section 8 rental, Elderly 10 0
LHA owned Family 18 3
707 Family (Pine Grove) 16 4
707 Family (Interfaith) 6 2
Section 8 Family rental 38 6
Total 236 16
The one area in which governmental action can encourage greater population
diversity is in this realm of subsidized housing The racial distribution of
LHA housing needs even greater efforts to attract minority groups, especially
in the area of elderly housing
8
2 Income Levels A comparison of the median family income for Lexington, the
Boston region and the U S is shown below
1949 1959 1969 1976
Lexington $3,598 $9,043 $17,558 $24,000
Boston SMSA 3,516 6,687 11,449 17,950
Massachusetts 3,444 6,272 10,835 15,531
U S 3 073 5,657 9,590 14,958
Even though the average 1976 Lexington family income is 33% higher than the average
Boston SMSA family income, a breakdown of the distribution of 1976 family income
reveals that approximately 794 families or 9 8% of all families have a low income
(less than $14,000) This 1976 information from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council
(MAPC) corresponds with the 1978 income data generated by the Boston College Study of
Lexington
Distribution of 1978 Household Income
Income Households Percent
Under 6,000 400 4 4
6,000 to 9,999 391 4 3
10,000 to 14,999 1010 11 .1
15,000 to 29,999 3185 35 0
30,000 to 59,999 2976 32 7
over 60,000 346 3 8
Not available 792 8 7
Total 9100 100 0
This study indicated that approximately 693 households or 7 6% of all households have
a low income while 906 additional households or 10% have a moderate income based on
the 1976 criteria for low and moderate income These figures are somewhat lower
than those in the MAPC data partially because the 1976 income criteria is outdated and
also 8 7% of household's income information was not included in the income distribution
Nevertheless, these two sources of information show that between 18° and 23% of
Lexington families/households have a low or moderate income
The low and moderate income levels used abvoe may not be as useful as the income level
requirements generated by the Local housing market analysis This analysis showed that
any family making less than $16,000 would have difficulty purchasing a home in Lexington
It is apparent that a S24,000 average income falls into the range which allows a family
to buy into the Lexington housing market However it is interesting to note that,
in 1976, 30 8% of all Lexington families had an annual income below $16,000 The
current level of housing costs would place severe financial difficulties upon almost
one third of Lexington families if they wanted to purchase a house in town today It
9
an be expected that many of these low and moderate income families do have a financial
strain maintaining their present residence Finally, data from the 1970 census shows
that low and moderate income families are located throughout Lexington (see Table 6)
rather than concentrated in any one area of town
3 Age Distribution - Since the cost of local housing has become increasingly expensive,
only families that have a reasonably high level of material success can afford to
live in Lexington This fact has influenced the age characteristics of the town
population An analysis of Lexington's population shows that there has been a
significant shift upwards in the population strata from 1965 on From 1940
through the early 60s there was a fairly even distribution of people within all
age groups, with the largest age group from 20 - 39_ The 1975 figures show that
the age group 45 - 49 now represents the largest segment of the population, and
the 35 - 39 group has fallen to the fourth group behind the 50 - 55 group Popula-
tion projections show that the upward trend in age will continue well into the 80s
Exhibit 3 compares the 1940 and 1970 age and sex distributions The trend is
interesting in that the United States census shows that the biggest bulge in the
nation's population is 20 to 30 years of age
The obvious conclusion is that the demography of the town is changing from a fairly
good balance of young and mature families to an older. population One factor
contributing to this change is the unavailability of moderately priced housing
withinLexington The present mix of housing stock may have caused an undesirable
change in the character of the town The difference between Lexington and the
United States population trends is due to the fact that the majority of younger
people haven't yet attained the measure of success that is necessary to afford to
live in Lexington.
Another consequence of this trend is that, in the near future, housing for the
elderly may become a more important component of the master housing plan In 1970,
persons 65 years and older represented 7 8% of the town population These
individuals were distributed throughout the townas shown in Table 7 Since 1970
additional elderly housing has been constructed; this commitment to elderly housing
must continue in order to meet the needs of an increasingly large segment of the
town population In 1980, according to the Town List of Persons, over. 16% of the
population of Lexington is over the age of sixty
4 Families at risk" Female Heads of Households
Even though the concentration of households with female heads was about half of
that found in the Boston SMSA in 1970, there were still 571 families or 7 3% of
all Lexington families with a female head These families are distributed
throughout town Since many of these families may only have one employed person,
their most cirtical housing need may be housing which is moderately priced,
although a very small proportion of families with female heads had an income below
the poverty level Most of these families had children living at home It is
these families who are most in need of low and moderately family units
10
Families with a Female Head of Household
1970
Boston 's of all % of all
SMSA families Lex. families 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Families with
Female Head 88,350 13 4% 571 7 3% 119 - 61 104 85 118 8,
With own children
under 18 42,920 6.5% 245 3 1% 49 - 22 40 38 53 4
With income Below
poverty level 18,689 2 8% 33 4% - - 4 5 10 3 3
With related
children 16,111 2 4% 27 3% - - 4 5 10 3
under 18
T: LEXINGTON'S SHAPE OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
Both State and Federal law mandates surburban communities to make significant: con-
tribution to meeting the national need for moderate and low cost family housing
In the development of a housing plan it is naive and short-sighted for the Town to
ignore State and Federal requirements Since the Federal government has begun a
policy of inducing communities to meet Federal housing standards, failure to work
toward meeting housing requirements established by State and Federal agencies
could lead to a loss of funding by the Federal government, such as monies for
sewer and road maintenance and construction and conservation reimbursements
Housing programs could also be affected, such as housing for the elderly The
Department of Community Affairs (D.C,A ) has adopted a policy which states that
"since it is important that all portions of the population have their housing need
addressed, D C.A. will weigh the request for elderly housing against the entire
family housing picture in a given community Evidence that low income families'/
housing needs are being addressed as well will demonstrate to D C.A. that a
comprehensive plan for housing has been developed "
As regional housing needs increase, it is to be expected that the State and
Federal Government will put pressure on more communities to meet the housing
requirements of both elderly and low income families This fact was an important
consideration when the 1979 Lexington Town Meeting adopted a Housing Policy which
emphasized the provision of low and moderate income family housing
The Planning Board in 1970 stated in its Subsidized Housing Program for Lexington
Mass "That it is obvious that Lexington is also a part of the Metropolitan
housing needs, including the needs for multi-family and low and moderate income
housing " This position was reaffirmed in the 1976 Growth Policy Statement
"Lexington has a responsibility to the region to provide a mix of adequate housing
for a variety of income levels Finally, the 1979 Town Meeting adoptad the
11
Housing Policy Plan, shown in this Fair Housing Plan; which is based on a
recognition that " (Lexington) , along with other towns and cities in the metropoli-
tan Boston area has a shortage of housing for persons of low, moderate and
'fixed' inoome "
Based,ion the Department of Community Affairs' figures, the need for housing assis-
tance in the metropolitan region for 1970 was estimated at over 261 000 households
This figure represents approximately 27% of all households in the region as needing
some form of assistance, i e
o they are paying over 25% of their income for housing
o they are living in substandard housing
o they are living in overcrowded conditions
What is Lexington's fair share? The State Legislature under Chapter 774 of the
Acts of 1969 established guidelines for each community so it could determine at
what point it has met its obligations in providing low and moderate income housing
These guidelines specify that this need will be met when 1) 10% of the total
number of dwelling units, or, 2) 1 5% of the total non-publicly owned land in the
Town is devoted to low or moderate income housing In Lexington, these guidelines
will be satisfied when 889 low or moderate income dwelling units are constructed
or 109 acres of non-publicly owned land in the Town is allocated to low and
moderate income housing At the present time only 213 or 2 42% of all dwelling
units in Lexington, are classified as low and moderate income housing and these
occupy 15 acres of 0 21% of the non-publicly owned land. It is obvious that
Lexington has fallen short of meeting the guidelines mandated by the State
Legislature
The D C A. and Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) have also developed guide-
lines allocating each community its fair share of housing based on the regional
need The numbers of additional housing for Lexington are
Elderly Non Non Elderly Non-Elderly
Total Elderly New Elderly Elderly Monetary Monetary
Need Rehab Constr Rehab New Contr Supply Suppl
1,352 32 76 96 129 504 515
At first glance, 1,352 units seems high, but on closer examination, 1,019 of this
total figure is allocated for rental subsidies to families who pay more than 25%
of their income for housing This subsidy could apply to families that are now
living in Lexington and are paying in excess of 25% of their yearly income Thus
the State agencies with the responsibility of carrying out the mandate of the
Commonwealth have determined that Lexington's fair share for new construction or
rehabilitation of existing units for various types of housing assistance amounts
to the following
8 - from Lexington
4 - had some connection to Lexington
4 - had no ties to Lexington
12
According to the MAPC, most local subsidized developments are mainly inhabited
by families either from that community or have some connection, i e family or
friends, within the community Hence, additional subsidized developments within
Lexington will primarily meet local housing needs while satisfying a portion of
the regional need
Some additional subsidized housing has already been approved These developments
include 17 completed and occupied family units on scattered sites throughout the
Town, 19 planned family condominium units as part of two new private multi-family
housing developments and a school conversion, and 60 planned units of elderly
housing reduces Lexington's total future allocation to 174 units of low and moderate
income housing and 48 units of elderly housing The five year housing goals
established in the Town Housing Policy Plan are to provide an average of 25 units
of family housing and 15 units of elderly housing per year Adherence to these
goals will satisfy most of Lexington's commitment to both local and regional
housing needs
{
13
PROBLEM AREA IDENTIFICATION
I FINANCIAL PRESSURES
Lexington housing is by-and-large well-maintained and expensive Most units are
owner occupied and rental housing is limited and expensive For the most part,
families need an annual income of $30,000 or more to buy a home or $19,000 or
more to rent an apartment in Lexington The Joint Committee on Housing Policy
concluded that the lack of less expensive housing tends to exclude the following
types of persons from Town
1 Average income families that have an income below $16,000 per year
2 People who cannot afford to buy a house but would like to rent.
3 People who can afford to buy a house but would like to rent
4 Most younger families who have not reached the upper middle income
bracket
5 Most Town employees (the average Town employee salary is approximately
$16,000 per year)
6 Many of the elderly and disabled on fixed income
The high cost of housing is gradually effecting the population characteristics
of the Town, Particularly the age distribution which is increasingly composed of
more older persons and fewer young and middle aged families
Furthermore, there are many Lexington families who probably have an uncomfortably
large financial burden maintaining a hone here In 1976, 30% of all fanilies
had an income belo; which,stuld be necessary to purchase an average priced
Tome in Town. Inf± onaty pressure of the past four years has added to
•the burdens for these-people. Many Lexington residents recognize the
need for some form of housing assistance, both for themselves and others They
also realize that the Town may need to use some innovative approaches to provide
this assistance These sentiments were born out in a questionnaire developed by
the Joint Committee on Housing Policy and published in the Lexington Minute-man
newspaper Notwithstanding the small, non-random sample methodology employed,
the Committee reached the following conclusions based on the results of the
Questionnaire
1 There is a need real and perceived for a wider range of housing with parti-
cular emphasis on the development of housing in the $30 - $50,000 range
2 Multi-family housing represents an acceptable alternative to the more expen-
sive single-family home
3 Many people foresee a time when they may require some form of housing assistance
4 Many young people find it difficult to find suitable housing in Lexington
5 While the majority of people would consider living in some form of subsidized
housing, there are many people who are reluctant to live in this type of housing
14
•
6 There is a general awareness of the need for housing assistance on the part
of most people
7 The concept of having subsidized single-family homes integrated into exist-
ing neighborhoods on a random basis is an acceptable form of public housing
8. Elderly housing is generally the most acceptable type of public housing
9 Within Lexington there is no general feeling that the existing low-cost housing
developments have had a detrimental effect on the Town This would probably
be true of other new developments if they were well designed and consistent
with the scale of other multi-unit developments in Town
10. The Town should encourage development within the private sector
11 Most people would feel more comfortable with public housing if the community
retained some form of control or influence
The community profile and general public sentiment indicate that there is a
pressing need for moderately priced private and public single and multi-family
housing These types of housing will provide affordable opportunities to many
families now economically excluded from the local housing market As already
ind_cated, the Housing Authority and Planning Board have made substantial efforts
to meet this need.
The committee also addressed the question of land use regulations as they
relate to housing costs It reviewed the by-laws, held discussions with the
Town Planner and local developers Most of the zoning regulations are con-
cerned with density, lot size, and frontage controls, whereas the major
problem for minorities is economic
The committee discussed the relationship between these by-laws and housing
costs. Lot size and frontage requirements appear to have minimal effect on
housing prices There are little differences in prices between houses on
30,000 square foot lots and those on 15,500 square feet. Changes in zoning
rules relating to single family detached dwellings are likely to have little
impact on housing prices If any impact on the prohibitive costs of unsub-
sidized housing is to be made, it will be made only by creative planning with
multi-unit development
Although historical patterns may have contributed to a town that is older,
wealthy, and predominantly white, zoning by-laws are not now exclusionary;
however, the practice of Town Meeting of approving RD rezoning for only three
and four units per acre is found to raise costs for multi-family developers
15
II DISCRIMINATION PATTERNS
As for housing discrimination, the dispersion of minority families
throughout the Town indicates that these families have not been directed or
confined to one neighborhood or one area of Town. The vast majority of minority
group families are homeowners and are an integral part of the Lexington
community However, the relatively low representation of black families
w_th_r private and public housing may indicate that these families have had
difficulty obtaining housing in Lexington.
In order to explore possible patterns of discrimination, the Pair Housing
Committee performed two informal studies
a) A series of telephone discussion and one large group meeting with
local realtors revealed that some discrimination may have existed ten
or fifteen years ago, but that they felt the Town to be very open now.
The realtors also expressed the view that there has been a large and
recent growth in the Asian population, who appear eager to live in
Lexington, who can afford the high cost of purchase, and who are not
discriminated against
b) A survey was circulated among minority residents using lists recommended
by the Lexington Concerned Black Citizens, a private civic organization,
and the 16 churches and synagogues There were 15 responses (8 by mail
and 7 in a group meeting) Although returns were small, the responses
indicate that the current minority residents do not perceive any pattern
of discrimination in housing Most of them located their house within a
few weeks of the start of their search, with purchase made between 1947
and 1976, and many reported assistance by realtors Their reasons for
choosing Lexington primarily involved educational opportunities. Problems
they encountered included
Name calling by children (1)
Seller reluctant to sell to blacks (2)
Unfriendly neighbors (3)
Difficulty selling their former house (1)
Police harrassment (1)
Administrative delays (2) both in 1950's
No problems (5)
The occassional incidents of possible discrimination occurred over ten
years ago, although the committee heard of two isolated incidents of
bigotry within the last five to ten years. These included neighbor
harrassment and name calling by children, but were not related to .housing-
purchase.
data available does not prove there is no discrimination; however the committee
cc_r.cluded that there is no evidence of consistent practices of discrimination
regarding minority housing in recent years, although the isolated incidents of
bigotry are disturbing
16
___ AFTIRMATIVE ACTION
0
The one area where governmental action might well encourage greater population
d_ •ers_ty is in the Lexington Housing Authority The racial distribution. of LHA
'1c•2_1r.g has been shown in Table 4 Although there is much improvement in integration
it the scattered sites program, it is clear that the LH; should make greater efforts
to attract tenants from minority groups
LSA has no timetable and no numerical goals. Lacking these goals, it seems
i^_vit=ale that. the authority has developer nq effective affirmative action program
to attract minority group applicants Its only attempt to contact a minority
or;anization to advise of the availability of housing has been a single letter.: to
the Lexington METCO coordinator The letter was not answered, and apparently
the LEA did not follow it up.
The LEA advertised in the "Lexington Minute-Man", a newspaper with virtually no
circulation in predominately black or hispanic communities, and sent notices to
the Town departments, the School Department, the churches and synagogues, and
two industrial firms At a minimum, the LHA should contact appropriate minority
organizations and advertise in newspapers of general circulation in minority
co=unities
IV CONCLUSIONS
It ap_ears that the smaller percentage of minority populations in Lexington, as
=Lazed to the greater Boston SMSA, is due to the scarcity of lower income rentals
to c-iases rather than to any pattern of racial discrimination It is necessary
to provide greater opportunities for low cost housing in order to encourage a
greater racial as well as economic and age diversity of Lexington's population
t — 17
a
THE FAIR HOUSING PROGRAM
I PREFACETr
the spirit of fulfilling Lexington's local housing obligations and recognizing
that housino policies will impact other Town activities, the 1979 Town Meeting
adopted a Housing Plan with quantifiable goals for the future development of
subsidized housing Following this, the Fair Housing Committee has developed a
series of objectives and action plans that will help ensure that the goals of the
Local Policy Ordinance are enforced and that equal choice and access to housing
are available to all, persons
11 LEXINGTON HOUSING POLICY PLAN
On April 9, 1979 the Lexington Town Meeting adopted by a vote of 174 to 1, the
following Housing Policy Plan
4tic.PF.1S the Town of Lexington recognizes that it, along' with other
towns and cities in the metropolitan Boston area has a s crtage of
housing for persons of low, moderate and "fired" incomer whereas cost
of land and construction are high
AND ti.arez s the cost of maintaining houses in Lexington is rising
because of increasing inflation and taxes so that many citizens may
soon be unable to remain in the Town;
AND h'SEREAS it is a benefit to the Town to maintain diversity among
its residents, and not to lose long-term resident=- or exclude' new
residents solely because they are of low or moderate income;
AND t+:iEREAS the Town recognizes that it is vital that basic human needs
for housing be ;.let; the Town adopts the following housing policy.
The Lexington Sousing Authority, the Board of Selectmen, and the
Planning Board are directed to give vigorous attention to the managed
growth of low and moderate income family housing to be followed in
priorly by the additional housing for the elderly. Ti,e prime goal skull.
be to increase the number of subsidized family units of all varieties of
forms of housing assistance to a total of 174 units by the end of 1983
or, on the average, 25 units each year, and the corresyoiding numbers
of subsidized elderly units to a total of 233 or, on the average,
15 units each year
It is the primary responsibility of the Lexington Housing Authority to
achieve this goal, and the Authority is directed by the Torn fleeting
to pursue the achievement of that goal as vigorously as possible,
making use of any and all available state and federal subsidy programs
The Lexington Housing .Authority shall make every effort to e>. •and the
rental subsidy programs and, in selecting sites for new housing, shall
consider the recommendations for "guidelines for development" and
"criteria for evaluation" in the "Report to the Lexington Planning
Hoard from a Joint Government and Citizens Advisory Committee on
Housing Policy , dated December 1978
18
9
All Town agencies and boards are directed to cooperate fully with the
Lexington Housing Authority for the achievement of these goals
The Lexington Planning Board is further directed to propose to future
Town Meetings new and refined zoning ordinances designed to expand the
inventory of low and moderate income housing through Fetter, use of
existing structures, development bonuses or lower cost construction.
In pursuing this effort the Board shall foster land management tech-
niques that minimize environmental damage and shall strive to main-
tau: historic and aesthetic qualities of the Town
1
At each annual Town Meeting beginning in 1980 and ending in 1984w the
Lexington Housing Authority and the Planning Board shall report to the
Town Meeting the progress of the Town boards towards the achievement
of the goals of this housing policy and plan, This report shall
describe the efforts made in the preceding year and the plans to
achieve these goals and shall list the number of the then existing
housing units under different assistance programs
19
III IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
The Town of Lexington has established a Fair Housing Committee which is an
advisory committee to the Board of Selectmen The Town Manager' s Office has
provided staff to this committee The Fair Housing Committee will function
as the monitoring body to see that policies are implemented It will also
be available to address grievances
The Committee will continue to work with the Lexington Housing Authority to
encourage aggressive outreach in order to expand the number of minorities
who apply for subsidized housing The LHA will be encouraged to take a more
vigorous, creative, and practical affirmative action program It must be
emphasized that the LHA by State statute is an autonomous body not under
the control of the Board of Selectmen or the Town Meeting Four of its members
are elected at large and one is appointed by the Governor
In order to foster the development of lower cost housing in the private
market the Lexington Fair Housing Committee will continue to work with the
Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board to encourage more flexibility in
RD zoning densities, frontage and land use practices
1
20
Iliet-
, . -;;.::-t
�.�^�3J. �..F. t- ;.
t
1 is et. :44':t=“1iS '• , 3:."'•'"7 .;j:?s , %.
�" ((��pp IJP" co 1:1 net), ,�,"' is }:. p. s r
!!I : 4 is �
K • ;: p ' Y Mdfl t� J K✓, �Y �
^'..
"s 1,7-?,e&P ten\ \'‘ ,--
i ta. -1 ,.. s em7./ ',; {i
te
s 14 lr .<-{ • ....00-N::.‘1-'""*. /!re'ice \. .: tse .i' °--.ff.,
3e7,
,,,,,, is Vii' , tt�; ,. ctr.^ ;' ?,-* 1 a.,..„sem e lQ :. : -in t t �.:�
C1 L :2�,timcaF�'�; 's' .3.%l� •.- _, 10e' "1 ,4 tat} Li ft �‘•
:' i =�llllJ,_ _J ea li `i.. ' i;a...,j at.Ji T ! -
S �. i 'i r'�lES('. `.�' • • 1 I.)% f J i' w At '+4 " I-1 .+� .F.. J'y�Al-
1'r
.,
�/' t:c.,. t ,y tt_1ti r #^� y'��.'-t- i �""•, r .0-40 1, s ..'..ryeJ•cp.) 4�a'U
�'h\•r: ,.y'•� -� ti' i ir..o n. ra. az"� 2 l �%- (,gyp/ :J
.F r - )�C/J v.;i •' i - �r 1; k-. a . fi. yir, ... t .,c..d r'.':;r 7., _ Y tc:...
/� ��f .. .'• DJ hi
; f4- • - -:.I:J�T.t\•4- f
-•.15 et
.i"'' a -.+}-.SAS--" 1-P.
T !• ',�-,,-.4."--=
S'Y.,.' W-t YCCii
L::---, 84 f :�'� Li --.14,----r-
���::,. i--..J.i �`'trJ's-.' r.. "n�"' �I
y J s 4 a ,`> jam\
- II
ratt
a.t t . �i` ' y.wy'� Y\N-.-•. �y-` t it••f lY4• ` `\•' _• i
4.w Yik• , r t
j'U" i•'
�.,,. 1. Asir 14
4 tPSl *C-. i.PI.J. \-.1. ;sr�:v. '-±�.'i., ti P: 0 ' j-. •h„ii t !/'y'^ to
.„...„..,1
•+\ (TT- `•:�:+i J1J7Jt�� �tr '- tin 14 Yoh
rA L C L'I
ice? i G r'+ ;. 2,k Z
�fcr
l
%- " `'41
u� h
u� " I . / 1r! .1- \
is `
Table 1
Housing Inadequacies
1970
Census Tracts
Total
Units 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Units lacking some
or all plumbing 82 9 - 4 39 14 3 13
facilities
Percent of all Units 9% 5% - .4% 2.5% 1.1% :2% .9%
Owner Occupied 38 3 - 3 7 13 2 10
Renter Occupied 39 5 - 1 28 1 1 3
Vacant Year Round 5 1 - - 4 - - -
Negro Occupied 1 - - - - 1 - -
2. Overcrowded Units
w=t:: 1 01 or more persons 224 53 - 24 30 27 51 39
r room
Percent of all
occupied units 2 6% 3.2% - 2.4% 2.06 2.1% 2.7% 2.8%
3. Units lacking complete
kitchen facilities 56 6 - 3 35 1 2 9
Percent of all Units 6% 4% - .3% 2 3% - 1% 6%
~i
\ -{ er
S
N. I w
j Z : ��\
V
4 \\=S-s ti% J•tea :;y^: �,%-t t:i } `oar 1/4 `•' 4. it 1+� R
°+1 4p- #�l '`fir '�` ?5 d•.,f.S. EP •w, it
_-._ \\••••.„.2.,„>0.,‘"/ 0
411 t. �� 1 °S �y� t Js
fir _�` 'list I 1 � .fJ ''N " - I f itl`� 0 (Dili a b
.}• z F `a0".Ja • tib i,„t:,^t, ' .4.i;mr it 1,- t J t°%/ ..-*
5se _ , ;- t' fit . •� . ^ n
t41 A*
!çc
i Pe
! i:l .. `�+ 4k... / r . A 's i\ x t'A p
o� 7. stn+' 1 .•. (`
,/ tc "!1••+.l ` }' ri ,pc 'rel 11 \A�r f .
v.
v3 !i m s _I
te -, _ .
1.4 r• ti. _ -7 ,.. t
% — . ..'t
91
' i f : -:—.: 19[1-. .Ap :
•. 1v�', i �rt
-
i t
.i
�.r O et N. • . " l's.4 �,.',� �s�:It fi N 9.. 0 el yt-7f . . - ., p�\, t/ 4,... ".d �
i 1 a- `i s'mom. .v....1:,4 ..., \�i.N'^a ice', •_moi., ,i"t.mm<^ lir' �
P , 31 t . wf a 5, t.. .,....F ... 1...,-,0 ' li�,r -fir ac. \t t 't\ jj t .�
1 t • 1 W L `,—. . f. j .
•
"..- \3r i e :. i L,? v9itllJ#��., ti a I' { ;mo .rm"L' .C„ k .„...,,,,,.....re
a e/,„it 0.--
_,14 :4
/ .yc1. ,SFR .2:::::c7,,,1/4..
'.hrt` `'
Sc�� ts i
• �•$�• et ,,t 12 y � t44.1
^ f. i:'T(m'^ ., 1,?, n ter Y� ,,,,T t i.1 ` ..p , C` -
j •. \ i�
at
-, it [I• �it`'i/ ,.,z"F. . i 't ^j"c�-, s^'uet.,°',c_4-,~" j"." \• ,Kc
•1 r—le '. {h .: p.1/i .:3� �ntic;;Iii ;IJ':,Z,r!'.1j.^ O .;lu• Iv
j•
s, 'tea. "1P ' WI tia. %'wsi 1 °�„" "
1'4t1S
MTSaitrA1al
i �, bi.
'.
h "�; ``�`y:. a. ,;`„ ,t 4,--
al ♦- r � F ,�.
.i r-.,/ is '..�:r \ , M ,�3 , .. :i. ..
N r el 'N: 7 tele' F 1 f
""S'i:yi n bl „ h1l3.2b4'J �� t` 0 ...� :(%
v �, v. sr'V •G C
J 44,
i2 sD d ti it i %� A`
t
I it 9S. 11.i A' ..”" _'�.... ...i.is --* ("' r+,
.l Li" / 1.
.- J�.
.4 0
i e e . 0 010 'x'
ve ,
i Ct.!'" lie Ilk . 0 ett‘ tt's 11114 \
z � o E
o ea
vs to ra te a iii421 itsf
o
trite-, ea
..44 \`(.5
ba
1.4!: ts ctviv sireWs ids
4 azi vs
O 0 in
r4-4 oliti vs 0
SI
ca ottils toit 0
0 d2 tie)
mac. °�' �0 csta vi
0 vs get
„, r_ . ZZ. - ea ta 0we te , in
-$ 4 ),-..,, 0
:-, t„,,,, 4 sx, 0- lel Cf)
0 -' W
IsIS
Y 9.
� z
"ask 12' :;:la t-4e- 1 kWil lev4
0•01 T4 u 1- Ail ISO'I lil I kis ts4c$s 0
9.;:k la I (tut 0
pot f4.t
011103 VI:fett# 0.4
0 30in r
S tini
a
4
\ J.
.. '�\:..f rrj x.41-n {/ 11111‘
V t I.��.Fy,.tJy.:.i' �/ y=% ....• } �res, \-.. •n'
Slirc
•
y 1 � •
� e4. � '1 �,j.� � n,gNy w�F.sy VII...)a til
' .,. S /�'•` f} t:r: cc sacra `.$ t-s ozet.: lip j"{\ ` ,-
�--' (5 �✓ �' i. err- • �• „"'i.=: . t "' i:Q tied, •� ..
C'.-. .A ma 1 t Ta‘•.1:11÷••a Cy
c;... C, n-Alsi r f •• : \ Pie-tp,,,....:., pr,4. i . cr. - 0,lb \'s% fic.,,,,..\
lam„ . .y,•it. ''yp r • \
,' mac. pa. "i ` ' ha.. • � i.•.F'��' /41;,,. .,,,%,„,(€.0.--N,�i'/ to
'�,. s�� _._•„-- -' .`i,/ !' Fly `� .p ,..' �i „?...i-- '
�
L • . yb � "" • S.
t . . n ` {",� },y3jy, �y✓/• �tr< �. � � `d . / s {
43
n c 9: re t....
( e -r cafct ;:t::s.-'< y'^J ray. .1.74.t.„&„ e 1 .•.. • l�
(tz
N
t{44 j ).*%P=:- sf' a s[ a}. tl` 6 )_ p7w{ h` ✓ t ti,,e. .�.+ y, yF_!,tt _,..s;� ( ^"i..�> > .� °fL.nNys !-j'Z 7 i::�j�.._ \ �i"" 7 �M _11 •. }\• /'tri. ` r4 Y„ "-- � .t jT. :r/�;I: .r`r. .-IL `-• •fa ` � .):L7-
f, ,"dee : 1...,
"; .)., �• . �i.�-i •>r t -.•.^".'- ',i.”
rp �} r•- "�•e• 3i j:.• ` ..,� ,
r 'a t dr-I i-.n rwr 1..4-7-Cm. : • /ft .. :N.{`� •�.Y' •i•fiy'a✓ 4 `.,•.`.�
^.1,. •y '‘...,:e4.--). L •/f --.�"-- ' ....'Y.� i' -ALL 14.. .s T` • •! .-'cordaef. F / ` y. �h>sn rçjrW\
6NT'y\\`yt Z / y [net
i h!} :'. `,A y v �S+- i,:�.-. i•-ir.:.:.^" •l,tJliS!' • r•` T""
'S '�' ', -ti r`";:,F'9 I:l p/'4 ) C
I\\\
`� 0 ..;'V .:• i7,,,,,,..�^,,."r"'°•�'�i-_^1h'.�•''•''rr I•r1 CO,'/ / 'G''jr ;L y "'L^ Y3-. .. tt. . •F ` r •;17 I4 ttr.1611 f.l•.:'} 9.0.-4.--1
� y�t
t c ler.4.-'1%s'e.- 1 ; ::101.
l'.7„:;34eAi.)..-1.-ri.14 43::: :::>: .ittfr° C 3 7...%,.....121:1 c-11 ill tt; atd
....f,,c3/' v.C.;;Th - et:.---- t 1.--a---- - .:::-el k 1 -
CP
fin
;s,ue �Q < ' `-'`'~ rrL
t ..-- i 9 611 r,,,,,,.. 1, ,
i
$9
e
v
art
. w
Vet
O
0
61 y -jnt �jl l .-- U
40,27
..`tom is
-
/1 I V? ‘
.i,
•
\ . . . .1.1
ii
A \\\
a t
a.
It y
18 1 UI
S Y
SI k
y6
1 , 1
li
IA
P 2
4 • o
P '
:a 9
S1 •
6 •
i Ili I i
6 j +
i e4
sf
2 n
s • , $
Vu ct. a
n 101
4
•
.,
OP
V
V H 0 CO en M H N 0 0 M N
N 0 N N H .HI H N H
.-/ H H
M
N
a) N en M H V CO M M CO
1.0 ON N in in N H In N
H H H
disN
Ol V CO V N CO V V O N ca In
M N H H H C1 01 '"'I N H
H H H
dP
COto
Cl en V H N V HN en co
M Cl N H N N N .-1 en
in N N N N H
V I H H H
to
Cl
CI Ol m M N 00 O` N H H N N
C en O O1 C CO o H H ..4
H
oU
a
_ CO
.f1 U N V I I I I I I I I I I
U
1
O F
J. H
'a O V N O N M V M N N N
N M en en en CO
O H H H H
U
C)
Sa
C C 0 an ° ea 5P • de da dP OP
C0 0 Vi I C CI N 1D o CO in N -I N in
F Ol O J- 3 O in V N N H .i
T H d� H F O C) C7 HH
.it
C
F it O
-4 1.1
C O
O of rt. It) 0 V V N V COV N N N 0
C• X 1) in H O in in en O H H 0 en 0
C a H N N corri el HIH H
H
N
7
O
M de flOem `
W M N Cl N d?
V W CHS d• N 1D CC N CO V elP V N in N
ac 0 0
a WI Hi
0 E I O in V V V M M M
O a E in H
CCI
C. C
O O co en V N N CO In N it in N
i. L < in en 0 0 N tD a in .-i in o
GO'. £ N 0 0 0 0 t0 CD H Cl 0 0
= Oa O N N CI N N N 0 V H in
Cl in V 0 N M en V
CO V V A' M
W
4,
vi
C
N >.
.e d-I
to V C H
a 'Cl C a O
C 'O O C
HI
C7 U 10 O .H-1
..4 U 0
a0 U 0 14 0 O 0 Sa 0 .i K
0 .0 14 U Y N Ci Z 14-1
O
O •rt M Y
C+ .0 Sa % .0
mu 3 0 O °' 3 0 O C op
▪ 0 a >H
'C
Table 6
-Low and Moderate Income Families and
Unrelated Individuals by Location *
1970
Total 4. Census Tract
1 2 3 4 $ 6 7
ttr
Families with
low or moderate 1,083 256 - 138 183 160 21.9 127
income* _
% of all families 13 8% 16.9% - 14 6% 13 9% 13 7% 13 5% 10 0$ ?
Median family
income $17 558 $15,118 $14,856 $20, 290 $18,874 $17,336 ;18,57)
Unrelated individuals
with income below
the poverty level 367 36 - 10 143 34 103 Ni
t of all unrelated
individuals 28.3% 16 7% - 9 4% 41 6% 25 4% 32 8% 22 4%
Median income for
unrelated indiv-
iduals $4,209 $5,031 - $4,895 $3,905 $4,800 $2,774 $4,759
*In 1970, low and moderate family income level was $9 159, which is 80% of the 1970
S:t3A median family income of $11,449
iI
:y
v
Table 7
Distribution of Persons 65 Years and Over
1970
Persons
Census Tract 65 years and over Percent of all Persons
Total Male Female
3581 523 202 321 9 0%
3582 1 e 1 5.6%
3583 217 101 116 6 0%
3584 480 176 304 8..8,8
3585 373 132 241 7 4%
3586 592 194 398 8.9%
3587 304 135 169 5.8%
Total 2490 2490 7 8%