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.

Furthermore, 30 percent of the region’s transit-supportive area lacks transit service. These areas are major concentrations of employment and population to which transit service could be provided efficiently and effectively. Were transit to serve these areas, it would increase transit ridership and allow transit to support existing development in the region.

The lack of geographic coverage also limits the choices of transit dependent consumers of retail, medical and professional services, and distorts normal patterns of travel and consumer choice. More than one-fourth of survey respondents chose their job, their doctor, and where they shop based on transit availability. Citizens desire access to specific areas in the region not currently served by regional transit (such as Oregon and Perrysburg Township), specific shopping centers and stores (such as Wal-Mart in Oregon, Spring Meadows and Woodville Malls) and specific medical facilities (St. Charles, Bay Park and Wood County hospitals). A number of the region’s major recreation destinations (metroparks; Maumee Bay State Park) also lie outside the regional fixed-route transit network, and thus are inaccessible to those who use transit.

Suburban and Rural Residents

More than 47 percent of the region’s population is not served by fixed-route transit service. Many suburban areas with growing populations and commercial concentrations, such as Perrysburg Township, City of Oregon and Springfield Township, have no transit service. Population and employment growth, and growth in the number of elderly and disabled in these areas, will increase the need for transit service in the future.

Access to Jobs, Business, and Industry

Lack of geographic coverage and connections and limited evening, night, and weekend service curtails access to jobs for residents—particularly those who are without private transportation. Downtown Toledo, the focus of TARTA’s fixed-route bus network, is no longer the main employment location. In fact, less than 5 percent of the TMACOG region’s employment is located in the downtown. Employment is increasingly dispersed throughout the region. Analysis of employment location indicates that 57 percent of jobs in the region are not served by the existing fixed-route transit system. The current lack of service, or limited service, in employment areas like northern Wood County and Arrowhead Park limits the flexibility of the transit system to serve business and industry in the region. It separates employees from jobs, and employers from workers. The job market is changing (including growth in the service sector), and fewer people work a standard Monday-through-Friday daytime schedule. Nationally, the percentage of employees with flexible work schedules increased to nearly 29 percent by 2001. Between 25 to 40 percent of workers in retail sales, cleaning service, health care, food service, and production are working non-traditional shifts. These national figures are supported by local data: a Toledo area employer association survey found that among responding companies, approximately 28 percent of the reported staffing schedules were for a non-standard work week.

Non-weekday schedules are not well served with our current public transportation. TARTA has fewer bus routes in the evening, no service after the 11:00 p.m. hour, and less service on weekends. Other area transit provides little, if any, night, weekend or holiday service. Survey respondents stated inadequate time-of-day coverage is a significant problem. Workers reported lost wages and lost job opportunities. College students find it difficult to use transit to meet their school and work schedules.

Transit Supportive Areas: Numerous areas of the TMACOG region have employment and population densities that can support public transit service. However, many of these areas (highlighted in red) lie outside the region’s fixed-route public transit network. To be effective, transit must, at minimum, serve the needs of people entering the work force. A study of participants in the CommuterLINK program, which provides transportation to new workers, found that a large majority could not use TARTA for work trips. Transit was not available at the right hours and/or did not serve the workplaces of these workers. Suburban employers report problems with attracting and keeping entry-level staff due to lack of public transportation. The number of people in the region aged 55+ will increase by nearly 50 percent over the next 20 years, while the number of younger adults will fall. However, area employment is expected to grow significantly. This suggests more people will work past “retirement age.” Seniors are more likely to use transit, and are also more likely to be disabled (about 40 percent of area residents aged 65 or older are disabled) and thus more dependent on public transportation. All of these employment trends, taken together, point to more need for public transit. However, they also produce travel patterns that are extremely difficult to serve with traditional fixed-route public transit.

Elderly, Youth and Disabled Access to Transit

Demographic trends suggest more transit will be needed in the future. Elderly, disabled, and young people are among those most likely to rely on transit. The number of persons in the region aged 65 and over is projected to increase by more than 30 percent in the next 20 years. This also increases the number of disabled in the population.

Many unserved areas in the region, including suburban areas, have higher densities of elderly, youth and disabled persons. About 15 percent of the older population (aged 65+)—and an equivalent percentage of disabled citizens—live in areas without transit, potentially isolating them from activities, jobs and services. In terms of numbers, more than 28,000 area residents over age 50, and more than 12,000 over age 65, live in unserved areas. Nearly 24,000 of the area’s youth live in non-transit areas. Workforce participation among the disabled and youth has increased in recent years, and this trend is expected to continue, creating further demand for transit services.

The study concludes with the following objectives:

Short Term (1-3 Years)

Long Term (4-10 Years)

Existing Transit Areas

1) Investigate options and fund service improvement to:

Add direct service between non-downtown destinations in the TARTA service area
Add/expand evening, night, weekend and holiday service in all transit service areas
Increase service frequency in all service areas

2) Work with stakeholders to coordinate transportation resources of senior citizen, workforce development, Medicare and social service agencies

3) Continue to provide ADA-compliant paratransit service to the growing disabled population in transit service areas

4) Improve transit marketing/public information

5) Work with local governments to improve sidewalks and pedestrian access to bus stops

1) Add connection between Bedford and Monroe area

2) Add connection between Bowling Green and the metro area

B. New Transit Areas

1) Work with local stakeholders to investigate alternatives for providing service, and pursue new service in the Oregon area, Northwood, Holland/Springfield Township and Perrysburg Township

1) Operate and fund transit as a county-wide or multi-county system, allowing areas of need to be served

2) Pursue coordination and connectivity with adjoining rural county transit systems (Ottawa County, etc.)

EDUCATION

The Toledo City School District is the principal school system within Toledo and the fourth largest school system in the state employing approximately 5,000 people and serving over 35,000 pupils. The district operates 47 elementary schools, 7 junior high schools, 8 senior high schools, and 13 specialized learning centers. The breakdown of the 2004-2005 general fund budget of approximately $344 million. Approximately 62% comes from state tax revenue, 33% from local tax revenue, 0.8% from federal revenue, and 4% from other sources

The University of Toledo, a state university attracts students from a broad region with its wide selection of course offerings and programs, including 70 graduate degree programs, and a 1.65 million-volume library system. The Medical College of Ohio, a State medical and health science center offers M.D. and graduate programs. Other area colleges and universities in the area include Owens Community College, Lourdes College, Bowling Green State University, Stautzenberger College, and Davis College. There are a variety of institutions of higher education in Southeast Michigan as well.

Library services throughout the County are provided by the Toledo-Lucas County Public Library. The Library provides services on a County-wide basis through its Main Library in Downtown Toledo and 18 branch libraries throughout the County. It has the third largest public library collection in the State with over 2.3 million books and annual circulation of over 6 million.

School enrollment for the population of those aged 3 and older who are enrolled in school are as follows. The largest segment of students in the city is those in elementary school (grades 1-8) at 42.7% followed by college or graduate students at 26.8% then high school students at 17.9%. The youngest students, preschoolers and kindergarteners, fall in at 6.6% and 6.0%, respectively.

Historically, Toledo residents have not had a high level of formal education. While the majority (79%) of Toledo residents in 2000 had completed high school that figure does not compare favorably to Lucas County (82.9%) or the state (83.0%). In fact, when examining persons aged 25 years and over who have earned an Associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree or a graduate or professional degree Toledo trails again. In Toledo in 2000, 23.5% of the population had at a minimum an Associate’s degree. In Lucas County the number was 28.5%, in Ohio 27% and nationally 30.7% of the population age 25 and over has earned a degree after completing high school.

That trend may now be changing. The chart on the next page shows that the percentage of those with at least an associate’s degree had already increased to 27% between 2000 and 2003.

This change can be attributed to two primary reasons. First, the industry in Toledo has shifted from what was historically a manufacturing based economy to a more service oriented market. The shift in the type of industry demands a more educated workforce.

The second reason may have to do with some of the recent successes of the Toledo Public School (TPS) system. The number of proficiency standards met by regular education students increased from 4 in 2000-01, to 6 in 2001-02 to 8 in 2002-03. The improved performance of the students individually and the district collectively gives students confidence and the drive to complete their education. The continued success gives students the desire to pursue their studies beyond high school. The district’s graduation rate rose from 58.5% in 1998 to 70.4% for the 2002-03 school year. In 2003, over 1500 students graduated from high school, more than 100 students above that of the class of 2002. Further the class of 2003 garnered more than $7 million in scholarship offers – a TPS record!

While the TPS has made some improvements, there is still a negative perception of the public school system among the general population. This presents an impediment in that REALTORS® say their customers with school aged children do not consider viewing homes in the City of Toledo because of the perception of TPS. They opt to reside in the suburbs where the schools are perceived to be better.

There are also large disparities in other areas when comparing students in TPS to other school systems. Those disparities include:

Number of students graduating from high school,
Number of students continuing their education,
Number of students attending college,
Proficiency test scores,
Number of students who take the ACT test, and
Number of students who take the SAT test

The following chart compares statistics for several area high schools.

	Washing-ton Local	Spring- field	Sylvania North	Ottawa Hills	Oregon	Toledo Start	Toledo Libbey	Scott	Bowsher
Student Popul.	7021	3592	4581	1018	3867	6632	4502	5566	4609
Teacher Popul.	462	226	310	67	261	501	313	424	501
Student Teacher Ratio	15:1	15:1	14:1	15:1	14:1	13:1	14:1	13:1	12:1
% HS Diploma	87	95	99	100	90	90	87	60	98
% 4-Year College	44	58	81	95	69	40	40	30	65
% 2-Year Junior College	33	24	8	3	14	30	10	20	20
Business Technical School	NA	11	NA	NA	5	NA	NA	20	NA
Armed Forces	8	2	NA	NA	1	10	1	10	3
% Seniors Taking ACT	60	44	72	77	49	42	40	40	80
% Seniors Taking SAT	NA	NA	40	84	8	NA	NA	NA	NA

Statistics from The School Report

As the chart depicts, the highest percentages of students receiving their high school diplomas, continuing on to college and taking college entrance examinations are in suburban school districts like Ottawa Hills, Oregon, and Sylvania. The exception is Bowsher High School, which is in the City of Toledo. While Bowsher is located in the City of Toledo, it is composed of a primarily Caucasian student body (73%), unlike other schools within the City that have higher percentages of minority students.

The students in the Toledo Public School (TPS) system are less likely to continue on to higher education compared with the students in some suburban school districts. TPS also has the largest number of students. This does not bode well for the Lucas County economy. New businesses seeking to relocate or establish their offices look at the education and experience level of the workforce as a component of their decision-making process. Improving educational levels for the TPS system will not only improve opportunities for lower income persons and racial minorities who primarily attend TPS but also the economic growth of the region.

Numerous explanations exist to explain these disparities. These explanations include: disparities in the experience and quality of those teaching in TPS; perceived conflicts between the administration and teaching staff; lack of resources; the increase in low-skill entry jobs that lure students away from school; state-mandated increases in credit hours needed for graduation; “hidden” public costs resulting from various public assistance programs, and the increase in charter schools operating within the city.

Though those explanations appear sound and possess validity, a more complicated reason explains the education impediment. The desire to create a sound public school system is perceived to be a valuable objective in improving the well being of the population of the City of Toledo. It is an extremely important consideration in the housing context. In fact, many families choose where they will live not based on their economic resources, but on the quality of education in a geographic area. Quality education was cited in a study by the University of Toledo’s Urban Affairs Center as a factor of why people move and where they choose to move.

It is also an important consideration for businesses seeking to start or relocate to a particular area. Businesses outside of this community consider the quality of education as an important quality of life indicator. This is because the quality of education is considered an important benefit for employees. Businesses are also concerned about the pool of employees to which they will have access. If a community has very low graduation rates, this may well result in an unqualified employee pool and increased costs to the employer in training and other expenses.

Throughout Lucas County, Toledo Public Schools are clearly deemed the least optimum. In fact, as sited earlier in the University of Toledo’s study, a large percentage of families who moved from Toledo to outer-lying communities expressed concerns about the quality of education in TPS as a reason for moving.

Given the importance of the community’s stability, growth and development on the provision of quality education, one might anticipate more collaboration to save resources and improve services. However, the city has two public school systems- Toledo Public Schools and Washington local Schools. Toledo is one of the few cities in the nation to have two public school systems. Although Toledo has a dual public school system, there is little difference in the overall performance of the school systems. When comparing the student/teacher ratio or the number of children graduating, taking the ACT test, or proceeding on to obtain secondary education degrees, the numbers are close.

To compound issues, the school systems are segregated by race and socioeconomic status. Even the two school systems within the city of Toledo exhibit sharp contrasts. The Toledo Public School system has a substantial African-American and Hispanic population; the Washington Local School system does not. Of course, this is largely a matter of neighborhood demographics. Washington Township is predominately Caucasian, and the remainder of the city is much more diverse. The remaining school systems in the county are likewise overwhelmingly comprised of Caucasian students. There is very little diversity in these systems.

TPS has the most diverse student body of all of the 11 public school systems in Lucas County. Some of this is, again, the result of local demographics; some of this is by design. For example, Spencer Township is an integrated, moderate-income suburban community north of Toledo. It lies adjacent to several more affluent suburban communities. A few years ago, a foster/group residential facility was opened to house and care for children under the age of 18. These children, many of whom are racial minorities will not attend school at one of the local school systems. Instead, they will be bussed passed predominately Caucasian schools in one of the adjacent communities to attend TPS.

Additionally, because TPS is the largest school system and has put many programs in place to address special and unique learning needs of a large student population, many communities have become “Stepford Schools” in that they will not provide education for students with learning disabilities. These students are sent to attend classes in the TPS system, and TPS receives payment, set by the State, for these children from the school system in which the children actually live.

To the credit of many of the jurisdictions, there are comprehensive educational programs in the community to provide quality education for residents. For example, the Oregon School System educates children who reside in Oregon, Jerusalem and Harbor View. Special needs children are educated within the Oregon system.

Unfortunately, the Toledo Public School system has received more than its share of negative publicity while other school communities hardly ever experience bad press. As a result, the TPS and the City of Toledo are victims of negative hype about the system. This exacerbates concerns about perceived poor quality in education in the TPS.

A March 6, 2005 Toledo Blade article entitled, “School reforms’ goal: more prepared grads” explains some changes that are being made in the TPS to improve the education system and boost graduation rates. “. . . both Scott and Libbey high schools were restructured to house four autonomous “small schools” within each building. Each separate ‘school’ at Scott and Libbey offers a different career focus . . . For Toledo Public, the small schools redesign is just the start. Superintendent Eugene Sanders said every Toledo high school will enact some kind of reform over the next several years. ‘Every high school must have some rigorous reform to raise academic standards,’ he said. ‘I know [the state and federal governments are] talking about students taking more meaningful courses. I personally think we, as a state, are in a fairly decent position. And, in fact, one can argue that Toledo isn’t so bad off, either. Toledo has the second highest graduation rate of Ohio Urban Districts (70.4%).

The TPS district’s program to renovate or rebuild all the schools of the district in the next 10 to 12 years received the necessary local voter support in November, 2002 to provide 23 percent or $184 million, and secure 77 percent or around $616 million, in state funds. Many meetings large and small to inform and get input from staff and the community about the program and the buildings in the first segment of the six-segment process yielded valuable ideas that helped shape the first building designs. The district’s Community Inclusion and Minority Enterprise Plans, and its Community Oversight Committee, are viewed as models by the Ohio School Facilities Commission that other districts around the state would do well to adapt to their district building programs.

TPS opened three Charter Schools in 2003-2004 to serve the needs of non-traditional students or students experiencing difficulties in regular classroom settings. The Polly Fox Academy for pregnant and parenting teens, Phoenix Academy for students who have dropped out of school, and Brigadoon Academy for secondary students who have been expelled, suspended or chronically truant help students make positive choices for their futures and stay or get back on track to earn their high school diplomas.

Developed on a fast track over the spring and summer of 2003, the district opened two single-gender elementary academies to provide students and parents with more options for an educational program. The Ella P. Stewart Academy for Girls is the only one of its kind in the state of Ohio, and the Lincoln Academy for Boys is one of just four such schools in Ohio.

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY

The Lucas County Metropolitan Housing Authority (LMHA) is the principal public housing provider serving the metropolitan area. The Lucas County Metropolitan Housing Authority (LMHA) provides housing for residents and operates 6,842 subsidized units. The 6,842 housing units include 3,158 units of conventional public housing. These units are located in 34 apartment complexes as well as 200 scattered site home across Lucas County. LMHA also has 3,684 Section 8 and voucher units and 36 home ownership units. In addition there are 1,670 privately owned units available for low-income tenants to rent. Additionally, the Lucas County Mental Health Board subsidizes 470 units. Moreover, there are another 4,077 Section 8 or other project-based units located throughout Lucas County. (This includes tax credit projects.) Overall, the total number of assisted housing for low-income residents is 13,095 units. Yet, there are still a large number of persons seeking housing assistance. Not only does LMHA report a large number of persons on its conventional and Section 8 waiting lists, but 31.1% of renters report spending 30% or more of their monthly income on rent.

Currently, there are 1,168 families on the Section 8 Waiting List. Ninety-five percent of these families have incomes between 0% and 30% of the area median income. Ninety-one percent represent families with children. Seventy-two percent are African-American. There are 742 families on the Conventional Public Housing Waiting List. Of these, 80% are extremely low income with incomes between 0% and 30% of the area median income. Seventy-three percent are families with children. Fifty-seven percent are African-American.

This latter statistic is significant. At one time, LMHA’s conventional housing stock and conventional housing lists were overwhelmingly African-American. Indeed the housing authority was under a court order to desegregate its conventional housing complexes. Historically, this was a difficult task to accomplish since the Conventional Public Housing Waiting List was made up almost entirely of African-American consumers.

That the Conventional Public Housing Waiting List is now 57% African-American is a testament to the housing authority’s commitment to meet the terms of the Consent Decree and to diversify the racial composition of the conventional housing complexes.

LMHA serves a large cross section of the population. The housing authority provides housing for 633 persons who are 62 or older. LMHA also provides housing for 1,568 persons who are disabled.

LMHA operates 45 development sites serving the needs of individuals requiring public assisted housing. There are three types of housing programs available through LMHA - the rental units owned and managed by the LMHA staff; Section 8 Program where rental units are privately owned, but subsidized by LMHA; and the Homeownership Program when houses owned by LMHA are sold to low and moderate income families. Participants in the Homeownership Program can use their Section 8 funds to pay for rental/mortgage payments. Also, participation in this program is dependent upon meeting the requirement of having a stable source of income.

The Section 8 program remains the most popular program at LMHA among its customers because families get to choose where they will live using the Section 8 Certificate. However, many families complain that the quality of housing from which they have to choose is severely lacking. This is because many housing providers in the private market do not accept Section 8 Certificates. Thus the doors of opportunity and housing choice remain somewhat closed even in this highly mobile program.

Like all housing providers, LMHA must comply with all laws relating to Civil Rights. Moreover, LMHA declares that it will not discriminate because of race, color, sex, religion, familial status, or disability in the leasing, rental, or other disposition of housing or related facilities. These requirements include any project or projects under the jurisdiction of LMHA covered by a contract for annual contributions.

In addition, LMHA will not deny admission to any group or category of otherwise qualified applicants. This practice occurs because LMHA advocates the treatment of each applicant in a particular group or category as an individual case, not part of a routine process. Furthermore, LMHA states in its Strategic Plan that it will identify and eliminate situations or procedures that create barriers to equal housing opportunities. In conjunction to the previous statement, LMHA makes every attempt to adhere to Section 504 requirements and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, which require the housing authority to make structural modifications and reasonable accommodations. Therefore, individuals with disabilities can take advantage of the LMHA's housing program and non-housing program.

In order to use the services of LMHA, an applicant must be qualified by meeting the following criteria. The applicant or applicants must be a family. LMHA defines family as being two or more persons (with or without children) who will live together in LMHA housing; the people may or may not be related, but the cohabitation can be verified by sources showing shared income or resources. Moreover, it includes the elderly, near elderly, disabled families, displaced persons, children at a foster home and college students temporarily at college. The applicant must also meet the HUD requirements on citizenship or non-citizen immigration status. Also, the applicant has an annual income that does not exceed the income limits based upon family size, as determined by HUD. Additionally, the potential applicant must provide documentation of Social Security numbers for all family members aged six and over.

Given the need for public housing, LMHA must utilize a waiting list. The management of waiting list by LMHA utilizes the possibility of restricting application intake, close waiting lists (in particular if LMHA has sufficient numbers to anticipate applications to fill for the coming 12 months). Subsequently, the processing of applications and the interviewing of applicants takes considerable time. Additionally, third party verification of information provided by the applicants is the preferred form of verification. Moreover, the LMHA’s records with respect to applications for admission to any low-income housing assisted under the United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended, must indicate when applications were received and the time of receipt; race and ethnicity; LMHA determination of eligibility and non-eligibility; unit size; the preference of unit; and the date, location, identification and circumstances of each vacancy offered and accepted or rejected.

In the Toledo area, applicants are grouped into either Tier I or Tier II. Tier I families have incomes between 0% and 30% of Toledo's median income. Tier 1 groups must constitute at least 40% of all admissions in any year. The Tier II families have incomes between 31% and 80% of Toledo's median income, and this group must comprise at least 60% of all admissions in any year. The admissions requirement emerged from the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998.

Despite the best intentions, the successful implementation of public housing policy by LMHA remains unclear. In addition, the efforts by other entities such as banking institutions in partnership with the Fair Housing Center of Toledo have taken a more prominent role in enhancing the housing opportunities and rights for those requiring public aid in acquiring adequate housing. Moreover, the placement of LMHA developments demonstrates the propensity of public housing to be predominately focused into areas populated by minorities. This situation occurs despite the claims of creating a greater mix of races and socioeconomic classes within the Toledo area.

As the map following this section illustrates, the majority of subsidized housing units are located in the City of Toledo in either well integrated or predominately African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods. There is only one privately owned subsidized housing complex in Oregon. There are none in communities like Maumee, Providence, or Whitehouse. There are no publicly owned subsidized housing complexes in Oregon and other suburban communities like Sylvania, Richfield, or Swanton. While privately owned subsidized complexes are slightly more dispersed throughout the area, as the maps indicate, there are no subsidized complexes in the outer lying suburban rings. Moreover, LMHA’s complexes are racially segregated with the majority of African-American tenants residing in conventional housing facilities located in low-income, minority areas.

Since it is highly unlikely that any new subsidized housing will be built in the region, the only avenue available for the dispersal of persons who use these HUD subsidies is through the Section 8 and scatter-site program. The Section 8 programs allow low-income persons who have Section 8 certificates or vouchers to rent units wherever they might be accepted. The scatter-site programs allow for more geographic distribution because in this program, the housing authority purchases housing, preferably in non-impacted areas, for its housing programs. The housing authority can purchase housing anywhere in Lucas County.

The Department of Housing & Urban Development provides rent subsidies to low and moderate income persons. Some of these subsidies come in the form of direct payments to benefit individuals – Section 8 certificates – which enable the beneficiary to rent housing in the open or private market. However, HUD has limitations on what it will pay in rent subsidies. The fair market rents pose many restrictions on where families using the Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers can live. Because of the ceilings, many families with Section 8 certificates are limited to rental housing in the City of Toledo because the rents are lower. This further exacerbates the concentration of low income persons in the City and weakens voluntary mobility. Families, who might, on their own volition, choose to live in a non-concentrated community would be prohibited from doing so because of the rent restrictions of HUD’s program.

Only in recent years has HUD increased its fair market rents in an attempt to promote racial and economic integration. The HUD fair market rents are the same for the City of Toledo, Oregon, and Lucas County and are illustrated in the table below.

FAIR MARKET RENTS FOR LUCAS COUNTY

EFFECTIVE 2004

Efficiency	$416.00
One Bedroom	$463.00
Two Bedroom	$571.00
Three Bedroom	$742.00
Four Bedroom	$812.00
Five Bedroom	$934.00

In addition, LMHA can go 10% higher for rents in non-concentrated areas. However, this rule may change as funding shortages have a more significant impact on the housing authority’s budget. Families can also now pay up to 40% of their income toward their rent if they are moving into a non-impacted area. Generally, families cannot pay over 30% of their income towards their rent payment.

While these changes have resulted in more dispersal of low-income families into outer lying communities, there are several impediments that preclude low-income and racial minority families from accessing housing opportunities outside of the urban core. They include:

Landlords are hesitant to use the Section 8 program even though the rent is guaranteed because they either do not know about the program or have misperceptions about the program.
Landlords are reluctant to invest dollars to make improvements to the unit as required by LMHA.
Landlords decline to participate in the Section 8 program because of NIMBYist attitudes.
Landlords who previously used the program and had negative experiences are not aware of the programmatic changes.

Many landlords are not participating because of the old rules that were more prohibitory. But with the new rules, landlords can benefit more. With the new changes, landlords may well choose to participate. However, landlords lack knowledge about the program changes and their benefits.

Consumers using the program are not aware of their housing opportunities in outer lying communities.
Consumers using the program are being turned down because of poor landlord references or criminal history.

LMHA’s biggest task is to sell the Section 8 program to landlords. Since LMHA guarantees and pays the rents, it encourages landlords not to look at credit histories; this turned out to be a plus. However, LMHA does not currently partner with landlord/tenant or fair housing agencies to train consumers on how to improve their landlord references, how to be a good tenant or how they might patch their criminal records.

Recent efforts to enhance the availability of affordable and quality housing were made through the Section 8 Certificate and Voucher Program. These efforts resulted in a 20% growth in the number of families receiving aid from participating in these programs. A net gain of 400 households receiving assistance fueled a stronger commitment to assurance maintenance of Housing Quality Standards (HQS). The achieved HQS complemented the work the Department of Neighborhoods did for the City of Toledo to reverse the process of not investing into disenfranchised neighborhoods.

HOMELESSNESS

The City of Toledo, Department of Economic and Community Development created the Toledo Homeless Task Force which commissioned a report by Matt White Consulting in 2004. That report took a comprehensive look at the homelessness situation in Toledo, examined the reasons for the continuing problem and proposed some solutions.

Approximately 2,785 persons experience homelessness in Toledo throughout the course of a year. Single adult men comprise 26% of the homeless population; however children are increasingly becoming the majority.

	Men	Women	Families
Median age	38	35	25
High School graduate or more	66%	32%	58%
African-American	44%	49%	55%
Veteran	67%	0%	8%
Avg. monthly income	$358	$450	$528
Avg. number of children	-	-	2.3
Currently working	60%	12%	37%
State or federal prison time	56%	2%	11%
Ever slept on streets	69%	44%	5%
First time homeless	44%	32%	63%
More than 2 episodes of homelessness	33%	61%	11%
Reasons for coming to shelter	pushed out/kicked out poor living situation not enough income	not enough income domestic violence	Not enough income Pushed out/kicked out No job

Source: Toledo Homeless Task Force, Needs Assessment and Action Plan

People become homeless for a variety of reasons and often experience multiple barriers to resolving their housing crisis. Homeless people who come to shelters report that relationship problems, loss of a job, and lack of affordable and safe housing are the primary reasons for their homelessness.

A variety of services and shelter programs are available to provide emergency help to these Toledo residents experiencing a housing crisis. The Toledo and Lucas County community receives 4.9 million dollars annually from federal, state, local, and private sources, including the United Way of Greater Toledo. This funding provides support to nearly 1,400 beds for homeless people and supportive services that promote self-sufficiency, self-determination, and employment.

Unfortunately, a lack of coordination and collaboration among government funding agencies and homeless providers has created inefficiencies, overlaps in services, and gaps in critical need areas. The available resources are not enough to help all people resolve their housing crisis, and resources are not coordinated in the most efficient manner possible.

Toledo currently provides a total of 351 beds of emergency shelter according to an inventory of available beds conducted for in 2003. Emergency shelters are defined as short-term lodging and have an official length of stay ranging from 30 to 90 days, depending on the individual program. However, it is also true that many chronically homeless people manage to live in an emergency shelter environment for years. Most emergency shelters are congregate in nature, but can also include individual hotel or motel vouchers and short-stay apartments.

The Table below provides a breakout of shelter beds by population type and extrapolates the ability to serve individuals as a function of how many times a single bed can be “turned over” to serve more than one client in the course of a year.

Annual Emergency Shelter Capacity Based on Current Inventory

Population	Number of Beds	Average Length of Stay	Annual Bed Turn-over Rate	Annual # of Individuals “Able to be Served”
Men	116	30	12.1	1,403
Women	42	60	6.1	256
Families	193	75	4.9	946

Source: Toledo Homeless Task Force, Needs Assessment and Action Plan

While the preceding Table demonstrates that the emergency shelter system in Toledo is able to serve many clients, the Table below reveals that shelters may not be able to serve all clients in part because the supply of beds may not be sufficient. Additionally, the shelter system is often not appropriate or available to clients with particular disabilities such as persistent mental illness and active substance abuse.

Need for Additional Emergency Shelter Beds

Population	Projected Annual Demand	Capacity minus Demand (surplus/GAP)	Annual Need for Additional Beds Based on Turn-over Rate
Men	1,310 – 1,550	93 – 147	0 – 13
Women	335 – 400	79 – 144	13 – 24
Families	1,000 – 1,190	54 – 244	11 – 50

Source: Toledo Homeless Task Force, Needs Assessment and Action Plan

Local community leaders, homeless advocates and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have developed a strategy to effectively address the many dimensions of homelessness. This strategy is referred to as the Continuum of Care. The objective is to create and sustain sufficient capacity throughout the Continuum of Care system to facilitate the movement of individuals toward permanent housing and independent living.

This process has resulted in the following recommendations. To begin to address the shortage, the Action Plan calls for making 450 additional rental units affordable over the next five years to people experiencing homelessness and living with disabilities. The Plan calls for linking these 450 units with support services

Build a collaborative communitywide partnership to encourage effective and efficient use of resources, and promote implementation of best practice models of service delivery and housing development.
Increase the awareness and understanding of policy makers, funding agencies, and the community at large about homelessness.
Promote an effective and sustainable advocacy organization in the form of a Homeless Services Authority to support the work of communitywide planning, prioritizing, and funding of homeless services and housing.

One of the most over-looked facets of homelessness is the impact of home foreclosures. Toledo, like many cities in Ohio is experiencing record high foreclosure filings. These individuals are forced to seek housing when they lose their homes. Unfortunately, they are searching for housing at an inopportune time. They have serious credit glitches and cash flow problems and may be facing wage garnishment if the foreclosure proceeds. Many consumers facing foreclosure live with relatives or friends, seek temporary housing in a shelter or obtain substandard housing. If the foreclosure issue is not addressed, Toledo’s homelessness problem with be exacerbated. The section on foreclosures in this document provides a more detailed analysis of the impact the increasing number of foreclosures will have on the Toledo community.

Efforts need to be undertaken to reduce the number of foreclosure filings by helping families modify their loans or refinance high cost loans into more affordable, lower priced loans. Additionally, consumers facing foreclosure need comprehensive credit and financial counseling to prevent them from falling prey to this situation in the future.

CURRENT STATE OF FAIR HOUSING

In March, 2005 the Fair Housing Center conducted a series of five roundtable meetings to discuss the Analysis of Impediments with other local agencies, units of government, banks, housing providers, and Community Development Corporation’s in the City of Toledo. Many community organizations participated including Coldwell Banker Realty, Toledo Board of REALTORS®, Re/Max Preferred, Home Builders Association, Lagrange Development Corporation, Northwest Ohio Development Agency, City of Toledo Department of Economic & Community Development, Organized Neighbors Yielding eXcellence, Toledo Metropolitan Ministries, Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority, Toledo Public School System, Washington Local School System, Area Office on Aging, Charter One Bank, National City Bank, Fifth Third Bank, University of Toledo’s Urban Affairs Center, City of Toledo Board of Community Relations, Catholic Charities and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.

In order to help the Fair Housing Center identify and assess barriers to fair housing in the community, the following questions were formulated:

How is your organization related to the housing industry and what services do you provide?
What barriers do you see in the housing market that would impede someone’s ability to rent, purchase or insure housing?
Have you encountered barriers when trying to secure housing or assist other in securing housing? If so what were they?
Do you see any barriers in the market that would prohibit or make it harder for someone to obtain housing based on that person’s disability, familial status, national origin, race, color, ancestry, gender or religion?
What suggestions do you have for increasing housing or home ownership opportunities?
Do you see any barriers to establishing a requirement that new housing developments would have a set-aside for low-income households?
How do transportation issues impact housing opportunities?
Have you encountered any zoning problems in your attempts to secure housing or assist others in securing housing?
Over the years the City of Toledo has lost a significant portion of its population to the suburbs. What factors do you see contributing to this trend?
Since 1980, the Hispanic population has more than doubled; can you comment on this growth? Do you feel this trend will continue?
What do you think the trend will be re: growth in the future?
Do you have any comments on the growth in the Asian population?
What challenges do you see in trying to help new immigrants obtain housing?
How accessible are housing providers in working with new immigrant populations?
What are some agencies that are friendly and helpful in servicing these consumers?

After all the sessions were completed the answers given were put together and it was determined that the largest barrier in the community is education as a whole. There is a lack of education in the high schools and up regarding finances and money management, credit, credit repair, insurance, home-purchase, the lending process and home maintenance issues. Other common barriers that were frequently mentioned included overt and covert discrimination, the amount of sub-standard housing in the city and the lack of dollars to make necessary repairs to homes. Dissatisfaction with credit and insurance scoring and how it negatively affects so many consumers was mentioned. NIMBYISM with regard to equal access to neighborhoods was discussed.

A complete synopsis of the roundtables follows:

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY INTERVIEW RESPONSES

What barriers do you see in the housing market that would impede someone’s ability to rent, purchase or insure housing?

Purchasing substandard housing and having no money left to fix it
Lack of education
Income
Neighborhood Blight
Poor housing conditions
Construction or replacement cost of housing in central city exceeds market value
Lack of education on lending process and how to maintain a home
Age of housing
Affordable senior housing complexes are for people aged 62 and over
Age limits and income limits make it harder to serve 55-61 population
Some 55 and over complexes are too expensive
Number of Section 8 Vouchers is decreasing
Reduction in funds to build affordable housing or to make repairs
Decreases in CDBG funding
Lack of quality housing supply
Increasing property taxes
Other high cost bills ie. medical, utilities, school loans, cell phones, cable, etc.
Lack of job security
Consumers cannot afford insurance because of fixed income
Lack of or poor credit history
Income restrictions put on programs that prevent the middle income group from qualifying
Discrimination
Hard economic times
Available funding sometimes cannot be mixed or coupled with other funding. Programs have caps and the allowable limit is often not enough to make all needed repairs.
Poor economic base, lack of high paying jobs
Lack of consumer awareness about affordable loan products and housing services
Realtors are not 1^st contact anymore. Buyers already have an established relationship with the lender when they come to the real estate professional. Sometimes the relationship is with an out of town lender that has pre-approved the consumer
Lenders are directly contacting buyers and consumers are reluctant to switch if they have already made a relationship with a lender
Internet relationships with lenders
Consumers feel vested in the relationship with their lender
Consumers buy into arguments that brokers can shop around on their behalf and are less inclined to shop for a loan with a conventional bank.
Perception that working with broker is path of least resistance.
No landlord / tenant agencies or Housing Directions-like agency in the area
No funding available for repairs

Have you encountered barriers when trying to secure housing or assist others in securing housing? If so what were they?

See answers above

Credit problems
Condition of housing
Criminal records
Lack of affordable senior housing
Certain kinds of housing concentrated in certain areas of city (No good disbursement of low-income housing)
Insurance issues or lack of insurance
Many homeowners referred to FAIR Plan insurance due to credit issues or condition of the home
Many homeowners receive forced place insurance because they can’t receive homeowners insurance or they are unaware that their insurance payment is not escrowed in the mortgage payment
Redlining and discrimination
Education/ Guidance in process of buying a home
Helpful agencies
Housing providers such as real estate agents, rental managers, lenders or insurers who practice housing discrimination
A lot of mystery concerning the credit scoring mechanism
Credit scores are not consistent
Inaccurate and poor information from credit repositories
Credit repositories may temporarily fix a credit inaccuracy but erroneous information quickly appears back on consumers’ reports
Poor follow-up from credit repositories
Some lenders won’t work with people who have workable credit issues. Lenders sometimes prefer the simple and fastest way out and offer consumers subprime loans instead of ironing out small glitches that would enable the consumer to receive a prime loan.
Some community-based organizations refer consumers to sub-prime lenders in order to sell houses more quickly as opposed to working with the consumer to help them obtain more quality lending

Do you see any barriers in the market that would prohibit or make it harder for someone to obtain housing based on that person’s disability, familial status, national origin, race, color, ancestry, gender or religion?

Lack of knowledge re: the home buying process and housing issues in general
Redlining
Discrimination
No visitability code requirements
Problems with obtaining homeowners insurance
Limited housing for persons with disabilities
Some accessible units do not get accessed by the disabled community
Poor design elements, builders do not know how to use attractive accessible design elements, eg., instead of installing a ramp in the front lawn, using winding graded and landscaped front entrances
Some CDC’s feel that there is a stigma in the marketplace associated with accessible housing
It is sometimes harder to sell a home that is advertised as “accessible”
One solution may be for the Ability Center to create and “Accessible House” logo for units & develop a multiple listing service for accessible housing.
Accessibility is mostly looked at in the context of physical disabilities and not mental or other disabilities
Difficult for larger families to find housing (cultural implication) as landlords are reluctant to rent to families with more than 2 or 3 children
Number of complaints filed at FHC still remains relatively high
Availability issues for protected classes
Lack of marketing by real estate professionals in central city neighborhoods
Some landlords won’t accept Section 8

What suggestions do you have for increasing housing or home ownership opportunities?

Teaching life skills in high schools
Improving performance of central city schools will attract more people to those areas
Teaching financial management and the importance of keeping a clean criminal and credit record at the high school level or earlier
Financial workshops
Good affordable daycare
Going into schools to educate students on financial management issues
Making financial education a part of the schools’ curriculum – incorporating it into math courses
Board of Realtors® has not had access in being able to introduce a financial management curriculum in the public school system
Negative perception toward renters, lack of appreciation for the fact that not everyone can be or wants to be a homeowner
Educating the public that racially and economically mixed neighborhoods can be good, if good policies are implemented and if people do not succumb to discriminatory beliefs
Educating consumers about their rights and what resources are available to them to help
Homeownership 101 classes
People pushed toward homeownership when they are not ready
More planned developments
The city needs to build around new attractions and conduct more planned development
More opportunities are needed for younger people to live in the city
Not enough economic opportunities in Toledo
Merge the City’s and County’s Economic Development and Planning and Zoning Departments
Raise income limits to 250% on AFFIA federal dollars for Individual Development Account programs
Cannot just rely on reaching young people in the schools (note* some communities have high drop-out rates) so housing providers, educators and consumer groups must have direct contact with potential home buyers, ie. churches and religious functions, job-site education, door-to-door contact, etc.
Build new schools and housing around areas that are being newly developed – old schools need to be rehabbed or newly built with housing, grocery stores, Transit Centers, daycare and other amenities built near-by
The area needs more attractive affordable housing
Private homeowners and investors need to be made more accountable for maintaining good housing conditions
More quality secondary mortgage dollars need to be made available to lenders who lend in central city neighborhoods. There is a lack of quality, low-cost mortgage investment dollars in these communities. This would promote increased availability of low-cost mortgage dollars.
Create more diverse partnership with and utilize Jr. Achievement more to conduct financial management training or to include it in its curriculum as sound financial position is required to go into entrepreneurship
Improve and expand case management and social services so that social service agencies provide more programming and technical assistance to help people maintain their homes and avoid foreclosure
Less use of credit and insurance scoring as they make loans, insurance and housing inaccessible

Do you see any barriers to establishing a requirement that new housing developments would have a set-aside for low-income households?

Communities DO NOT want low-income housing ( bad perception)
Homeowners and builders are concerned about quality design and costs of low-income set-asides
Racism
Marina district should be mixed community with low, moderate and high-income housing
Low-income set-asides would require state or local legislation
Lack of education and will on the part of public officials
Education of consumers on availability issues and becoming homeowners
Planning and budgeting to include low-income set-asides
Gap-financing would be necessary to include low-income set-asides in order to maintain the integrity of the housing complex
City has limited access to down payment programs
Educate banks to look at housing that CDC’s produce
Credit issues
Difficulty in getting suburban communities to accept low income housing
No political will
Too much available land – if land was restricted, more developers might be inclined to look at affordable housing solutions
NIMBYism
Political climate
Lack of available sources to obtain gap financing – the City and County don’t have funds for gap-financing
More linkages between agencies to encourage the flow of information to consumers who need it
Private developers don’t have technical or administrative resources to certify or qualify people for low-income set-asides
The administrative costs for over-seeing and managing the low-income set-aside would be too high for developers – need to develop a more simple, less complex way of establishing, qualifying and monitoring low-income set-asides
The Ability Center is not so interested in promoting low-income set-asides in multi-family housing complexes because it wants to move away from congregate living-type facilities for persons who have disabilities

How do transportation issues impact housing opportunities?

Need more regional public transit system with access to multiple regions
Perception issues about expanding TARTA service – some communities do not want TARTA service in their region because they do not want “outsiders” coming to their communities
The Oregon community originally fought expanding TARTA service to their area because some erroneously thought TARTA would replace school bus drivers
Lack of planning
Policy issues – municipalities should not receive federal / tax $$ if they don’t have public transit to serve people that should really be served.
Cab service is too costly and not very accessible – it takes a long time in some cases, to receive cab service
TARTA has an “on demand” service in suburban areas but cannot extend this service to the City of Toledo due to cost issues
Because Toledo is a very large geographical area, TARTA does not travel to all regions of the City
More education about the TARTA system is needed because it is complicated in some cases and consumers do not understand all of the services or costs
Need better planning with Transit Centers in key neighborhoods with daycare, healthcare, shopping, grocery stores and other amenities close to the Transit Center – this concept has worked well in other communities
Public transportation goes to limited areas which effects employment opportunities for people
Timing of buses is an issue
Lack of accessibility between TARTA and jobs
Too hard for working parents to use public transportation to deliver children to daycare facility and travel to work

Have you encountered any zoning problems in your attempts to secure housing or assist others in securing housing?

Zoning issues prohibit homeowners from using their residences in cost effective manner or for income producing units.
There needs to be ways to help people who can’t afford certain upgrades and repairs
Zoning commission doesn’t have staff to address overlays.
Lack of diverse multi-family housing in Toledo
Need more Condos in attractive settings
City should look at smart growth strategies – recycling buildings, rezoning areas
Residential / Commercial zoning – some of these areas need to be rezoned as consumers who own homes in areas that are zoned commercial cannot obtain conventional financing

Over the years the City of Toledo has lost a significant portion of its population to the suburbs. What factors do you see contributing to this trend?

Schools – stigma that TPS schools are not good
Lack of employment opportunities in the city and the region
Age of housing stock
Affordability of suburbs
Transportation issues
Perception of Crime in the City of Toledo and, in particular, central city neighborhoods
Tax increases in the city
NIMBYism
Public utilities are too high
Quality of City services
White flight
People do not want to live in diverse communities
People want to build on large lots
High taxes in the City
Extension of water to suburbs
Consumers want more modern housing stock
Parking
Continued pursuit of segregation
Toledoans paying more for less services
Neglected infrastructure
Blade and other media do not help in perceived crime issues - many crime stories that occur in suburban communities do not get reported
Realtor.com shows on the website that crime is based on zip codes - there are sections of the City that have higher crime rates
Lower crime rates in smaller communities because law enforcement generally know the individuals who have violated the law and are more apt to deal with more minor infractions in a more personal way
Recent statistic that every 24 hours, 270 people leave Ohio – thus local population trends are mirroring the state’s trends – generally, economic issues are the reason for the loss of population
Economic climate
Students leave Ohio and go where pay base is higher
Seniors move to more retirement friendly states

Since 1980, the Hispanic population has more than doubled; can you comment on this growth? Do you feel this trend will continue?

Census figures reflected in Toledo area for Latinos are too low – Census figures do not capture the Latino population
Numbers are low for African Americans and Latinos. City had to fight Census Bureau on this issue.
Up-swing trend will continue and population will continue to grow
East Toledo and North Toledo have larger Hispanic population than South/ Broadway area
Trend will continue based on National trend
Latinos coming to the area as seasonal workers will continue to out-migrate and join the Toledo community

What do you think the trend will be re: growth in the future?

Federal trends in subsidy and support to cities reveal a decline in support. Fed wants to get rid of local government funds.
Ohio wants to drastically reduce funds going to local governments
Looking at statewide and national population trends, people are moving South
Seniors living in urban areas are not able to make repairs (fixed incomes)
Don’t have regional tax based sharing - sharing the benefits of growth throughout the region. We are competing against Maumee, Sylvania and other small, suburban cities as opposed to competing on a regional basis with other geographical areas like Arizona or Georgia.
We need to place ads promoting Toledo in Chicago and Detroit – suburban communities placing ads touting their communities as the place to live is counter-productive
Suburban communities should not compete for Toledoans to move to their communities – rather the region should work together to promote the entire region to others communities
Different generations are looking for a different kind of housing. The shift will come back to the City.
Single population moving back into the City
If Marina District is planned correctly, it could spark new growth and a new trend of people moving back to the City

Do you have any comments on the growth of the Asian population?

There is a large and varied representation of the Asian community
The Asian population is a more scattered population eg: Genoa, Northwood, Sylvania – no predominately Asian census tracts
Area Office on Aging has an Asian Resource Center
Zoning/ Occupancy issues could negatively effect certain cultural groups that have customers or trends of having multiple family members living in one unit
Asian population will continue to grow as new immigrants continue to come to the area

What Challenges do you see in trying to help new immigrants obtain housing?

Communication / Language barriers
Cultural barriers
Some new immigrant groups are reluctant to file complaints when they encounter discrimination because they are adverse to confrontation or are fearful of being deported
TBR put out a request for real estate agents that speak different languages but did not get much response.
Immigrants coming to the area with little or no assets will find it more difficult to obtain quality housing and are more apt to obtain substandard housing
Some immigrant communities mistrust established agencies because they associate them with the government – agencies must do a better job at promoting their non-profit status and explaining what that means
Housing providers will need to work harder to create relationships with new immigrant populations
Outreach is needed to educate and cultivate relationships with new immigrant groups
New immigrant groups may not be familiar with the insurance, lending or home-buying process and may need resources to help them obtain quality insurance and loan products as well as quality housing

How accessible are housing providers in working with new immigrant populations?

Many housing providers do not employ bi-lingual staff
Banks would try to be accessible due to Community Reinvestment Act requirements
Some insurance companies have bi-lingual staff available to assist consumers
The Toledo Board of Realtors® created the Certified Affordable Real Estate Specialist (CARES) program to assist clients who are looking for affordable housing

What are some agencies that are friendly and helpful in servicing new immigrant consumers?

Area Office on Aging
Toledo Public Schools
Catholic Charities
ABLE
University of Toledo
FLOC
Farm Labor Research Program (FLRP)
Ohio Civil Rights Commission
Fair Housing Center
Northwest Ohio Development Agency
Economic Opportunity Planning Association
CDCs

Do you have any other comments regarding fair housing issues?

Affordable and accessible housing needs to be disbursed throughout the entire county
Concerns that the Lucas County Metropolitan Housing Authority is legally prohibited from building in Oregon
Perception that people don’t want subsidized housing in their communities
Mixed income neighborhoods can be viable, thriving neighborhoods and more people need to receive this message
Increased diversity in a community does not cause property values to decline – rather, diverse communities sometimes appreciate more than communities that are not diverse
There is a concern that churches and private schools are being contacted by predatory lenders who are seeking relationships with these organizations
The Federal government should not be cutting funding to local communities
The loan process should be amended to allow an oversight/review at the lending closing table – there needs to be more oversight of the closing process

FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINT INFORMATION

The largest number of fair housing complaints filed in the Toledo market are filed with the Toledo Fair Housing Center. The second largest number of complaints are filed with HUD and/or the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. The Fair Housing Center, as a non-profit, community-based organization, serves as a first-stop for consumers who feel their rights have been violated. The Center, upon receiving a complaint, commences an investigation which may involve interviewing witnesses, testing, conducting research, completing a site visit, or coordinating with other organizations, among other things. The Center’s investigation can usually either provide substantiating evidence that the consumer’s rights have been violated or evidence that eliminates the probability of a discriminatory action. The Center can then assist consumers in forwarding their complaints to an enforcement agency such as HUD or the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.

Consumers always have the right to directly file their complaints with HUD or the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. HUD and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission have a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act and when consumers file complaints with HUD, those complaints are automatically referred to the OCRC.

During the 2004 calendar year, OCRC received 89 charges of housing discrimination. OCRC reported that 60 of those charges were forwarded by the Fair Housing Center. The Center may well have assisted complainants in filing additional charges. It is difficult to assess this information as the OCRC cannot reveal information about pending cases. The OCRC reports having received 7 charges of housing discrimination for the current calendar year as of March, 2005. The OCRC reports that of those 7 charges filed, 5 were referred by the Fair Housing Center.

The Center does not compile information on a calendar year basis but reports having received complaints of discrimination during the 2003-2004 fiscal year. The Center also reports having received 142 complaints during the 2004-2005 fiscal year through March 31, 2005.

The Fair Housing Center has implemented an intake system for its service area (Lucas and Wood counties). The vast majority of complaints the Center receives involve residents of the City of Toledo who are seeking housing in the City of Toledo. However, a large number also involve persons seeking housing in suburban communities. The above chart shows the Center’s overall caseload for the City of Toledo for the corresponding years. (Complaints outside of the city proper have been removed from these figures.) Note that the figures for the 2004-05 fiscal year is incomplete, as the fiscal year ends June 30, 2005. Also, due to resource limitations, the center was not accepting new complaints for a portion of the 2002-03 fiscal year. Predatory Lending complaints increased sharply in 2003-04 due to a Fair Housing Center program sponsored by Fannie Mae and several local lenders that seeks to assist victims of predatory loans refinance their loans at a market rate. Overall, rental discrimination remains the type of discrimination reported most often by complainants, with predatory lending a close second.

Rental complaints constituted the highest volume of complaints followed by predatory lending. The Center has focused its outreach and enforcement initiatives in the City of Toledo primarily because of funding and grant considerations. Much of the dollars the Center receives for outreach and enforcement are for activities which target the City of Toledo. This may account for the high volume of complaints generated from residents in the City of Toledo. The majority of the complaints the Center receives are filed by residents of Toledo.

According to the Center’s data, the largest number of complaints stem from problems in the rental market. This pattern is consistent from year to year, excluding the 2003 year. Historically, the Center has received

the largest number of complaints involving rental discrimination with the exception being the 2003 year when the Center launched a large anti-predatory lending campaign. That year, the largest basis of allegations involved predatory lending.

While the Center has done more work to eliminate barriers in the rental market, rental complaints still remain the largest complaint type. Every year, a significant portion of the Center’s complaint load involves discrimination complaints in the rental market. This holds true for the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and HUD too. Both OCRC and HUD receive the greatest number of housing discrimination complaints alleging problems in the rental market.

Many of the complaints involve small, independently owned developments. Typically, while landlords have heard of “fair housing”, they have never received fair housing training and thus, do not know how to conduct business in a fair and equitable manner. Additionally, unlike the lending, insurance and real estate industries, landlords do not have to be licensed in order to operate. They also do not come under the jurisdiction of any regulatory agency. Therefore, the rental industry is not as standardized as the lending or real estate industries.

While real estate agents have to go through training which includes fair housing and civil rights training in order to obtain a license to sell real estate, no such course is required for landlords or rental housing managers.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development in its Housing Discrimination Study, conservatively estimates that African-Americans and Hispanics encounter discrimination over 25% of the time that they seek to rent a housing unit. This estimation is based upon testing research conducted in 20 cities across the United States.

The Center has uncovered the following impediments in the rental market:

Landlords and managers are not required to obtain a license to practice and therefore, are not required to receive fair housing training.
Managers use answering machines as a pre-screening device. Calls with certain phone number prefixes or calls from persons with certain racially identifiable voices or surnames are not returned;
Managers use coding devices on applications to tag unwanted prospects;
Managers tell unwanted applicants that it is not necessary for them to fully complete the rental application and then use the incomplete application as a reason for denial;
Housing providers advertise in preferential ways using discriminatory language and selective placement of ads;
Credit rating criteria is applied differently depending on the applicant;
Managers attempt to uncover testing activity by requiring that applicants bring drivers licenses for photocopying. Some managers actually take pictures of potential applicants using a Polaroid camera;
Managers segregate apartment complexes and mobile home parks by race and familial status;
Managers provide a different standard of treatment for undesired applicants by not making repairs in a timely fashion, charging different rental rates, or imposing different rules and conditions;
Managers use waiting lists to thwart unwanted applicants.

Eliminating discrimination in the rental market is critical since so many people rely on rental housing. According to the census, approximately 37% of the Lucas County population reside in rental housing. Rental housing is the only alternative for many residents.

Historically, lending was the second largest basis of complaints. These complaints tended to involve lending redlining where lenders would exclude or deny borrowers based on a protected class status. As the above chart depicts, this pattern has evolved. While the Center does receive a large number of complaints involving lending issues, those complaints now gravitate toward abusive lending practices where certain protected classes are targeted for predatory loans. (There is a more detailed discussion of predatory lending practices below.)

During the late 1990’s and continuing to the present, the third largest basis of discrimination complaints involves insurance discrimination and redlining. Insurance complaints involve both individual and neighborhood based complaints. Individual complaint issues consist of non-systemic problems with an individual homeowner not being able to secure homeowners insurance based on a protected class status. For example, the Center helped to resolve an issue for a homeowner who was being cancelled by her insurance carrier. During an annual inspection, the insurer noticed several minor conditional issues that the company wanted resolved and gave the homeowner 30 days to complete the repairs. However, the homeowner was disabled and under heavy medication and could not complete the repairs within the 30 day time allotted. When the homeowner asked for an extension due to her disability, the insurer denied her request despite the fact that the homeowner had already begun and was almost finished with the repairs. The Center was able to intervene using the disability provisions of the Fair Housing Act to not only have the homeowners insurance re-instated but to secure a resolution of the homeowners complaint.

Neighborhood based complaints involve redlining issues and are systemic in nature. Many issues have involved overly restrictive underwriting guidelines and policies. These typically include age of housing restrictions as well as restrictions based on the market value of the property. Using age of housing or market value restrictions tend to exclude predominately minority central city communities like Toledo. These types of underwriting guidelines also have a disparate impact on certain protected classes. The result of these restrictions is to either make homeowners insurance unavailable or limit availability in central city neighborhoods to inferior policies with fewer protections. This, of course, has a devastating effect on the neighborhood when a loss is experienced. If the homeowner does not have adequate insurance coverage, when a loss occurs and the homeowner files a complaint, the homeowner will not be fully indemnified and the loss will only be partially covered. This means that, unless the homeowner has disposable cash available to make the repairs, the repairs will either not be made or will be made using inferior materials and techniques.

The Center has been successful in convincing several large homeowners insurance providers to eliminate these restrictive policies. However, there are still some companies who continue to employ these restrictive policies. In fact, the Center is currently involved in litigation against a major insurer, Prudential Insurance Company, concerning the company’s use of these policies in the Toledo market. The Center is also addressing these issues with another company - American Family Insurance. The latter company has thus far adamantly defended its use of these policies and has even made reference to “moral hazard” issues when the Center has raised its concerns.

The “moral hazard” theory contends that if an insurer “over insures” a consumer, that consumer will have an incentive to commit fraud to reap the insurance benefits. The argument in the homeowners insurance context alleges that if an insurer provides replacement cost insurance coverage for a consumer and the replacement cost of the home is higher than the market value of the home, the homeowner will have an incentive to burn her/his home to reap the insurance coverage. In other words, if a consumer in the central city purchases a home with a market value of $60,000 and it actually costs $120,000 to rebuild the home, if an insurer were to provide a replacement cost insurance policy of $120,000 to the homeowner, the homeowner will have an incentive to destroy the home in order to recoup the $120,000 policy value.

The Center has vehemently fought the theory of “moral hazard” as it relates to the homeowners insurance context as no insurance company has ever been able to provide proof that this theory exists in real practice. Indeed, the Center argues that a number of insurance companies have gotten rid of the restrictive guidelines referenced above and have abolished their belief in the “moral hazard” theory as it relates to homeowners. These insurance companies have provided full replacement coverage to any homeowner who wants it. These companies have not experienced a rash of homeowners torching or destroying their homes to collect insurance payments. Nor have these companies experienced an increased level of fraud due to their elimination of these restrictive and prohibitive policies.

Even as some aspects of the insurance problem have been addressed, the Fair Housing Center has received a number of complaints involving new allegations of insurance discrimination. Instead of age of a property being used to deny coverage, many insurance companies are using extremely zealous property inspections to deny coverage. In addition, many insurance companies are using insurance scores based on credit to determine whether or not they will provide insurance to a prospective customer and to determine the price they will charge. The Center has been concerned that this practice has a discriminatory effect on some protected classes. There are reports that reveal that credit scores are much lower for African-Americans and Latinos as compared to Caucasians. Indeed, the Center has conducted an analysis of one insurer’s credit and insurance scoring program. The analysis revealed that the scoring system utilized by the insurer had a discriminatory effect on consumers living in predominately African-American census tracts. The analysis also revealed that the insurer could have utilized a different scoring system which would have a less discriminatory effect on homeowners living in these areas.

The Center has also received an increase in complaints involving the processing of claims and the treatment of policyholders. These complaints allege that insurers are not responsive to consumers who live in predominately African-American neighborhoods or make attempts to lessen the value of the loss to these consumers.

A large number of complaints emanate from Toledo because most residents who file complaints do so alleging race discrimination. As described earlier in the section on demography, the largest percentage of African-Americans reside within the city of Toledo. Fair housing laws protect anyone regardless of their race, however, non-minority persons perceive they are not discriminated against or are not aware that they are a protected class.

This may be one reason why race is the largest basis of allegations. This is true historically as well. Race continues to outpace the other categories of complaints the Center receives. These allegations run the gamut in terms of the types of complaints filed from problems in the rental market, to sales discrimination, to predatory lending abuses.

While race is the largest basis for allegations throughout the region, complaints alleging race discrimination are seldom raised from residents in outer-lying jurisdictions. However, African-American and Hispanic residents of Toledo do encounter racial and national origin discrimination when attempting to move into suburban areas. For example, the Center recently assisted an African-American family who attempted to purchase a house in Middleton Township (Northwest of Bowling Green). As an example of heightened awareness due at least in part to outreach and education efforts of the Fair Housing Center, a real estate agent referred the case to the Center. The Center’s investigation substantiated the couple’s allegations that a violation of the Fair Housing Act had occurred, and an administrative complaint was filed and resolution is pending.

Disability discrimination in the housing arena has become the second largest basis of complaints. This is true for the northwest Ohio region and for the rest of the country. HUD, the entity mandated to enforce the Fair Housing Act, receives the largest number of complaints alleging race discrimination and the second largest number of complaints alleging disability discrimination.

The third largest type of complaints filed is familial status. Still no other basis of allegation has out-numbered race. Race was the number one issue over 30 years ago when the Fair Housing Act was passed exactly 7 days after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. Race still remains the number one fair housing issue today.

The fourth largest basis for housing discrimination complaints is sex or gender. By far, women file more sex discrimination complaints than men. Women tend to encounter problems with being sexually harassed when renting apartments. They also tend to encounter denial or discouragement when seeking mortgage loans and they are targeted more than men for predatory loans. It is also more difficult for women to secure housing as their income makeup is generally more diverse than that of men. Women are more likely to receive income from multiple sources, like employment, child support, alimony and childcare benefits. This can complicate the picture for many women when housing providers and lenders attempt to verify their income.

Back to Top

NEW IMMIGRANT ISSUES

Approximately 21.2 million immigrants, according to the 1990 census, came to America since 1980. This figure represents nearly half of the total immigrant population in the United States today. There are no signs of this trend slowing in the near future. For example, according to the 2000 Census in Lucas and Wood counties in northwest Ohio, there were 17,435 foreign born individuals. Furthermore, outside of the Toledo area, much of northwest Ohio is composed of farming communities, and there is a significant population of migrant workers who have immigrated for other countries in northwest Ohio. According to the Farm Labor Research Project (FLRP), approximately 6,000 migrant workers pass through northwest Ohio annually, most of whom are of Hispanic descent, and some of these migrants decide to stay in the area. Every year, a small percentage decides to immigrate and become United States citizens.

According to the 2000 Census, there are 24,703 Hispanics in Lucas and Wood counties. The United States Hispanic Leadership Institute reports that the Hispanic population in Lucas County grew by 32% between 1990-2000. Furthermore, the United States Hispanic Leadership Institute estimates that the Hispanic population in Ohio will increase by 85% between now and 2025.

The City of Toledo's 1995 Consolidated Plan sites that a gap in services and a lack of housing opportunities for migrant- worker families is a barrier to the city's ability to achieve its housing and economic goals. With this impediment in mind, Fair Housing Center (FHC) staff met with local Hispanic serving organizations to identify barriers to equal housing opportunities.

FHC staff was surprised by the overall lack of knowledge among those who serve the Hispanic community with regard to fair housing laws, and equal housing opportunities. Some persons did not even know why FHC exists. Others, recognizing that discrimination occurs, cautioned FHC staff that new immigrants:

don't know their rights
don't recognize discrimination
don't think they can do anything about discrimination
don't know where to get help
mistrust persons who may be able to offer help
fear animosity or retribution if they complain
are victims of a lack of sensitivity on the part of the majority culture

These issues are not exclusive to the Hispanic population in northwest Ohio, but rather, they apply to other immigrant groups as well. Many immigrants are treated as outsiders and discriminated against by members of the majority culture in this country. Immigrants are forced to give up much of their identity when they become American citizens. And those immigrants, who look different, i.e. Hispanic, Arabic, African, Asian, etc., fall victim to the NIMBYISM that is prevalent in American society today. As a result of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, FHC received an increase in discrimination complaints and inquiries from the Islamic and Muslim communities. FHC began working with these communities to ensure that their rights are protected under the act. Activities included investigation and referral of complaints to other agencies as appropriate, collaboration with other agencies and educational outreach efforts.

Back to Top

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

People with physical or mental disabilities remain one of the most disenfranchised groups. The 2000 Census reported 63,43 people living in Toledo, up from 53,260 in 1990. Given the existing economic structure, the shortage of housing options, the inability to pay, or unwillingness to pay for the requirements established by the Fair Housing Act, over 540 persons with disabilities remain homeless. The housing facilities for the homeless population are often not accessible for people with physical disabilities because of the architectural structure and style of the dwellings. Individuals who have physical disabilities do not have access to many second floor bedrooms for example. Preferred Properties, LMHA, and subsidized housing complexes provide some housing opportunities. Preferred Properties only develops accessible housing.

Yet, solutions to any requests or repairing any impediments remain a frustrating process. Individuals may contact area agencies but do not qualify for admission for various reasons that usually center on the mission of a particular program. An individual working in a local shelter said: “Once we turned away a ‘wheelchair bound’ person, although our facility is wheelchair accessible. That person was turned away because he had no history of mental illness, and to qualify for our service- an individual must be mentally ill. If that person was admitted, it would be a fraudulent admission, and our service could get into trouble.”

Barriers for persons with disabilities are compounded because the housing industry has not embraced its obligation to offer accessible units. Disability complaints are the second largest basis for allegations of complaints the Center receives. Moreover, in 1995 - 1998, the Center monitored licensing and permit agencies and found that 46% of units built during the period were in violation of the Fair Housing Act. A more recent review showed that more inaccessible multi-family housing complexes were built over the last 6 years.

Extending services to persons with disabilities on an equitable basis is the first hurdle. Providing accessible units and buildings is the second. Many multi-family complexes do not have accessible units. In fact, many complexes subsidized with federal, state and local dollars do not have accessible units. For example, of the 45 identified, non-subsidized housing developments for senior citizens, only 6 complexes reported having accessible units. Of the 4,991 units in these 45 complexes, only 176 units or 3.5% were accessible. Of the 34 subsidized senior housing complexes (several of which do house disabled persons) identified in the Consolidated Plan, 10 complexes reported not having any accessible units at all.

The Fair Housing Center, Advocates for Basic Legal Equality (a local legal organization which regularly represents persons with disabilities) and the Ability Center ( a non-profit organization serving the disabled community) joined forces to assess the extent and nature of disability discrimination and to develop effective strategies to eliminate barriers. Identified impediments are listed below.

Landlords and condominium associations regularly violate the reasonable accommodations and modifications provisions of the Act.
Landlords and condominium associations do not understand the right of persons with disabilities to have support animals.
Landlords and condominiums improperly impose “pet” restrictions on persons with disabilities
Local municipalities are granting permits for work which violates the design and adaptability provisions of the Fair Housing Act.
Architects, contractors, inspectors and developers are still ill-informed about provisions of the Act.
Builders and developers are constructing units which violate the statute. In addition, some units rehabbed with government dollars are not done so in accordance with accessibility guidelines.
Contractors veer from the accessible design of the architect’s specifications which result in statute violations.
Housing providers and professionals erroneously believe that building accessible housing is too expensive and would vastly increase building or rehab budgets.
Housing professionals, government employees, and the general public are not informed about disability issues and do not understand the principles of the Fair Housing Act.
There is a general misunderstanding about persons with disabilities which give rise to inappropriate apprehensions and bias.
In order to use products from their favorite suppliers, contractors veer from original specifications which include accessible features. Ignorance of the law also contributes to this.

REAL ESTATE SALES

The Center uncovered a number of impediments in the real estate industry. Some of the historical issues, like steering, are still problematic. There are agents who continue to steer consumers, particularly Caucasian middle and upper income clients, to suburban predominately Caucasian communities. There are still a large number of agents who do not consider Toledo’s urban and integrated communities when showing clients homes that are available for sale.

One industry practice that contributes to this is agent specialization. Some agents specialize or focus their attentions on small geographic areas or certain municipalities. When agents specialize or limit their focus to certain communities, there are less likely to show homes in other areas. They have a preference for that community. Oftentimes, agents who specialize in a certain geographical area actually live in that community.

The impediments to fair housing opportunities, which real estate sales impact, often concern the working environment realtors operate in and perceptual issues. A Vice President of Community Reinvestment for a major bank in Toledo said: “ Realtors are faxed updates pertaining to programs and incentives we offer. They receive notices or in-house training concerning any new legislation. But, the problem real estate agents experience is based upon the fact that making commissions drives their livelihoods. Dedicated agents are not always sitting in their offices.”

For low and moderate-income people wanting to buy a home, the Vice President also noted: “Many potential home purchasers do not understand what is credit. Several people assume that a credit history equals the balance on the credit cards.” By not understanding the full range of credit, potential homebuyers get frustrated. This frustration changes to impatience when people wait for their applications to get approved.

Generating a better understanding among consumers of what credit actually is should be a goal that realtors, banking and lending institutions, and the people of Toledo and Lucas County should work toward. This objective suggests a long-term approach that emphasizes building a coalition between schools, realtors, banking and lending institutions and consumer groups.

While the Fair Housing Center has been able to form very productive partnerships with members of the real estate community, there still remain barriers in this field that impede fair housing goals. They include 1)Lack of presence in under-served communities; 2) Commission scale; 3) Pervasive steering practices; and 4) Inadequate or under-stated diversity goals.

While the Fair Housing Center, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and HUD have worked diligently to encourage lenders and insurers to open offices and establish a presence in urban communities, real estate companies have been left out of the “office expansion” loop. Currently, there is only one real estate company located in the urban center. The remainder of the real estate companies are located away from the urban center. This, in fact, has contributed to the lack of marketing by real estate professionals in the urban core. If an agent is unfamiliar with an area, he or she will not be likely to market that area.

Unfamiliarity with the urban center only contributes to poor promotion of the areas. If real estate companies are not located in central city neighborhoods, and since many agents do not live in central city neighborhoods, it stands to reason that they will be unfamiliar with the neighborhoods.

One of the reasons companies have not located in urban centers is because they perceive the business and opportunities to be lacking. For example, housing values tend to be lower in central city communities. Specializing in lower income areas, many agents reason, is not economically viable based on the commission scale. Typically, an agent makes a 7% commission on the sale of a property. (If there is more than one agent involved, the agents split the 7% commission.) There is a minimum commission amount established by the state. However, agents tend to want to focus on higher priced homes because it will result in a higher commission for the agent. This leaves few agents who are dedicated to and willing to serve in central city areas. This in turn drives down competition, which in turns drives down property values.

Another practice which negatively impacts urban communities and African-American and Hispanic consumers is steering. Steering occurs when an agent guides a particular consumer to a community or neighborhood based upon the demographics of the consumer and the neighborhood. For example, when an agent only shows Caucasian consumers homes in predominately Caucasian neighborhoods, the agent is steering that consumer.

Unfortunately, steering is alive and well in Lucas County. Testing conducted by the Fair Housing Center reveals that white testers are rarely shown housing in integrated or predominately African-American communities, even when they specifically ask to see houses in neighborhoods like West Moreland and the Old West End. Steering is not only illegal under the Fair Housing Act, it has a devastating impact on urban communities who do not benefit from full access to the marketplace. There are a large number of consumers who could afford homes in central city neighborhoods who are never shown those homes or discouraged from seeing them because the agent assumes the consumer would never want to live in that community.

One way to combat some of the barriers mentioned above is for real estate companies to recruit a more diverse pool of agents. While the number of African-American agents is increasing, the percentage of African-American agents is far below their percentage of the population. Moreover, there are only a small number of Hispanic, Asian or Arabic real estate agents.

The real estate community has come up with one way to address the lack of marketing in urban areas – the CARES Program – Certified Affordable Real Estate Specialist. The Affordable Housing and Cultural Diversity Committee of the Toledo Board of Realtors® administers the program which is designed to increase the level of interest in selling affordable homes. In order to qualify for this designation, real estate agents must complete the following:

Completed 15 hours of approved Community and/or REALTOR® Association involvement in the same three year period
Take 10 hours of approved education related to Affordable Housing matters in the same three year period
Have 10 units of qualified sales in the past three year period. A qualified sale is a home (for homeowner occupation) that is priced at and sold for less than $90,000. (Transactions over $90,000 may qualify if special lending programs were used.)

The Toledo Board of Realtors reports that the three year average of affordable homes sold in the Lucas County area was only 2,691. This despite the fact that there are, on average, 1,646 affordable properties listed every day in the Multiple Listing Service. This fact presents a strong support for the CARES Program and demonstrates that there is an unmet need in the affordable housing market. TBR provides the following 3 year average home sales from the Northwest Ohio Real Estate Information Systems.

Three Year Average
Single Family Home Sales
$19,999 or <	242 Homes
$20,000 - $29,999	180 Homes
$30,000 - $39,999	195 Homes
$40,000 - $49,999	239 Homes
$50,000 - $59,999	290 Homes
$60,000 - $69,999	416 Homes
$70,000 - $79,999	528 Homes
$80,000 - $89,999	601 Homes
Total	2,691 Homes

Several real estate agents attended the Round Tables facilitated by the Center and commented on additional barriers facing the real estate community. One barrier dealt with language and bi-lingual issues. Real estate agent commented that there were very few agents who spoke Spanish or any Arabic or Asian languages. This language barrier presents problems when trying to service persons who use English as a second language.

Agents also mentioned the difficulty of selling affordable houses due to the conditions of the properties. Many older homes have not been maintained as well as they should. Some homes have suffered damage due to an insurable loss that was not completed covered by an insurance company and therefore, the home was moderately repaired or repaired using inferior materials. This issue, typical for older housing stock, sometimes makes it hard to sell a home. Agents commented on the need for a housing repair fund to help low and moderate income homeowners repair their homes. Agents also commented that the central city houses a large number of senior citizens who have not been able to adequately maintain their homes.

Finally, agents mentioned a paradigm shift that has occurred in the real estate market. Historically, real estate agents were viewed as the gatekeeper to the consumer – the housing professional who served as a “trusted advisor” for the consumer who would refer the consumer to a lender or insurer. However, many agents have noted a shift and commented that more often, when the consumer contacts an agent, the consumer has already made contact with a lender either via the Internet or as a result of a lender’s marketing efforts. Agents stated that the consumer is very committed to working only with the lender they’ve contacted and seldom take the agent’s advise to shop around for the best lending deal. Agents lament that even when they may recognize signs of predatory lending and warn a consumer about a potential problem, the consumer is very reluctant to change lenders.

This newly evolving pattern can be attributed to the hard sell and aggressive marketing practices of many lenders. Lenders have beefed up their marketing practices and discourage consumers, in the process, from shopping around. Agents noted that many consumers believe that if they do shop around for insurance, their credit scores will decline due to multiple “hits” on their credit records. In actuality, this is not quite the truth. Consumers are able to shop by going to different lenders. However, according to one of the country’s largest credit repositories, Fair Isaac, the shopping must occur within a small window of time – a two week period. If a consumer goes to multiple lenders for a mortgage loan quote, even if all of the lenders pull the consumer’s credit, the multiple “hits” will display as only one “hit” on the credit record. Many consumers, who still believe their credit scores will be ill affected if they shop for a loan, rely on their first contact. These agents commented on the need for increased education for consumers and housing professionals to inform them about predatory lending practices and the pros and cons of shopping for a loan.

Back to Top

LENDING ISSUES

There continues to be large disparities between consumers based on race and ethnicity. African-Americans and Hispanics lag significantly behind Caucasians in the procurement of prime and conventional financing. An analysis of 2003 HMDA^³ data reveals that origination rates for Hispanics and African-Americans is substantially lower than that of Caucasian consumers. In some cases, the denial rates for African-Americans and Hispanics is double the denial rate for Caucasian consumers.

In 2003, the HMDA data reveals that in the Toledo MSA, among very low-income applicants (applicants with incomes less than 50% of the area median), 53.9% of the African-American, 49% of the Hispanic and 58% of the Caucasian applicants were approved with loans originated. As the income categories rise, the origination rates rise considerably for other groups. However, the origination rates do not rise considerably for African-American applicants. For example, the origination rate for very low income Caucasians (58%) is higher than the origination rate for middle income African-Americans (54.9%). The following graph displays the origination rates for the 5 different income groups captured by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

Percentage of Loans Originated in the Toledo MSA

Information based on HMDA data. See Appendix I: HMDA Tables.

Additionally, the percentage of loans for Hispanics and African-Americans that are “Approved But Not Accepted” is significantly higher than the rate for Caucasian consumers suggesting that a larger percentage of loans are offered to African-Americans and Hispanics with terms that are not acceptable to them. This often occurs when the lender is only willing to offer a loan for an amount that is less than what the consumer wishes or for terms that are other than what the consumer desires.

According to the HMDA data, there were 13,563 conventional home purchase loan applications in the Toledo MSA. Of those, 78.7% were from White applicants, 9.72% were from applicants whose race was not determined by the lender, 5.65% were from Black applicants, 1.69% were from joint White/Minority applicants, 1.87% were from Hispanic applicants, 1.03% were from applicants who stated their race as “Other”, .97% were from Asian or Pacific Islanders, and .38% were from American Indians or Alaskan Natives. These figures demonstrate discouraging figures for certain racial or ethnic minority groups. For example, while Blacks represent 17%^⁴ of the Toledo MSA population, they only account for 5.65% of the total loan applications. While Hispanics represent 4.5% of the Toledo MSA population, they only represent 1.87% of total loan applicants. Furthermore, Blacks only received 469 or 4.9% of the total loans originated while Hispanics received 163 or 1.7% of the total loans originated. Comparatively, Whites represent 77.5% of the MSA population, made 78.69% of the loan applications and received 82.4% of the loans. Asian and Pacific Islanders represent 1.2% of the MSA population and made .97% of the loan applications and received 1.04% of the loans.

DISPOSITION OF APPLICATIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL HOME-PURCHASE LOANS

1 TO 4 FAMILY HOMES

All Income Groups by Race & Ethnicity	Apps. Received	% of Total Apps.	Loans Originated	Apps. Approved But Not Accepted	Apps. Denied	Apps. Withdrawn	Files Closed As Incomplete
American Indian/Alaskan Native	51	0.38%	26	2	20	2	1
Asian/Pacific Islander	132	0.97%	101	12	5	10	4
Black	766	5.65%	469	92	137	53	15
Hispanic	253	1.87%	163	10	55	22	3
White	10673	78.69%	7951	680	1224	664	154
Other	140	1.03%	83	10	25	13	9
Joint (White/Minority)	229	1.69%	161	19	28	14	7
Race Not Available	1319	9.72%	693	104	350	140	32
Totals	13563		9647	929	1844	918	225

Information taken from FFIEC HMDA Aggregate Table 5-2

DISPOSITION OF APPLICATIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL HOME-PURCHASE LOANS

BY PERCENTAGES

All Income Groups by Race & Ethnicity	Apps. Received	Loans Originated	Apps. Approved But Not Accepted	Apps. Denied	Apps. Withdrawn	Files Closed As Incomplete
American Indian/Alaskan Native	51	50.98%	3.92%	39.22%	3.92%	1.96%
Asian/Pacific Islander	132	76.52%	9.09%	3.79%	7.58%	3.03%
Black	766	61.23%	12.01%	17.89%	6.92%	1.96%
Hispanic	253	64.43%	3.95%	21.74%	8.70%	1.19%
White	10673	74.50%	6.37%	11.47%	6.22%	1.44%
Other	140	59.29%	7.14%	17.86%	9.29%	6.43%
Joint (White/Minority)	229	70.31%	8.30%	12.23%	6.11%	3.06%
Race Not Available	1319	52.54%	7.88%	26.54%	10.61%	2.43%
Totals	13563	71.13%	6.85%	13.60%	6.77%	1.66%

Information taken from FFIEC HMDA Aggregate Table 5-2.

While Blacks in Toledo are under-represented in the number and level of conventional mortgage lending, Black and/or Hispanic neighborhoods are over-represented in the number and level of subprime lending. A census tract comparison of the number of home purchase loans in the City of Toledo reveal that many predominately Black and/or Hispanic neighborhoods have a higher than average percentage of subprime lending. First American Real Estate Solutions produces PACE data which provides detailed lending information that can be tracked at the census tract level. Using the PACE data, which provides information for all real estate transactions, in comparison with HMDA data, comparisons about the type of lending made in any given census tract can be made.

According to PACE data, there were a total of 5,587 owner-occupied homes purchased in the City of Toledo in the year 2003. Of that figure, 4,320 or 77.32% of those purchases were made using conventional loan financing, 645 or 11.54% were made using Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or Veterans Administration (VA) financing, and 622 or 11.13% were made with sub-prime or non-conventional loan financing.

The subprime and non-conventional financing is concentrated in census tracts with high minority populations. For example, of the 101 census tracts in the City of Toledo, 17 tracts have minority populations that are 80% or higher. There were a total of 370 home purchase sales in those tracts with 44.05% of the purchases being made with conventional financing, 7.03% made with FHA/VA financing and 48.92% made with subprime or non-conventional financing.

Breakdown of Financing Type for Predominately Minority Census Tracts, Toledo, Ohio
Census Tract	Number of Home Purchase Sales	FHA, FSA/RHS & VA Purchase Loans	Conventional Home Purchase Loans	Subprime or other Lending	Percentage of FHA,FSA/RHS & VA Financing	Percentage of Conventional Financing	Percentage of Subprime or Other Financing	% Minority Population
8	34	1	13	20	2.94%	38.24%	58.82%	87.00%
14	30	1	15	14	3.33%	50.00%	46.67%	90.00%
15	24	2	12	10	8.33%	50.00%	41.67%	87.00%
16	62	7	29	26	11.29%	46.77%	41.94%	80.00%
19	24	3	10	11	12.50%	41.67%	45.83%	83.00%
22	11	2	6	3	18.18%	54.55%	27.27%	94.00%
23	4	2	2	0	50.00%	50.00%	0.00%	90.00%
24.02	25	2	9	14	8.00%	36.00%	56.00%	97.00%
25	31	2	12	17	6.45%	38.71%	54.84%	98.00%
26	16	1	14	1	6.25%	87.50%	6.25%	98.00%
31	25	1	13	11	4.00%	52.00%	44.00%	88.00%
32	16	1	5	10	6.25%	31.25%	62.50%	97.00%
33	19	0	7	12	0.00%	36.84%	63.16%	98.00%
34	1	0	0	1	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%	92.00%
35	20	1	8	11	5.00%	40.00%	55.00%	95.00%
36	22	0	2	20	0.00%	9.09%	90.91%	94.00%
37	6	0	6	0	0.00%	100.00%	0.00%	95.00%
Totals	370	26	163	181	7.03%	44.05%	48.92%

Comparatively, 48 census tracts have a White population of 80% or greater. There were a total of 3,724 home purchases made in these tracts with 83.75% of the purchases being made with conventional financing, 12.65% made with FHA/VA financing and 3.6% made with subprime or non-conventional financing. The disparity in the quality and type of lending being made in minority and non-minority communities is alarming. High levels of non-conventional financing in minority areas suggests that regulated and community-minded investors like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have a diminished presence in these communities and that un-regulated and more speculative investors will have an increased presence. This may cause concern as non-regulated lending investment has been linked to high levels of predatory lending and high foreclosure rates.

Breakdown of Financing Type for Predominately WhiteCensus Tracts, Toledo, Ohio
Census Tract	Single-Family Home Sales	FHA, FSA/RHS & VA Loans	Conventional Home Purchase Loans	Subprime or other Lending	Percentage of FHA,FSA/RHS & VA Financing	Percentage of Conventional Financing	Percentage Subprime or Other Financing	% Minority Population
2	117	23	94	0	19.66%	80.34%	0.00%	10.00%
3	93	14	72	7	15.05%	77.42%	7.53%	15.00%
4	103	21	80	2	20.39%	77.67%	1.94%	13.00%
6	110	19	82	9	17.27%	74.55%	8.18%	14.00%
7	165	27	101	37	16.36%	61.21%	22.42%	20.00%
13.01	84	0	84	0	0.00%	100.00%	0.00%	6.00%
13.04	8	0	8	0	0.00%	100.00%	0.00%	15.00%
39	107	17	79	11	15.89%	73.83%	10.28%	18.00%
43.01	10	1	9	0	10.00%	90.00%	0.00%	19.00%
43.02	78	10	55	13	12.82%	70.51%	16.67%	9.00%
44	98	15	83	0	15.31%	84.69%	0.00%	17.00%
45.01	43	7	31	5	16.28%	72.09%	11.63%	10.00%
45.03	75	2	73	0	2.67%	97.33%	0.00%	7.00%
45.04	81	8	73	0	9.88%	90.12%	0.00%	5.00%
49	62	12	42	8	19.35%	67.74%	12.90%	17.00%
50	44	4	40	0	9.09%	90.91%	0.00%	12.00%
52	72	11	50	11	15.28%	69.44%	15.28%	17.00%
55.01	59	9	49	1	15.25%	83.05%	1.69%	5.00%
55.02	71	7	63	1	9.86%	88.73%	1.41%	5.00%
55.03	62	10	52	0	16.13%	83.87%	0.00%	5.00%
56	77	13	64	0	16.88%	83.12%	0.00%	9.00%
57.01	38	2	36	0	5.26%	94.74%	0.00%	17.00%
57.02	96	13	83	0	13.54%	86.46%	0.00%	11.00%
57.03	78	11	67	0	14.10%	85.90%	0.00%	6.00%
58.01	50	5	41	4	10.00%	82.00%	8.00%	8.00%
58.02	100	24	76	0	24.00%	76.00%	0.00%	9.00%
59.01	55	8	47	0	14.55%	85.45%	0.00%	4.00%
59.02	74	11	63	0	14.86%	85.14%	0.00%	9.00%
60	65	5	52	8	7.69%	80.00%	12.31%	6.00%
61	96	13	83	0	13.54%	86.46%	0.00%	8.00%
62	57	4	48	5	7.02%	84.21%	8.77%	7.00%
63	111	14	97	0	12.61%	87.39%	0.00%	10.00%
64	84	12	72	0	14.29%	85.71%	0.00%	5.00%
69	79	10	69	0	12.66%	87.34%	0.00%	6.00%
72.02	44	2	40	2	4.55%	90.91%	4.55%	12.00%
72.03	88	9	79	0	10.23%	89.77%	0.00%	8.00%
72.04	75	3	68	4	4.00%	90.67%	5.33%	18.00%
73.01	79	4	75	0	5.06%	94.94%	0.00%	17.00%
77	88	9	79	0	10.23%	89.77%	0.00%	9.00%
78	64	4	60	0	6.25%	93.75%	0.00%	11.00%
79.01	46	4	36	6	8.70%	78.26%	13.04%	4.00%
79.02	97	12	85	0	12.37%	87.63%	0.00%	8.00%
80	107	10	97	0	9.35%	90.65%	0.00%	6.00%
83.01	75	2	73	0	2.67%	97.33%	0.00%	8.00%
83.02	46	4	42	0	8.70%	91.30%	0.00%	8.00%
84	87	14	73	0	16.09%	83.91%	0.00%	12.00%
85	96	9	87	0	9.38%	90.63%	0.00%	18.00%
86	130	23	107	0	17.69%	82.31%	0.00%	18.00%
Totals	3724	471	3119	134	12.65%	83.75%	3.60%

Breakdown of Financing Type for all Toledo Census Tracts
Census Tract	Single-Family Number of Sales	FHA, FSA/RHS & VA Home Purchase Loans	Conventional Home Purchase Loans	Subprime or other Lending	Percentage of FHA,FSA/RHS & VA Financing	Percentage of Conventional Financing	Percentage of Subprime or Other Financing	% Minority Population
2	117	23	94	0	19.66%	80.34%	0.00%	10.00%
3	93	14	72	7	15.05%	77.42%	7.53%	15.00%
4	103	21	80	2	20.39%	77.67%	1.94%	13.00%
6	110	19	82	9	17.27%	74.55%	8.18%	14.00%
7	165	27	101	37	16.36%	61.21%	22.42%	20.00%
8	34	1	13	20	2.94%	38.24%	58.82%	87.00%
9	57	2	24	31	3.51%	42.11%	54.39%	54.00%
10	77	11	42	24	14.29%	54.55%	31.17%	44.00%
11	53	6	30	17	11.32%	56.60%	32.08%	69.00%
12.01	38	4	26	8	10.53%	68.42%	21.05%	23.00%
12.02	16	3	6	7	18.75%	37.50%	43.75%	53.00%
13.01	84	0	84	0	0.00%	100.00%	0.00%	6.00%
13.02	17	2	15	0	11.76%	88.24%	0.00%	38.00%
13.03	82	6	71	5	7.32%	86.59%	6.10%	44.00%
13.04	8	0	8	0	0.00%	100.00%	0.00%	15.00%
14	30	1	15	14	3.33%	50.00%	46.67%	90.00%
15	24	2	12	10	8.33%	50.00%	41.67%	87.00%
16	62	7	29	26	11.29%	46.77%	41.94%	80.00%
17	34	1	24	9	2.94%	70.59%	26.47%	59.00%
18	61	4	37	20	6.56%	60.66%	32.79%	58.00%
19	24	3	10	11	12.50%	41.67%	45.83%	83.00%
20	35	2	11	22	5.71%	31.43%	62.86%	24.00%
21	41	2	38	1	4.88%	92.68%	2.44%	62.00%
22	11	2	6	3	18.18%	54.55%	27.27%	94.00%
23	4	2	2	0	50.00%	50.00%	0.00%	90.00%
24.01	65	5	60	0	7.69%	92.31%	0.00%	54.00%
24.02	25	2	9	14	8.00%	36.00%	56.00%	97.00%
25	31	2	12	17	6.45%	38.71%	54.84%	98.00%
26	16	1	14	1	6.25%	87.50%	6.25%	98.00%
27	0	0	0	0	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	49.00%
28	2	0	0	2	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%	56.00%
29	11	0	4	7	0.00%	36.36%	63.64%	67.00%
30	25	0	9	16	0.00%	36.00%	64.00%	46.00%
31	25	1	13	11	4.00%	52.00%	44.00%	88.00%
32	16	1	5	10	6.25%	31.25%	62.50%	97.00%
33	19	0	7	12	0.00%	36.84%	63.16%	98.00%
34	1	0	0	1	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%	92.00%
35	20	1	8	11	5.00%	40.00%	55.00%	95.00%
36	22	0	2	20	0.00%	9.09%	90.91%	94.00%
37	6	0	6	0	0.00%	100.00%	0.00%	95.00%
38	15	0	12	3	0.00%	80.00%	20.00%	47.00%
39	107	17	79	11	15.89%	73.83%	10.28%	18.00%
40	27	1	25	1	3.70%	92.59%	3.70%	44.00%
41	18	0	7	11	0.00%	38.89%	61.11%	44.00%
42	36	2	19	15	5.56%	52.78%	41.67%	36.00%
43.01	10	1	9	0	10.00%	90.00%	0.00%	19.00%
43.02	78	10	55	13	12.82%	70.51%	16.67%	9.00%
44	98	15	83	0	15.31%	84.69%	0.00%	17.00%
45.01	43	7	31	5	16.28%	72.09%	11.63%	10.00%
45.03	75	2	73	0	2.67%	97.33%	0.00%	7.00%
45.04	81	8	73	0	9.88%	90.12%	0.00%	5.00%
46	45	2	21	22	4.44%	46.67%	48.89%	25.00%
47.01	36	5	25	6	13.89%	69.44%	16.67%	26.00%
47.02	41	9	32	0	21.95%	78.05%	0.00%	24.00%
48	51	7	29	15	13.73%	56.86%	29.41%	25.00%
49	62	12	42	8	19.35%	67.74%	12.90%	17.00%
50	44	4	40	0	9.09%	90.91%	0.00%	12.00%
51	66	9	37	20	13.64%	56.06%	30.30%	37.00%
52	72	11	50	11	15.28%	69.44%	15.28%	17.00%
53	41	4	25	12	9.76%	60.98%	29.27%	31.00%
54	50	2	28	20	4.00%	56.00%	40.00%	32.00%
55.01	59	9	49	1	15.25%	83.05%	1.69%	5.00%
55.02	71	7	63	1	9.86%	88.73%	1.41%	5.00%
55.03	62	10	52	0	16.13%	83.87%	0.00%	5.00%
56	77	13	64	0	16.88%	83.12%	0.00%	9.00%
57.01	38	2	36	0	5.26%	94.74%	0.00%	17.00%
57.02	96	13	83	0	13.54%	86.46%	0.00%	11.00%
57.03	78	11	67	0	14.10%	85.90%	0.00%	6.00%
58.01	50	5	41	4	10.00%	82.00%	8.00%	8.00%
58.02	100	24	76	0	24.00%	76.00%	0.00%	9.00%
59.01	55	8	47	0	14.55%	85.45%	0.00%	4.00%
59.02	74	11	63	0	14.86%	85.14%	0.00%	9.00%
60	65	5	52	8	7.69%	80.00%	12.31%	6.00%
61	96	13	83	0	13.54%	86.46%	0.00%	8.00%
62	57	4	48	5	7.02%	84.21%	8.77%	7.00%
63	111	14	97	0	12.61%	87.39%	0.00%	10.00%
64	84	12	72	0	14.29%	85.71%	0.00%	5.00%
65	37	6	31	0	16.22%	83.78%	0.00%	24.00%
66	36	3	29	4	8.33%	80.56%	11.11%	79.00%
67	27	2	20	5	7.41%	74.07%	18.52%	58.00%
68	58	8	50	0	13.79%	86.21%	0.00%	41.00%
69	79	10	69	0	12.66%	87.34%	0.00%	6.00%
72.02	44	2	40

CITY OF TOLEDO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

SERVICES & AMENITIES

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION