                |
 |
1997 LICKING COUNTY HOUSING FORUM: Summary of Recent Surveys
I. The City of Newark conducted a survey in July, 1997 for the One Year Use of Funds which asked a variety of local organizations to list and prioritize community needs. Fifty-eight surveys were returned with the following results.
The City of Newark Division of Community Development developed high, medium and low priority needs for the community based on a community survey, interviews with individuals, businesses and non-profit organizations and from staff experience and knowledge and the community. High priority needs for the community were determined to be: affordable housing opportunities, emergency shelter for the homeless, transitional housing for the homeless, assessment and outreach for the homeless, a youth center or centers, child care centers, parks and recreational facilities, parking facilities, flood drain improvements, street Improvements, sidewalk improvements, sewers, traffic control and lighting, youth services, transportation, substance abuse services, employment training, crime prevention and awareness, fair housing and landlord-tenant counseling, child care, health care, rehabilitation and demolition of commercial structures, microbusinesses, loans for businesses, technical assistance to businesses, downtown revitalization, emergency efficiency improvements, code and property maintenance enforcement. Medium priority needs were: permanent supportive housing, permanent housing, health facilities, senior citizen services, handicapped services, community policing, adult education and literacy, commercial infrastructure, commercial improvements, planning and lead based paint hazards. Low priority needs were: historic preservation of residential and commercial structures.
II. Recently a Housing Needs Survey was conducted by the Licking County Coalition for Housing in order to obtain data from organizations working with homeless populations. The data covers the time period of April 1, 1996 through April 1, 1997. The results follow:
Community agencies served over 1060 homeless individuals during this period, but at least another 296 went "unserved". It must be noted that not all agencies record homeless individuals NOT served by their programs, so 296 is probably a conservative estimate. Local agencies appear to be recommending an additional 60 emergency, transitional and permanent housing units for homeless individuals.
Roughly 120 homeless individuals were not served by existing transitional housing options, most likely due to an insufficient number of housing units available. However, LCCH was expanding the number of transitional units in its program during this period from 5 to nearly 30, and expanded its program to include individuals in addition to families.
The community provided emergency shelter to over 700 homeless individuals (via Salvation Army and New Beginnings) during this period.
The community provided transitional housing to over 300 homeless persons in families (at least 220 of which were children) during this period. However, at least another 580 persons (including children) were not provided taansitional housing. Of these families, at least 30 had a family member that could be described as a Chronic Substance Abuser, Seriously Mentally Ill, Dually-Diagnosed (any person having a mental health issue compounded by a substance abuse situation) or Persons with Other Disabilities. Another 10 families were Victims of Domestic Violence.
In general, over 1100 homeless individuals in families were provided emergency, transitional, or permanent housing during this period. Over 1390 other homeless persons in families were unable to obtain such housing. At this point, we can only assume this situation is due to lack of sufficient housing options, or a lack of fit between programs available and services needed by the applicants.
III. In 1996, East Mound CDC was preparing an affordable housing market study and also conducted interviews in with eighteen respondents who were identified as having an interest in affordable housing in Newark.
All of the respondents felt there was a demand (buyers) for affordable housing in Newark. The main reason given for such a demand was the population growth that has occurred in the city over the last ten years and success of existing affordable housing programs. However, the respondents were split when asked if there were an adequate number of affordable housing providers; 42% said "yes" while 56% said "no". The main reason given for the "no" responses were "can't make any money" doing affordable housing, the lack of "incentives" and demand for upscale housing.
The respondents thought the greatest need for affordable housing exists on the east side. Others felt that affordable housing was needed in all parts of Newark. The lack of of affordable, available, developable land was frequently cited as a reason for the lack housing in the central city.
The most frequently noted three obstacles to developing affordable housing in Newark were: (1) lack of available dollars, (2) lack of available, developable land at a reasonable cost, (3) need for qualified, cooperative management leadership.
The three things which need to be done to overcome the obstacles were: (I) the community has to commit to and be educated about developing affordable housing, (2) increase in finding dollars for affordable housing, (3) develop cooperative arrangements between government and providers. Comments regarding cooperative arrangements included the need for flexible codes and reasonable code inspections. Some respondents felt bureaucratic "red tape" was a problem to overcome.
42% of the respondents felt the greatest demand for affordable housing existed among the rental population with an additional 28% of the respondents saying from the east side. It was also noted that the need for affordable housing existed among young families and empty nesters.
|
|
|
