Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> "accessible, safe, and sanitary housing" for "every citizen; <br /> and, protection of "older neighborhoods". <br /> [See Table 15] <br /> Item 4 on the list ranks slightly lower. It concerns <br /> providing "a variety of housing patterns . . . to meet the <br /> needs of a wider range of customers," which may be expected <br /> in the future. Item 5 introduces a cost consideration, but <br /> even so, there is a clear preference for provision of basic <br /> neighborhood-supporting facilities and services. <br /> Low income housing located throughout the community <br /> ranks lowest of all six scenarios, suggesting that some <br /> controversy might be expected in some neighborhoods were such <br /> a policy implemented consistently (See Table 15a). <br /> [See Table 15a] <br /> While students favor the low income housing scenario <br /> roughly 11% more than non-students, only the South sector <br /> favors it significantly more than all residents: 66.7% for <br /> the South Sector, compared with 49.7% for all residents. <br /> Responses by ethnicity are also interesting for low income <br /> housing. Anglos at 47% are virtually identical with <br /> residents as a whole, while Hispanics favor low income <br /> 52 <br />