Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ownllr occupancy IlIvels ore often alluded to in tf>econtexl of neighbor- <br />hood $!obilily. Owneroccuponls ore <",umed to hO\feo greater stoke in <br />the neighborhood bec:ousethllY f>o\fe 0 li:::oble in\fe5lmentond inmost case. <br />it would be mOre difficult for them to relocate thon II would for renlers, <br />thougf> Ihl,moy be cf>ong1ng os potlernlof life 'lyles cf>cnge in on inc:reos- <br />inglymorlllromlentsociety. NotlngogointhOllhe Shook's Run study oreo <br />contains opproxlmolely 13%af the city's dwelling unils, 1t is ,Ignjflcont <br />that only slightly mOre than 9% of the city', awner-<:>ccupilld units ore in <br />the study area. <br /> <br />Furthermore, 1t is notoble that the owner-occupied units that ore locoted In <br />the sludy oroo ore maned in 1M lower price ronge'l fully 93.5% valued at <br />less than $20,000, os compared 10 59.9% for the city os 0 whole (lee Tobie <br />H ondoccompony groph). <br /> <br />TABLE H <br /> <br />OWNER OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS BY VALUE <br /> <br />Value {in dollol"l} <br />0- -4,999 <br />5,000 - 9,999 <br />10,000 - 1-4,999 <br />15,000-19,999 <br />20,000-24,999 <br />25,000 - 34,999 <br />35,000 - 49,999 <br />50,000 + <br />Total occupied <br />Vocont for sole <br />Total Units <br /> <br />Shooks Run <br />D.U.'s Percent <br />45 2.2% <br />419 20.-4% <br />942 45.8% <br />515 25.1% <br />97 4.7"'<' <br />31 1.5% <br />6 0.3% <br />, 0.1% <br />2,056 Too.J% <br />J4 <br />2,070 <br /> <br />Total Cily <br /> <br />D.U.'s <br />181 <br />1,610 <br />4,127 <br />7,664 <br />4,784 <br />3,265 <br />816 <br />227 <br />22,674 <br /> <br />Sourcll' 1970Cen,u, of Papulolion and Hou.ing <br /> <br />.32- <br /> <br />Percenl <br />0.8% <br />7.1% <br />1B.2% <br />33.8% <br />21.1% <br />14.4% <br />3.6% <br />1.0% <br />100.0% <br />