Laserfiche WebLink
<br />unfunded proposed project. The majority of the properties were single family residences (see . <br />Streiner 1995 for more details). <br />Each project, whether funded or unfunded, contained at least 50 properties located <br />within 1100 feet of the creek: and 45 prOperties greater than 1100 feet from the creek. Total. <br />sample size included 521 properties for the funded projects and 478 for the unfunded <br />projects. Property data were obtained from the respective county assessor's office. These <br />data list the lot number, type of residence, sale date, sale amount, assessed value, lot size, <br />improvement size, number of rooms, bedrooms, and baths and existence of a garage. Any <br />information missing from the reports was researched by the DWR. Groups of properties <br />were traced to the census maps to determine the census tract and the census block. This <br />matched each property with its respective demographic characteristics. <br />Organizations that received funding from the DWR submitted to the department a . <br />survey detailing the completed project. Groups that failed to receive funding, and <br />consequently did not carry out the proposed project, were interviewed by phone to determine <br />their planned objectives, goals, and projected costs. <br />All data came from property sales between 1983 and 1993. Sales prices and assessed <br />values were adjusted by fixed weights from the U.S. residential price index found in the <br />Survey of Current Business (U.S. Dept. of Commerce 1995). Ideally, a California or San <br />Francisco Bay area specific price index would have been used but we could not locate one. <br />Percent changes in the price index were used to convert property values to a base year, <br />1982, for comparison over time without the influence of inflation or a characteristic increase <br />in property prices in California's housing market. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />8 <br />