All Statistical Information Was Taken from U.S. Census Bureau Website

All statistical information was taken from U.S. Census Bureau website: U.S. Census Bureau, Custom Tables; generated by Dana Lockhart and Caleb Williams; using American Factfinder; http://factfinder.census.gov/>; (May/2004) Census Total Total Median Lower Housing Median Median Percent of Percent of Tract Households Rental Gross Quartil units: White Black Household Households 102 Occupie Rent e Rent Median non- Household s paying paying over d Units (in (in year Hispanic Income over 35% 50% of 1999 1999 structur Household (1999 of income income dollars) Dollars e built Income dollars) towards towards ) (1999 rent rent dollars)

Block 230 227 401 378 1972 22,361 13,250 34 17 group 1 Block 210 166 394 177 1939 10,809 9,779 51 37 group 2 Block 341 253 474 99 1968 6,741 14,875 19 13 group 3 Block 323 179 397 141 1963 20,431 19,886 39 25 group 4 Block 298 210 474 141 1974 10,208 14,063 23 10 group 5

All statistical information was taken from U.S. Census Bureau website: U.S. Census Bureau, Custom Tables; generated by Dana Lockhart and Caleb Williams; using American Factfinder; http://factfinder.census.gov/>; (May/2004) Census Total Total Median Lower Housing Median Median Percent of Percent of Tract Households Rental Gross Quartil units: White Black Household Households 106 Occupie Rent e Rent Median non- Household s paying paying over d Units (in (in year Hispanic Income over 35% 50% of 1999 1999 structur Household (1999 of income income dollars) Dollars e built Income dollars) towards towards ) (1999 rent rent dollars)

Block 497 199 492 389 1959 36,250 21,458 27 15 group 1 Block 309 57 755 382 1942 35,104 48,750 14 14 group 2 Block 460 142 643 420 1965 36,786 41,071 47 32 group 3 Block 567 436 492 342 1979 31,830 21,771 31 18 group 4

All statistical information was taken from U.S. Census Bureau website: U.S. Census Bureau, Custom Tables; generated by Dana Lockhart and Caleb Williams; using American Factfinder; http://factfinder.census.gov/>; (May/2004)

Census Total Total Median Lower Housing Median Median Percent of Percent of Tract Households Rental Gross Quartil units: White Black Household Households 108 Occupie Rent e Rent Median non- Household s paying paying over d Units (in (in year Hispanic Income over 35% 50% of 1999 1999 structur Household (1999 of income income dollars) Dollars e built Income dollars) towards towards ) (1999 rent rent dollars) Block 618 277 541 225 1974 40,862 28,173 27 19 group 1 Block 849 226 665 442 1987 46,458 40,227 24 9 group 2 Block 604 15 932 447 1995 76,250 64,531 46 0 group 3 Block 853 165 471 337 1986 35,300 26,818 42 17 group 4 All statistical information was taken from U.S. Census Bureau website: U.S. Census Bureau, Custom Tables; generated by Dana Lockhart and Caleb Williams; using American Factfinder; http://factfinder.census.gov/>; (May/2004)

Census Total Total Median Lower Housing Median Median Percent of Percent of Tract Households Rental Gross Quartil units: White Black Household Households 110 Occupie Rent e Rent Median non- Household s paying paying over d Units (in (in year Hispanic Income over 35% 50% of 1999 1999 structur Household (1999 of income income dollars) Dollars e built Income dollars) towards towards ) (1999 rent rent dollars)

Block 479 456 504 382 1984 20,034 28,600 39 25 group 1 Block 634 308 378 265 1992 21,648 7,059 27 21 group 2 Block 693 371 553 367 1985 26,696 25,268 32 17 group 3 Block 634 319 561 410 1991 35,313 46,528 13 10 group 4 Block 426 279 571 398 1990 26,052 11,875 27 10 group 5

Further Analysis: In preparing these graphs specific census tracts were chosen to give a diverse overview of the

situation in Bowling Green (One inner-city tract (102), two working-class tracts (106,110), and one

middle-class tract (108)). According to census data these specific tracts contain a wide differentiation of

socioeconomic status and racial background of inhabitants. To obtain a more detailed look, these tracts

were then broken down into block groups. Despite the differences present between the census tracts

consistent trends were apparent. For instance, every tract was found to have a significant percentage of

people paying over thirty five percent of their gross monthly income towards housing rent.

“Affordable housing” is generally considered to be housing with rent costs that do not exceed

30% percent of a household’s monthly income. Given the predominant trend of housing costs exceeding All statistical information was taken from U.S. Census Bureau website: U.S. Census Bureau, Custom Tables; generated by Dana Lockhart and Caleb Williams; using American Factfinder; http://factfinder.census.gov/>; (May/2004) this 30% mark, Bowling Green can be considered a “house poor” community. “House poor” is a term used to describe a situation when a household’s rent requirement limits the ability of that household to cover other necessary expenses. Bowling Green’s high percentage of “house poverty” denotes a lack of affordable housing. This is a point thoroughly supported in research completed by Duffy Trager. Trager’s study specifies that Bowling Green only has 8,591 “affordable” units to meet the demand of 14,481 households. This shortage of approx. 6,000 “affordable” housing units serves as a striking connection between the affordable housing problem and the results of this study’s research.

The remarkable finding of this addendum to our main study is that apparently Bowling Green’s housing shortage is not concentrated within one geographic area or among one socioeconomic or racial group. Instead “house poverty” is a trend that is present within block groups with median family incomes above and below Bowling Green’s overall average income. This means that households within some of the wealthiest and poorest of Bowling Green’s neighborhoods are affected. A strong case for mixed- income housing development can be inferred from this data. This argument is further supported by the fact that this crisis rent levels (those exceeding 50% of monthly rent) are present in approx.10-25% of households in all areas.

Hopefully these graphs will serve as a good starting point for a study geared to examine this specific issue. While our research only concerned house poverty among renters it would be interesting to see if similar trends are present among home owners. Just a suggestion .