HousingConditions Summary

SCI Report: Supplemental Neighborhood Conditions Summary

December 21, 2012

Report

:City of

–

Page Page

0

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Introduction

This report is a supplemental overview of real property conditions in Atlanta. It is as an excerpt from the forthcoming Strategic Community Investment (SCI) Plan Report. To develop this report the APD Solutions team was commissioned by the City of Atlanta, Department of Planning and Community Development, Office of Housing officials to survey and analyze the City’s housing conditions. In December 2011, a strategic method of approach to assessing the city’s neighborhoods was established. The scope of work was determined to include two phases:

 Phase I - An existing conditions survey of all residential properties within the municipal limits of the City of Atlanta.

 Phase II - An assessment of each neighborhood to determine the investment feasibility.

This report will also review the breakdown of the total housing units and demonstrate the challenging trends facing the City of Atlanta’s housing stock. The consultant team developed several citywide condition maps that are inserted throughout the narrative, in addition there are neighborhood specific maps included in the appendices that illustrate the circumstances that were found. This information provides a comprehensive and objective assessment of both the positive and negative trends affecting the City’s neighborhoods, allowing for an accurate view of this snapshot in time. The findings contained

in this report provide critical information on the economic challenges and opportunities regarding the 1

physical status of structures and lots in neighborhoods throughout the city. This body of work also

Page Page provides a valuable reference point to document evidence of investment or disinvestment that is – occurring in the city as we move into the future.

Notwithstanding the various uses of this information, the primary intent of this document is to factually

illustrate the condition of the city properties as a conclusion of the phase I activities. The City of Atlanta Atlanta of City :

has 160,207 parcels. This project focused on assessing the 143,888 residential parcels only. Through the Report visual observations of a windshield survey the team was able to document the status of the City’s

housing stock between December 2011 and August 2012. During the process there were 125,022 Summary structures and 9,664 vacant lots evaluated throughout the city’s 258 neighborhoods. There were also 9,202 parcels that were attempted to be assessed but after various unsuccessful efforts were deemed to be not surveryable. Those parcels deemed as not surveyable were excluded from the population used in

the statistical analysis to assess overall condition or neighborhood investment viability.

Housing Conditions Housing

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Summary of Findings

The citywide conditions data provides crucial information regarding the structures and lots that make up the existing housing market. This information serves as the physical basis for the overall needs assessment. Table 1 provides a snapshot of the City of Atlanta’s parcel composition and overall conditions. Table 1 Citywide Snapshot Category Number Percentage Parcels Total Parcels Citywide 160,207 100% Residential Parcels 143,888 89.8% Non Residential Parcels 16,319 10.2% Survey Totals Surveyed Structures 125,022 86.9% Surveyed Lots 9,664 6.7% Unsurveyable Parcels (See Table 8) 9,202 6.4% Residential Structures

Total Structures 125,022 100%

HousingConditions Summary 1-2 Unit Structures (Low Density/ Single Family) 123,327 98.6% 3-4 Unit Structures (Medium Density/ Multifamily) 714 0.6% 5+ Unit Structures (High Density/ Multifamily) 981 0.8%

Report

:City of Atlanta Multi-Family

–

Page Page

2

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Table 1 (continued) City- wide Residential Structure Occupancy Structure Occupancy Number Percentage (Tenure) Occupied Structures 117,048 93.6% Vacant Structures 7,974 6.4%

Total Vacancy Vacant Structures and 17,638 ------Vacant Lots Citywide Vacancy ------12.3% Percentage

City-wide Residential Structure Conditions

Structure Condition (Total 125,022) Good 97,623 78.1% Fair 22,362 17.9% Poor 2,498 2.0% Deteriorated 1,352 1.1% Not Visible 1,187 0.9%

3

City-wide Lot Condition

Page Page

Lot Condition (Total 9,664) – Good 1,237 12.8% Fair 6,175 63.9% Poor 1,329 13.8% Not Visible 923 9.5% Atlanta of City :

Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation Report

Structural Conditions Summary

As outlined in Table 1, the City of Atlanta is comprised of 160,207 individual parcels. Of this number, 16,319 parcels are non-residential, and 143,888 are residential. Distributed amongst these parcels, there are 125,022 total residential structures, of which 7,974 or approximately 6.4% appear to be vacant or

abandoned.

Housing Conditions Housing

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Single family housing which is comprised of 1-2 unit structures, are the prominent composition of the city’s housing stock, representing 98.6% of the data set. Multifamily structures numbered 1,695, due to having three (3) or more living units. It is important to note that the presence of multifamily housing within Atlanta cannot be ignored. Although the proportion of city’s high density housing represented by 981 structures may not seem like a disproportionate number of multifamily housing, these less than 1,000 addresses encompass approximately 52,243 units of housing, as tabulated from data supplied by MetroStudy.

Survey results find that, from an aesthetic prospective, the City of Atlanta has a high measure of curb appeal. 97,623 structures were found to be in “Good” condition, comprising 78% of the total. The remaining structures were either categorized as “Fair” (22,362), “Poor” (2,498), Deteriorated (1,352) or Not Visible (1,187), encompassing the remaining 22%.

Lot Conditions

Surveyors identified 9,664 vacant residential lots citywide. Of these vacant lots, the majority, or 63.9%,

was determined to be in Fair condition. However, results show that surveyors noted a much higher

HousingConditions Summary incidence of Poor quality lots than structures, with 13.8% of vacant lots falling into this category. This indicates that areas with higher instances of vacant lots are more likely to suffer from an overall aesthetic categorization of blight or dilapidation.

When combining the number of vacant lots and structures, the City of Atlanta has 17,638 total vacant parcels, lending to an overall vacancy rate of 12.3%. As illustrated in the Vacancy map below. While that

total may not seem statistically significant, the neighborhood level analysis will show that vacant lots

Report and structures tend to be clustered and isolated within specific neighborhoods, particularly those closer

to the City’s southern boundaries. :City of Atlanta Existing Housing Conditions-By Neighborhood

When considering overall housing conditions, it is important to conduct a neighborhood level analysis to

recognize variations and unique dynamics affecting each community. The neighborhood tables and map

–

Page Page

booklet located within the Appendices of this report, provide a profile of each neighborhood’s 4

conditions composition (Appendix B) as well as a neighborhood existing condition visual analysis (Appendix C).

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

5

Page Page

–

: City of Atlanta Atlanta of City :

Report

Summary

Housing Conditions Housing

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Lot and Structural Conditions

Table 2 Curb Appeal Total Structures and Residential Neighborhood Name Parcels Lots in "Good" Percentage Parcels Condition 1 Memorial Park 124 124 123 99.2% 2 East Ardley Road 108 108 107 99.1% 3 Village 936 757 744 98.3% 4 North 119 119 116 97.5% 5 Sherwood Forest 250 244 237 97.1% 6 Buckhead Heights 517 515 500 97.1% 7 Collier Hills 284 278 268 96.4% 8 Argonne Forest 213 212 204 96.2% 9 Peachtree Battle Alliance 538 534 511 95.7% 10 Wildwood (NPU-C) 333 300 286 95.3% Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation

For the purposes of this study, curb appeal is defined as the number of lots and structure categorized as

HousingConditions Summary Good by the field evaluation team using the evaluation criteria outlined above. With this as a basis, the majority of neighborhoods appear to have little to no blight and are in Good or Fair structural condition. In sum, the city has an overall high measure of curb appeal which is in line with the citywide statistics explored earlier in the report.

Table 3 Blight Total Structures and

Parcels Residential Lots in "Poor" or Report Neighborhood Name Percentage Parcels "Deteriorated" Condition :City of Atlanta 1 Bankhead/Bolton 168 122 83 68.0% 2 English Avenue 1,530 1,161 309 26.6% 3 Center Hill 1,283 1,177 208 17.7% 4 Carroll Heights 625 581 102 17.6% 1,821

– 5 Pittsburgh 1,571 233 14.8%

Page Page 6 Lakewood Heights 1,135 962 135 14.0%

7 Campbellton Road 546 481 65 13.5% 6 8 Grove Park 2,604 2,396 315 13.1% 9 Oakland City 1,724 1,517 192 12.7% 10 Rebel Valley Forest 183 174 22 12.6% Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Blight is defined as the combination of structures categorized as “Poor” and “Deteriorated” and lots categorized as “Poor”. However, there is a select concentration of neighborhoods such as Bankhead Bolton, English Avenue, Center Hill, Carroll Heights and Pittsburgh that have a high occurrence of structures that received a Poor or Deteriorated rating from field surveyors, lending to an overall perception of blight and decay in these areas.

Tenure

Table 4 Vacant Lot Count

Total Total Neighborhood Name Parcels Residential Vacant Lots Percentage Parcels 1 Carey Park 585 546 264 48.4% 2 Niskey Lake 154 148 54 36.5% 3 Almond Park 508 471 170 36.1% 120 4 Bakers Ferry 112 38 33.9% 5 Fairburn 217 213 69 32.4% 6 Atlanta University Center 424 252 74 29.4% 7 Ben Hill 504 485 138 28.5% 197

8 Bush Mountain 173 47 27.2% 7

9 Vine City 1,315 1,040 272 26.2% Page Page 141

10 Boulder Park 134 35 26.1% – Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation The ten neighborhoods outlined in Table 4 have the highest percentage of vacant lots in the City of Atlanta.1 These findings are possibly evidence of business flight and stalled development. Though it is

not unusual to see vacant lots within a neighborhood in the current market due to stalled real estate Atlanta of City :

development, concentrated areas of vacancy can provide deeper insight into a lack of commercial Report investment into specific communities. Additionally, a high number of areas that are not occupied or put

to use within a neighborhood can signal a declining demand for goods and services from residents Summary within and immediately surrounding target areas. Vacant lots are also generally more susceptible to become sites for code issues related to landscaping overgrowth or excess debris, lending to the overall perception of blight or decay in a neighborhood.

1 Please note that calculations have been included only for neighborhoods that have 100 or more parcels to ensure Housing Conditions Housing percentages are representative.

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Table 5 Vacant Structures (Total: 9,664) Total Total Vacant Neighborhood Name Parcels Residential Percentage Structures Parcels 1 Bankhead/Bolton 168 122 87 71.3% 2 Bankhead 921 714 233 32.6% 3 English Avenue 1,530 1,161 371 32.0% 4 Pittsburgh 1,821 1,571 495 31.5% 5 Rebel Valley Forest 183 174 51 29.3% 6 699 607 147 24.2% 7 773 642 154 24.0% 8 Lakewood Heights 1,135 962 210 21.8% 9 Dixie Hills 969 877 186 21.2% 10 Grove Park 2,604 2,396 488 20.4% Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation

Table 5 outlines the top ten neighborhoods with the highest percentage of vacant structures. On a

neighborhood analysis level, it appears that the majority of the high vacancy neighborhoods are located

HousingConditions Summary south of Interstate 20 or west of Interstate 75. Code Issues Table 6 Code Issues Total Total No. Properties Neighborhood Name Parcels Residential w/ Multiple Percentage Parcels Code Issues 1 Bankhead/Bolton 168 122 82 67.2%

2 English Avenue 1,530 1,161 208 17.9%

Report 3 Carroll Heights 625 581 102 17.6% 4 Center Hill 1,283 1,177 199 16.9% :City of Atlanta 5 Pittsburgh 1,821 1,571 213 13.6% 6 Lakewood Heights 1,135 962 127 13.2% 7 Campbellton Road 546 481 63 13.1% 773 8 South Atlanta 642 81 12.6%

– 1,404

9 Westview 1,317 154 11.7% Page Page 10 English Park 133 121 14 11.6%

8 Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Neighborhood Code Issues

9

Page Page

–

: City of Atlanta Atlanta of City :

Report

Summary

Housing Conditions Housing

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Blight varies greatly among neighborhoods, with core city and southern neighborhoods bearing the brunt of decline. Examples of extreme blight, however, are plentiful as you traverse the western and southern ring outside of the downtown business district; we documented 3,788 parcels with excessive code issues. Properties with 4 or more visual code issues totaled 3.0% of total housing stock.

Visual code issues include weed overgrowth, dumping, dilapidated porches, water damage, dumpster overflow, improper storage issues, inoperable vehicles, non-conforming commercial activity at residential addresses and yard parking. As multiple issues were often present, for the purposes of this study we did not delineate if the code issues were structural, environmental, or aesthetic.

Extreme dilapidation was documented at 1,352 parcels. Properties in this category include structures most likely in need of demolition. Our visual assessment determined that these properties would most often require more investment to rehabilitate and make livable than to demolish. The current declining market values also make this a special challenge in this environment. These properties are defined by missing roofs, doors, windows and/or walls, and partially demolished properties. Although survey activity did not allow for interior inspection there were some instances where overgrowth was visibly

gathering on the structure, both internally and externally. HousingConditions Summary

Method of Approach

The method of analysis used to obtain the findings contained in this report was a Windshield Survey. For research purposes, a Windshield Survey is a visual assessment of the community being researched and a record of those observations. A survey of this type relies strictly on observations for data and other

information rather than directing questions to participants. The windshield survey got its name because

Report these projects are often done while the observer sits in a car and is designed to answer questions

including, but not limited to: :City of Atlanta  What is the condition of the housing structures? Are they in a state of disrepair?

 Is there open space available, such as parks, paths, etc.? –

 Are there noticeable signs of decay? Trash, abandoned Page Page

structures, junk vehicles? 10

 Are lots accessible by sidewalks? Is the area “walkable”?

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Approximately 50 field surveyors were assembled to survey every viewable residential parcel within the city limits. The field data collected by windshield survey was acquired with a new approach. APDS has utilized technology in an innovative way with creation of a proprietary customized application, or “App” compatible with all Apple Devices. As windshield surveys are typically done in hardcopy and then transferred to a database, this app allowed windshield surveyors to efficiently assess all residential parcels in the City of Atlanta serving to drastically increase data collection accuracy. The App allowed surveyors to take pictures of lots and parcels that were saved on the device and directly correlated with the property address.

Location of Parcels

The field evaluation was guided with parcel data provided by the City of Atlanta’s GIS department. The city was split into four (4) quadrants for assignment of surveyors, and each quadrant was appointed a Field Marshall responsible for overseeing assessment in that area. While evaluating the parcels during the assignment phase,

a high number of parcels without a street number

included in the address were identified. Rather than 11 Page Page

relying solely on addresses to identify parcels, – surveyors were provided with neighborhood maps inclusive of a Parcel Identification Number (PIN) to assist them in locating their assigned surveillance

areas. Atlanta of City :

Report

Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria used in this proprietary app was customized to best meet the goals and

Summary objectives of the Strategic Community Investment (SCI) study as outlined in the scope of work. This criterion includes property tenure, lot condition, structure condition, presence of sidewalks, and identification of city code issues. Table 1 provides an outline of the data fields used to conduct the

windshield survey.

Housing Conditions Housing

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Table 7

City of Atlanta SCI Plan Windshield Survey Evaluation Criteria*

Structure Lot Aesthetic Structure Aesthetic Sidewalks 4 or More Code Occupancy Condition Condition Present Issues Present

Occupied Good Good Yes Yes

Vacant Fair Fair No No

No Structure Poor Poor - Not Visible

Not Visible Not Visible Deteriorated - -

- - No Structure - -

- - Not Visible - -

*Definitions of all windshield survey evaluation criteria are available in the Glossary of Key Terms.

Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation HousingConditions Summary

Field Evaluation of Structural Condition

Field surveyors were instructed to complete an analysis of structures using the following criteria to make observations of aesthetic conditions: Good, Fair, Poor, and Deteriorated. Surveyors were also provided with sample photos of structures that fell into each category as an added point of clarification. These

efforts were made to ensure consistency amongst surveyor observations and to ensure structure

Report evaluations remained objective. Additionally, for areas where structures were not clearly visible,

surveyors were also able to choose the field “Not Visible” as a classification.

:City of Atlanta

–

Page Page

12

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Observation Definition Photo Category

A structure that is well maintained, with little to no aesthetic Good issues. Focuses strictly on the condition of the house, not the architectural style.

A structure that is mostly maintained with few minor aesthetic issues i.e., an overgrown lawn or faded or chipping paint. These Fair should be cosmetic issues that do not appear to affect the structural integrity of the house.

A structure that is not well maintained, but enough structural integrity remains that it need not be demolished. The condition Poor of paint or building materials will be lacking, and the landscaping is likely overgrown. Cracked windows may also be present.

A structure that,that appears because to of have years suffered of neglect, from would years likelyof be demolishedneglected repairs because to the it would exterior: be lessA dila expensivepidated roof, than extensive Deteriorated renovation.rotting, and Avisible dilapidated structural roof, decay extensive are all indicatorsrotting, and of cleara structuraldeteriorated issues property. are good indicators or a deteriorated property.

Field Evaluation of Lot Condition

Field surveyors were instructed to complete an analysis of lots using the following criteria to make 13

observations of aesthetic conditions: Good, Fair, and Poor. Surveyors were also provided with sample

Page Page photos of lots that fell into each category as an added point of clarification. These efforts were made to – ensure consistency amongst surveyor observations and to ensure evaluations remained objective. Additionally, for areas where lots are not clearly visible, surveyors were also able to choose the field

“Not Visible” as a classification. : City of Atlanta Atlanta of City :

Report

Summary

Housing Conditions Housing

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Observation Definition Photo Category

A lot that appears to be well maintained. Grass appears to be cut Good and landscaping is properly manicured.

A lot that has not recently been maintained. Some litter or Fair debris may be present.

A lot that is not maintained. Overgrown vegetation and/or Poor significant amounts of debris or trash are visible.

Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation

Field Evaluation of Tenure

For the purposes of this study, vacancy is inclusive of both vacant lots and unoccupied structures. In an HousingConditions Summary effort to determine tenure during field evaluation, surveyors were instructed to identify telltale signs of vacancy and abandonment, to include the following:

 Overgrown landscaping  Full or overflowing mailbox  Boarded doors and/or windows

 Broken windows

Report

 Vacancy notices posted on doors and/or windows :City of Atlanta As information was collected and uploaded in the device, it was automatically transferred to the APDS server and downloaded to a database where it is easily assembled and analyzed. The app also allowed surveyors to take a photograph of each structure and/or lot evaluated and then downloaded to the

– database as well. As a result, our team was able to track the number of parcels surveyed, information

Page Page

collected, and productivity of windshield surveyors in real time.

14

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Challenges Unsurveyable Parcels Of the 143,888 total residential parcels, 9,202 or 6.4% were deemed to be unsurveyable during our field evaluation process. After analyzing the observations made by field surveyors regarding the unsurveyable parcels, several recurring obstructions were noted as to why windshield surveys could not be conducted. Table 2 provides an outline of each reason code and corresponding definition.

Table 8 Unsurveyable Parcel Reason Codes (9,202 parcels)

Reason Code Definition

Parcels reported or recorded improperly; address present in device, but no longer Address Error physically present.

Parcels located adjacent to other parcels in a manner that did not allow for surveyor Landlocked access; buildings that consisted of more than one unit in the structure, such as basement apartment or rear entry that did not allow access.

Gated communities; areas where security, police, or residents threatened and/or Physical Obstruction requested surveyors to discontinue surveying.

Vegetative Single or multiple parcels not visible from the sidewalk due to overgrown trees, Obstruction shrubbery, etc.

Infrastructure in place; however, no structure due to stalled development or Undetermined

incomplete building. 15 Page Page

Source: APD Solutions Field Evaluation –

Land Use Codes While analyzing the data, it has become apparent the city’s land use code structure has distinct

limitations when conducting a windshield survey of this type. Parcels from both Fulton and DeKalb : City of Atlanta Atlanta of City :

counties are included within city boundaries, leading to conflicting categorization when cross Report referencing the three different sources of land use codes: Fulton County’s tax digest, DeKalb County’s tax digest, and the zoning designations provided by the City of Atlanta. While Fulton County’s tax digest

provided the most robust documentation, there was no way to solely use that document as a guide as it

Summary did not take into account the land use designation of the approximately 10,923 parcels located in DeKalb County. Due to this, land use designations for all parcels were cross referenced from all three sources and recoded into “SCI Land use Codes” for the purposes of this study. Those codes are as follows:

Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Exempt, Office Institutional, Other Residential, Utility, and Vacant.

Housing Conditions Housing

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Data Association

Following the field collection of the data as outlined above, it was then imported into the ARC GIS system so that each parcel could be correctly associated with a neighborhood for comprehensive analysis. Please note that during the data association process, the margin of error estimated for the association of a parcel shape with the neighborhood shape in the GIS is estimated at 3.5%. In sum, after using geospatial tools to identify the neighborhood within which each parcel is located, we can expect that 96.5% of the time an accurate mapping between the City of Atlanta parcel data record geospatial file with the City of Atlanta neighborhood geospatial file occurred.

Windshield Survey Conclusions

From a housing conditions viewpoint, the City of Atlanta has relatively stable physical housing stock, with a good general aesthetic appeal. However, results show that surveyors noted a much higher incidence of poor quality lots than structures, with 13.8% of vacant lots falling into the poor category. This indicates that areas with higher instances of vacant lots, such as those in Table 4, are more likely to

suffer from an overall aesthetic categorization of blight or dilapidation. A complete alphabetical listing

HousingConditions Summary of all 258 City of Atlanta neighborhoods as they have been evaluated based on the above mentioned conditions criteria can be found in the following Appendix B. Within this listing, neighborhoods named for demolished or redeveloped Atlanta Housing Authority properties are highlighted in bold text to denote the unique redevelopment characteristics and changing naming conventions over time.

Though the city’s 12.3% vacancy rate may not seem startling, the majority of vacant lots and structures

are concentrated within a few neighborhoods, many of them comprising a “band” of communities

Report beginning in northwest Atlanta and sprawling to the southeastern portion of the city. These areas not

only have high structural vacancy numbers, but also represent some of the most blighted areas in :City of Atlanta Atlanta. The city must have targeted plans for managing these areas of vacancy and abandonment in an effort to target commercial and residential development. These vacant structures may represent prime homeownership and rental opportunities while the market stabilizes. As a result, the impacted

– neighborhoods may be considered for public subsidy and other development incentives to spur future

Page Page growth for these areas and to attract investment. The forthcoming Strategic Community Investment

16 (SCI) Report further explores these condition issues combined with additional demographic and socio-

economic analysis.

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Attachment A: Glossary of Key Terms

Key Term Definition Increment of market value attributed to the outward appearance of Aesthetic Condition a lot or structure. The age, in years, of physical residential dwellings within a Age of Housing Stock* neighborhood. An increase in the value of a residential asset over a defined period Appreciation* of time. The time, in minutes, it takes to travel from a resident’s Average Commute* neighborhood to a desired location. Lots and/or structures in poor or deteriorated condition that Blight* represent a general state of neglect and disrepair in a neighborhood. Action or inaction that breaks the City of Atlanta's code of conduct rules for owners and tenants. Examples include: excessive trash and Code Violation* debris; grass exceeding 18”; vacant, burned and dilapidated structures; and excessive junk vehicles. The measurement, in millions, of the exchange of goods or services Community Commerce*

in a neighborhood. 17

Community Identity* A neighborhood’s distinct traditions, values, and social norms.

Page Page

Actions or instances of neglect that deemed harmful to the public – Crime Incidences* welfare or morals and that is prohibited by law. A measurement of the general attractiveness of lots and structures Curb Appeal* in fair and good condition from the sidewalk, or “curb”. A decrease in the value of a residential asset over a defined period Depreciation* of time. Atlanta of City :

A structure that has visibly diminished in quality or value due to Report Deteriorated time and/or neglect. A dilapidated roof, extensive rotting, and clear structural issues are good indicators.

The number of properties within a neighborhood that are currently Summary

Distressed Assets* in the foreclosure process or are advertised for sale by the mortgagee. The highest level of schooling attended and successfully completed Educational Attainment* by an individual. A measure of aesthetic condition; the appearance of the lot or Fair structure is acceptable. Generally, some litter or debris may be

present. Conditions Housing

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Key Term Definition A measure of aesthetic condition; the appearance of the lot or Good structure is satisfactory. Generally, the grass appears to be cut and landscaping properly manicured. Public space consisting of parks and trails maintained for Greenspace* recreational enjoyment. The average amount of money needed to sustain basic housing Housing Costs* expenses for renters and owners. Median income calculation to include the income of the Income* householder and all other individuals 15 years old and over in the household.

A district or area within a municipality with distinctive Neighborhood characteristics or indicators that may include: vicinity to park or attraction, community history, proximity to major thoroughfare, etc.

No Structure A lot with no structure present, also referred to as a vacant lot.

A lot or structure not visible from sidewalk, often as a result of Not Visible excess trees or shrubbery. The absence of visibility did not allow

surveyor to make an accurate determination of condition. HousingConditions Summary

A structure that is currently in use by a tenant or owner. Indicators Occupied include: cars present in the driveway, blinds on windows, lawn maintained. 1. Based on visual inspection, the apparent residence or tenancy in a Occupancy structure or on a piece of land.

Owner Occupancy* The number of residents who own the structures.

An individual plot of land that comprises a larger area, such as a Parcel

neighborhood. Report The number of permits issued by a municipality for building Permit Issuance*

construction within a neighborhood. :City of Atlanta A measure of aesthetic condition; appearance of lot or structure is Poor not adequate. Generally, overgrown vegetation and/or significant amounts of debris or trash are visible. The change in the number of individuals in a population over a Population Growth*

specified period of time.

–

Page Page A provision of economic value provided by a municipality for the Public Subsidy*

purpose of incentivizing an activity. 18

Characteristics of schools supported by public funds and providing Quality of Public Education* free education for children within a neighborhood or district.

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product

Key Term Definition Racial Diversity* The array of racial groups present in a neighborhood. The purchase or sale of a real estate asset that involves a closing Real Estate Transaction* transaction. Proximity to opportunities to work, dine, shop, worship, exercise, Retail/Commercial Access* etc. A raised paved or asphalted path for pedestrians at the side of a Sidewalk road. 2. Based on visual inspection, the apparent residence or tenancy in a Tenure (also see Occupancy) structure or on a piece of land. The quantity of accessibility options available to an individual or Transportation Options* group to include vehicle, rail, bus, pedestrian, and bicycle. A structure that is not currently in use by a tenant or owner. Vacant Indicators include: landscaping that is overgrown, full or overflowing mailboxes, broken or boarded windows or doors. The number of residential structures and lots appearing to be Vacancy without occupants, expressed as a percentage of all properties surveyed, within a 5% margin of error.

19

Page Page

–

: City of Atlanta Atlanta of City :

Report

Summary

Housing Conditions Housing

SCI Housing Conditions Summary: Confidential – APD Solutions Work Product Appendix B Overall Conditions by Neighborhood

Average Curb Age of Neighborhood Name Vacancy Code Issues Blight Appeal Housing Stock

Adair Park 82.46% 73 20.27% 0.97% 0% Adams Park 48.08% 57 7.53% 0.16% 1% Adamsville 62.26% 46 17.52% 2.39% 2% Almond Park 32.67% 47 45.79% 4.95% 6% Amal Heights 75.00% 56 21.37% 3.57% 4% 92.20% 65 4.19% 0.70% 0% Arden/Habersham 88.80% 40 7.20% 0.80% 1% Ardmore 66.67% 67 11.11% 1.45% 0% Argonne Forest 93.90% 46 4.69% 0.47% 0% Arlington Estates 92.11% 41 5.53% 0.26% 1% Ashley Courts 100.00% 12 0.00% 3.00% 0% Ashview Heights 9.69% 68 32.01% 2.77% 4% 80.46% 73 1.72% 0.57% 1% Atlanta University Center 14.13% 65 45.58% 4.24% 8% 98.46% 7 0.38% 0.77% 0% Audobon Forest 86.39% 41 4.71% 2.09% 1% Audobon Forest West 83.47% 46 16.53% 3.31% 0% Baker Hills 80.00% 45 5.95% 0.27% 1% Bakers Ferry 71.43% 48 4.76% 0.27% 0% Bankhead 37.01% 58 48.59% 12.57% 7% Bankhead Courts 0.00% 26 100.00% 5.00% 0% Bankhead/Bolton 23.19% 53 74.64% 65.22% 65% Beecher Hills 70.19% 53 5.77% 0.20% 0% Ben Hill 82.93% 13 13.82% 0.54% 1% Ben Hill Acres 81.71% 52 2.44% 3.66% 0% Ben Hill Forest 81.40% 53 4.65% 1.72% 0% Ben Hill Pines 89.71% 48 11.76% 1.47% 0% Ben Hill Terrace 50.00% 54 9.70% 0.09% 1% 72.25% 46 9.09% 0.48% 0% 89.15% 50 4.41% 0.34% 0% Betmar LaVilla 91.77% 16 1.65% 1.23% 0% Blair Villa/Poole Creek 66.45% 48 9.68% 2.82% 1% 86.98% 15 10.68% 2.34% 0% Bolton 79.37% 28 7.94% 1.48% 1% Bolton Hills 38.89% 51 14.81% 4.63% 2% Boulder Park 79.00% 43 9.00% 0.27% 0% Heights 89.25% 40 5.54% 3.26% 0% Brandon 88.39% 38 5.10% 0.42% 0% Brentwood 87.93% 49 6.90% 1.72% 0% Briar Glen 98.50% 32 1.50% 3.57% 0% Brookhaven 51.96% 40 3.10% 1.45% 0% Brookview Heights 11.76% 27 72.06% 5.88% 4% Brookwood 98.39% 36 1.61% 1.20% 0% 100.00% 45 1.00% 1.45% 0% Browns Mill Park 33.98% 43 28.95% 0.75% 1% 74.24% 37 0.97% 0.32% 0% Buckhead Heights 100.00% 21 0.00% 0.06% 0% 96.53% 23 3.47% 0.23% 0% Bush Mountain 33.33% 43 33.33% 1.45% 4% Butner/Tell 41.67% 49 20.83% 15.28% 6% Cabbagetown 84.49% 41 2.26% 1.66% 0% Campbellton Road 55.63% 49 15.92% 5.94% 6% 61.57% 77 3.29% 1.44% 0% Capitol Gateway 50.00% 27 75.00% 25.00% 0% Capitol View 68.84% 66 15.31% 0.54% 1% 70.79% 69 6.53% 0.54% 0% Carey Park 24.19% 47 48.63% 6.73% 8% Carroll Heights 76.85% 50 20.36% 3.19% 3% Carver Hills 40.06% 49 14.70% 2.02% 5% Cascade Avenue/Road 55.16% 58 12.09% 0.88% 3% 79.63% 45 5.91% 0.20% 0% 89.53% 40 7.03% 0.14% 0% Castlewood 70.59% 44 2.52% 0.42% 0% Appendix B Overall Conditions by Neighborhood

Average Curb Age of Neighborhood Name Vacancy Code Issues Blight Appeal Housing Stock

Center Hill 58.48% 55 26.32% 7.02% 4% Chalet Woods 89.38% 43 10.62% 4.42% 0% Channing Valley 89.36% 46 2.84% 0.42% 0% 67.25% 39 5.40% 0.23% 0% Chattahoochee 6.25% 55 81.25% 18.75% 13% 72.80% 44 10.76% 3.12% 2% 90.05% 51 6.74% 0.68% 0% Collier Hills 94.22% 53 2.17% 0.45% 0% Collier Hills North 95.76% 59 0.00% 0.85% 0% Colonial Homes 100.00% 28 0.00% 0.85% 0% Cross Creek 1.67% 43 0.24% 1.75% 0% Custer/McDonough/Guice 60.39% 48 19.66% 8.99% 5% Deerwood 91.19% 36 9.25% 0.44% 0% Dixie Hills 58.83% 57 31.08% 7.04% 5% Downtown 73.27% 34 4.70% 0.81% 0% Druid Hills 73.33% 83 5.13% 0.51% 0% East Ardley Road 100.00% 50 1.87% 1.56% 0% 86.84% 64 8.65% 1.95% 1% East Chastain Park 58.80% 33 3.37% 0.21% 0% East Lake 72.82% 65 10.09% 2.39% 1% Edgewood 61.18% 65 15.14% 3.57% 3% Elmco Estates 81.43% 50 9.29% 0.71% 0% Englewood Manor 54.55% 61 27.27% 9.09% 9% English Avenue 12.44% 58 59.05% 17.57% 17% English Park 44.53% 52 35.94% 12.50% 12% Fairburn 54.41% 39 19.12% 0.09% 7% Fairburn Heights 71.82% 47 9.77% 3.41% 3% Fairburn Mays 64.29% 23 13.10% 5.95% 0% Fairburn Road/Wisteria 63.64% 43 2.27% 0.76% Lane 0% Fairburn Tell 81.25% 39 12.50% 3.57% 3% Fairway Acres 95.00% 38 7.50% 0.70% 0% Fernleaf 92.45% 35 1.89% 1.75% 0% Florida Heights 32.21% 52 23.49% 8.05% 5% Fort Valley 0.00% 44 100.00% 5.94% 0% 87.77% 47 2.84% 0.06% 0% Tech 39.47% 71 34.21% 1.45% 0% Glenrose Heights 50.25% 41 22.30% 2.82% 4% Grant Park 87.01% 57 4.39% 2.29% 1% Green Acres Valley 98.84% 52 3.49% 0.10% 0% Green Forest Acres 94.53% 52 4.69% 1.56% 0% Greenbriar 50.00% 40 8.18% 0.30% 0% Greenbriar Village 64.04% 31 8.77% 0.30% 0% Grove Park 44.87% 57 31.53% 8.06% 7% Hammond Park 50.46% 52 13.36% 2.53% 2% Hanover West 87.72% 41 7.02% 1.75% 0% Harland Terrace 78.93% 35 12.64% 2.68% 0% Harris Chiles 62.50% 32 8.75% 6.25% 0% Harvel Homes Community 4.00% 51 12.00% 16.00% 0% Heritage Valley 97.54% 46 3.01% 0.27% 0% High Point 100.00% 10 3.30% 5.73% 0% Hills Park 68.85% 27 13.33% 0.90% 1% Home Park 60.72% 52 11.49% 1.45% 1% Horseshoe Community 93.55% 39 9.68% 0.20% 3% 76.40% 58 21.20% 4.80% 2% Huntington 97.50% 44 5.00% 0.30% 0% 57.63% 45 2.97% 0.71% 0% Ivan Hill 100.00% 50 5.56% 4.42% 0% Joyland 50.00% 56 21.37% 5.73% 4% Just Us 18.64% 59 5.08% 0.20% 0% Kings Forest 90.03% 44 5.66% 0.27% 1% Kingswood 81.19% 39 5.94% 0.99% 0% Appendix B Overall Conditions by Neighborhood

Average Curb Age of Neighborhood Name Vacancy Code Issues Blight Appeal Housing Stock

Kirkwood 83.27% 66 6.01% 4.50% 2% Knight Park/Howell Station 87.23% 51 10.40% 0.95% 1% Lake Claire 55.84% 66 2.73% 0.53% 1% Lake Estates 89.80% 48 4.08% 0.27% 0% Lakewood 28.98% 55 18.74% 4.14% 4% Lakewood Heights 38.39% 58 37.18% 17.81% 16% Laurens Valley 79.70% 44 8.27% 0.30% 1% Leila Valley 29.58% 53 27.70% 1.41% 6% Lenox 93.33% 32 10.00% 0.89% 0% Lincoln Homes 53.13% 38 12.50% 2.50% 3% Lindbergh/Morosgo 34.32% 22 0.92% 0.06% 0% Lindridge/Martin Manor 36.38% 49 2.55% 0.43% 0% Loring Heights 92.40% 29 3.14% 1.45% 0% Magnum Manor 94.71% 45 2.94% 0.59% 0% Margaret Mitchell 64.58% 39 4.86% 0.23% 0% 61.67% 48 28.33% 3.33% 0% Mays 97.06% 7 1.47% 1.47% 1% Meadowbrook Forest 89.19% 39 4.05% 4.05% 1% Mechanicsville 58.26% 36 28.14% 4.88% 3% Mellwood 92.86% 55 3.57% 3.57% 4% Memorial Park 99.19% 50 3.23% 0.38% 0% Midtown 91.14% 32 1.41% 0.68% 0% Midwest Cascade 94.70% 20 5.68% 0.19% 0% Monroe Heights 51.23% 40 13.58% 4.32% 7% Morningside/Lenox Park 46.89% 53 5.29% 0.27% 0% 63.99% 66 11.63% 0.83% 2% Mt. Gilead Woods 98.55% 50 4.35% 0.10% 0% Mt. Paran Parkway 84.00% 39 6.00% 0.23% 1% Mt. Paran/Northside 72.42% 33 10.32% 0.97% 1% Niskey Cove 75.00% 20 7.14% 3.57% 0% Niskey Lake 78.41% 35 4.55% 1.14% 0% 98.13% 26 2.74% 1.45% 0% Norwood Manor 30.17% 47 35.75% 3.91% 4% Oakcliff 84.71% 47 10.59% 4.00% 1% Oakland 100.00% 36 0.00% 0.20% 0% Oakland City 55.19% 63 23.85% 3.11% 4% Old Fairburn Village 83.33% 49 16.67% 0.27% 0% 77.01% 38 9.05% 1.48% 0% Old Gordon 39.10% 61 53.97% 1.59% 2% Orchard Knob 43.67% 52 21.22% 4.49% 2% 88.63% 48 2.90% 2.30% 1% Paces 76.58% 31 8.67% 0.23% 0% Peachtree Battle Alliance 95.64% 53 3.60% 0.38% 0% Peachtree Heights East 31.70% 46 2.21% 0.00% 0% Peachtree Heights West 61.76% 32 0.84% 0.13% 0% 56.48% 57 1.87% 0.19% 0% 76.43% 54 1.56% 0.06% 0% Penelope Neighbors 56.59% 54 13.38% 5.49% 5% 50.75% 47 20.13% 5.88% 6% Perkerson 60.72% 50 4.17% 0.95% 1% Peyton Forest 92.74% 42 5.36% 2.21% 0% Piedmont Heights 80.94% 49 1.98% 0.27% 0% Pine Hills 97.91% 26 0.94% 0.89% 0% Pittsburgh 32.68% 57 45.49% 12.99% 11% Pleasant Hill 54.55% 40 8.08% 0.23% 1% Polar Rock 25.19% 54 23.17% 11.08% 10% Pomona Park 98.21% 52 1.79% 13.00% 0% Poncey-Highland 76.92% 43 2.34% 0.41% 0% Princeton Lakes 90.08% 6 4.65% 0.62% 0% Randall Mill 84.62% 33 1.03% 1.54% 0% Rebel Valley Forest 23.53% 50 34.12% 2.35% 11% Appendix B Overall Conditions by Neighborhood

Average Curb Age of Neighborhood Name Vacancy Code Issues Blight Appeal Housing Stock

Regency Trace 50.00% 11 7.14% 3.57% 0% Reynoldstown 75.55% 50 8.99% 3.19% 1% Ridgecrest Forest 98.33% 42 3.89% 5.00% 0% Ridgedale Park 90.39% 30 2.34% 0.00% 0% Ridgewood Heights 93.82% 43 2.81% 1.12% 0% Riverside 48.87% 48 21.57% 8.90% 7% Rockdale 59.09% 19 36.36% 4.55% 5% Rosedale Heights 55.34% 53 1.94% 4.49% 1% Rue Royal 65.71% 60 17.14% 2.86% 0% Sandlewood Estates 85.61% 16 6.82% 0.09% 0% 42.52% 39 35.40% 13.39% 18% Sherwood Forest 97.12% 48 1.65% 0.00% 0% South Atlanta 32.54% 55 39.81% 13.43% 12% South River Gardens 67.87% 38 17.87% 3.35% 1% South Tuxedo Park 80.54% 40 3.78% 0.81% 0% Southwest 70.62% 32 10.74% 0.30% 1% Springlake 95.25% 46 2.04% 0.45% 0% Summerhill 71.45% 29 21.73% 6.13% 3% Swallow Circle/Baywood 44.32% 53 20.45% 1.70% 1% 63.92% 49 27.84% 2.06% 0% Sylvan Hills 36.96% 62 15.65% 1.12% 2% Tampa Park 96.15% 48 15.38% 0.27% 4% The Villages at Carver 23.08% 10 15.38% 7.69% 8% The Villages at 100.00% 12 0.00% 0.10% Castleberry Hill 0% The Villages at East Lake 27.27% 12 72.73% 0.10% 0% Thomasville Heights 52.19% 46 15.87% 2.71% 6% Tuxedo Park 55.57% 36 6.60% 0.47% 0% Underwood Hills 85.54% 38 1.95% 0.28% 0% 35.00% 57 15.53% 0.35% 3% Vine City 29.01% 42 44.11% 7.08% 5% Virginia Highland 69.64% 62 2.57% 0.39% 0% Washington Park 54.37% 66 22.73% 4.80% 6% Wesley Battle 72.86% 42 7.14% 0.00% 0% West End 36.64% 61 24.09% 8.90% 4% West Highlands 82.02% 10 17.98% 1.12% 0% West Lake 63.25% 55 19.37% 4.56% 1% West Manor 96.91% 52 5.15% 1.56% 0% West Paces 81.46% 41 4.18% 1.31% Ferry/Northside 0% Westhaven 84.62% 28 5.13% 0.10% 0% Westminster/Milmar 89.47% 35 5.26% 0.00% 0% Westover Plantation 100.00% 48 0.00% 0.00% 0% Westview 40.78% 71 13.93% 9.90% 4% Westwood Terrace 41.60% 54 5.41% 6.55% 1% Whitewater Creek 73.33% 34 3.33% 0.00% 0% 72.89% 34 19.05% 1.83% 1% Wildwood (NPU-C) 92.90% 49 4.01% 0.45% 0% Wildwood (NPU-H) 88.95% 35 5.79% 3.16% 1% Wildwood Forest 97.20% 45 4.20% 0.70% 0% Wilson Mill Meadows 85.35% 31 6.57% 0.76% 0% Wisteria Gardens 23.28% 47 7.94% 1.00% 1% Woodfield 87.93% 61 6.90% 0.38% 0% Woodland Hills 82.56% 52 3.49% 1.74% 0% Wyngate 92.36% 44 3.47% 0.10% 0%