My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005/06/15 Council Agenda Packet
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2005
>
2005/06/15 Council Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2017 2:25:37 PM
Creation date
2/10/2017 11:05:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Agenda Packet
Date
6/15/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
901
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
REAL ESTATE IMPACTS <br />This study also undertook the quantification of possible_effects of <br />the proximity of adult entertainment businesses on the value of <br />residential properties within a one thousand foot radius ,of <br />locations. their <br />In examining the potential impacts, three sources of residential <br />property values were Investigated: i.e,, Indianapolis Residential <br />Multiple Listing Summaries (MLS) of the Metropolitan Indianapolis <br />Board of Realtors, the 1980 Census (tract and block occupied, <br />single -unit housing valuation data); and, annual lending institu- <br />tion statements under the Federal home Mortgage Disclosure Act (MOA). <br />Summary data from the MLS were available over the period 1979 - <br />1982, while actual mortgage values reported by lending institutions <br />were available for the period 1977 - 1982. The U.S. Bureau of the <br />Census provides homeowner estimates of home value at the time of <br />the 1980 Census (April 1, 1980). <br />The data available from these three sources differ In other ways, <br />The 1980 Census, while relying on homeowner estimates of the worth <br />of property, is a 100 percent survey and Is described dam to the <br />block level. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data provide a record <br />of actual mortgages processed and reported by local lenders (only <br />a portion of the total volume). The lowest geographic level at <br />which this information is available is the Census Tract and, even <br />at this level, at times poses a difficulty with the available <br />sample size. Multiple Listing Summaries generally reflect an esti- <br />mate of worth based on current market conditions for the area and <br />can be assembled at virtually any geographic level since they are <br />listed by address. As in the case of the Mortgage Disclosure Act <br />statements, however, there are at times problems with the suffi- <br />ciency of the sample size at the small area level. <br />Each of the data sets presents some weaknesses. Although the 1980 <br />Census only reflects an estimate of housing value at one point in <br />time, it has the advantage of being a 100 percent survey of occupied, <br />single -unit housing. The other two sourcas offer time series data <br />over periods of four and five years. They have the liability, how- <br />ever, -of sometimes lacking a sufficient sample size at the small <br />area level in any given year to allow an acceptable level of statis- <br />tical confidence, <br />Due to these characteristics of the data, certain modifications <br />were made in the study's original intent. Rather than doing annual <br />comparisons of housing value, 1979 was chosen as the ccmparlson <br />year and the 1980 Census data set chosen due to the ability to <br />summarize it at the county, tract and block level. <br />EVER00038 <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.