sTATUS REPORT

STATUS REPORT: THE REGION'S HOUSING

PAGE

DESCRIPTION

THUMBNAIL

cover

STATUS REPORT:
THE REGION'S HOUSING

LAND-OF-SKY REGIONAL COUNCIL

BUNCOMBE -- HENDERSON -- TRANSYLVANIA -- MADISON

technical report standard title page

Technical Report Standard Title Page

1. Report No. CPA-NC-04-19-1023	2. Government Accession No. Fair Housing Ordin.		3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle Status Report: The Region's Housing			5. Report Date June, 1974
			6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) Land-of-Sky Regional Council Staff			8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address Land-of-Sky Regional Council 755 Merrimon Avenue P.O. Box 2175 Asheville, N.C. 28802			10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
			11. Contact/Grant no. CPA-NC-04-19-1023
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20410			13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final: June, 1974
			14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts This report will have as its objective the establishment of a framework within which future plans, programs and projects relating to housing will be constructed. This broad objective shall be realized by identifying housing problems and obstacles to the solution of those problems. The general goals and objectives relating to housing and adopted by the Land-of-Sky Regional Council are listed and are intended to be reflected in all future activities of the Council which relate to housing.
17. Key Words		18. Distribution Statement Copies available from: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22151
19. Security Classif. (of this report) Unclassified	20. Security Classif. (of this page) Unclassified	21. No. of Pages 78 pages	22. Price

STATUS REPORT: THE REGION'S HOUSING

THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT WAS FINANCIALLY AIDED THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, UNDER THE URBAN PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 701 OF THE HOUSING ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED,

LAND-OF-SKY REGIONAL COUNCIL

JUNE, 1974

BUNCOMBE - HENDERSON - MADISON - TRANSYLVANIA

LAND-OF-SKY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Executive Committee

Charles H. Campbell, Chairman
Curtis Ratcliff, 1st Vice Chairman
William Prim, 2nd Vice Chairman
William Ives, Secretary
James Ledford, Treasurer

Member Governments	Council Members	Alternate Members
Buncombe County	Curtis Ratcliff	Charles Clark
Henderson County	Clyde Jackson	William Prim
Madison County	James Ledford	Zeno Ponder
Transylvania County	William Ives	Mike Epley

Asheville	Richard Wood	Henry Colton
Biltmore Forest	Francis Field	George Stephens
Black Mountain	R. B. Stone	William Hickey
Brevard	Charles H. Campbell	Mark Osborne
Hendersonville	Boyce Whitmire	William Stokes
Hot Springs	J. R. Henderson	George Ramsey
Laurel Park	W. A. Baxter	Blanche Roberts
Mars Hill	William Powell	Carl Eller
Marshall	Lorado Ponder	Lawrence Ponder
Rosman	W. J. Cathey, Jr.	Edith Osborne
Weaverville	L. T. Sprinkle	Harry Harper
Woodfin	Hugh Roberson	Norman Austin

Regional Housing Committee

William Hickey, Chairman
Boyce Whitmire, Vice Chairman
J. R. Henderson
Linda Harrell
Cornelius Hunt
Jim Bailes
David Jones
Ron McElrath

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page	i
Land-of-Sky Regional Council Members	ii
Table of Contents	iii
List of Tables	iv
List of Illustrations	v
Summary	vi
Introduction	1
Chapter I. Present Trends in Housing Population Income and Occupation Housing Summary	3 3 10 19 50
Chapter II. Housing Problems and Obstacles	54
Chapter III. Housing Goals and Objectives	63
Chapter IV. Conclusion	67
Footnotes	69
Acknowledgments	70

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.	Population by Race by County, 1970
Table 2.	Population by Race by Township, 1970
Table 3.	Income by Families and Unrelated Individuals by Township, 1970
Table 4.	Employed Persons 14 Years and Older by Occupation, by Township, 1970
Table 5.	Housing Units by Total Number, Tenure, and Vacancy Status by County, 1970
Table 6.	Housing Units by Total, Tenure, and Vacancy Status by Township, 1970
Table 7.	Occupied Units by Race, by Township, 1970
Table 8.	Mobile Homes by Tenure by Township, 1970
Table 9.	Specified Owner Occupied Units for which Value is Tabulated, by Value, by Township, 1970
Table 10.	Specified Renter-Occupied Units for which Rent is Tabulated, by Monthly Gross Rent, by Township, 1970
Table 11.	Percentages of Owner Occupied Units by Family Income and Value of Structure, 1970
Table 12.	Occupied Units by Race by Persons Per Room by Township, 1970
Table 13.	Occupied Units by Race, Lacking Some Plumbing Facilities, by Township, 1970

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Illustration 1.	Region B by Township
Illustration 2.	Population
Illustration 3.	Poverty Level
Illustration 4.	Occupied Units Valued at Less Than $5,000
Illustration 5.	Occupied Units Valued Between $5,000 and $9,999
Illustration 6.	Overcrowded Index
Illustration 7.	Lacking Plumbing Facilities

SUMMARY

The primary purpose of this study is to establish a framework within which future plans, programs and projects relating to housing will be conducted. Region B is comprised of the four counties of Buncombe, Henderson, Madison and Transylvania. In 1970, the population of the Region was 223,576. Of this total, ninety-two percent (92%) was white, seven percent (7%) was black, and one percent (1%) was persons of other races. Buncombe County accounted for sixty-five percent (65%) of the total regional population.

In 1970, sixteen percent (16%) of the families in Region B earned less than $3,000 annually. Forty-two percent (42%) of the families in the Region earned between $7,000 and $14,999 a year. On the regional level, one-fourth (25%) of all the employed persons were working as operatives. The more rural areas of the Region, such as portions of Henderson and Madison Counties, have high percentages of farmers and farm laborers.

The total housing count in 1970 for the Region was 81,717 units. Of this total, sixty-four percent (64%) was owner-occupied, twenty-four percent (24%) was renter-occupied and eleven percent (11%) was vacant. In Henderson and Transylvnaia [sic] Counties, there are higher percentages of vacant units due to the recent developments in second home, seasonally vacant structures. Further, on the regional level, ninety-three percent (93%) of the total number of occupied units was occupied by white persons, six percent (6%) was occupied by black persons, and one percent (1%) was occupied by persons of other races.

vii

Of the total number of occupied units in the Region, seven percent (7%) was mobile homes units. Of the total number of mobile homes, eighty-four percent (84%) was owner-occupied and sixteen percent (16%) was renter-occupied.

Forty-three percent (43%) of the owner-occupied units in the Region are valued between $10,000 and $19,999. Nine percent (9%) of the owner-occupied units are valued at less than $5,000. Forty-three percent (43%) of the units in the Region for which rent is paid fall in the monthly-rent range of $80 to $149.

Of the total number of occupied units in the Region, seven percent (7%) of those units occupied by white persons are overcrowded and fourteen (14%) of those units occupied by black persons are overcrowded. Of the total number of units occupied by white persons, ten percent (10%) are lacking some or all plumbing facilities and fifteen percent (15%) of the units occupied by black persons are lacking some or all plumbing facilities.

Through an analysis of available population, income and occupation, and housing data for Region B on the township level, it becomes apparent that the most severe housing problems are found in the black population of the urban areas and the low-income white population of the rural areas.

Although housing represents a general problem in the Region, there are twelve specific problems listed in the report. These problems as well as the obstacles to the solutions of the problems involve identifications on all levels, such as financing problems, legislation problems, code enforcement, social problems, and geographical problems. The obstacles to the solutions of the problems also include identification of situations, such as lack of profit incentive for

viii

private contractors in the construction of low and moderate-income housing, and the problems involved with race discrimination.

Several goals and objectives are adopted by the Land-of-Sky Regional Council. These include encouraging adoption of codes, sound local planning programs which include land-use controls, and new approaches to the generation of additional standard low and moderate-income housing. Further, the goals and objectives are aimed at promotion and supporting programs which are designed to assist minority groups in obtaining housing, to train skilled laborers in housing production techniques, to aid in improving the mortgage market and other financial programs.

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Housing Act of 1949 promotes "A decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family." This objective is far from reality today. The problems relating to the provision of an adequate supply of standard housing are complex in nature and widespread. As the regional planning organization for the four counties which comprise Region B, the Land-of-Sky Regional Council is working to overcome these problems through the combined efforts of the government and private enterprise.

The Regional Housing Status will have as its objective the establishment of a framework within which future plans, programs and projects relating to housing will be constructed. This broad objective shall be realized by identifying housing problems and obstacles to the solution of those problems. Once these problems and obstacles are defined, the general goals and objectives relating to housing must be formulated and adopted by the Land-of-Sky Regional Council. Once these goals and objectives have been developed, they must be reflected in all future activities of the Council which relate to housing.

The first chapter of the report presents housing information made available by the Bureau of the Census. These statistics are used to provide a general overview of the housing stock of the Region as well as to define some of the general characteristics of the population of the Region. The second chapter has as its objective the enumeration of housing and housing-related problems which have been identified

within the four counties which make up Region B. Chapter 2 also attempts to identify existing obstacles to the solutions of the housing and housing-related problems. Chapter 3 discusses housing and housing-related objectives established by the Land-of-Sky Regional Council. The final chapter presents a conclusion to the report.

This report should be considered as the first step of a comprehensive program aimed at identifying, analyzing and satisfying the housing needs and problems of the Region. The end result of the housing work program for Region B will be the formulation of strategies through which these needs and problems can be resolved through coordinated efforts of governmental and private programs.

Chapter 1. PRESENT TRENDS IN HOUSING

Chapter 1 contains significant data regarding population, income, and housing. From an analysis of this data, it becomes apparent that the four counties of Region B have serious housing problems.

The information in this first chapter is presented on the regional, county and township levels (see Illustration 1). The analysis of the data is brief and follows a relatively simple format. Population data is reviewed first, then income and occupation data, and finally housing data, with a summary section concluding the chapter. Each table is analyzed separately. The discussions will be brief, as stated earlier, and will involve descriptions of the data, within the tables, on the regional level and on each county level as it relates to the Region. Those townships which vary greatly from the norm at the regional and county levels will be pointed out with regard to the subject matter being discussed. The final section will summarize and interrelate the results of the previous discussions and will draw general conclusions regarding the population and housing characteristics of Region B.

Population

In 1970, the Bureau of the Census reported that the total population for Region B was 223,576. From the inset below, it is apparent that Buncombe County accounts for sixty-five percent (65%) of the total regional population. Because Buncombe County constitutes such a large percentage of the regional total, the figures and percent distributions for Buncombe County will always be very similar to the regional patterns.

Illustration 1: Region B by Township

Area	Total Population	Percent of Region B Total
Buncombe County	145,056	65
Henderson County	42,804	19
Madison County	16,003	7
Transylvania County	19,713	9
Region B	223,576	100

Table 1 distributes the population within the Region by race. The category of "other" refers to all persons of races other than white or black. The largest portion of the total population in Region B is white (92 percent). The black population accounts for only seven percent (7%) of the total, and other races comprise one percent (1%) of the total regional population. The State of North Carolina reported in 1970 that the white population comprised seventy-six percent (76%) of the total population of the State. The black population accounted for twenty-two percent (22%), and the category of "other" made up one percent (1%) of the total State population. Buncombe County is similar in population make-up to the Region. As to be expected, the two minority groups make up a slightly higher percentage of the total county population due to the Asheville urban area and the general pattern of minority concentrations in urban centers over a long period. The remaining counties -- Henderson, Madison, and Transylvania -- show higher percentages of the white population as compared to regional totals. In the case of Madison County, the white population accounts for ninety-nine percent (99%) of the county population. In 1970, ninety-nine (99) black persons resided in Madison County.

Table 2 breaks down the general population information in Table 1 to the township level. Here, two different percentages were calculated. First, the percentage of the total township population was computed as a part of the total county population. Second, the percentage of the total specific race population was calculated as a portion of the relevant total township population.

Naturally, those townships in the Region which are highest in density are urban in nature. In Buncombe County, the highest densities are found in Asheville, Swannanoa, Black Mountain and Limestone townships. In Henderson County, Hendersonville township has the highest density. In Madison County, Township 1, Marshall, and Township 3, Mars Hill, have the highest densities; and in Transylvania County, Brevard township has the highest densities. From these indicators, a certain settlement pattern can be noticed which is directly related to the geography of the area. Past settlement occurred along stream valleys where the land was relatively flat. As one follows the major streams through the Region, these major urban areas will be noticed. Illustration 2 locates the population by actual number of inhabitants.

As stated previously, the largest accumulations of minority groups are found in townships which are urban in nature. In Buncombe County, Asheville township comprises over half of the total county population and seventy-two percent (72%) of the total minority population of the Region. The white population of Asheville township makes up eighty-four percent (84%) of the total township's population. The percentages of the two minority groups, black and other races, are much higher here than on the county or regional level, comprising sixteen percent (16%) of the township's population. Other urban and urbanizing townships in the county follow this pattern, whereas the outlying rural townships maintain white populations approaching one-hundred percent (100%).

In Henderson County, a similar population distribution pattern exists. Hendersonville township accounts for over half of the total county population. More black persons are located in this urban township than in the other townships of Henderson County combined. Those

Table 1. Population by Race by County, 1970

Table 2: Population by Race and by Township, 1970.

Illustration 2: Population

townships which make up the urban corridor between Asheville and Hendersonville, Clear Creek and Hoopers Creek townships, are similar in race distribution to the entire county. Again, the more rural townships in Henderson County contain a very small percentage of the county's minority population.

Madison County is unique in the composition of its population. The only races accounted for in 1970 were black and white, and eighty-three (83) of the ninety-nine (99) blacks in the county were in Township 3, Mars Hill. The sixteen (16) remaining black individuals were found in Townships 1, Marshall, and 6, Hot Springs.

Again, in Transylvania County, urbanized Brevard township accounts for half of the county's total population. As in other counties, the more urban townships are where the minority population is found. Brevard township and Cathey's Creek township have black populations accounting for approximately ten (10%) and eight percent (8%), respectively, of the township's total population. The remaining townships are rural and have virtually no minority population.

Income and Occupation

This section deals with the income and occupational characteristics of the Region's population. Income data are reviewed first. This type of information is directly related to housing in that a family's income and occupation generally have a bearing on the type of housing in which that family lives.

Table 3 shows the annual income of families and unrelated individuals. For the purposes of this study, the definitions of families and unrelated individuals are the same used by the 1970 census. Sixteen percent (16%) of the families in Region B earn less than $3,000

annually, which, in 1970, was considered poverty-level income. Thirty-one percent (31%) of the families earn between $3,000 and $6,999 annually. Forty-two percent (42%) earn between $7,000 and $14,999, and eleven percent (11%) earn $15,000 or more a year. On the State level, the 1970 Census reported that fifteen percent (15%) of all families in North Carolina earn less than $3,000 annually. Twenty-nine percent (29%) of the families in the State earn between $3,000 and $6,999 annually. Forty-four percent (44%) earn between $7,000 and $14,999, and twelve percent (12%) earn $15,000 or more a year. Illustration 3 identifies those townships in which twenty percent (20%) or more of the population have incomes which are below the poverty level.

Approximately sixty-five percent (65%) of the unrelated individuals in the Region earn under $3,000 a year. As income increases, the percentage of unrelated individuals decreases. On the State level, sixty-eight percent (68%) of the unrelated individuals earn less than $3,000 a year.

Buncombe County generally follows the pattern of the Region. Those townships which are more urban in nature are similar in income distribution for families and unrelated individuals to the county and regional patterns. The extremely rural townships, such as French Broad, Ivy, and Sandy Mush, have higher percentages of families and unrelated individuals earning less than $4,999 annually than the county in general (Table 3). These more rural townships have unusually high percentages of families and unrelated individuals at poverty level (below $3,000 annually). As to be expected, these same townships have low percentages of families and unrelated individuals in the $10,000 or more income brackets.

Table 3: Income by Families and Unrelated Individuals by Township, 1970

Table 3, cont'd.

Illustration 3: Poverty Level

The breakdown of incomes for families and unrelated individuals for Henderson County is similar to the regional distribution. The one outstanding township in income of families is Hoopers Creek, in which fifty-nine percent (59%) of all families earned less than $3,000 annually. The percentages of unrelated individuals in lower-income brackets are very high in the various townships. However, unrelated individuals are relatively few in number.

Families in Madison County generally have lower incomes than the families of the Region as a whole, according to the 1970 census. The percentage of those families earning under $3,000 in Madison County is twice as large as that for the Region. In addition, the percentage of families earning $3,000-$4,999 is higher in Madison County than in the Region. This pattern exists for the majority of the townships. Township 2, Laurel, has some forty-seven percent (47%) of its families earning less than $3,000. The percentage for Township 8, Spring Creek, is also very high (44 percent). Unrelated individuals in Madison County also generally earn less than they do on the regional level. Approximately eighty-four percent (84%) of the unrelated individuals in Madison County earn under $3,000 a year. This percentage is typical of all the Madison County townships. The outstanding exception is in Township 8, Spring Creek, in which one-hundred percent (100%) of the unrelated individuals earn under $3,000 annually.

In Transylvania County, there are higher percentages of families earning $7,000-$9,999 and $10,000-$14,999 than in the Region as a whole. However, Gloucester township shows a higher percentage (41 percent) of its families earning less than $3,000 a year. The percentages of unrelated individuals are higher in the lower-income brackets in Transylvania County than in Region B in general. However, there

are so few unrelated individuals, in each township, with the exception of Brevard township, that the percentages are not very significant.

From the preceding table, areas with concentrations of low-income families can be located. The information in Table 4 is intended to reinforce and to help explain the trends identified in Table 3. It is expected that areas within the Region having high concentrations of low-income families and unrelated individuals are areas in which there are high concentrations of individuals working at occupations characterized by below-average wage.

In Table 4, occupations were broken into ten major categories. They are as follows: professional and technical workers; farmers and farm managers; managers, officials and proprietors; clerical workers; sales workers; craftsmen and foremen; operatives or persons who operate heavy manufacturing machines; service workers; farm laborers; and all other laborers except farm and mine laborers. In Region B, the largest percentage of persons employed were operatives. This group alone accounted for one-fourth (25%) of all persons employed. The smallest percentage in the Region was farm laborers (1 percent). Professional and technical workers, clerical workers, craftsmen and foremen, and service workers roughly account for ten percent (10%) to fifteen percent (15%) as individual categories of the employed labor force. Managers and officials, and sales workers make up eight percent (8%) and six percent (6%), respectively, of the total regional employed population. Finally, farmers and farm managers, and laborers that do not work on farms or in mines are two percent (2%) and five percent (5%), respectively.

Table 4: Employed Persons 14 Years and Older by Occupation, by Township, 1970

Buncombe County generally follows the pattern of the Region in occupation distribution. Broad River, Flat Creek, French Broad, Ivy and Sandy Mush townships were all mentioned previously as having large percentages of families and related individuals in the lower-income brackets. These four townships generally have high percentages of operatives (approximately 38 percent). In addition, French Broad and Ivy townships have higher percentages of their labor force employed as farmers and laborers other than on farms or in mines. Sandy Mush township has very high percentages of farmers (23 percent) and farm laborers (6 percent).

Henderson County has generally the same occupational distribution as the Region. Edneyville, Green River and Hoopers Creek townships have been mentioned previously as having high percentages of low-income families and unrelated individuals. Edneyville township has high percentages of farmers (17 percent) and farm laborers (8 percent). Green River township has high percentages of operatives (35 percent) and farm laborers (6 percent). Hoopers Creek township also has a high percentage of operatives (35 percent). These types of jobs are typically not high-paying jobs and tend to reinforce the conclusion drawn from Table 3. Also, in these townships the percentages of workers in the typically higher-paying occupations (i.e., professional and technical, etc.) are lower than the county or regional percentages.

In Madison County, the percentages are lower in most categories than the regional percentages, with the exception of a high percentage of farmers (17 percent). This percentage runs high in all the townships. Of the three townships mentioned earlier as having low-income levels -- Township 2, Laurel, and Township 8, Spring Creek -- the per-[centages]

[per-] centages of farmers are extremely high (28 percent and 48 percent, respectively).

Transylvania County generally follows the occupational distribution of the Region. The two townships of Eastatoe and Gloucester have unusually high percentages of operatives (47 percent and 58 percent, respectively) as compared to the county (29 percent).

Housing

In 1970, the four counties of Region B had a total of 81,717 housing units. From the insert below, it is apparent that sixty-three percent (63%) of all units are in Buncombe County. Housing patterns in the Region closely follow population patterns.

Area	Total Housing Units	Percent of Region B Total
Buncombe County	51,618	63
Henderson County	17,502	21
Madison County	5,565	7
Transylvania County	7,032	9
Region B	81,717	100

Table 5 gives the total count of all housing units and separates the total into those units which are owner occupied, renter occupied and vacant. Vacant units include those units which are vacant for sale, vacant for rent, vacant year-round, and seasonally vacant.₂

Sixty-four percent (64%) of all the housing units in the Region are owner occupied. Twenty-four percent (24%) are renter occupied and eleven percent (11%) are vacant. Housing stock in each of the four counties generally follows this pattern. One slight difference is that nineteen percent (19%) of Henderson County's housing count was vacant in 1970. Here, as in Transylvania, there are many summer homes which

Table 5. Housing Units by Total Number, Tenure, and by Vacancy Status by County, 1970

are included in the vacant category under "seasonally vacant."

Table 6 simply carries the information provided in Table 5 to the township level. Two types of percentages were computed in this table. The count of all housing units for each township was calculated as a percentage of the total count of all housing units for the county. The percentages of owner occupied, renter occupied, and vancant [sic] units were computed as a portion of the count of all housing units of the relevant township.

In Buncombe County, Asheville township accounts for fifty-two percent (52%) of the total units for the county. Asheville township has a higher percentage of its units rented (33 percent) and a lower percentage vacant (6 percent) than do the remaining county townships. In Avery Creek and Flat Creek townships, over 80% of the total number of units are owner occupied. Flat Creek township's vacancy rate is one percent (1%). Black Mountain and Broad River townships have very high vacancy rates, (30 percent and 42 percent, respectively).

In Henderson County, Hendersonville township accounts for fifty-nine percent (59%) of the county's total count of housing units. Hendersonville township has a higher percentage of renter-occupied units (23 percent) than any other township in the county. Mills River township has more of its units that are owner occupied (73 percent) relative to the total number of units than the other townships of the county. As mentioned earlier, Henderson County has a high vacancy rate. Crab Creek, Edneyville and Green River townships all have very high vacancy rates (39 percent, 43 percent and 28 percent, respectively), much of it because of seasonally vacant, second homes.

Table 6. Housing Units by Total, Tenure, and Vacancy Status by Township, 1970.

Table 6, cont'd.

The bulk of the housing in Madison County is found in Township 1, Marshall, and Township 3, Mars Hill. With the exception of Township 8, Spring Creek, approximately sixty percent (60%) of the dwelling units in the townships are owner occupied, with an average of twenty-four percent (24%) rented. Township 8, Spring Creek, has only fifty-three percent (53%) of the units owner occupied and twenty-six percent (26%) rented. The vacancy rate here is twenty-one percent (21%), which is higher than any other township.

In Transylvania County, Brevard township has forty-seven percent (47%) of the total number of housing units in the county. Brevard township also has the highest percentage of renter-occupied units (27 percent) of the townships in the county. Boyd township has seventy-three percent (73%) of its units owner occupied, with a very low vacancy rate (9 percent). Dunns Rock, Gloucester, Hogback and Little River townships have very high vacancy rates due to the large numbers of seasonal units.

Table 7 summarizes all occupied housing units by race. The category of "other" includes all races other than black or white. In Region B, ninety-three percent (93%) of the total number of occupied units are occupied by white persons. Six percent (6%) are occupied by black persons, and one percent (1%) are occupied by people of other races.

Buncombe County generally follows the same pattern, though the percentage of black persons occupying units is slightly higher (8 percent) than that of the Region. Asheville township has the highest percentage of black persons occupying units (13 percent) of any township in the county, a percentage substantially higher than the county

Table 7. Occupied Units by Race and By Township, 1970

or regional percentages. Those townships which are rural have the lowest percentages of black persons occupying housing units.

Henderson County has a higher percentage of white persons occupying units (95 percent) and, therefore, a lower percentage of black persons occupying units (4 percent) relative to the regional percentages. The more urban townships of Hendersonville and Hoopers Creek have higher percentages of black persons occupying units (5 percent and 7 percent) than the county's percentages. Here, as in all the other counties, the more rural townships have few, if any, black persons occupying units.

In Madison County, the overall percentage of white persons occupying units accounts for ninety-nine percent (99%). Of the forty-one (41) black occupied units for the county, twenty-six (26) are in Township 3, Mars Hill. This accounts for two percent (2%) of the township's total occupied units.

In Transylvania County, the percentage of white persons occupying units is again very high (96 percent). In five of the eight townships in this county, all the occupied housing units are occupied by white persons. Brevard township has more black persons occupying units numerically than the other townships of the county combined (142 units).

The 1970 census separates mobile homes from other housing units. Table 8 gives a count of all the mobile homes in 1970 by township and also provides data as to the number of owner and renter-occupied units. Two types of percentages were computed for Table 8: the first percentage was computed in order to determine what part of all occupied units are mobile homes; the second relates the part of the mobile home stock which is owner occupied and renter occupied. At the regional level,

Table 8. Mobile Homes by Tenure by Township, 1970

seven percent (7%) of all the occupied units are mobile homes. Of the total number of mobile homes in the Region, eighty-four percent (84%) are owner occupied and sixteen percent (16%) are renter occupied.

Buncombe County is similar to the Region in both percent of units which are mobile units and owner/renter breakdown of mobile housing in the Region. Broad River township reported no mobile homes in 1970. Those townships which reported unusually high percentages of mobile homes as portions of their occupied units are Avery Creek (12 percent), Fairview (11 percent), Flat Creek (13 percent), Limestone (13 percent), Lower Hominy (11 percent), Sandy Mush (12 percent), Swannanoa (12 percent), and Upper Hominy (12 percent).

Henderson County has a slightly higher percentage of mobile homes (8 percent). The percentage of renter-occupied mobile homes (20 percent) is also higher in Henderson County than in the Region. Although the percentages are higher in some of the townships, Hendersonville township has the highest concentrations of mobile homes (556 units).

The percent of mobile homes in Madison County (6 percent) is less than the regional percent. A higher percent of the mobile homes in Madison County are owner occupied than in the Region. Hot Springs township had no mobile homes in 1970.

Transylvania County has ten percent (10%) of its occupied units as mobile homes. Of the total number of mobile homes (603 units), a slightly higher percent were owner occupied than in the Region as a whole. The Boyd and Catheys Creek townships reported over fourteen percent (14%) of their units as mobile homes. However, Brevard township has the highest concentrations of mobile homes (252 units). Due to the lack of in-[formation]

[in-]formation available, it is suggested that a survey should be done to update the mobile home inventory in the Region.

Table 9 gives the dollar value of "specified" owner-occupied units. The definition of a specified owner-occupied unit, according to the 1970 Census, is a one-family house on less than ten acres, without a commercial establishment or medical office on the property. The dollar value tabulations excluded mobile homes and trailers and units in cooperatives and condominiums. The dollar value of these specified owner-occupied units has been divided into five categories in Table 9.

On the regional level, the highest percentage of units was found in the category valued between $10,000 and $19,999 (43 percent). Houses valued at less than $5,000 account for nine percent (9%) of all the owner-occupied units. Twenty-two percent (22%) of these specified owner-occupied units are valued between $5,000 and $9,999, and twenty-five percent (25%) of the owner-occupied homes are valued at $20,000 to $49,999. In the Region, only one percent (1%) of the total owner-occupied units are valued at $50,000 or more. On the State level, twelve percent (12%) of the total specified owner-occupied units are valued at less than $5,000, with twenty-four percent (24%) valued between $5,000 and $9,999. Illustration 4 depicts those townships characterized by more than fifteen percent (15%) of occupied units valued at less than $5,000. Illustration 5 depicts those townships characterized by more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the occupied units valued between $5,000 and $9,999.

Buncombe County generally follows the same pattern as the Region. Some of the townships, however, do vary from the county and regional norms. In the category of units valued at less than $5,000, Limestone township has a much lower percentage of units (2 percent) than the county.

Table 9. Specified Owner-Occupied Units for Value Tabulated, by Value, by Township, 1970

Illustration 4. Occupied Units Valued Less than $5,000

Illustration 5. Occupied Units Valued Between $5,000 and $9,999

Sandy Mush township has almost half (47 percent) of its owner-occupied units valued at less than $5,000. Broad River township, Flat Creek township, French Broad township, and Ivy township also have more than twenty percent (20%) of their specified units valued at less than $5,000. In the category of $50,000 or more, Limestone township has eight percent (8%) of its owner-occupied units in this range.

Henderson County generally follows the same percentage distribution as the Region. There are slightly higher percentages in the county than in the Region in the categories of $10,000 - $19,999 and $50,000 or more due to the developments of the modern retirement communities. In the category of units valued at under $5,000, Hoopers Creek township has five percent (5%) of its total owner occupied units valued at under $5,000. The only township with a significant number of owner-occupied units valued at $50,000 or more is Hendersonville township (163 units).

Although Madison County has a high percentage of its owner-occupied units in the $10,000 to $19,999 bracket, that percentage (33 percent) falls short of the regional percent. Over one-quarter (25%) of the homes in the county are valued at under $5,000 and another quarter (25%) are valued at between $5,000 and $9,999. Only eleven percent (11%) are valued at $20,000 to $49,999; and in 1970, Madison County had no homes valued at $50,000 or more. Township 2, Laurel, reports almost two-thirds (63%) of its specified owner-occupied units are valued at less than $5,000 and a very small percent are valued between $5,000 and $9,999 (7 percent). Township 1, Marshall, has close to half its homes valued at between $5,000 and $9,999.

Transylvania County, on the whole, has a pattern of value distribution similar to the Region's. In the category of units valued under

$5,000, Eastatoe township has a much higher percentage of its units falling in this category (39 percent) than the county. Brevard township, on the other hand, has the smallest percent in the county (5 percent). Although Gloucester township has only twenty units in the $5,000 - $9,999, this accounts for forty percent (40%) of the total. Generally, the highest percentage of units in all the townships fall in the $10,000 - $19,999 value range.

Table 10 contains data concerning monthly rent paid for those units which are specified renter-occupied units. The definition of specified renter-occupied units is the same one used by the Bureau of the Census which excludes one-family units on ten acres or more. In Region B, forty-three percent (43%) of the units for which rent is paid fall into the $80 to $149 range. Seven percent (7%) rent for less than $40, forty-one percent (41%) rent for $40 - $79, eight percent (8%) rent for $150 - $229, and one percent (1%) of the leased units in the Region rent for $300 or more.

Buncombe County, as a whole, has the same percentage distribution for rental units as the Region. Outstanding townships in the category of "rent less than $40" are Flat Creek township (32 percent) and Ivy township (26 percent), both with percentages higher than the county's. French Broad township has no units in this category. Sandy Mush township has no units for cash rent. In the category of $40 - $79 paid for rent, French Broad, Ivy and Upper Hominy townships all have over half of their units for rent in this category. Most of the townships show close to fifty percent (50%) of their rental units falling in the $80 - $149 range. However, Fairview township has seventy-one percent

Table 10. Specified Renter-Occupied Units for Which Rent Is Tabulated, by Monthly Gross Rent, by Township, 1970.

Table 10, cont'd.

(71%) of its units in this category. There are no units which rent for $300 or more in Buncombe County.

Henderson County, on the whole, also follows the same distribution as the Region. Of the few rental units in the rural townships, most rent for $40 - $79, or $80 - $149. Hendersonville township, which contains the bulk of the rental units in the county, follows the county pattern closely.

Madison County has a higher percent of its rented units in the category of less than $40. Because there are so few units rented in Madison County, the township percentages are either suppressed in the published Census or are very high.

The percentages of rent in Transylvania County, as a whole, are similar to the regional percentages. The Brevard township again follows the pattern of the county. As in Henderson and Madison Counties, the more rural townships have relatively few units rented, causing the percentage to be extreme. The bulk of the county rental units are in Brevard township.

Table 11 gives percentages of owner-occupied units by family income and the value of the unit. For example, in Region B there is a total of 6,802 units in which the income of the occupant family is less than $3,000 annually. Of this total, eighteen percent (18%) of the units are valued at under $5,000; fifty-two percent (52%) are valued at less than $9,999. The table also gives total number of units by family income. For the purpose of this report, a primary individual is a one-person family.

As mentioned above, fifty-two percent (52%) of the families in the Region earning under $3,000 a year live in houses valued at less

Table 11. Percentages of Owner Occupied Units by Family Income and Value of Structure, 1970

Table 11, cont'd.

than $9,999. Of the families earning $3,000 - $4,999, fifty percent (50%) live in houses valued at less than $9,999. In the Region, fifty-four percent (54%) of the families earning between $5,000 and $9,999 live in houses valued between $5,000 and $14,999. As the income increases from $10,000 or more, the percentages of families living in higher valued homes increases. These percentages are generally consistent with the county percentages. Madison County, however, generally shows higher percentages of low-income families living in houses valued at less than $9,999 than the regional percentages. In general, the composition of the urbanized townships are similar to the county percentage distributions. The more rural townships tend to show higher percentages of low-income families living in houses valued at less than $9,999.

Table 12 contains information regarding the crowding index for housing in the Region. For the purposes of this study, over one person per room constitutes an overcrowded condition in dwelling units. In Table 12, the units have been sub-divided into those which are occupied by white persons and those which are occupied by black persons.

On the regional scale, eight percent of the total occupied units are overcrowded. At the State level, twenty-five percent (25%) of the total occupied units are overcrowded. In the Region seven percent (7%) of the units occupied by white persons and fourteen percent (14%) of the units occupied by black persons are overcrowded. Illustration 6 reflects the incidence of overcrowding in Region B.

In Buncombe County and Asheville township, a similar percentage of white-occupied units and black-occupied dwellings are overcrowded. Ivy township stands out with a rather high percentage (15 percent) of its white-occupied housing units overcrowded.

Table 12. Occupied Units by Race by Persons per Room by Township, 1970

Table 12, cont'd.

Illustration 6: Overcrowded Index

In Henderson County, the percentage of overcrowded white-occupied units is generally the same as for the Region. The percentage of the overcrowded quarters that are black-occupied (21 percent) is much higher in this county than the regional percentage. White-occupied units are more crowded in Blue Ridge township (13 percent), Crab Creek township (12 percent) and Green River township (11 percent) than in the county as a whole. Although much of the information regarding the black population is suppressed in the published Census, those black persons living in Hendersonville township have a high percent of overcrowded units (21 percent).

Madison County has the highest percentage of white overcrowded units of any of the four counties (10 percent). With few exceptions, white persons living in overcrowded conditions occur at high percentages throughout the county. The few black persons in the county live under similar conditions.

Transylvania County has a very high percentage of its black-occupied units which are overcrowded (25 percent). Boyd township is especially high (38 percent). The county, as a whole, has a relatively low percentage of white-occupied houses that are overcrowded (8 percent) . However, Gloucester township has by far the highest percentage of such units, though the number is small (24 percent or a total of 34 units).

Of the total number of occupied units in Region B, ten percent (10%) are lacking some or all plumbing facilities. For the purposes of this study, the indicator used for inadequate housing is the lack of some or all plumbing facilities. It is, of course, recognized that this assumption carries some problems with it since units with

plumbing facilities may be inadequate. For this reason, a structural conditions survey should be run to better determine the total number of substandard units in the Region. Table 13 contains information regarding these units by race which are lacking plumbing facilities.

On the regional level, ten percent (10%) of all occupied units lack some plumbing facilities. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the total occupied units in the State lack some plumbing facilities. Of the total number of units occupied by white persons in the Region, ten percent (10%) lack plumbing facilities. Fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of units occupied by black persons lack plumbing facilities. Those townships characterized by more than twenty percent (20%) of all housing units lacking some or all plumbing facilities are shown in Illustration 7.

Buncombe County has the lowest percentage of white-occupied units (8 percent) and black-occupied units (13 percent) lacking plumbing facilities. The more urban townships depict better housing conditions for white people but not for the black people. Only Asheville township has a smaller percentage of the black population living in units lacking some or all plumbing facilities (11 percent) relative to the county. A high percentage of white-occupied units in the rural townships, especially Ivy (41 percent) and Sandy Mush (54 percent) lack some or all of their plumbing facilities.

In Henderson County, the percentage of the white-occupied units drops (7 percent) while the percentage of the black-occupied is noticeably higher (30 percent). Again, percentages of white persons living in rural townships are generally higher than those living in the urban townships. Of the black population in Hendersonville town-

Table 13. Occupied Units by Race, Lacking Some Plumbing Facilities, by Township, 1970

Table 13, cont'd.

Illustration 7: Lacking Plumbing Facilities

ship, twenty-two percent (22%) of the units are inadequate structures; and fifty-one percent (51%) are inadequate in Hoopers Creek township.

Madison County has high percentages of both races living in units lacking some or all plumbing facilities in all townships. There are no exceptions.

In Transylvania County, the pattern is similar to the regional pattern. The percentage of white-occupied housing units, lacking plumbing facilities is lower in the urban townships. However, in the more rural townships, the percentages of white-occupied units lacking some plumbing facilities are high. In those townships which report information on black persons dwelling in units, the percentages of such units lacking some plumbing facilities are high.

Summary

It is apparent from the previous discussion that Region B is not without housing problems. Throughout the Region, the highest percentages of minority groups are located in the urban areas. Looking at the Region as a whole, housing conditions appear to be better in the urbanized areas than in the more isolated rural areas. In general, incomes are higher and the occupations are more varied in the urban areas than in the rural areas.

Buncombe County maintains patterns that are similar to the Region, partially because the county dominates the regional pattern. The data for the county reveal that there is a lower percentage of substandard units in the urbanized areas of Asheville, Black Mountain, Limestone and Swannanoa townships than in rural townships such as

Ivy and Sandy Mush. However, it should be remembered that the older urban areas have had water and sewer systems for many years. For this reason, the indicator used for structural condition (absence of some or all plumbing facilities) should be supplemented with a more detailed structural conditions survey, since this indicator is much less reliable in such areas. Again, incomes are generally higher in the Buncombe County urban areas. Since income is positively correlated with housing conditions one would expect the housing units in urban areas to be structurally better than in the more rural areas where incomes are lower. In Buncombe County, black people generally live in worse housing than white people. In the urban areas, these differences are reflected in the overcrowding index and substandard housing conditions data. The data indicate that the black population throughout the county, especially in urban areas, generally live in houses which are not on a par with dwellings occupied by white families. Further, the white population in the rural areas generally lives in less desirable housing units than the white population in urban areas. As stated previously, the white population in the rural areas generally has lower incomes, greater overcrowding and higher percentages of structures lacking some or all plumbing facilities.

The situation is very similar in Henderson County. The more urban areas of Hendersonville, Hoopers Creek and Clear Creek townships seem to have fewer housing-related problems than do the more rural townships of the county. In these rural townships, farming is a major source of income. Generally, this trend is accompanied by lower income levels than are reported for the urban townships which are characterized by more diverse occupational characteristics. From this,

in addition to the data given for the value of homes, it appears that the more rural areas in Henderson County are characterized by more serious housing problems.

It is also apparent that for the most part, members of minority races live in worse housing in the urban areas than do their urban white counterparts. In black dwellings, overcrowding appears more predominant, the percent of substandard homes is higher, and the value of the units are lower compared to the statistics for the urban white population. The census indicates that perhaps the most severe rural housing problems exist in Green River township and that Hendersonville township has the most severe black housing problems.

In Madison County, it is difficult to separate the areas having housing problems into urban-rural or white-black. Here, throughout the county, the general trend appears to be that units are valued lower, have worse overcrowding conditions and have a higher percentage of substandard units than is typical of the other Region B counties The two townships which depict the worst housing problems of the county are Township 5, Walnut, and Township 8, Spring Creek. The major occupational group in both townships is farming, which is accompanied by lower incomes compared to the Region as a whole. As might be expected, the houses in these townships are of substantially lower values. Township 1, Marshall, and Township 3, Mars Hill -- the two urban areas of the county -- enjoy better housing than the county in general. However, the income, occupation and housing conditions are only slightly better in these townships.

In Transylvania County, the housing problems are generally found in predominantly white, rural areas, and to lesser extent, with the

black population in the urban areas. Generally, income and occupational conditions are better in the more urban areas such as Brevard, Boyd, and Little River townships. In addition, the values of the dwelling units occupied by white families are higher here than values for white occupied units in rural areas. Gloucester, Eastatoe and Hogback townships have a high percentage of second homes which are generally standard. However, for those units which are occupied year round, the values are lower and the conditions are worse due to the characteristic rural income. The black population in the urban townships of Boyd and Brevard live in generally worse conditions than is typical for white people.

Though extensive information was not available in regard to mobile homes in the Region, enough data is available to determine the total number of dwelling units. More information should be collected to update the total count of mobile homes and the conditions of these units throughout the Region since there appears to be a rapid trend toward use of mobile housing since 1970.

In summary, the 1970 census depicts poorer housing conditions in the rural areas of Region B than in the urban areas. Within the urban areas, the poorest housing conditions are generally found among the black population. In the rural areas of the Region, white families inhabit the houses of poorest conditions. In both rural and urban areas of the Region, the poorest conditions in housing are characteristic of low and moderate-income families. Although, in relative terms, general housing conditions, income characteristics and structural values are less satisfactory throughout Madison County, the housing problems indicated in the census are more serious in terms of absolute numbers in Buncombe County.

Chapter II. HOUSING PROBLEMS AND OBSTACLES

This chapter will be devoted to the task of enumerating problems related to housing within the four counties which comprise Region B. Although it is recognized that housing represents a general problem area within the Region, little effort has been expended in the past to identify specific housing problems. As an initial step to address the Region's housing problems, a regional housing committee was designated by the Land-of-Sky Regional Council early in 1974. This committee was charged with the responsibility of promoting a coordinated approach to the identification and solution of housing problems throughout the Region. The committee and staff immediately initiated a process designed to define the Region's housing problems and objectives.

The basic approach taken to this problem identification effort was to select a cross-section of housing interests within the Region and to conduct personal interviews with individuals representing these interests to determine their feelings regarding housing problems within the Region. Individuals who were interviewed represented local housing authorities, housing inspectors, social service activities, financial institutions, local officials, realtors, and certain user groups such as aging groups, migrant and seasonal workers, minority groups and the disadvantaged.

From the interviews with the above interests and from statistical indicators summarized in Chapter 1, the following list of

housing problems and obstacles to solutions of the problems was developed as a general concensus [sic] of those persons interviewed:

There is an inadequate housing supply at all income levels within Region B. This shortage of housing units has envolved [sic] primarily because construction of new units has not kept pace with population increases. Although the general population growth trends have stabilized in recent years, the natural increases which occurred twenty to twenty-five years ago are the portions of the population now seeking housing. This, compounded by a growing market for retirement and summer or recreational housing, has resulted in a serious situation. In short, the supply of housing is not keeping up with the need for housing. A consequence of this fact is that what housing does exist, sells or rents for higher prices than if an adequate supply were available.

There are presently substantial numbers of substandard dwelling units within the Region. As pointed out in the preceding chapter, the incidence of substandard housing conditions is greater for low income black families in urban areas and low income white families in rural portions of the Region.

Finance-related problems are a major constraint to achieving an adequate supply of standard housing. Currently, many banking and lending institutions are

	having difficulty in obtaining money for the purpose of mortgage lending. The interest rates at which these institutions obtain money is high and consequently, the interest rate for the consumer is also high.
4.	Material and labor costs for housing construction have increased rapidly in recent years, driving housing costs upward and increasing the builder's profit risks.
5.	Although the North Carolina legislature has passed enabling legislation providing local units of government authority to adopt construction and housing codes, there are several units of government within the Region which have not taken action to adopt these codes. Further, most of the governmental units in the Region lack adequately trained staff to enforce codes. Consequently, new homes which are being constructed are often not built in accordance with proper building codes. In addition, few governmental units support ongoing housing inspection and improvement programs.
6.	Another problem of concern involves the inability of persons on fixed incomes to keep up with the rising costs of housing, making it near prohibitive for these people to purchase housing and even make needed repairs and pay taxes on already owned housing. This is especially true of elderly and

	disabled people. In these cases, their incomes do not increase as the cost of living rises. A consequence of this is that these people spend a larger percentage of their income on daily necessities, with the surplus being insufficient for mortgages, maintenance costs and higher taxes.
7.	Discrimination on the basis of race continues to be a major problem. There is a particular problem in real estate sales to minority individuals and minority families.
8.	The shortage of land suitable for development and rapidly increasing land costs have compounded the problems related to increased housing construction costs. Competition for available land from non-local interests related to the tourism and recreation industry has intensified the problem of available land suitable for development at reasonable prices.
9.	The general absence of adequate land-use controls, including zoning and sub-division regulations has resulted in incompatible land-use patterns and uncontrolled sprawl development throughout the Region The problem is further compounded by the absence of local trained enforcement personnel and widespread lack of public acceptance of land-use control concepts.

10.

Migrant and seasonal workers in the Region have serious housing problems. Seasonal families usually inhabit rent-free units provided by their employers. In most cases, little repair work or maintenance is done to the building or property by the employer. Most units are not only in need of major repairs, but also lack plumbing facilities and are overcrowded.

11.

A comprehensive approach to the solution of housing and housing-related problems has never been developed at the Federal or State levels. This has resulted in a multiplicity of housing assistance programs which often do not reach the appropriate target groups and fail to address the real problems. This fragmented approach has resulted in changes in program emphasis; inconsistent program funding; impoundment of needed funds appropriated for housing; uncertainty at local levels concerning availability of Federal and State assistance; unnecessary duplication of efforts and resources; excessively complex regulations, eligibility requirements and administrative procedures; and emphasis on programs for urban areas with few programs and little funds for rural areas.

12.

Mobile homes are beginning to present some serious problems in housing. Although mobile homes serve as a viable alternative to housing for many people,

they bring with them many problems. The quality of construction of mobile homes is generally not as good as for conventional dwelling units, causing a degree of hazard to the inhabitants. These units are known for their susceptibility to damage from fire, due to types of materials commonly used in construction. Mobile homes are also particularly vulnerable to damages by wind and flooding. Local government has been slow to impose regulations on mobile homes. This is not only true for locational requirements, but also for safety regulations such as tie-down procedures.

The mobile home dealers often feel their responsibility is over after the sale. There is a growing concern that the dealers should follow up with programs which would educate the buyers as to proper use and maintenance of the structures.

There are also the beginnings of a problem in the disposal of dilapidated and abandoned units. Many of the units purchased ten years ago have deteriorated to the point at which they were abandoned, leaving unsightly and unsafe structures which are difficult to properly dispose of.

There are many obstacles which prevent solutions to the above problems from occurring. In order for the problem identification to be meaningful, it is felt the obstacles to the solutions must also be

realized. The following is a list of the obstacles to the solutions of housing problems in Region B:

1.	Absentee property owners often find it less profitable to improve and maintain low-income rental property since such improvements and maintenance is costly and results in higher property taxes for these rental properties. Such expenses are also difficult to pass on to low-income tenants.
2.	Low-income, owner-occupied dwellings often do not receive needed repairs and maintenance due to the inability of the owner to finance these improvements.
3.	Low and moderate-income families find it difficult to finance housing purchases due to lending practices of local financial institutions and the competition for bank loans from other sources.
4.	There is a general absence of sufficient profit incentives for private contractors in the construction of housing for low and moderate-income groups. Middle and upper-income housing involves less risk and yields higher returns.
5.	A general shortage of skilled and experienced labor often results in lower quality workmanship and increased cost of new housing.
6.	Rising material costs have resulted in more frequent

	substitution of good construction materials with materials of lower quality in an effort to cut overall construction costs.
7.	In recent years, rapid development in suburban areas has caused the interest of government and private enterprise to shift away from older urban neighborhoods, resulting in general neglect and reduction in investments which would improve services and conserve these older neighborhoods.
8.	A serious obstacle to the solution of problems related to race discrimination is the reluctance of minority families residing in blighted minority areas to move away from a familiar environment into predominantly white neighborhoods, even though these families have succeeded in breaking financial barriers. This obstacle is compounded by resistance to black families moving into white populated neighborhoods from the residents.
9.	The physical features of the Region often act as an obstacle in developing additional standard housing. Steep mountainous terrain and the existence of flood prone areas limit the availability of suitable land for development. This, in addition to a general absence of land-use policies, results in substandard construction practices and misuse of land.

10.	Public resistance to publicly subsidized housing has been strong. Citizens are often reluctant to approve of public housing or apartments of any kind in their communities.
11.	It is difficult to provide sufficient incentive, both economic and social, to encourage occupants of subsidized low-rent housing to improve their economic status to the point that they might rely upon conventional housing.
12.	There has been a general lack of innovative programs within local housing authorities. Typically, little effort is expended toward developing approaches to solving housing problems at the local level. Local housing authorities are often totally reliant upon Federal subsidy programs.

As noted from the above lists, the Region has a number of housing problems. However, it is apparent that the general public is not aware of these problems. Educating the public to the seriousness of these problems is requisite to their solution. If support is not shown by citizens in the Region, efforts made to improve the housing situation will have little impact.

Chapter III. HOUSING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The major goals adopted by the Land-of-Sky Regional Council in regard to housing were established to function as guidelines for future planning and implementation activities in the area of housing. The housing goals are general goals necessitating the need for the establishment of more specific housing objectives which are directly related to each housing goal.

The major goal of the Council in regard to housing is to provide every citizen of the Region with a satisfactory living environment within a meaningful range of housing choices. This goal includes providing an ample supply of housing that is safe, healthy and blight free, at reasonable costs, for all residents of the Region, regardless of income, race, age, sex, or ethnic background. Another goal of the Council is to develop a workable plan for meeting the future housing needs of the Region. This is to insure that housing problems are to be considered throughout Land-of-Sky Regional Council's planning and development programs. The majority of the objectives listed below are capable of being implemented on the local and regional scale.

1.	To encourage adoption of most recent standard construction and housing codes by each local unit of government. To encourage review of existing codes and to promote the elimination of any provisions barring the use of new building techniques or requiring the expenditure of

	unnecessary funds. Encourage on a continuing basis the upgrading of inspection systems.
2.	To encourage sound local planning programs which reflect recognized housing needs within their respective jurisdictions.
3.	To encourage the adoption of sound land-use control programs, including zoning and subdivision regulations which are designed to minimize land-use conflicts, unnecessary public investments in services and facilities, and recognize local housing problems and objectives.
4.	To encourage the use of new approaches to the generation of additional standard low and moderate-income housing such as rehabilitation of older housing, conservation of older neighborhoods, sale of public housing to residents, instructing residents in home repair and maintenance, etc. To encourage additional federal monies to be invested in maintenance and recreational facilities for existing public housing sites. To encourage State and Federal governments to implement additional programs aimed specifically at rural areas as well as those target groups within the urban areas.
5.	To assist in improving citizen participation, public awareness and information in efforts to solve housing problems.

6.	To promote continuous monitoring of housing needs on a sub-area basis. To assist and encourage coordination between private profit, non-profit, and public agencies to develop standard housing and to address their community-wide housing needs.
7.	To encourage the use of new, safe and standard mass production techniques for housing.
8.	To assist and encourage municipal and county governments to adopt mobile home regulations for control of location of units and insuring the safety of such units. To encourage the proper disposal of abandoned mobile homes.
9.	To encourage the use of non-discriminatory actions in housing through positive actions by local governments such as the adoption of fair housing ordinances.
10.	To promote programs which train skilled labor in housing production techniques.
11.	To promote actions which aid in improving the mortgage market and other financial programs in regard to home improvements and home ownership.
12.	To prepare a comprehensive study of the regional housing market and a plan of action for dealing with the Region's housing problems.
13.	To promote and support programs designed to benefit seasonal and migrant workers' housing with the Region.

14.	To encourage developers to build an adequate mix of types, sizes, and values of housing units.
15.	To work with State and local, public and non-profit agencies in order to encourage housing development in the Region.

Chapter IV. CONCLUSION

This Status Report on housing was undertaken to establish a framework for future housing plans, programs, and projects within the Region by analyzing available data and by identifying the housing and housing-related problems as well as the obstacles to the solutions of the problems. Further, this study lists the major goals and objectives of the Land-of-Sky Regional Council related to housing.

In order to achieve the goals and objectives adopted by the Council, a coordinated regional effort on the part of local units of government and the Council itself must be undertaken. The first step, the identification of housing problems and goals, has been completed in this study. In order to solve these problems and achieve these goals related to housing, the Council must develop a comprehensive approach which will promote better understanding of the economics of the regional housing market, evaluate all feasible alternatives to the solutions of the housing problems and formulate a coordinated and reasonable course of action designed to realize the Region's housing goals which simultaneously attempts to involve and educate the Region's citizens.

As an initial step toward developing a strategy to deal with the Region's housing problems, the Council has adopted a three-year housing work program. As was pointed out several times in this study, there is currently a need for updated housing conditions

information within the Region. Therefore, the next step will be to conduct a regional housing inventory and structural conditions survey in order to more clearly understand the Region's housing stock. This inventory and survey will be followed with a housing market analysis which will involve an analysis of the housing needs in relation to available supplies and present and future demands. From the basic understanding provided by these studies, a plan of action designed to achieve the Region's housing goals can be prepared and implemented.

FOOTNOTES

¹A family consists of a household head and one or more other persons living in the same household who are related to the head by blood, marriage, or adoption; all persons in a household who are related to the head are regarded as members of his (her) family. An unrelated individual is a member of a household who is not related to anyone else in the household.

²For further information regarding second-home developments and seasonally vacant units, see Economic Analysis of Recreation Market and Development Potentials in the Southern Highlands of North Carolina, Economic Development Center, Western Carolina University, November, 1973.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was prepared by the staff of the Land-of-Sky Regional Council under the direction of the Regional Housing Committee, chaired by William Hickey. The report was written by Tracy Morrison, Planning Technician, under the supervision of Dennie Martin, Director