Laserfiche WebLink
While forty-four percent "favored" this approach. fort� percent n�re "opposec�" to it: <br />S"I'RONGLY FAVOR . . . . . . . . . I�% <br />FAV4R.......................... ....... .. .. 30% <br />OPPOSE ............. . ......................... 26% <br />STRONGLY OPPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14% <br />DON'T KNOW/REFUS�D . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 G% <br />Sixteen percent were unsure about this approach to redevelopment. <br />Supporters were more apt to be empty nesters and residcnts who feel the yuality of Iife is <br />excellent, while they were less apt to be residents who fee� the quality of life is good or only fair. <br />Finally, the actual acquisition of the blighted housing was explored: <br />Would you_favor or oppose the City of Roseville ac- <br />quiring blighted hausing for either renovation or re- <br />moval? <br />Sixty-nine percent "favored" this approach: <br />STR(�NGLY FAVOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26% <br />F�1VOR ........................................ . 43% <br />OPPOSE.......................................... 10% <br />STRONGLY OPPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5% <br />D4N'T KNOW/R�FUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16°�0 <br />Fifteen percent "opposed" it, while sixteen percent were uncertain about this type of approach. <br />Support was higher among over $50,000.00 annual income households and residents who fccl <br />the quality of life is good or only fair. It was lower among forty-five to sixty-four year olds, <br />owners of homes valued at over $150,000.00 and Precincts One, Twc� and Z�irec residents. <br />Residents, then, posted significant majorities in favor af two approaches for the City of <br />Roseville: the offering of funding and expertise to residential property owners and <br />neighborhaods, as well as the acquisition of blighted housing for either renovation or removal. <br />De�elo mer�t Priorities <br />Roseville residents were asked a two-part question about overall development priorities: <br />Should the TOP priority for development in this city <br />be on increasing the tax base, prnviding head-of-hnuse- <br />hold jobs, providing housing opportunities for young <br />familres and retirees, providing recreational and leis- <br />ure time offerings, ar attracting more retail shopping <br />57 <br />