1998 Residential Survey - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

NEAR ROSEVILL� . . WITHIN METRO . . . . OiJTSIDE OF METRO DON'T KNOW/REFi1SED 8% .............--•..._.... �oio ....�,.,................. 11% . ........ . a�io Respondent� with living parents or in-laws residing outside of the City of Rose��ille were thcn asked: Ilave you considered having one or mnre of them move to be near you, in or close to Roseville? Forty-three percent had considered moving ane or more of them to or near Roseville: YES................... ... NO..................... ...... DQN'T KNOW/REF[JSED . . . . . . . . . . .. ............ 6% ............. 8% , .... ....... 0% Across the com�munity, six percent of thc respondents had aging par�nts or in-laws they had considered moving closer to the city. Summary and Conclusions Residents favored a pro active approach to dealing with the issue of housing blight an� deteriorating neighborhoods. By a seventy-three percent to sixteen percent judgment, residents supported the City affering funding and expertise ta residential properiy owners and neighborhoods in deteriorat:ng areas for both hou.5ing and neighbvrhood rehabilitation. By a sixty-nine percent to fifteen percent margin, respondents favored the City of Rosevilte acquiring blighted housing for either renovation or removal. And, by a narrow forty-four percent to forty percent verdict, residents supported the City aggressively aidin� in the purchase and redeveiopment of deteriorating and biighted neighborhoods as multi-family housing opportunities, retail shopping, and/or commercial office buildings. Consistent wiih the activist orientation toward housing hlight, by a seventy-one percent to eighteen percent judgment, residents endorsed the institution of a system of regular inspection af �he exterior of alt renta� units in the coznmunitv. By a clossr fifty-two percent ta thirty-five percent verdict, residents also favored the institution of a system of regular inspection of the exteri�r of all single family hor:les and duplexes. From a list of five types of developrnent, forty-six perccnt rated the provisior� of more housing opportunities for young farr�ilies and retirees as the "top priority" or "second priority" for tIie community. Thirty-seven percent each chas� providing inore head-of-household jobs and providing more recreational and leisure time offerings. Twenty-nine percent rated increasir�g the tax base as the "top priority" or "second priority." On a beautification issue, seventy-two percent favored making the placement of utility lincs 63