State of Georgia Housing Element , Part I 
Housing Issues and Alternatives 
GA 
(}.tIc! ! J 
/ Y) / 
jCi'7 YJ I-J~ 
pI. / 
 
60 50 40 30 
20 
10 
 
1970 
 
1971 
 
1972 
 
1973 
 
1974 
 
1975 
 
1976 
 
1977 
 
  ./ 
./ STATE OF GEn RG IA 
HOUS IN G ELEMENT) PA RT I . eSTATE HOUS ING I SSUE S AND ALTER NATIVES) ~ 
 
PREPAR ED BY GEO RGIA STAT E OFFIC E OF HOUSING BERD I E R. HARDON) HOUSIN G DI RECTOR 
 
AREA DEVE LO PME NT DIV I SION 
 
ED ADAMS) AS SI STANT COMMISSIONER 
 
@ 
 
Q 
 
GEORGIA n EP A RT~1ENT nF r: nMMli NITY AFFAI RS 
 
HENRY M. HUCKABY) COMMI SS IONER 
.l...q_7I- 
 
THE PREPARATION OF TH I 
COMPREHENSIV~ PLA N ~IN G 
 
S REPORT WA GRANT FROM 
 
STHFIENAUN. 
 
CED S, 
 
IN PART THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF 
 
A 
 
HOUSING AND lJRBAN IJEVELOPMENT. 
 
C PA-GA- 04 - n ~-l nn~ 
 
 ABSTRACT AND SIDAMARY for 
STATE OF GEORGIA HOUSING ELEMENT PART I 
ABSTRACT Part I of the Housing Element f o r the State of Georgia : provides background data for the scope and nature of the State's housing problems which should be addressed by a comprehensive housing policy statement . A comprehensive housing policy will facilitate the State's efforts to achieve the goal of ~a decent home and a suitable living environment for all Georgians". Findings related to problem areas which are applicable to the entire State or a large portion thereof and which have a reasonable relationship to the attainment of the State housing go a l are summarized on the following pages. 
i 
 
 SUMMARY 
The Need for Hou~ing Assistance 
The need for standard housing units in an area is equal to the number of standard units that must be made available (through new construction, rehabilitation of substandard units or conversion from non-residential uses) in order to adequately house all households residing in the area. An estimated 695,000 units are needed by 1980 to replace substandard units, provide for population growth and replace projected losses. 
Geographically, the greatest relative need exists in the more sparsely populated rural areas of the state while the greatest absolute need exists in the urbanized regions. For example, 5.1% of the housing units within the Atlanta region are substandard while almost 34% of the housing units in Middle-Flint and Oconee are substandard. On the other hand, the Atlanta region contains more than 11% of all substandard housing in the state. 
According to 1970 Census data, a profile of the occupants of substandard housing indicated: 
89% of all substandard housing was singlefamily detached structures while the remaining 11% was multi-family rental housing. In terms of tenure 61% of substandardhousing was occupied by renters and 39% by owners. 
71% of households in substandard housing had an annual income of less than $7,000 in 1970. Those households in this lowest income range generally have the fewest alternatives of which to avail.themselves. 
26% of the substandard housing was occupied by senior citizens, a market group requiring specific designation because of their special needs. 
47% of all inadequate housing was occupied by blacks while blacks occupied 22% of all housing. This inequity is a function of both inadequate income and historical housing discrimination. 
The 1977 potential market for housing assistance (new construction and substandard rehabilitation) is estimated to be approximately 307,000 units. This estimate considers that some households needing housing will be able to obtain the housing through the private sector without housing assistance and that some housing assistance has been provided in areas which reduces the need. 
ii 
 
 Housing Cost Versus Household Income 
Housing Cost has emerged as the number one housing issue . The cost of single-family housing is increasing at a faster rate than household income. The result of this trend is that fewer Georgians are able to afford single family housing on the open market. Simultaneously, production levels for multi-family housing remain very low which further restrict housing choices . 
By 1976 only 18% of new single-family detached housing in the south sold for less than $30 ,000 resulting in an average and median sales price of $43 ,800 and $40,500 respectively. Financial institutions and local housing studies tend to support these trends across the state for non-subsidized housing. 
By 1976, 76% of housing which sold for $30 ,000 or less was mobile housing. Mobile homes are a major consumer alternative in many of Georgia's rural areas. 
Consumer income has not increased at the same rate as the increasing cost of housing. Income increased about 7.8% annually while cost of housing increased about 15% annually since 1970. 
Increases in housing costs may be attributed to inflation , production fluctuations and constructions costs. 
Program Utilization (An Assessment of Housing Production and Assistance Programs 
Section 8 - Rental Assistance Program 
This  Housing Pro gram administered by HUD consists of three portions : (1) Existing, (2) New Constrution , and (3) Substantial Rehabilitation. Thus far, only the first two portions have been useable in our state. For FY 1975 and FY 1976, Georgia had 'a higher percentage of total committed Section 8 funds than neighboring ,states in the southeast. As of June 1977, a total of 10,495 units were committed in the state. Of this number, only 3,838 tenants were actually under contract and receiving program assistance. This includes activities of all public housing authorities (state and local level), 'a s well a s new construction by private developers. 
The major problems which are impeding implementation of the Existing Program, particularly in rural areas, are the lack of housing meeting HUD's occupancy standards , low rental vacancies, and applicants in substandard housing which can't be rehabilitated because of reluctance or economics. 
The lack of smooth interim and/or permanent financing vehi cles s e e ms to b e the major problem hampering the Section 8 New Co n s t r u c t i o n Program in the state. 
iii 
 
 Section 235(j)(4) - Single Family Homeownership Subsidized Program 
Since reactivation of the program in January of 1976, only 52 loans have been made in Georgia. 
While the stigma attached to the old Section 235 program is a problem, others include the low maximum income limits and mortgage limits. 
Section 520 - Rural Single~Family Homeownership Program and Section 515 - Rural Rental Multi~Family Housing Loans 
Although the most severe housing needs are in the rural areas, the major resources for rural housing are being underutilized in the state. In a report prepared by the Housing Assistance Council, Georgia received funding from FmHA which averaged $168 per substandard unit versus the national average of $565. In addition to low funding level, the depth of the assistance does not benefit low~income significantly unless it is combined with other assistance programs. 
To in crease utilization of FmHA funds in the state , a method for a more equitable distributi on of FmHA funds among the states is needed, along with staffing adjustments and greater pUblic information about under-used programs in appropriat e a reas. 
GRFA Homeownership Loan P rogr am 
Sinc e the i n i ti a l s ale of bonds in the amount of $50 , 00 0 , 0 00 in No v e mb er , 1976 , 548 loan applicat ions h ave been approved for an average loan amoun t of $ 2 7 ,921 (as of July, 1977). 
The distr ibution o f GRFA loan activity has generally coinc ided with FHA or VA lenders. If no FHA or VA lende rs a re making loans in a locality, then the GRFA Home owne r s h i p pro gram is not being utilized i n t he a r ea . 
Program Utilization (An Ass es sme nt of Housing Rehabilitation Programs) 
The deterioration of the s t oc k o f s t andar d housing continues to add to the number of substandard housing. If the State Housing Goal is to be achi e ved (and ma int ained) there is a need to abate and address this problem. 
The 1974 Housing and Communit y De v elopment Act has a major objective: the preservation of the exi s t i ng housing inventory. 
Housing rehabilitation programs in clude EUD/FHA Title I, 
Section 312, Section 504 an d Section 502 . Housing Rehabilitation 
iv 
 
 is a priority of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act . as evidenced by their funding priorities. 
Problems related to rehab differ across the State. In some localities the condition of the ~ousing stock dictates that too few units are feasible for rehab~ Other problems relate to availability of funding, the ability to leverage available funds, i.e., attract private investment and the high interest rates for non-subsidized loans. 
Program Utilization CAn Assessment 'o f Housing Programs from the . User Perspective 
Many builders and financial institutions across the state have chosen not to participate in the subsidized housing programs. Reasons cited most often are: 
lack of expertise low profit margin greatly increased time demands and red tape complexity of the programs 
A survey conducted of potential c lients and service providers indicated that there is a general lack of knowledge of available housing programs. 
Regulatory Controls as a Factor in Housing Development 
Zoning and subdivision regulations are the major control over the location and type of housing development. The spatial distribution of zoning and subdivision practices in Georgia indicate that a large portion of the state does not have any control over specific land uses. The areas that are controlled by zoning and subdivision a r e, in most instances, more heavily populated and contain a large percentage of Georgia 's total population. 
There is a growing controversy alleging that subdivision standards and design criteria are excessive. Examples cited include rights of ways, sidewalk requirements, block lengths and widths, residential setback lines and storm drainage facilities. 
Building codes provide the minimum allowable standards builders must meet throughout the construction process . A specific complaint of homebuilders conc erning building codes is lack of standardization from area to area. Variations in building codes require variations in structural design between communities in close proximity who rarely have the same standard. This problem is frequently referred to as local customizing. 
For codes to be meaningful , they must be enforced, Too often enforcement consists of issuance of a building permit or token inspection. Many localities do not have the financial resources to hire a full-time or part-time qualified inspector, 
Mobile homes have b ecome a major consumer alternative for low and moderate income households, particularly in rural areas. 
v 
 
 Mobile homes tend t o plac e demands on public fac ilities and services disproportionate to t he r e v enu e t h e y gener a te . 
Environmental Con c e rn s Affec tin g Ho us i n g Dev e l o pm e n t 
Env i ronmental controls affe cting hous i n g de ve l op men t includ e f l o o d p l a i n co n t rols, Coastal Ma r s h l and P r o t ect io n Act, Erosio n and Sedimentation Co n t r o l Act, Water Quali t y St an d a r d s, S a n d Du ne P r o t ect ion regulations an d the availabili t y of water a n d s ew er f aci l itie s. 
En v i ronmental cons t raint s su ch a s g e o l o gy , t o p o g r ap hy , vegetation and hy d r o logy act as pot e nt i a l limi t a t i o n s t o new h o u s i n g developments. These constraints manife s t t hemselv e s d i f f e r e n t l y ac ross the state. (See map depicting environmen t a l regio ns, pag e 144.) 
In the High l and Re g i on , t h e mos t s e v ere c o n s t r a i n t is the availab il it y of s uitable so i l s . Much of the region is cov e r ed b y st eep s l op e s a n d th i n so i l allowin g few s i tes f or i n ten s i v e co n s tr u c t i on . Placement of s ep t i c tanks i s a l s o r e s trict ed in the area. 
The basic p r o b l e ms in th e P i e d mo n t e g i o n lie in limited wa t er s u pplies , s ew age d i sposal a nd water pollution . 
The majo r c o n s t r a i n t s t o hou sin g d e v e l opmen t i n th e Coastal Pl ai n s r e g i on are u r b a n s ur f ac e wa t er pollution ground wa te r p o ll u t i on i n a c q u i f e r r echa rge a r e a s an d swamp y flood plain s . 
The Geor gi a Co a s t a l co nt ai n s th e s t ate's most fr a gil e natural e nv i ronme n t a nd i s s ubjec t t o n ume r o u s d e v e l op ment const r a i n t s . Ma j o r ar e a s o f conc e rn a re the ma r sh land ar e a s , ba rr i e r i sl ands a nd flo o dp l a i n s . 
The en v ir on me n ta l a s se s s me n t (pre p a r e d f o r Sta t e' s Land Use El e me n t) an d h ist o ric p re se rva t i o n a s s e s s me n t were appended to th e Ho us ing E l e me nt an d a c c o mpained it through all the d el ib er at i on s l e ad i n g to app roval an d subsequent amendme nt. 
The environ men t a l a s s e s s me nt a n d hi sto r ic pre s e r v a t i o n assessm ent wer e a va i l able to the p ublic on a ti me l y basis and wil l b e avail a b l e p rior t o any p ubl i c he a r i n g s regarding the Hou s i n g E le me n t . 
Support Services f o r Hou s in g De ve l o pm e n t 
The success of ho usi n g d e ve lo p men t s e e ms t o d epe n d o n ce r t a i n nonshelter factors. Th e s e f a c tors a r e : a cc e s s to j ob s, ac c ess to shopping, a sense of n e ighb o r h o o d , s up po r t s er vi c e s / pr ot e c t i on and social services . The a v a i l a b i l i t y an d adeq u a c y of th ese supp o r t facilities and se r v i c es wil l d i c t at e th e f e a s i bil i t y an d th e success of a housin g devel o p me nt . 
vi 
 
  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 --.. _ -, 
 
 ACKN OWLEDGEMENT 
 
Grateful ackno wl edg e ment i s e xten de d t o t he members of the State Housing Element Te c h n ic a l Advis o r y Commi t t e e for their time and input in the c ompi latio n of this c omp r e h e n s i v e S tate housing repo rt. Me mbers o f the Committ ee are : 
Jimmy Be nn e t t , Urban League 
Arthur C . Camp b el l , Housing Ass ist a nce Counci l, Inc, 
Ro s emar y B. Hart e , Geo r g i a Association of Re a lt o r s , Inc. 
James Holl and , Ge o r g i a Associatio n o f Cou nty Corrunissioners 
Alex C . Ke lley, St a t e Building Administrat ive Board 
Ele anor Lane Le a gu e of Women Voters 
Tuc ke r Mason Geor gi a Association of Mo r t g a g e Bankers 
Hugh Lee McDa niel 1 Home Buil ders As s oci a t i o n of Geo r gia 
Mat the w Smit h Geor gi a Corrununity Acti on Associati o n 
Davi d Smot h e r man Ge o r g i a Associat i o n of Housing a n d Red e v elopmen t Of f ic ia l s 
Ed Walker Geo r gi a Corrunun i t y Ac t ion Asso ciatio n 
Ke it h Wa l d r o p Geo r g i a Re si den t i a l Fi nanc e Au t h o r i t y 
 
STATE OFFICE OF HOUS IN G STAFF 
 
Berdie R . Hardon , Dire ct o r W. Mason Adam s ) Assist a n t Di r e c to r D . Lee Cash , Co n sul t a n t Linda Edmonds , Cons ul t a nt Lee Flournoy, Cons ul t a n t Sandra Y. Holt , Se c r e t a r y 
 
I NTERNS 
Akpan Ak p an Jef f Feagan Paula Jacob s 
 
vii 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Abstract and Summa r y 
 
~ 
 
Acknowledgement 
List of Tables List of Illustrations 
 
1. Introduction ' 
A. Preliminary Cons ide ra t ion s B. Methodology C. Organization of Repor t 
 
Page 
 
~: 
 
. 
 
i , 1i 
 
. 
 
vi i 
 
. 
 
xii 
 
. 
 
x iv 
 
. 
 
3 
 
II. The Need for Hous ing As si st anc e 
 
, 
 
11 
 
A. Components of Hou s i n g Needs . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 
 
12 
 
1 . Substandar d Housing 
2. Populat ion Gr owt h 
3. Inventory Lo s s es 
4 . Vacancy Adjustments 
 
B. Geographic Dis t ributi on of Sub st an dar d 
 
Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 
13 
 
C. Charac ter i s t i c s o f Ina dequately Hou s e d 
 
Families 
 
. 
 
17 
 
1. Tenure 2 . Inc ome 3 . Age 4 . Ra c e 
 
D. Po t e n ti al Ma r k et for Hou sing Assi s- 
 
tance Pr o grams "-, ', .. , 
 
. 
 
29 
 
E . Imp lications fo r Sta te Hous i n g Po - 
licies an d Programs 
 
. 
 
32 
 
III. Housing Cost v I s Hous e h o l d In come . . .... . ... . .. . 
 
37 
 
A. Curren t Cos t of Hou s i ng 
 
. 
 
37 
 
1. Pr iva t e Non -S u b s id i ze d 2 . Sub s i d i z e d (FHA ,VA, GRFA , FmHA) 3 . Mobi le Hou s i n g 4 . Cos t i n Se lec ted Ar e a s o f t h e 
St a t e 
 
B. The Consumer 's Abil i t y t o Af f or d New 
 
Hous ing 
 
. 
 
47 
 
vi i I 
 
 C. Reasons for Escalating Housing Cost .. ... , , 
 
51 
 
1. Components of Housing Cost 2. Housing Production Fluctuations 3. Availability of Financing 4. Site Development Cost 5. Building Materials 
 
D. Implications for State Housing 
 
Policies 
 
, 
 
, 
 
. 
 
62 
 
IV. Program Utilization 
 
(An Assessment of Housing Production and Housing 
 
Assistance Programs)..................... ... ... 
 
67 
 
A. Section 8 - Housing Assistance Payment 
 
Program 
 
, 
 
. 
 
67 
 
B. Section 235(j)4 - Single-Family Homeowner- 
 
ship Program 
 
. . 78 
 
C. Section 502 - Rural Single-Family Home- 
 
ownership Program 
 
. 80 
 
D. Section 515 - Rural Rental Multi-Family 
 
Program 
 
,, 
 
,., 
 
. 
 
87 
 
E. GRFA - Home Ownership Loan Program 
 
. 91 
 
F . Implication for State Housing Policies 
 
. 
 
94 
 
V. Program Utilization 
(An Assessment of Housing Rehabilitation Programs) 
 
. 
 
99 
 
A. The Statistical Ne e d fo r Rehabilitation . . . 99 
 
B. Description of Housing Rehabilitation 
 
Programs 
 
. . 100 
 
1. Community Development Block Grant 
Program 
2. Section 312 Rehabilitation 3. Section 502 Rehabilitation 4. Section 504 Rehabilitation 
 
C. Implications for State Housing Policies.... 
 
112 
 
VI. Program Utilization 
 
(An Assessment of Housing Pro g rams f rom 
 
the User I s Perspective)............. . . .. .. ..... 
 
117 
 
A. Deve iop er/F inancial In stitution Perspective. - 118 
 
B. Consumer's P ersp ec tive 
 
. 119 
 
C. Implications for State Housing Policies .. 
 
. 124 
 
ix 
 
 VII. Regulatory Controls as a Factor in 
 
Housing Development 
 
129 
 
A. 
 
Zoning Regulations 
 
B. 
 
Subdivision Regulations 
 
C. 
 
Building and Housing Codes 
 
D. 
 
Mobile Home Ordinances 
 
E. 
 
Implications for State Housing 
 
Policies 
 
. 130 . 134 . 138 . 146 
. 148 
 
VIII. Environmental Concerns Affecting Housing Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 
 
A. 
 
Environmental Controls................ 156 
 
1. Flood Plain Controls 
 
156 
 
2. Coastal Marshland Protection 
 
157 
 
3. Erosion and Sedimentation 
 
159 
 
4. Water Quality Control 
 
161 
 
5. Sand Dune Protection Regula- 
 
tions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 163 
 
B. 
 
Natural Features that Influence 
 
Housing De velopment 
 
164 
 
C. 
 
Regional Constraints to Housing 
 
Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 168 
 
D. 
 
Availability of Water and 
 
Sewer Systems............ ............ . 172 
 
E. 
 
Implications for State Housing 
 
Policies 
 
' . . . . . . . . . . .. 175 
 
IX. Support Services Required for Low and 
 
Moderate Income Housing Development 
 
179 
 
A. 
 
Housing Dysfunctions 
 
B. 
 
Support Factors 
 
C. 
 
Implications for State Housing 
 
Policies 
 
. 179 . 180 
. 183 
 
X. 
 
Technical Appendix 
 
, 
 
185 
 
A. 
 
Detailed Data - Statistical Data by APDC 
 
and Constituent Counties 
 
, .187 
 
~. % of Population - Elderly and % of 
Elderly in Substandard Housing 
2. % of Households Occupied by Blacks % of Inadequate Housing Occupied 
by Blacks. 
 
 3. Building Permits Activity, State of Georgia - 1970-1976 
4. Regulatory Controls in Effect in Georgia, 1977 
 
B. Survey Instruments 
 
222 
 
1. Community Development Survey Housing Rehabilitation 
2. Citizens and Service Providers Survey 
 
C. Bibliography 
 
229 
 
xi 
 
 LIST OF TABLES 
 
1. Georgia 's Need for Housing 
 
. 
 
14 
 
2 . Summary of Estimated Need for Housing by APDC, ~970, 1975, 1980 
 
. 
 
10 
 
3. Profile of Substandard Housing Units by Tenure and Type of Unit, ~970 
 
. 
 
16 
 
4. Income Distribution of Households in Substandard Housing, ~970 
 
. 
 
20 
 
5. Distribution of Households in Substandard 
 
Housing by Income and Age of Household 
 
Head, 1970...... .......... . .......... . ....... 
 
21 
 
6. State of Georgia, Fair Housing and Equal 
 
Opportunity Housing Discrimination 
 
Complaints, July 1974 - July 1977........ .... 
 
30 
 
7 . State Summary, Potential Market for Housing Assistance Programs, 1977 
 
. 
 
31 
 
8. Sales Price of New Single-Family 
 
Housing, 1977......................... ....... 
 
39 
 
9. Distribution of Sales Price of New Housing 
 
by Location , ~972--1976...................... 
 
40 
 
10. Distribution of Sales Price of New Housing 
 
by Type of Financing, ~972 - ~976............ 
 
42 
 
1~. Current Cost of Single-Family Housing, State of Georgia, ~977....................... 43 
 
12. The Incomes of People Buying New Houses, 
 
1965 - 1966 and 1975 - 1976..... ............. 
 
52 
 
13 . Building Permit Activity , 
 
State of Georgia , 1970 - 76.................. 
 
56 
 
14. Average Construction Cost of Single- 
 
Family Detached Housing and Percent 
 
Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 
61 
 
~5. Section 8 New and Existing Dollar Allocations by State in HOO, 
Region IV.... ....... . . . ........ ... ......... .. . 71 
 
xi i 
 
 16. Status of Existing Section 8 Program 
 
in Georgia." 
 
,.......... .. 72 
 
17. GRFA, Section 8 , Existing ProgramTentative "Fair Share tl Allocation...... ...... 75 
 
18. FmHA Housing Program Dollars in Fiscal Year 1975 Per Substandard Household in FmHA Served Areas.... 
 
.. 82 
 
19. FmHA Section 502 Program - Comparative 
 
Program Expenditures - Georgia vis 
 
Nation 
 
f      
 
83 
 
20. FmHA 502 Housing Profile... .. 
 
84 
 
21. FmHA Loan Making and Servicing Report, FY '77. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 
 
22. FmHA 515 Shortfall ... . ..... . . ............. ..... 89 
 
23. Housing Suitable for Rehabilitation, 
 
Entitlement and Discretionary CDBG 
 
Recipients, 1976 - 77 
 
'. . . . . . . . . . 101 
 
24. Number of Housing Completed Under CDBG Rehabilitation Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 
 
25. Type Repairs within Maximum Reha~ bilitation Loan/Grant Amount................. 105 
 
26. Grant/Loan Distribution CDBG Recipient with Rehabilitat ion Programs.... . ............ 106 
 
27. 
 
Supplemental Rehabilitation Funding 
 
Sources 
 
f  " " ,  , "  "   ,  t   , 
 
107 
 
x ii i 
 
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
1. Factors Impacting Housing Decisions 
 
. 
 
4 
 
2. The Role of State Government in the Housing Delivery System 
 
. 
 
6 
 
3. MAP - Substandard Housing Condition by County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 
 
4. Substandard Housing Condition by Income 
 
of Occupants 
 
-. . . . . . . . . . . 19 
 
5. Distribution of the Population and Substandard Housing by Elderly/NonElderly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -2 
 
6. MAP - Elderly Percentage of the Population, 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 2-3 
 
7. MAP - Percentage of Substandard Housing Occupied by Elderly, 1970.............. ....... 24 
 
8 . Distribution of Housing Units and Inadequate Housing by Race, 1970.............. 26 
 
9. MAP - Percentage of All Housing Occupied by Blacks. ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 
 
10. MAP - Percentage of Inadequate Housing 
 
Occupied by Blacks.... . ... 
 
28 
 
11 . The Under $30 ,000 New Home Market 
 
and Mobile Home Share. ... . . 
 
4~ 
 
12. Narrowing of the Market for Existing Housing, 1970 - 1976.... ........ ... . .... ...... 49 
 
13 . Narrowing of the Market for New 
 
Housing, 1970 - 1976..... 
 
50 
 
14. Cost Accummulate of Each of These Steps... 
 
53 
 
15. Building Permit Activity State of Georgia , 1970 - 1976..... ............ 55 
 
16. MAP - GRFA Field Offices, Section 8............. 73 
 
17. MAP - GRFA Loan Credit Application Geographic Distribution. .. .... ........ ........ 93 
 
18 . Rehabilitation Resources.............. 
 
109 
 
xiv 
 
 19. MAP - Zoning and/or Subdivision Regulations by County or Municipality..... .... . .... . 
 
20. MAP - Building Codes by County or 
 
Municipality 
 
,...................... 
 
21. MAP - Plumbing Codes by County or 
 
Municipality 
 
,.. 
 
22. MAP - Heating and Air Conditioning Code 
 
by County or Municipality 
 
, .. , 
 
,.. 
 
23. MAP - Electric Codes by County or 
 
Municipality 
 
. 
 
24. Gas Codes by County or Municipality.... 
 
25. Housing Codes by County or Municipality 
 
,... 
 
26. Georgia's Environmental Regions................ 
 
27. Maximum Distances for Community Facilities. .... 
 
135 
139 
140 
141 "1 4 2 143 144 165 182 
 
xv 
 
 I TRODUCTIO 
 
  INTRODUCTION 
Preliminary Considerations The State of Georgia's Housing Element is designed to be 
a comprehensive housing policy document which specifies necessary implementation measures . Part I of the Housing Element provides background data on the nature and scope of State housing problems and the implications of those problems for state housing policies. 
Housing and the housing delivery system does not exist in a vacu~m and can not be treated as an isolated entity . Housing is a product of political, economic, social and environmental constraints and incentives . A housing development is affected by the politics of "who gets what, when and how", costs of land, labor, materials and financing, community attitudes toward housing and type topography, geology and hydrology in an area. Illustration 1 synthesizes many of the factors which affect the status of housing in Georgia. The formulation of comprehensive state housing policies requires an understanding of the many divergent factors affecting housing decisions . 
It is also necessary to consider the State's major role in housing as it relates to other parties involved in the housing delivery system - the private sector, local governments, and the federal government . These considerations are: 
1. The housing delivery system is essentially a private system. The production, exchange and 3 
 
 Factors Impacting Hous ing Decisions 
 
PO LITICAL -Who ge ts wha t , when a nd why 
- Ena bl i ng Le gis l at i on -R e gulatory Controls -Le gal Bar r i ers 
 
~ 
 
/ 
 
r 
 
ECO NOMIC - In come Cons tr aint s -E con om i c In c entive s 
(p r o f it, t a x r eb a t e s ) -C ompe t ing Us e s of Limi ted 
Re s ou r c e s - Empl oyment Oppo r t uni t ies - Fi s c al & Mon e ta ry Polic ies 
 
SOC IAL - Consume r Pr ef e r en ces .l - So c i etal Value s - Suppo r tive Serv i c es -Discriminati on 
 
DECISIONS 
 
Ho u s i n g Constructi on Ho u s i n g Rehabil ita ti on Housin g Subsid i e s Ho u s i n g Maint en an c e 
 
ENVI RONMENTAL -T op o g r aph y - No i s e Le ve l -Air Traf f i c - Wa t e r Avai l ab ilit y 
an d Qua l ity -A r chit e ctu r al Des i gn 
 
 management of the housing stock are largely in private han ds . 2. Mo s t of t he subsidized housing resources emanate from the federal government. There is, therefore, a natur a l t en den cy to "piggy-back" or "gap-fill" the federal programs. 3. Mo s t of the governmental decisions directly affecting housing development are local decisions, i. e. , zoning, code adoption and enforcement , enabling legislation, availability of water and sewer f a c i l i ties, property taxation rates. The s tate's role i n the housing arena is not to circumvent or reduce the efforts and effectiveness of any of the other parties involved in housing. Rather, the state's role is to enhance, facilitate and complement other efforts to improve housing for Georgia's c itizens . (See Illustration 2). 
Methodology Ex isting data s ources - n a t i on a l, state, reg ional and 
local prov i ded t h e primary inp u t for t he development of this report. The det a i l e d bibliography verifies the r an ge of sources used along with ap pr op r i a t e citations in the body of the report. 
In i nst ance s wh ere it was determined that e x isting published da t a we re n o t adequ a t e o r not available , supplementary approa c he s were pur sued a s foll ows: 
1 . Interviews of agency p e r s on n e l we r e conducted t o de termine the agency 's perspective of pro- 
5 
 
 The Role of State Government in the Housing 
Deliver~ S~stem 
 
PRIVATE ENTERPRISE 
Th e produ ction, excha nge and man agemen t o f th e h ousin g st o ck a re l arg ely in privat e h ands. Th e h ou s in g deliver y s yst em is e s sen t ia l ly a pri vat e sy s tem. 
 
t~ 
 
~t 
 
(J) 
STATE GOVERNMENT 
 
Th e primary r ol e o f s t a te g ove r nmen t is to f a cilitat e, e nha nce a n d co mp lemen t feder al and l o c al go ve r nmen t s a n d th e priva te e n te r prise s ys tem . 
 
~t 
 
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 
Primary decisions regard ing h ous i n g a nd co mmunity devel opment are local - i.e ., zoning codes, proper ty t a x at i on rates, CDBG par ticipa tio n 
 
 blems effecting the operations of housing programs in the state. 2. A review of agency files and reports was undertaken to document the status, funding and clientele for the various housing programs. 3. A survey was conducted of all Community Development Block Grant Recipients with housing rehabilitation programs. The purpose of the survey was to obtain information on the type and cost of rehabilitation activities within the state. A copy of the survey instrument is included in the Appendix . 4. A survey was conducted of service providers and clients to determine attitudes and awareness of housing problems and resources. A copy of the survey instrument is included in the Appendix. 5. Input was provided by the State Housing Element Technical Advisory Committee. Organization of Report Two criteria were utilized as the basis for the type of housing problems which were analyzed as part 'of this report. The criteria were: 1. the problem is applicable to the entire state or a large portion of the state; 2. the problem has a direct relationship to the attainment of the State housing goal - a decent home and a suitable living environment for all Georgians. Utilizing these c r i t e r i a , seven problem areas were identified for analysis. The problem area and corresponding Chapter designations in this r epor t are as follows: 
7 
 
 Rel ationsh i p of P r o b l e m Ar eas t o Ch a p t e r Desi gnatio ns 
 
Problem Ar e a 
1. Housing c o s t s a re e s c a l a t i n g at a fas ter r a te t han hou s e~ hold i ncome. 
2 . The deteriora t i on o f the stock of s tanda r d hou s i ng continu es t o a dd to the numb e r of s ubs t a n d a r d housi ng which must be rep la c e d . 
3 . Subsid i zed housing resour c e s have b een unde rut i lized i n Ge o r gi a . 
4. The ne e d fo r housing assis tance is particularl y s evere o n c e r t a in ma r k e t segments. 
5. Lac k of ad equ a t e wa t e r a n d sewe r fac i l i t ies impe de hous i ng de v elopme n t in many of Georgia's communit ies . 
6. Env i r o nmental Con s i d e rat i o n s a f f e c t housin g deve l opm ent 
7 . Ma ny l o c a lit i es cannot pr o v i de adequat e s upport services f o r hou sing development s . 
 
Ch ap t e r Des ign a tio ns 
Housi ng Costs v i s Hou s e hold 
Income 
Program Utilization : An Assessment of Housin g Rehabilitat ion P r og r am. Re g ulat ory Controls as a Factor in Hous i n g Development . 
P ro gram Ut i l iz a ti o n : (1) An Assessme n t o f Ho us i ng Production a nd As si s t a nce Activ it ies ; (2) An Assessment o f Housing Rehabil itation Ac t i v ities; a n d (3) An Ass essment of Hou s i n g from t he User's Pe rs pe c t i v e . 
Need fo r Ho u s i ng Assistan ce. 
Env i r o nme nt a l Fa c t o r s Af f ect i n g Hous in g De velo pmen t . 
Environme nta l F ac tor s Af fe c t i n g Hous ing Developme n t. 
Suppo r t Services Re q ui red for Low an d Moderate I n come Ho using Development . 
 
8 
 
 THE NEED FOR HOUSING ASSISTANCE 
 
  THE NEED FOR HOUSING ASSISTANCE 
To determine specific policies, programs and strategies needed to operationalize the State housing goal, basic statistical data were needed. 
How many famili es a r e inadequately housed , and where are they located? Where is the expected population growth a nd what effect will the growth have on housing needs? What are some of the qualitative characteristics o f . hous eholds who need ho usin g? The Ge or gi a Statewide Housing Needs Analysis was jointly prepared by the Georgia State Office of Housing and the Georgia Residential Finance Authority in order to answer these questions. The statistical assessment of housing needs in this Chapter represents a summary of that study. The reader is referred to the complete report for the met h o do l o g y and additional detail. The term " ne e d" is used in th is report in the social sense without regard for eco n omic c o n s i derat i o n s . The n e ed for standard housing units in an are a i s equal to the numbe r o f standard units that must be made availabl e (through new construction, rehabilitation of substandard units , or conversion from non-residential uses) in order to adequat e ly house all households residing in the area. Housing need is not s yn on ymo us with housin g dem and. Housing demand relates to the willingness and a b i l i ty t o pay t he market price for standard housing. 
11 
 
 Coinp'o'n'entsof Hou sin'~ Need As of 1970, approximately 205,000 Georgia f ami l i e s com- 
prising l5% of all households were living in inadequate , dila-' pidated housing . Hence, there was a 1970 need for this many housing units to be provided either through new construction or rehabilitation o f existing stock . 
As the State's population continues to grow and average family size decreases, additional homes must be added to accomo date this growth . Over 400,000 new homes must be built throughout the state by 1980 to meet the a nticipated population increase . 
At the same time, almost 100,000 units must be built or rehabilitated to make up for those homes which, for whatever reason (deterioration, natural disaster, demolition, etc.) will be removed from the existing stock of adequate housing. 
 
Tabl e 1 - Georgia's Ne e d for Housin g 
 
Components of Need 
 
1970 
 
1970-75 
 
Replace 1970 Substandard Units * Provide for Population Growth Replace Projected Losses Vacancy Adjustment 
 
205,000 (14,000) 
 
205 ,000 201 ,000 
47 , 000 (14 ,000) 
 
Cumulative Ne ed for Housin g 
 
191 ,000 
 
439 ,000 
 
1970-80 
205 ,000 410,000 
94,000 (14,000) 
695,000 
 
In s umma r y, an estimat ed 695 ,000 units of housing would have to be provided stat ewide by 1980 if Georgia 's housin g go a l of " A decent home a n d a suit abl e livin g en v i r o nme nt for e v e r y family" was to be met by t hat date. 
 
* Substandard - The condition of a housing un i t which is either p l umb i n g inc ompl e t e or is in a d i l a pida t ed condi t i on. The Bureau of Ce n s u s applied pro bability value s to f i v e fact o rs wh ich te n d t o co ntr i bu t e t o d ilapidat ion ; ( 1 ) rental o r value cut -off ; (2) sing l e o r mul ti-f ami l y un it; ( 3 ) edu cati on of he a d o f household; ( 4) more than 1 .01 p e r so n s per room; ( 5) in c ompl e t e he atin g facilities . 
12 
 
 As Table 1 prov ides a s t a t ewi de s ummary o f the c omponen t of hous ing needs, Tab l e 2 pr ov i des t he un de r l y i n g de t a i l f or each Area Plann i n g and Development Commi s s ion . 
Ge ogr aph i c Distr i bu t i on of Sub s t an da r d Hou sing Table 3 l oo ks at s ome of the qual i t a t i v e ch a rac teri s t i c s of 
sub s t an dar d hous ing i n the s t a t e and t he di stribu t i on of those un i t s . The re l a tive concen t r ation of subs t an da r d ho usin g var ie s c on si de r ably a cr o ss the s ta te . The lowe s t c on cen t ra t i on ( 5 . 1%) occurs in t he At lan t a R~gion APDC , wh i l e t he greate s t con cen tra t ion i s in t he Mi ddl e Fl i n t an d Oconee APDC' s where appr ox i ma t _l y one o f every t h r ee home s is s ub s t an dar d. I n t e rms o f abs olu t e numbe r s of s ubs t an dard hous ing un i t s , the At l an t a Region APDC acc oun t s f or far mo r e t han any othe r reg ion - - 22 ,67 0 uni t s , ov e r 11% of all s uch un i t s i n t he stat e . Gener a l l y speaking, t h o s e re gi on s wi th the highes t concen t r a t ion s of di lapi da t e d hous ing hav e t he sma lle st numb e r o f s uch uni t s i n ab s olute t erms . The gre a t e st rela tive n e e d e xis t s in the more spar se ly po pu late d , r ur a l area s of t he state , while t he grea tes t absolute need exi s t s in the urb an i zed reg ions . I l l u s t r at i on 3 s ho ws t he r e l a t i ve co n c en t r a t i on o f s ubs t andar d h ou s i n g in e a ch of Ge orgia ' s coun t i e s and f urther s uppor ts t his co nc l usion . Regar dless as to whethe r on e wi s he s t o empha s i ze r e l at ive n e ed or ab solute nee d, there is no c ount y wi th in t he Sta t e tha t does no t have a n e e d f or s ome t ype of h ou s i n g a s s is tan ce . 
13 
 
 STATE S UI-mAR Y OF ES TI MATED HO US I NG NEEDS AT 1970 , 19 75 . 1980 CDtlPONENTS OF HOUSI NG NEED 
 
T<lhle 2 
 
Pl anning Ar e a 
Al t a ma h a / Georg i a S out h e r n 
 
Replace Su bS t an dar d 
 
1970 Va cn n c y Ad j u s t smen t 
 
8 335 
 
- 2 86 
 
To t a l Un i ts Nee d ed 
8049 
 
Pro vi de [or Popul a tio n 
Growth 197 0 - 75 19 70 - 8 0 
 
47 0 8 
 
84 9 4 
 
Atlanta Regi onal 
 
2 2670 
 
-575 0 
 
16 920 7345 4 16 18 37 
 
Ce n t r a l Savann<lh Ri ver 
 
17 40 7 
 
- 1282 
 
1612 .'i 
 
68 70 
 
1 3 80 7 
 
Ch a t t a h o oc h ee Fli n t 
 
10 9 82 
 
- 71 
 
10 9 11 
 
8069 
 
16 9 2 2 
 
Co a a t a l 
 
1 172 2 
 
- 140 8 
 
10 3 14 
 
5695 
 
14 55 8 
 
Co a s t a l P l a i n 
 
10405 
 
-382 
 
100 23 
 
11 44 0 
 
15 09 2 
 
Co o s a Va lley 
 
1 37 4 5 
 
- 13 
 
1173 2 1 5 1,0 7 
 
29 981 
 
(;eo rRi a Mo u n t a i n R 
 
11 0 49 
 
- 132 
 
1091 7 
 
94 5 1 
 
17 90 3 
 
He a r t of Geo r g i a 
 
89 30 
 
- 10 7 
 
88 23 
 
274 0 
 
4 946 
 
Lo we r Chatt ah o o ch e e Va lle y 
 
8 3 35 
 
-1'14 2 
 
63 9 1 
 
4696 
 
94 2 0 
 
Mi d d l e Flint 
 
815 7 
 
71 
 
81, 2 3 
 
2 '19 5 
 
'>117 
 
Mc I nto s h Tr ai l 
 
q 77 A 
 
- 11,0 
 
q611\ 
 
9711 
 
I q9q '> 
 
Mi ddle Ge or gi a 
 
10 '102 
 
-1 771 
 
9131 1 10 41 
 
2187 1 
 
No rt h e a s t Geor g i a 
 
1 1232 
 
-1 30 
 
11102 10957 
 
2 0 594 
 
No r t h Ge o r g i a 
 
7 126 
 
34 
 
7 16 0 
 
8 4 31 
 
14790 
 
Oc o n e e 
 
7q28 
 
- 52 
 
787 6 
 
256 1 
 
5 122 
 
S I <l s h Pin e 
 
6 292 
 
-200 
 
609 2 
 
36 6 7 
 
6 779 
 
S o u t hwe s t Geo rR i " 
 
193 40 
 
- 78 1 
 
18 55 9 1218 2 
 
2 2 757 
 
P. e p lacp 
Pr o] e c te d Loaaes 
19 7 0- 75 197 0 -80 
 
Cu mu lat i v e 
Ho u s i ng Uni ts Neede d 
1975 19 8 0 
 
95 0 1 90 3 13 70 7 18446 
 
1 8 5 3 3 37146 1089 07 21 59 03 
 
2 78 3 5 5 8 3 25778 3S5 15 
 
118 3 21 70 20 16 1 30 20 3 
 
32 34 648 2 192 1,] 11 3 5 4 
 
1 2 5 9 25 2 4 1972 2 276 19 
 
30 2 5 6 0 5 5 12 1114 I, '1 71, 8 
 
17 20 
 
3 4 45 
 
220 8 r. "] 2 ~ 6 5 
 
7 55 15 15 12 3 1 8 15 28 4 
 
20 31 4 0 6 5 13120 198 78 
 
S 76 
 
1 1 'i 8 
 
I J 'I 'l 'I 
 
J 4 '}2 1 
 
J 177 27 6 2 2 0 7 ~ I, 12 1')', 
 
281/, 56 42 22 '1Ill, 366 4 4 
 
16 9 7 33 9 5 23 756 3509 1 
 
122 1 2 44 6 1681 2 24396 
 
544 1090 109 8 1 140 8 8 
 
7 8 7 1579 10 5 4 6 14 4 SO 
 
2 42 2 48 5 4 33 11,1 46 170 
 
STATE TOTAL 
 
20 45 35 a 
 
- 11,)42 b 
 
19019 3 2 01 0 75 
 
c 
 
d 
 
4 10 20 5 e 
 
4 6 9 1 1 94 0 14 438 179 69 4 41 2 
 
g 
 
h 
 
14 
 
 I Substandard Housing Conditions by County 
 
I 
 
1970 
 
o 20% or less 
 
1)\ \ \1 20.1 - 30% 
 
I 
 
 30.1-40% 
 
Ij 
 
40.1- 50% 
 
Over Fifty % 
 
I 
 
SOURCE: Ge orgia 
 
I 
 
Sta tew i de Housing Ne e d s Analy si s 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
.. 
 
I 
 
I 
 
If :~ 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
FLORIDA 
 
I 
 
15 
 
 PROFILE OF SUBSfA~OARD HOUSING UNITS BV TE~RE AND TYPE Of UNIT 1970 
 
PLANNI~G 
AREA 
 
NU'4 BER OF 
OCCUPIED 
HOUSING UNITS 
 
5UBSTA~OARD AND 
 
OVERCROWDED 
 
OWNEP- 
 
~ENTER-OCCUPleO 
 
OCCUPIED SINGLE - MULTI- 
 
S,F&"',F FMI( LY FAMILY 
 
SUBSTANDARD 
 
OWIi EP 
 
RENTER-OCCUPIED 
 
OCCUPIED SI NGLE- I'IJUL TI- 
 
S,F&1,F FAI'IJllY FAI'IJILY 
 
TOTAL SUBSTANDARD HOUSING UNITS 
 
AL TAMAHA/GEORGIA SOU THER~ 
 
35311 
 
563 
 
612 
 
50 
 
2915 
 
10992 
 
~28 
 
8335 
 
ATLANTA REGIONAL 
 
"2813 
 
1089 
 
4094 
 
5254 
 
76 )4 
 
1861 
 
7175 
 
22670 
 
CENTRAL SAVANNAH qIV EP 
 
84918 
 
1388 
 
1304 
 
717 
 
5667 
 
9848 
 
1892 
 
17407 
 
CHATTAHOOCHEE FLINT 
 
44543 
 
993 
 
801 
 
92 
 
4365 
 
5976 
 
6ltl 
 
10982 
 
COASTAL 
 
89428 
 
1068 
 
1552 
 
798 
 
546-I. 
 
4385 
 
1876 
 
11722 
 
COASTAL PLAIN COOSA VALLEY 
 
46 19 5 
 
654 
 
969 
 
78 
 
3163 
 
un 
 
. ~69 
 
10lt05 
 
9 32 53 
 
1392 
 
580 
 
65 
 
6968 
 
6069 
 
708 
 
137105 
 
GEORGIA MOUNTAINS 
 
588 19 
 
979 
 
541 
 
78 
 
5683 
 
4879 
 
487 
 
I1M9 
 
HEART OF GEORGIA 
~ 
 
30436 
 
866 
 
522 
 
45 
 
34')2 
 
5107 
 
It21 
 
8930 
 
0\ 
 
LOWER CHATTAHOOCHEE VALLEY 
 
65461 
 
671 
 
1138 
 
502 
 
2935 
 
,.425 
 
975 
 
8335 
 
MIDDLE FL INT 
 
24811 
 
733 
 
381 
 
65 
 
2916 
 
~869 
 
572 
 
8357 
 
I'IJCINTOSH TRAIL 
 
4 50 19 
 
663 
 
758 
 
184 
 
3149 
 
5576 
 
1053 
 
9778 
 
I'IJ IOOLE GEORG I A 
 
75965 
 
952 
 
1067 
 
703 
 
H82 
 
5111 
 
2009 
 
10902 
 
NORTHEAST GEORGIA 
 
58086 
 
816 
 
713 
 
170 
 
4484 
 
5871 
 
871 
 
11232 
 
NORTH GEORGIA 
 
39830 
 
689 
 
21,. 
 
27 
 
3908 
 
2992 
 
226 
 
7126 
 
OCONEE 
 
23411 
 
710 
 
299 
 
49 
 
2121 
 
4628 
 
579 
 
1928 
 
SLASH PINE 
 
28690 
 
466 
 
569 
 
70 
 
2449 
 
3506 
 
337 
 
6292 
 
SOUTHWEST GEORGIA 
 
82230 
 
1134 
 
1423 
 
539 
 
6613 
 
10695 
 
2032 
 
193~0 
 
TOTAL 
 
1369225 
 
15826 
 
11603 
 
9486 
 
18815 
 
102963 
 
22757 
 
20.535 
 
a 
 
b 
 
c 
 
d 
 
e 
 
f 
 
9 
 
h 
 
TABLE 3 
 
OCCUPIED UNITS 
WHICH ARE 
SUBSTD 23.601 5.101 
20.~01 
24.601 13 .101 22.501 14.701 18.701 29.301 12.701 33.601 21.70 I 1~. 301 19.301 17 .801 33.801 21.901 23.501 
IIt.91 
 
PLANN INC AREA SU8STD 
UNITS IN STATE 
4.08% 11. 08% 
8.5H 5.3 "'% 5. 73% 5.0 9% 6 . 72% 5. 40% 4. 37% 4.0 8% 4.09% 4. 73% 5 . 3 3% 5.49% 
3. ~ 8 % 
3.88 % 3.08 % 9.46% 
100. DO !,; 
 
j 
 
j 
 
 Characteristics o f Inadequa tely Hous ed Famil ies 
 
Househol ds l iving in both sub standar d and ov e r crowded housing 
 
represent the most s ever e hou s i n g problem i n t he State . Of the 
 
204,5 3 5 occu pied s u b standard un i ts , ove r 2 0% , or 43,000, were also 
 
overcrowded dwellings . About 33 ,000 of these over crowded units 
 
we re s ingle -fami l y dwe l l i ngs , e i ther owner or renter occupied . The 
 
r ema i n i n g 10 ,000 were r e n t e r o c c up ied unit s in mult i -fa mi l y dwel l in g s . 
 
Ful l y 50% of a l l s u b st anda r d h ousing wa s renter occupie d, 
 
s ingle-family units . Multi-family rental hou s i n g ac c oun te d f or 
 
only abo u t 11% o f t h e s u b s t an da r d stock, while own ed, s i n g le - f a mi l y 
 
uni ts made u p the balance - - about 39%. The ob s e r v a t i on that sing l e 
 
family dwelling s a c count for such a l arge p e r cent ag e of a l l s u b - 
 
standard hou s ing i s attribut e d to the fa c t that s o many dilap idated 
 
unit s a re in rural a r e a s where the housing s t ock is predominan t ly 
 
single-family. The life style in Geo r gi a is 
 
c e~tered around 
 
the sin gl e - f a mi l y d e tached uni t. 
 
To as si s t in the deve lopment of pr o g r ams to a d dr e s s the h ou s i n g 
 
n e e d s in Ge o rg i a, t h e fo l l owing i nforwa ti c n is p ~o,~i de d : 
 
1 . I n c ome Distr ibution of Hou seholds in Subs t a~dar d Housing 
 
2. Di s t r i b u t i on o f Hous ehold in Su b stan da r d Rousing by Tenure and Age o f Househol d Rea~ 
 
3 . Di s tribution of All Housing a nd I n a de qu a t e Hou s i n g Oc c up ied by Blacks 
 
One o f the r easons for l i vin g in i na de qu a te h ous ing i s l a c k 
 
o f s uf f ic ien t income to impr ove e xistin g h ous i n g or to af fo rd t o 
 
mov e t o standard h ousin g. The r e f ore , as on e might i ntu it i v e l y 
 
17 
 
 expect, the income of households in substandard housing is very low. 
1 
In 1970, 71% of households in sUDstandard housing had an annual income of less than $7,000. Those households with less than $7,000 income generally have the fewest alternatives for obtaining standard housing. Illustration 4 shows the distribution of substandard housing by income of occupants. It is assumed that since 1970, the income of occupants of substandard housing has increased. However, the relative status within the community is probably about the same. 
In terms of program development, tenure is viewed as an indicator of housing preference. Owners will generally want to continue to be owners. Owners are less mobile than other market segments. If an owner of a house has an income of less than $7,000, there are currently no subsidized programs available to help the owner-occupant secure another house. The number and percentage of owner occupied substandard units are in Table 6. 
The housing needs of senior citizens are also in Table 6. All senior citizens who live in substandard housing are viewed as representing a market for senior citizen rentals. Senior citizens occupied 25.9% of all substandard housing, while comprising only 8.0% of the population. This disparity is graphically depictedin Illustration 5. The distribution of the elderly population and elderly in substandard housing is illustrated in Figures 6 and 7. 1 (See technical appendix for County detail.) 
lSenior citizens households are defined in the Housing Needs Analysis as a household whose head is of age 62 or over. For population dis- 
tribution, the age is defined in this report as 65 or over. Age 60 + 
comprised 11.8% of the population. 18 
 
 0' Substandard Housing Conditions b~ Income Occupants Percentage of all Substandard Hous i ng 
 
85. 1% Standard 
 
Total Occupied Units, 19 70 = 1,369,225 Percentage of Substandard Housing by Income of Household 
$4,000 or l ess 47.79 % 
 
$10,000 plus 13.1 % 
 
$4,000 -$ 7,000 23.61 % 
 
Total Occ up ied Su bst andard, 1970 = 204,53 5 
19 
 
 J.r1U,U.l..:I "':t 
 
APDC Altarnaha 
Atlanta Regiona l 
 
Income Distribution o f Households in Substandard HOllsing , 1970 
 
Under $ i, 000 
 
110 . 
 
"'" 
 
I, .443 53.31 
 
$ 4 to $7000 
 
110 . 
 
:': 
 
1 ,902 22.82 
 
$7 to $10,000 $10 to $15,000 
 
No. 
 
% No. 
 
% 
 
1,078 12.93 
 
716 
 
8 .59 
 
I T OT Al. 
()V l' r $15.0110 Mnrkcl 
 
No. 
 
% (Un ~t.!l 
 
196 2 .35 
 
8,315 
 
8,889 39.21 5,568 24. 5 7 4,169 18.40 2,904 12.80 1,140 5 .02 22.67J 
 
Central Savl'nnah River Area 
 
9,41 2 54. 10 3,761 21. 60 2,280 13. 10 1,419 
 
8. IS 
 
Chattahoochee Flint 
 
s , 128 46 .69 2,723 24 .79 1,800 16.39 1,055 
 
9.62 
 
Coaatal 
 
5 ,768 49 . 21 2,723 23 .23 1,711 14.60 1,163 
 
9.92 
 
Coa.tal Pla in 
 
5,371 5 1. 62 2 ,442 2 3.47 1 , 4 8 0 14.22 
 
844 
 
8. 11 
 
Coosa Valley 
 
6,097 44 .36 3,183 2 3.15 2 ,446 17.80 1,525 11. 09 
 
Georgia Htns . 
 
4,402 39.84 2,555 23.12 1,900 17 .20 1,523 13.79 
 
He a r t of Georgi a 
 
4,955 55 . 4 9 2 ,014 22 .55 1,166 D. 0 6 
 
5119 
 
6.60 
 
Lower Chattahoo chee 4 ,075 48 .89 1 , 9 5 3 2 3 .43 1,304 15 .65 
 
768 
 
9. 21 
 
Valley 
 
535 3 .17 17'40J 
 
276 2. 51 10,981 
 
357 
 
3 .04 
 
1 11 , 72 
 
i 268 2 .58 
 
4 
 
lo, 
 
494 3.60 . 13, 74 5 
 
669 
 
6 .05 
 
1 11, 40 
 
206 2. 10 
 
a9 1 
1l. 
 
235 2.82 
 
8,335 
 
Mi d dl e Flint 
 
4 ,484 53 .66 1 , 9 0 8 2 2. 83 1, 164 1 3 . 9 3 
 
6 13 
 
7. 34 
 
188 2 .25 
 
8,35 , 
 
McIntosh Trail 
 
4,338 44.36 2 ,6 39 26 . 9 9 1,665 17. 03 
 
938 
 
9 .59 
 
198 2. 03 
 
9 ,7 
 
Middle Georgia 
 
5,569 51. 09 2, 70 3 24.78 1 , 5 8 8 14. 57 
 
784 
 
7.19 
 
258 2. 37 10,902 
 
No r t h e a s t Georg ia NIH t h Georj~l ll Oc o ne e 
 
4 , 0 94 3, 174 
 
3 6 .4 5 2 ,6 89 
"" .')', 1 .6(,') 
 
23. 94 2].3 7 
 
1 , 900 I .24 J 
 
16.92 1,758 
 
17 . 44 
 
790 
 
15 .65 1 1 .09 
 
4. J 4 3 ') 4 . 78 1 , /JI,4 2L2 6 1 ,0 6 ] 13. it! 
 
SOH 
 
1i . 41 
 
791 
 
7. 04 
 
11,2 .) L 
 
254 1.56 
 
7, 1 
 
170 2 . I I, 
 
7,92 R 
 
Slash Pine 
 
3,145 49.98 1 .4 75 2 3 . 4 4 
 
898 14.27 
 
571 
 
9.08 
 
203 3.23 
 
6.2~" 
 
Sou t h we s t Georgi a 
 
10,065 52 .04 4 ,545 23. 5 0 2,76 3 14 .29 1 ,5 2 3 
 
7 .87 
 
444 2. 30 19.3 
 
TOT At; 
 
97,75 2 4 7 . 7 9 48 , 292 23. 6 1 3 1 , 61 8 15.46 19 ,991 
 
9.77 6 ,882 3.37 204, 
 
20 
 
 Planning Area 
 
TABLE 5 
 
Distribu tion of Household s in Substandard Housing by 
Tenure and Age of Household Head 
1970 
 
Senior Citizen 
 
(No. ) 
 
UO 
 
Rental Family 
 
(No . ) 
 
(X) 
 
Altamaha-Georgia Southern 
 
2, II I 
 
25.33 
 
4,198 
 
50.37 
 
Atlanta Regional 
 
4 , 689 
 
20 . 69 
 
12 ,094 
 
53 .34 
 
Central Savannah River 
 
4,92 2 
 
28. 27 
 
8,509 
 
48.89 
 
Chattahoochee Flint 
 
2,878 
 
26. 18 
 
5,016 
 
45.64 
 
Coastal 
 
2, 695 
 
22.99 
 
4 ,978 
 
4 2. 46 
 
Coastal Plain 
 
2,695 
 
25 .90 
 
5, 110 
 
49.12 
 
Coosa Valle y 
 
3,251 
 
23 . 65 
 
5,237 
 
38.11 
 
Georgia MtnA. 
 
3,160 
 
28 .59 
 
3,975 
 
35.98 
 
Heart of Ge o r g L a 
 
2,771 
 
3 1. 04 
 
3,856 
 
43.18 
 
Lower Chattahoochee Valley 
 
2,103 
 
25.24 
 
4,175 
 
50.08 
 
Middle Flint 
 
2,443 
 
29 . 2 3 
 
3,990 
 
47.74 
 
McIntosh Trail 
 
2,451 
 
25.07 
 
5, 06 1 
 
51.76 
 
Middl e Ge orgia 
 
2,293 
 
21. 0 3 
 
5,703 
 
52 .32 
 
Northeo1At r.eor Ria 
 
3,608 
 
32. 12 
 
4, 701 
 
41.85 
 
No rth Ge or gia 
 
1, 8 J2 
 
25. 70 
 
2,621 
 
36.7 8 
 
Oconee 
 
2,267 
 
28.59 
 
3,808 
 
48 .04 
 
Slash Pin e 
 
1,586 
 
25.21 
 
2,969 
 
47.18 
 
Southwest 
 
5,361 
 
27.72 
 
9 ,448 
 
48 .85 
 
Total 
 
53,116 
 
25.97 
 
95,449 
 
46.66 
 
Own Family 
 
(No. ) 
 
(X) 
 
2,026 
 
24 .30 
 
5,887 
 
25.97 
 
3,976 
 
22.84 
 
3, 0 98 
 
28 .18 
 
4, 049 
 
34 . 54 
 
2 ,6 00 
 
24. 98 
 
5,257 
 
38 .24 
 
3,914 
 
35 .43 
 
2,303 
 
25 .78 
 
2,057 
 
24 .68 
 
1,924 2,266 2,9 06 2,92 3 2,673 1,8 53 1 ,737 4,531 
 
23 .03 23 . 17 26.65 26. 03 37 .52 23.37 27.61 23 .43 
 
55,980 
 
27.38 
 
21 
 
 Distribution of the Popultltion & Substandard Housing 
Elder~ / Non  El derl~ 
 
90 - - -- - -- - - - -- -- - -- -- - - -- -- - 
 
:1::0:1::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 
 
80 --~ ".:.....:....:...:.....:..:.:.......:.:..:....~ :...:..:....:.....:.:........:..:.:......:....:..:.....:...:.....:.~ ..:....:.:.......::........:..:....:.:...-...:.:..:......:...:.-...:.~ ...:..:..:......::.....:.....::.....:....:....:..:......::......:..~ .:..: ---------Po- pu l- a t i- on ---- }}- }rr- rr- ~: 
 
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 
70 --~ ..........::~...........~..........:.~:...........-~.........::~............~..:.......:~.........~ ..~....:......:~...........~.:.........:~...........~..........:~:............~..........~::............~.........:~:...........~~ .......:...~:...........~...........:~:...........~.........:..:~............~..:........:~.-..........~..........::~..........~.~ .........:.:~...........~.:........:~............~........::.~............~.:.........:~............~.........~::..-.........~-- 
 
11IIIIIIII Sub-S t and ard Housing 
 
tt~~tttttIt 60 --~ ~..~.~.~.~.~.~~ .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~~ .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~~ .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~-- 
 
j j j j j j :::.:::.:::.:::.:::.:::.:::.::.:::-::::.::-::::.::.::::.:::.:::.:::-:::.:::. 
.:~..:.~.~.:~..~:.~..~.:~..~.~:...~:..~.:~...~:..~.~:..~.~:-.~:.~:.~..~:.~-..:~..~.:~...:~..~:~..~.:~.~ 
 
jfffffffff~ 
 
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 
 
~ ~I~ ~I~ I~t~ t~ ~ ~ 40 --~ ............................................~ ..................................................~ ........................................................~ ...............................................-- 
 
:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
 
30 --~ .......:.......:-.......:.......:........:.......:.......:......:.~ ......:.......:.......:......:........:......:........:......:........:.......:..~ .......:.-....:.......:.......:--.......:.....:........:......:........:.....:.-......:~ ......:........:......:-......:......:........:...-..:....:.....:.-- 
 
:~ ~ ~r~ ~ttt~ ~ ~ ~ ~r :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 
 
20 --~ ....................................~ ........................................~ ............................................~ ............................... -- 
 
trrrrrrmrm ::.r:.:.~:r.:.:r.:.:r.:.r:-:.:r.:.:r-:.:r.:.:r.:. 
10--~ ......................~ .............................~ ..............................~ ....................... -- 
 
.........- - - - . 
.::..::..:.:.:.:.:.:.::..::.:..::.:.:.:..:.::.:.:.:.:.:..:.:.:.:.::.:..::.:.:. 
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.-::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:.:-:.::.:..::.:.:.:.:.:.:. 
 
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 
 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 
 
:~ ~ ~ t~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
 
:..::::.::..::.:::..:::..::.::.::..:::.::.:.:::.::..:.::::.-:.:::..:::.:::..::.:.::.:::.-:.:-::::..::::.::...:::.::.::.:.::.::.:-::.::.:::..:::..:.::::..::. 
 
.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: 
 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 
 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 
 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 
 
NonElderl~ 
22 
 
Elderl~ 
 
 'Elderl~ Pereentage of the Population IQ70 
 
LEGEND 
0- 8.5% 8 . 6- 16. 5% 16. 6% - 
 
I I! 
I 
o 
uu 
EillJ 
 
co 
 
I I 
I 
I 
F 
23 
 
 Percentage of Substa nda rd Housing Occupied b~ Elderl~, 1970 
 
T 
 
E 
 
N N. ! N. 
 
c. o 
 
LEGEND 0- 8 .5 % 8 . 6- 16 . 5% 16. 6- 24 . 5% 24. 6-32 . 5% 
 
o 
lULU 
 
I2 I 
I -c 
! 
co 
<{ 
, -.J 
-c 
 
1> 
./ 
 
R 
 
D 
 
24 
 
 The Statewide Housing Needs Analysis did not provide a racial distribution of households in substandard housing. However, since ' blacks generally occupy a disproportionate amount of substandard housing, it was considered necessary to assess the housing conditions of this market group. In 1970, 22% of all households were black, yet 47% of all inadequate2 housing was occupied by blacks. This disparity is graphically displayed in Illustration 8. Illustrations '9 and 10 show the distribution of black households and black households inadequately housed in Georgia. This inequity is a function of not only inadequate income but also historical discrimination . That such discrimination still exists in many instances may be difficult to document. However, that discriminatory practices persist in Georgia can be partially documented by the 270 discrimination complaints filed with HUD between July 1974 and June 1977. (Table' ' 6 ) 
The County detail for these illustrations is included in the technical appendix. 
Data are not available on the housing conditions of other racial and ethnic groups in the State. The Bureau of Census reported 2,347 American Indians and 29,824 Spanish-speaking people in Georgia in 1970. 
2Inadequate housing conditions are based on a Special Census Tabulation on Housing Conditions. "Inadequate housing conditions are defined for exact use as follows: 
1. Households occupying units lacking some plumbing; and/or 2. Households with more than 1.25 persons per room; and/or 3a. Tenant households paying more than 25% of income for rent; or 3b . Owner households occupying housing more than 30 years old 
and valued at less than $7,500 in metropolitan areas and $5,000 in non-metropolitan areas. 
25 
 
 Distribution of Housing Units':I Inadequate Housing b~ Race 
80 
 
70 
 
60 
 
.' 
 
50 
 
LEGE ND 
 Ai 1 Hous i ng 
Sub- s t and a r d Ho us i n g 
 
40 
 
30 
 
20 
 
10 
 
White 
26 
 
Black 
 
 Pereentage of All Housing Oeeupied ,,~ Blaells 
 
N N. ! N. 
 
c. .....--- 
c 
. 
 
0- 12% 13-24 % 25-36% 37- 48% 49-60 % 
 
:I 
II 
I, ,: 
 
, <{ 
,' 
i 
,' 
; 
 
. F L _ _._- - _O _- -- -- _._- -- - _ - - -_. .._-_-- - -- --- -- -- ~- ... . 
 
_...... 
 
- ._ - - .__. _ - ----~_ .- - 
 
R 
. -, . 
27 
 
 Percenta ge of Inadequate Hous ing Occupied ,,~ Blacks 
 
~-~-- - 
 
E N N. 
 
N. 
 
c. 
 
i 
 
I 
 
0-12 % 13- 24% 
 
25-3 6% 
 
</ ,,>.. 
1- 
 
37 -4 8% 49-60 % 61%- 
 
* Dat a not ava i l ab l e 
 
2 
"? 
 
-c 
 
i 
 
, ::I 
I: 
 
co 
 
1 
I 
 
<{ 
 
-.J 
 
-c 
 
I: ii 
I 
 
,; 
; 
 
,,; 
 
:j 
 
I' 
,I I: 
,I 
 
F 
 
L 
 
a 
 
R 
 
D 
 
L .~-=-':~~~-=~==-:- - -.-- -- - _._- -- --~ - -- - --- ._..~ _.. --- ----- - 
 
28 
 
 Th e P o t en t i a l Marke t for Housin g As s i s tan ce P rog r ams Th e previous dis cu s s i o n o f Housing n e ed h a s f o c use d o n 
t he c o mpon en t s o f ne e d , t h e gec gr a p h i e d Ls t "i bu t ion of ne ed a n d char ac te ris tic s o f hous .eho Lc s wh o n ee d the h o u s i n g . Th is discus si o n o n po t enti a l mar ke t for housi n g ~ ssis t ance i s desi g ned t o separate t h a t por tio n of the h o u si n g market served by t he private s ect or. 
Sin ce i n c ome is t he ma jo r c r it eria for part icipat i o n i n t he subs i di z e d hou s i ng program. the l at e nt a ssumption i s t h a t ho useho ld s who s e i n c ome e xee ed t h e maximum ineome a Ll .owo c, t o p ar t i c i p a t e i n t h e s u bs i d i z e d progr ams , wi l l b e se r v e d by t h e p r i v a t e sector. Op er a ti o n a l l y , t h e i n c ome c ut -o f f i s arou n d $15 , 000 b u t ma y b e h i g her i n are a s wit h a high med ian f ami l y in com e . 
The c ri t e r i a u s e d to d et el~ine the p o t e n t i a l mar k e t for ho u s i ng assi s tan c e we r e con se r iat i v ely d e f i n ed t o i nc l l ~ e fa cto rs c o n ce r n e d wi t h the n eea f or a d d i t i o n a l s t and a rd h o n s i ng . The t wo compo ne nts s el e c t e d we r e : 
numb e r o f ho u s e ho l d s i n substand a rd ho u sin g i n 197 0 ; househo ld i nc r e a s e sinc e 1970 . Thes e t wo b a s i c c ompo nen ts we re r e fi ne d to exclude hou s eholds wi t h i ne lig ib l e i n c me a n d a ss is ted h ous i ng p ro v i d e d in th e c ommu n i t y s inc e 197 0 . Uti liz in g t h e se cr iteri a an analysis was conduc ted f or each cou nt y r e s u l t i ng i n a 1977 potent i a l market for 307 , 0 0 0 assis te d hou s i n g units in Geo rgi a . Ta b l e 7 shows the Stat e Summary . The e st imat e r e s ul t i ng from t h is analys is is consider e d conser va t i ve b e c au s e i t exc l u des ot he r f actors cont r i bu t i ng 
29 
 
 TABLE 6 " 
STATE OF GEORGIA FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 
HOUSING DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS Jul y 1974 -- June 30, 1977  
 
COUNTI ES 
 
NUMBER RECEIVED 
 
TYPE 
TERMS & CONDITIONS RENT SELL FINANCE 
 
Bartow 
 
3 
 
3 
 
Bibb 
 
11 
 
2 
 
7 
 
2 
 
Bryan 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Carroll 
 
1 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Chatham 
 
7 
 
5 
 
1 
 
Chattahoochee 
 
1 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Clarke 
 
2 
 
3 
 
1 
 
Clayton 
 
6 
 
9 
 
3 
 
Cobb 
 
21 
 
9 
 
2 
 
1 
 
Colquitt 
 
4 
 
4 
 
Cook 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Cowe t a 
 
1 
 
1 
 
DeKalb 
 
36 
 
11 
 
21 
 
1 
 
3 
 
Doughert y 
 
9 
 
2 
 
7 
 
Dou gl as 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Floyd 
 
2 
 
1 
 
1 
 
w 
0 
 
Fulton 
 
115 
 
42 
 
62 
 
8 
 
3 
 
Gwinnet t 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Hall 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Henry 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Houston 
 
3 
 
3 
 
Lumpkin 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Morgan 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Musco gee 
 
14 
 
4 
 
6 
 
4 
 
Paulding 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Peach 
 
3 
 
3 
 
Polk 
 
2 
 
2 
 
Richmond 
 
5 
 
2 
 
3 
 
Spalding 
 
5 
 
4 
 
1 
 
Stephens 
 
2 
 
2 
 
Sumter 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Thomas 
 
2 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Tift 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Walton 
 
1 
 
1 
 
Whitfield 
 
2 
 
1 
 
1 
 
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
 
 t o need such as losses from the inventory and the need for an adequate vacancy rate within the c ommunity . . The lack o f current informati on a nd th e inability to proje ct v a c a n c i e s an d demol ition by income categories dicta t e d t hat they be exc l ude d fr om this analysis . 
Part II of the Housing Element provides an estimate of the p otential market for housing assistance by APDC and County by programmatic requirements - very low, low and moderate. A detai l ed met hodology is a lso i n c l u de d i n P a r t II . 
 
TABLE 7 
 
State of Georgia Potential Ma r k e t for Housing Assistance 
TOTAL 
 
ELDERLY 
 
1. Eligible Households in Substandard Housing, 1970 
 
180,972 
 
52 ,532 
 
2 . Eligible 1970-1977 Population Increment 
 
194,498 
 
2 0,377 
 
3 . Gross Market Potential, 1977 
 
375 ,470 
 
72,909 
 
4. Minus Assisted Housing 
 
67,710 
 
7,493 
 
5 . Net Market Potential , 1 977 
 
307 ,760 
 
65 ,416 
 
a. Very Low 
 
129 , 606 
 
45, 7 73 
 
b. Low 
 
37,471 
 
12,284 
 
c. Moderate 
 
140,683 
 
7,359 
 
31 
 
 Implication for State Housing Policies 
The number and distribution of households who need housing reflect a need for both single-family and multi-family housing units to be produced within the State. Financial assistance is needed if the cost or rent is to be affordable by many of Georgia's citizens. 
Mortgage financing programs designed to provide below market interest rates, longer terms and lower down payments can make it possible for moderate income families to buy a home. These programs should be available to finance lower cost existing housing as well as newly constructed units. 
The data in the Needs Analysis do not purport to estimate the number of housing units which can be brought up to standard condition through rehabilitation. However, the statistical .data provide strong support for housing rehabilitation and home repair programs for occupants of single-family substandard dwellings with an income insufficient to purchase new or existing standard housing and/or for those households who do no t wish to buy another house. Financial incentives, code enforcement and landlord-tenant legislation are mechanisms by which the large stock of private rental housing can be brought up to or maintained as standard housing.  Maximum utilization of existing housing rehabilitation programs and development of others where feasible is still another vehicl e to impact on the state's housing needs. 
While the concept of homeownership should be emphasized to the ext ent practical , t he needs of those f amilies for whom homeownership is not feasible should not be ignored. Recognizing that one-fourth o f all substandard housing is occupied by elderly persons whose income , personal needs and desires pre- 
32 
 
 c l ude homeownership , s p e cial p r ograms shoul d b e develope d t o address the particular ne e ds o f thi s segment o f the hous ing marke t . Multi- un i t hous i ng des i gned s p e c i f i c a l l y for the l i f e style of senior c itizens needs to b e f inanced and buil t . The n e e d for this t y p e o f p r ogr am wi l l increase over the year s as t he elderly population continues to i ncreas e ; 
Additional rental housing at a f fo rdable rent levels ne eds to be provided for families not yet capable of assuming the responsib i l i t i es of homeownership. The Section 8 Hou si n g Program a dmi n i st e r e d by HUD has the fle xib ili ty to maximi ze t h e u s e o f e x i sting rent al units by mak i n g ho usin g assis t a n ce payment s availab l e to qua l ifi e d fam i li e s t o en ab l e t h em to r ent the s e un i ts. 
Where shor t ages o f existing rent al housin g p rev a i l , new un i ts mus t be constructed i f the ne ed i s t o be met . Without S t at e - a i ded l owe r intere s t fin a nci ng, i t is doub t fu l if t h e s e addit ional units can or wil l b e c ons t r u c t e d. 
The number and d i stribut ion of hous e ho lds r equi ri ng s ome form of housing assistance (e . g. , lowe r c ost h o u s i n g , more f avor ab l e mortgage fin anc ing t erms and rat es , hou s i ng r ehabil i tati on assistance and rent subs id i e s ) ar e o f s u c h magn i tude t hat the stat e shou ld d e v e l o p mechanisms to in s u r e ma x i mum ut i l i z a t i o n of all available hous i ng assistance f unds . Variou s types of hous ing a ssistance are ava il a b l e f rom GRFA, BUD , FmHA, the Vete ran ' s Adm in i s t ratio n, Depart me n t of Heal th, Education a nd Wel f a re -Title XX , and Communit y Ser v ices Admi n i str at i o n . The al ternati v e s a v a i l a b l e to t h e Stat e to i n s u r e ma x i mum ut il i zation o f hous i ng ass i s t a nc e fu nds inc lud e i mpro v i n g the outr e a c h capabi liti es o f 
33 
 
 funding agencies, increasing the awareness of citizens of various housing programs, providing direct aid in areas where federal funding is deficient and developing appropriate delivery systems for housin g p r o g r ams . 
In addition to the need to stimulate single-family and multi-family housing production and rehabilitation, attention must be given to special problems associated with various market groups. Substandard housing is usually a function of inadequate income. Other support services are also needed for low and moderate income housing developments. 
Attention must also be given to housing problems of minorities to insure that historical patterns of discrimination are not perpetuated by discriminatory lending and leasing practices such as more stringen t loan terms to minorities , tlr e d - l i n i n g" or wrtting off areas as unacceptable for mortgage credit , and refusal to participate in federally insured or subsidized programs. 
34 
 
 HOUSING COST vs. HOUSEHOLD INCOME 
 
  HOUSING COST VERSUS HOUSEHOLD INCOME 
Housing cost has emerged as the number one housing issue. Bo t h nationally and statewide, the cost of housing is increas i n g at a faster rate than household income. The result of this trend i s that fewer Georgians are able to afford adequate housing at r e a so na b l e costs on the open market. 
The nature of this problem is one which requires clOse scrutiny by poliCY makers in that the primary basis for gove r n -mental involvement in housing is to assist the private sector in bridging the gap between housing need and effective hou sing demand. The widening of the gap created by escalating hous i n g costs makes it more imperative to address squarely and fo r thrightly the State's role in providing standard affordable housing for its citizens. 
This Chapter will focus on current housing costs , factors related to cost and the relationship of housing costs to t he household income. The general approach is to compare State or Regional trends to National trends. 
Current Cost of New Housing Historically, most new housing is normally produced at 
prices that restrict its absorption i n t he marketplace t o t hose with greater financial means, primarily moderate and hi ghe r income families. Current costs, however, are making it more di ffi cult for even moderate income households to afford new housing . 
37 
 
 The median sales price for new single family housin~ has ranged from $45 ,200 in January, 1977, to $48,000 in April, 1977 as indicated by Table 8. During that same time period the average sales price for new housing ranged from $51,300 to $55,100. Median and average are both statistical terms used to describe and summarize. Median by definition is midpoint and average is the arithmetic mean. The value and significance of both terms are directly related to distribution. For example, is the cost of new housing clustered around the $40,000 to $60,000 price range, or fairly equally spread between $20,000 and $80,000? Either type distribution could result in a $47,000 median and $50,000 average. 
A report jo intly prepared by the Bureau of Census and HUD on Characteristics of New Housing was released in July, 1977 and shows the distribution o f sales price of housing for the U.S. and for the south for the year s 1972 and 1976 . In 1972, the largest percentage of homes sold for less than $30,000 - 59% nationally and 66% in the south. The distribution resulted in a median price and average price of $27 ,600 and $30,500 respectively for the U.S . and a median price and average price of $25,800 and $28 ,500 fo r the south. By 1976 , on ly 1 8% of the new single-family housing in the south and 1 2% nation al l y we r e being sold for less than $30,000. The result o f t h i s shift i n distribution of price is that by 1976 the aver age a n d med i a n sales price was $48,000 and $44,200 nationally, and $43,800 and $40 ,500 in the south. The median sales 
price inyrease r epresented an a n nu a l increase o f more than 14%. 
38 
 
 TABLE 8 SALES PRICE OF NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING, 1977 
 
Median Sales Price $ 39,300 44,200 45,2 00 47 ,500 46,400 48 , 900 
 
Average gales Price $ ------- 
--- ---- 
51,3 00 53,100 52,700 55,100 
 
Date 
1975 1976 Jan. , 1977 Feb. , 1977 March, 1977 April, 1977 
 
SOURCE : The Bureau of National Affairs, Housing . and Development Reporter~ Select ed Issues, ~97 7. 
 
39 
 
 SALES PRICE OF DWELLING 
 
TABLE 9 
DISTRIBUTION OF SALES PRICE OF NEW HOUSING 
By LOCATION 1972 - 1976 
 
United States 
 
1972 
 
1976 
 
No . 
 
% 
 
No. 
 
% 
 
(In OOO's) 
 
(In OOO's) 
 
1972 
 
No. 
 
% 
 
(In OOO's) 
 
South 
 
1976 
 
No . 
 
% 
 
(In OOO's) 
 
Und e r $ 3 0, 0 00 
 
426 
 
59 
 
$30 ,000 - $39,999 
 
170 
 
24 
 
$40 ,000 - $49,999 
 
70 
 
10 
 
$50,000 - $59,999 
 
.l'> 
 
0 
 
$60 ,000 - $69 ,999 
 
52 (NA) 
 
7 (NA) 
 
$70 ,000 + 
 
(NA) 
 
(NA) 
 
Average Sales Price $30,500 
 
Median Sales Pr i ce $27,600 
 
79 
 
12 
 
168 
 
26 
 
167 
 
26 
 
99 
 
16 
 
59 
 
9 
 
68 
 
11 
 
$48,000 
 
$44,200 
 
200 63 25 17 ( NA) 
(NA) $28 ,500 $25,800 
 
66 21 
8 5 (NA) (NA) 
 
44 
 
18 
 
74 
 
31 
 
63 
 
26 
 
27 
 
11 
 
17 
 
7 
 
17 
 
7 
 
$43,800 
 
$40,500 
 
NA - Not Available 
SOURCE : U. S. De p ar t men t of Commerc e, Bureau of Census a n d U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development , Ch aracteristics of New Housing, 1975. Construction Reports C25 - 76 - 13, July, 1977. Table 18 . 
 
 By 1981, the median sales price is expected to be $78 ,000 if current trends continue according to a report prepared by the Harvard-MIT Joint Center for Urban Studies. 
Table 1.0 "Distribution of Sales Price by Type of Financing" further refines the 1975 data in Table 9 . Homes purchased in 1976 for less than $30,000 were generally financed by Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Veteran's Administration (VA) or the Farmers ' Home Administration (FmHA). Only 5% of conventionally financed housing sold for less than $30,000 . 
Comparable sales prices for Georgia were secured from the various housing finance agencies and are listed in Table 11 Although the data for conventional financing are limited , this table does lend support to the contention that sales pric e s for non-subsidized or conventionally financed housing in Geor gia is beyond the financial means of a large number of Georgians . Conventionally financed housing generally require a 10-20% down payment plus closing cost. This initial out-of-pocke t cost t ends to eliminate many prosecti ve homeown ers . The V . A. does not req u i r e a down payment, and the FHA down payment is dependent on the va lue but may be as low as 3%. Many local financial inst itutions in Georgia do not, however, participate in the lower interest rate programs of these agencies. 
Where the programs are utilized , hous e hol d s are provided assistance in keeping their housing cost more in line with the ir income. For example , the Home Owne rship Loan Progr am of GRFA is currently offering 7% loans for a 30 year mortgage on single f ami l y residences insured by FHA o r guarant eed b y VA . On a $30 ,000 
41 
 
 TABLE 10 
DISTRIBUTION OF SALES PRICE OF NEW HOUSING BY TYPE OF FINANCING, 1976 (No. in Thousands) 
 
SALES PRICE OF DWELLING 
 
FHA No. % 
 
VA No . % 
 
FmHA No. % 
 
Under $30,000 
 
17 29 
 
$30,000 - $ 39 , 999 
 
24 43 
 
$40,000 - $49,999 
 
13 23 
 
~ 
 
$50,000 - $59,999 
 
(B) (B) 
 
N 
 
$60,000 - $69,999 
 
(B) (B) 
 
$70,000 + 
 
(B) (B) 
 
14 18 
 
32 42 
 
21 29 
 
7 
 
9 
 
(B) (B) 
 
(B) (B) 
 
21 39 (B) (B) (B ) (B) (B ) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B) 
 
Conventional 
No. % 
22 5 101 22 127 28 
87 19 54 12 62 14 
 
Average Sales Price 
Median Sales Price 
 
$35,200 $34,500 
 
$39,300 $37 ,700 
 
$23,100 $22,500 
 
$52,100 $48,000 
 
Source: U. S. Department of Comme r ce , Bureau of Census an d U. S . Dep a r t men t of Housing and Urban Deve lopmen t . Characteristics of New Housing, 1976, Construction Repor t C25-76-l3, July 1977. 
 
 ILoca tion 
( Atlanta Atl a n ta 
( 
Atla nta 
IMaco n 
( Savannah 
IState SMSA 
(S t ate SMSA 
I s t a t e No n - SMSA 
I (S t a te Non-SMSA 
( St a t e No n - SMSA Sta t e 
( 
 
TABLE 11 
CURRENT COST OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING 
 
STATE OF GEORGIA 
 
1977 
 
Av e r a g e Cos t 
 
Type 
 
Source 
 
Date 
 
$63,500 
 
New Con ven tional 
 
Federal Home Marc h , 1977 Loan Bankl 
 
50 ,800 
 
Ex i s t i n g Conventional 
 
Feder al H~me Mar c h, 1 977 Lo an Bank 
 
29 ,518 
 
Sec. 203 Insured Existing 
 
FHA Trends 
 
Dec . 1976 
 
22 ,289 
 
Sec. 203 Insured Ex i s t i n g 
 
FHA Trends 
 
Dec. 1976 
 
25,563 
 
Sec. 203 Insured Existing 
 
FHA Trends 
 
Dec . 1976 
 
32 ,553 
 
New GRFA HomeOwnership Loan Program 
 
Homebuy er's Mar c h, 1977 Profil e 
 
28 ,171 
 
Existing GRFA Home-Ownership Lo a n Progr am 
 
Homebuyer's Mar c h , 1 9 7 7 Profile 
 
33 ,029 
 
New GRFA HomeOwnership Loan Program 
 
Homeb u yer's Mar c h , 1977 Pr ofi l e 
 
26,165 22 ,5002 32,717 
 
Existin g GRFA Home - O w n e r s h i p Loan Program 
New and Ex is t ing 502 Hou s in g 
New a nd Existin g VA Gu a ran t e e d 
 
Homebuyer's March, 1977 Profile 
 
FMHA Lo a n 
 
April , 1 97 7 
 
App li c at ion s 
 
Pr opert y Man - Ju ne , 1977 agement Sec ti on , VA 
 
(I Hou sing fina n c e d by member s o f Savin gs an d Loan Asso c i a t i on . 
I2 4 9% of al l loan s mad e b y FMHA f r om Oc t o b e r 1976 - Apri l 1 977 were fo r a l oan a moun t of be t ween $20 ,000 a n d $ 2 5, 000 
 
I 
 
43 
 
I 
 
 loan at this rate, an individual homeowner will save approximately $36.50 per month, or $438 per year, over the amount required without GRFA assistance. This payment reduction will allow a family to qualify for a loan with about $1,800 less income than they would need to have to qualify f or a conventional loan at 8.75%. The chapter on Program Utilization: An Assessment from the User's Perspective, will explore reasons the programs are not utilized in some areas of the State. 
Mobile homes and modular housing have emerged as a major consumer alternative to the traditional stick built home, particularly in rural areas of Georgia. According to the Manufactured Housing Institute, the average price for the mobile home in 1976 was $12,750. By 1976, 76% of housing sold for $30,000 or less was mobile housing. See Illustration 11. 
In addition to cost information secured from financial institutions, a review was mad e of studies conducted by Area Planning and Development Commissions. The following excerpts from those reports represent a more local perspective of cost within the State while supporting the conclusion that new single-family units are catering more to the $35,000 and above market. 
The Coastal Areawide Housing Analysis states that the greatest increases in available housing have occurred in the under $8,000 category, and in the $33 ,000 to $57 ,000 range. The increase in the proportion of housing units in the lower income ranges is primarily attributed to the influx of mobile homes into the Region. In 1969, approximately 3 0% of t h e under $8,000 homes were mobile 
44 
 
 The Under $]0,000 New Home Market Mobile Home Share 
1001 
76% 
75 
50 
25 
 
'71 
 
'72 
 
'73 
 
'74 
 
'75 
 
'76 
 
Source: Manuf a ctured Housing Institut e, Qu ick Fa cts, 1970 
 
45 
 
 homes; by 1976 this percentage had increased to approximately 40%. One factor contributing to this growth in mobile homes is 
the small percent of new housing being built in the lower income ranges since 1970. Only 10% of the new single-family homes and condominiums built si nce that time were in this price range. Many of the lower income units which we r e built were not intended as year-round permanent residences, however, but as vacation cottages along the coast. 
The increase in the proportion of housing units in the $33,000 to $57,000 r a nge is primarily attributable to new homes and condominiums built in Glynn and Liberty Counties from 1970 to 1976 . New housing starts in Liberty County, prompted by the build-up of Fort Stewart, were oriented toward the mid-$30,000 range. By actual count of one realtor, thirty-five homes in the $25,000 to $30,000 range were on the market the week of March 15, 1976. Anoth e r fifteen or more units on the market were priced at a much higher range , f r om $51,000-$60,000 . These more expensive homes were built speculatively for f i e l d grade officers at expanded Fort Stewart. It is felt by the developer , however, that this market may have been over estimated. 
Mo s t new housing growt h in Liberty Coun ty o c c u r r e d within the Ci t y o f Hinesville . Ba sed up o n their building permit data, approximately 50% o f the new sin gl e fami l y housing units built since 1970 have been in t h e ove r $ 33 , 0 0 0 pri ce range. A major f a c t o r contributing to these e sca l at in g housing va l ues is t he ris ing price of Hi nesville lan d . As a r esult of land speculation spurred by the military build-up, develop ab l e l a nd in Hinesville is bringing a mi n im um of $5 ,000 per ac r e . 
46 
 
 The Northeast Georgia APDC conducted a survey to determine the cost f or vacant for sale housing i n the area. The results of this s u r v e y are shown in the f oll owin g Tabl e. 
 
COSTS FOR VACANT FOR SALE HOUSING IN NORTHEAST GEORGIA 
MARCH, 1977 
 
Av e r a g e Co s t for: 
 
Area 
 
3 Bedroom House 
 
4 Bedroom House 
 
Barrow 
 
$36,084 
 
$40,900 
 
Clarke 
 
$37,569 
 
$53,805 
 
Elbert~ 
 
$30,000 
 
$35,000 
 
Greene 
 
$30,000 
 
$35,000 
 
Jacks on 
 
$31,210 
 
$3 7,791 
 
Madison 
 
$31,950 
 
$39,000 
 
Morgan 
 
$32,870 
 
$42,961 
 
Oconee 
 
$40,175 
 
$55,383 
 
Oglethorpe 
 
$29,000 
 
$38,200 
 
Walton 
 
$31,654 
 
$42,550 
 
SOURCE: Computed and compiled by NEGAPDC staff, 1977. 
 
A survey of local builders was also conducted by the North 
 
Georgia APDC. The information provided by builders in the area 
 
indicates that the price range for single-family housing in the 
 
area is $35,000 to $45,000 . 
 
The Consumer's Ability to ATford New Housing A review of housing cost in relation to income will put the 
current cost of new housing in proper perspective because it 
 
47 
 
 addresses the consumer's ability to afford the housing . A point of reference for the following analysis is that in 1970, the median family income in Georgia was $7,346 and $9,867 for the U. S. In 1976, the median family income for the U. S. was estimated to be $14,500, representing a 46.9% increase over the six-year period, and representing an annual increase of 7.8%. Housing, as noted in the previous section, was increasing at approximately 15% annually. 
A customary rule of thumb among mortgage lenders has been that a household can afford to pay two-and-a-half times its annual income to buy a house, but as a result of increased operating 9osts, the figure has been revised downward to two or 2.25 times annual income. Median family income in the United States was $14,500 in 1976. Families earning this amount or less can thus afford to pay some $30,000 for a house, but new homes in this price bracket are scarce. (By 1976, only 12% of all new single-family houses sold were in this price bracket.) Thus, half of all the families in America could not afford to pay more than $30 ,000 for a house and houses priced for $30 ,000 and under are becoming scarce. 
An analysis conducted by the Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT and Harvard University was designed to show how much ground the consumer had lost in obtaining housing. One type analysis revealed that in 1970, 46.2% of all families were able to afford the homeownership cost of a median price new house and 44.8% of all families were able to pay the homeownership cost of the median priced existing house. By 1976, the percentage of families had declined to 27% and 36 % respectively. These results are illustrated in Figures 12 and 13. 
48 
 
 NARROWIN~ OF THE MARKET FOR EXISTING HOUSES, 1970 1976 
 
Percent of 
 
45 40 
 
........:..~......................j...:........................:....j................:............~................:.......~................:.......~..............:.........j...............................:..j......................:....~.................:......._.j..............:............~..........................:.~...................:...~...............:......~...............................:~.....................:.......~.......................:.~......................:......~..............:...........j.......................:j..........................:...j..................:.........j...............:.........j.......................~...:......................~....:.....................~...:..........................:..j.....................j..:..........................:...j..................:.........j...............:......j....................:...........j............:.......~..................:..............j...........:................~......:..................~.......:.............~.........:..........................j.........................:j....................:....~.................:......j..............:............~......................:.~...............:...j.................:.~......................j.....:................:....~..................:..~.................:.~................:~....................:....~................~.:.....................~..........~.........~.............~....j.............j.......'............j.................m~...................m......~..............~...........~........~..............'.....~..................~!....................~..........I.........~...........!~......................t....'..................:.........I.......:............:..-.......................:......"..........:............':.........................-.~...........................-......................................................................................................................................... 
 
::.....:.:....:.:....::.....::......::......::...:...:...:...:..:..:....:..:....::.....::....::......:..:....::.....::....:.:.....:.:...:.:......::......:.:..:...:.:...:....::....:.:...:.:....:...:..:.:....::.....:.:.......::....::....::.....:..:..:.:....:..:...:..:....:.:...:.:....:.:........::.....::....::....:.:....::.......::..::........::....::...:..:.......::...:..:....::...:..:......::..:...:....::......::...:...:.....::....:..:...:..:..:.:.......:.:.:...:..:....:...::....:..:....:.:....::.....:..:...::.....:.:....:..:......::...:...:..:..:.......::..:.:......:.:.:..:......::....:..:............ .... .. ... 
 
U.S. families able to 
 
ntlord mndian-priced 
 
OXlllUnq houuon 
 
35 
 
I"."D" 
30 
 
36.0 
I 
 
25 
 
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 
 
I I~~!~~jj 
 
Median sales price of existing houses 
 
Sour ce : Joint Center for Urban Studies, MIT and Harvard Universities, The Nation's Housing 1975 - 1985. 
 
1976 
 
 NARROWING OFTHE MARKET FOR NEW HOUSES, 19701976 
 
i 
 
1;a,. 
 
45 
 
40 
 
Percent of 
 
U.S. families able to 
 
afford median-priced 
 
new houses 
 
35 
 
U1 
o 
30 
 
....:.. :,. 
 
. .:. 
 
.:.:-... . .. <~ :(\~:;}; 
 
.:: ~::;>~ ":. 
 
.".:". ,"' 
. ... .. 
...... .' . 
 
-': " ;: :' 
 
" .', 
 
. : .". 
 
-.';.;.: .v ;: 
 
....\ /:... 
 
..... ...) -.: 
.'::::::;:/:'::.../ :.:: .:'(.:~:.: ):;", . :: 
 
:. 
.'... ...~........'.....,....,".'.'.'...'.-... ,".: 
 
$39 ,300 
 
..,.... . o(:z:: .:::.::~ :::~: 
 
t: ::-~~;;::~::~~: 
 
::::t:; ::~ ':: :: : :: 
::;:::;:::":.:::"' 
 
: : : : ;:; :.~ :::}:. 
 
: .:-:::-: ::: ,:.: .~:~ 
 
......... . '.' ... ~, :.:-.:.".;..~:;".::.:.10::..~:t..:.:..:-.:.~:. 
 
. :..~.:~::. 
 
: 
,!" 
 
:: : 
.: - 
 
;: 
 
,: 
 
::. 
 
::.:..:.:; 
 
:':r;:, 
 
: :::~~ :t; ::: :~::::: 
 
::~ 
.r!' :.- 
 
:.: .::.;.":..:.~~.~~,::..:... .:.:.+~...:.:~...:::.. :. 
 
:::::: ':::~:: ;::~:: 
 
::.t..:.:.:.::.:.: :.:.~:.:.': :~..:::.;.::..:;. 
 
:~ 
. .::. 
 
::~ 
.~.::. 
 
t ~::: : :: : ;:: : ::: i 
 
.::: ~: : ;:~ : :: ::: : :: 
 
". :::: :~: :~:::::~::; 
 
.. . .. ~ ~.::~:::::~.:~::: 
 
I 
 
:: lo 
 
::-::'~.:.,:-: 
 
::: : : ...,": 
 
. 
 
: :: :" 
 
:,:....,-:.,::..:.:.. 
 
::~~:~~:~::;;:f::r: 
 
~~~:~~ 
 
$44,200 
 
.. :t~:::_ 
. ."' ,!" :. :.>~'!.~ :. :. 
~:~: :~: :::: ::::;::~ : 
::;~ :~::~:~:: ~::~: 
 
; :~~ ::: :~: t;~::~: 
 
::;; :~::~::::::::~: 
 
; :~~ :;: :~::t:~:~t. 
 
.~:~ ;:~ ~ :~~ :~ ~ :: ~ ~: 
 
: ~:~:;: ~~~ ~;f~~ ' ~.oj~r~:~';:";:"~I"~"::':~";"~"~'~:!: 
 
::t ~:: ;~: ::~ : :~ : :r.: :~ 
~: ~ ~:: ;:~: :~ ::~ 
t :;:~:::;:~::~:::' 
 
':: ~ :. ~ ;:~: :: ; :~: :t 
 
::~;:~ ~:~; :~ ~ :~:::. 
 
::~:~: :::~: ~:~.;:~~:: : :::: ~:: ; ::: ::.::: 
 
.::::::::.:: ;.:::::;~:.::::.:::;::::: 
 
t: ::: ':: :.:. : ::; : ~: ; ;:~ : : : 
:.: :~: ::: ~ ; :~ 
 
;;: j:: ::}~ ::}t~ ;:~::~ 
:~.;:i:~ ~~:;, 
 
:~ : :t.: :~ : ~:: ;::~ .: 
 
. : ;:~ : ::: : ::: : ~: : ;:: 
,..:: t: :~: ~::;::::: 
:::: .~ ; .~ : ::: :~ : ~:: 
 
:: t:::: . :~ ::~; :~: t ::::~:: 
: ~ ~ :~ ~ :~: ~ 
 
.. . ..... . , ::::: ':~::::t:::::~~ 
 
' 
 
- 
 
::::::: ::.: :~: :~:;:: 
 
.:~ : ::::~::~ ::::: ~.: 
 
: : :~: :~: :~::t: ;: : 
 
:::: : : ~ : :~ ; :~: :: ~ :::: ~ :~ 
; :~ ;;~: ::.: :~: ::: ~ ::: ::~~;~ ; :~ : :~; : ~:: ~::; : : ~ :~ ;:~ ~ :~;::': 
 
j ~~~::.: :~~ : ;; I: !: 
,j-: ; :~ ~ ;=.: :~: :: : :~: :::~ ;:~ ::t: :~: :::: 
 
~~:~: :::~ :;:: 
 
:;;',.".I .il.1 
 
27.0 
 
'; ' , 
 
25 
 
.............................. . ... . ~:::::::: : ~ . : : 
- 
:;::;:11f;!:m!:s~~;:://.~~~ ;; : H; : :l:: .;; : ;:J: ?gn1gn~ t;:.:;:: ;:J~1 ~ j2; ~~ ~~.~ ;.~ 
 
... ... ....  ......,.' "" 
... ... . , - 
 
..... .. ' 
 
..... ..... ................... . .. ' 
 
' 
 
: :':';:::: '::'~:: 
 
. . . .. . . .. .. . .. a    ,., , . .... ~ 
 
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 
 
1975 
 
!!j 
1976 
 
~ .. . ..... :.~ 
 
. 
 
,e~...~,,,:".; 
 
~ ~ ',  , ; 
 
-. 
 
.. ~. :.: - ~ :. :.' 
 
Median sales price of new houses 
 
Sourc e: J oint Cen t er f or Urb an Studies , MIT and Harvard Universit ies , The Nation 's Housing 1975 - 1985. 
 
 Another t ype ana lys i s wa s b a sed o n a survey o f homebu yers moving into new homes i n 1965-66 and in 1975-76. This sur vey showed t ha t in 1965 , a lm ost 7 0% of the families buy ing n ew homes had an income of $1 0 , 000 or less . The 7 0% c orrespon d e d v e r y closely t o the percent a g e o f the p op u l a t i o n with a n income of $10 ,000. By 1976 , t he dispa r i t ies of hous i ng cos t and income were growing s uch tha t 3.7% of famili es buyin g new home s i n 1975-76 had incomes of l ess than $10 ,000, but th is i n c ome group repres ented 32% of the 
popu lation. These t r e nds are noted in Table 12 . 
The rat ional e used by many f or building new higher priced un i t s is bas e d o n t he fi ltering t heor y , i. e., a new unit is oc cup i e d b y a househo l d mo v i n g f r om an e xi sting unit , c r e a t i n g a v a c a n cy which may be occupie d b y ano t her household. Although this process gen e ra l l y re sults i n an up g r ad ing in t h e ho u s i n g of the famili e s mak ing t h e moves , ther e i s n o gua r a n t e e t h a t the proc e s s wi ll prov ide standar d ho u sin g t o those wh o se ek it , no r does t he p roces s a ut omatical ly el im inate t h e o c c upan cy of subs tan dar d un i ts in a n area's hous i ng inv entor y . 
 
Reasons for Es ca lating Hou s i ng P ri ces 
 
The a ctua l p r ice which a consumer pays f or hous ing r e f l ect s 
 
th e in t ricacie s o f hous in g con struct i o n and th e man y stages 
 
a t wh i c h c o sts are in cu rr e d . Re g ardless of a community' s s ize, 
 
clima te, labo r req uir eme nt or governme nt s e r v i c es , the s t a g e s 
 
a t which hous in g c ost s ac cumu l a t e are the same . The se s tages are 
 
demonstrated in Figure 14. 
 
When the pric e for renderin g a 
 
51 
 
 Table -12- - 
 
THE INCOMES OF PEOPLE BUYING NEW HOUSES, 1965 to 1966 
 
All U. S. 
 
Total Family Income Families, 1965 
 
(current dollars) 
 
(percent) 
 
Families Buying New Houses, 1965-1966b 
(percent) 
 
Less than $5,000 $5,000 - $7,999 $8,000 - $9,999 $10,000 - $14,999 $15,000 - "$24,999 $25,000 and over 
 
31.7 28.5 14.6' 
17.7 6.2 1.4 
 
16.9 32.4 20.1 21.7 
7.4 1.5 
 
100.Oa 
 
100.0 
 
SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, "Consumer Income: Money, Income and Poverty Status of Families and Persons in the U.S., 1974 and 1975 Revisions," series P-60, no. 103, advance report (September 1976), Table 3; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Surveys, parts 1 and 2, "Occupants of New Housing Units, Mobile Homes, and the Housing Supply" (Washington, D. C.: GPO, 1968), p. 51. 
 
a. Due to rounding, total does not equal 100 percent. b. Data for a sample of homebuyers moving into new homes from October 1965 through March 1966. 
 
THE INCOMES OF PEOPLE BUYING NEW HOMES, 1975 to 1976 
 
All U. S. 
 
Total Family Income Families, 1975 
 
(current dollars) 
 
(percent) 
 
Families Buying b New Houses, 1975-1976 
(percent) 
 
Less than $10,000 $10,000 - $14,999 $15,000 - $19,999 $20,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $49,999 $50,000 and over 
 
32.1 22.3 18.7 11.6 12.7 
1.4 100.Oa 
 
3.7 13.4 24.8 25.7 29.4 
3.0 100.0 
 
SOURCES: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, "Consumer Income: Mone y Income in 1975, of Families and Persons in the United States ," ser ies P-60; Michael Sumichrast, et al., Profile of a New Home Bu y er, p. 41 
 
a. Due to rounding, total does not sum to 100 percent. b. Data for a sample of homebuyers moving into new homes from July, 1975, through June, 1976. 
 
Source: Joint Center for Urban Studies MIT and Harvard 
Universities. The Nation's Housing, 1975 - 1985. 
 
52 
 
 Cost Accumulate at Each of These Steps 
 
Rea l Est at e Land Devel opers 
I 
Legal Servic es 
Ban ks: Commerc ial Savings 
Mortgage Companies Savings & Lo an Assns. Insurance Companies Other 
 
LAND 
I 
FINANCE 
 
L ocal Go v e rn ment Permits , Recording Zon e, Cod e Var ian c es 
Government, di rect - 
bonds appropr iations Mortgage insur ance, 
guarantees Subsidies : interest 
rat es, land Ta x abatement Accelerated Deprecia- 
tion 
 
Architects 
 
DESIGN 
 
Ma n u f a c t u r e r s 
 
----------- --- 
Engineers 
I 
I Turnkey 
Contractors 
I 
 
~ CONslRUCTION 
 
rI ~ 
 
0- 
 
.J 
 
~ 
 
Prefabricated Houses, Mobile Homes 
 
- 
 
I 
 
PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURE ,.... Materials -Equipment - 
 
Supplies 
 
I 
 
Contractors 
 
Developers 
 
DISTRIBUTION - Local 
 
Home Builders 
(Own Forces - Subcontracts) 
Building Contractors 
(Own Forces - Subcontracts) 
 
" 
 
-, 
 
'\ 
./ 
 
Deal ers 
- Materials-EquipmentSupplies 
 
I 
 
R LABOR On-Site 
 
: 
 
Off-Sit eHT- 
 
Build ing Br okers 
(Subcontract - Limited 0 F) 
 
I Subcontractors Site Improvement, Excavat ion, Foundation 
 
I 
 
OPERATION: 
 
I II 
Owner 
 
IRenter 
 
Plastering 
 
Steel Erection Concrete 
 
Painting & Decorat ing 
 
II 
 
Precasting 
 
Flooring 
 
Ta xes 
 
Prestressing Ornamenta l Metal 
 
Debt Service 
 
Masonry Brick Stone Tile Blocks 
 
Sheet Metal 
Electrical Plumbing Hea t ing & 
 
II 
 
Fuel - Heat 
 
-- 
 
Wa t e r - Dew er s 
 
- 
 
Gas Electr icity 
 
--- - 
 
Car pentry & 
Millwork Glas s & Glazing R0 0fting 
 
Ventilating Air Cond itioning Elevator 
 
_J . ., II 
Repairs 
 
"..- 
& Ma1nt -l 
 
""\ 
 
Se rv ices 
 
Source: 
 
Elsie Eaves - How the Many Costs of Housing Fit Together , 
 
Resea rch Paper No. 1 6 (Washington, D. C.: Government Print- 
 
ing Offi ce, 1969) p . 10. 
 
53 
 
 service or purchasing supplies increases at any of the many 
 
possible stages, the increase is passed on to the consumer in 
 
the form of housing cost. If strategies are to be developed 
 
to realistically address cost, an understanding is also needed 
 
of some of the components of cost. 
 
Newsweek estimated that from 1969 to 1974, the cost com- 
 
ponents of the typical house increased as follows: 
 
Item 
 
Cost 
 
% Increase 
1969-1974 
 
Financing Labor Materials Land Other Total for New Housing 
 
$3,580 $5,380 $11,450 
$8(950 $6,440 $35,800 
 
100% 21% 22% 59% 48% 40% 
 
Newsweek, July 29, 1974 P. 62 
 
Since 1974, with the continued escalation of cost one can 
 
conclude that the components have also increased. 
 
Wide fluctuation in housing production also contribute to 
 
higher housing cost. Nationally, over 2 million new housing 
 
units were started in 1971 and almost 2.4 million in 1972. By 
 
1974, housing starts had fallen to 1.35 million units and by 
 
1975 to 1.17, a drop of more than 50% in only three years. 
 
In Georgia, construction activity has tended to mirror the 
 
national situation. The Census Bureau Construction Reports were 
 
used to determine number of Permits Issued between 1970 and 
 
1976 for the State of Georgia for new single-family and multi- 
 
family units. Table 13 a n d Illustratio~ 15 show Building 
 
Permit Activity for the State of Georgia, 1970-1976. A county- 
 
54 
 
 80 , 000 70 , 000 60 , 000 50 ,000 
 
Building Permit Activit~ State of Georgia 
1.970 -1.976 
 
LEGEND Total Uni t s 
 
- 
 
Singl e Fami ly 
 
Mul t i -Family 
 
40,000 
 
30,000 
 
20 , 000 
 
10 ,000 
 
a 
1970 
 
1971 
 
19 72 
 
1973 
 
19 74 
 
1975 
 
Sour ce: U.S. Bureau of Cen s us C-4 0 Construct i on Rep orts: Hou sin g Autho r i z e d by Bui l di ng Pe rmits an d Publi c Con t r ac t s . 
 
55 
 
197 6 
 
 TABLE 13 
BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY STATE OF GEORGIA 1970 - 1976 
 
Year 
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 TOTALS 
 
Single-Family Units 
23,973 32,238 35,803 28,984 17,853 17,849 21,221 177,921 
 
Multi-Family Units 
27, 08 7 41,257 29,327 17,318 
7,764 1,719 2,767 127,239 
 
Totals 
51, 060 73,495 65,130 46,302 25,617 19,568 23,988 305,160 
 
SOURCE: U. S. Bureau of Census C-40 Constru ction Reports: Housing Authorized by Building Permits and Public Contracts. 
 
56 
 
 by-county breakdown of building permits issued is included in the 
technical appendix. In addition to the production fluctuations, the illustration dramatically shows the decline in multi-family production in the State , even the metro areas. From the consumer prospective, fewer rental un i ts wi l l be available as an alternative to single family housing. From t he developer 's perspective , rental rates have not kept pace with sales prices and the economic incentives are not stimulating multi-family production. 
The American Institute of Architects relates the problem of produc t ion f l u c t u a t i o ns to housing costs as follows: 
Production interruptions and delays increase carrying c harges and labor and management costs. Extended peri ods of unemployment and underemployment in the work force tend to encourage compensatory increases i n basic wa~rates among skilled construction workers when they do work , a l ong with premium pay for overtime. The high risk of loss by builders occassioned by p roduction i nterruptions and del ays is ultimately paid for by consumers i n the fo r m of higher profit margins o r lower production. ( Al A, Na t i o n a l Housing Pol i cy, May, 1 9 76) Th e av ail ability o f fin a ncing i s a key f ac to r i n housin g cost . Ex treme producti on fl u c tu a t i o ns are usually related to the avai lability of fin a ncin g - construction loan and mo r t g a g e loan. As with a l l othe r reso u r c e s, mon ey f o r ho usi ng mu s t c ompete wi th ma ny alternati v e u s e s an d t h e long t e r m natu re of ho using fi nanci n g does not make i t a s c ompetitive as altern ative uses. From a consumer perspec t i ve , any increase in interest rates or shrinkage of cred it redu c es the number of families who can o bt a i n ho u s i ng cred i t . Fr om t he pe rs pe c t iv e of housi ng production, fed er al mon e t a r y p oli cy for f i g h t i n g in flation 
57 
 
 seems to have a disproportionately adverse impact on housing production. 
Land cost now makes up about one-third of the total cost of a new house. Land use controls and environmental regulatory programs have in effect reduced the supply of developable land. In many urban areas, the supply of land is limited directly and intentionally by zoning or other special ordinances which prohibit development in designated areas. The restrictions are generally aimed at protecting important natural areas, to provide open space, or supply or limit population growth. In areas where a large portion of the land is subject to flooding, new flood plain regulations have limited the supply of developable land. In other areas, the physical supply of developable land is limited to areas where public services are available or planned in the near future. 
Developmental costs have increased dramatically due to regulatory practices in certain areas of the state. In typical situations, upgraded design, equipment and performance standards add to the cost of developing a tract of land. Additional costs are i ncurred because of increases in develop ment fees, number of submit t als required , and permit processing times. Changes i n sedimenta tion c on trol standards, building code standards and dra ina ge standards are also direct ly respons ible for a po r tion of t he total increase in land costs . 
58 
 
 A statistical analysis of the impact of land use and building 
controls on the price of new single-family homes was conducted by 
1/ 
Saglyn and Sternlieb (1973)~ The study examined four factors in 
explaining the increased price of new homes. 
1. Land use controls commonly used to restrict new growth (lot size, lot frontage, setbacks.) 
2. Physical features and amenities of new houses (cinderblock,floor area, full basement, appliances.) 
3. Strong determinants of the market place (municipal density , municipal tax rate, housing stock.) 
4. The buil der' s scale of operation (annual number of units co ns t r uc t e d by the builder and size of subdivision development.) 
The results of the study indicate that governmental controls 
had a direct e ffect on housing costs . The size of a new house was 
found to be the single most important factor in the price of unit. 
Size of the house was found to be directly affected by land use 
controls requiring minimum floor area, lot size requirements , and 
design restrictions . The study also showed that reductions of lot 
size , lot frontage and livable floo r area to 1 ,500 square feet , 
100 feet and 1,600 square feet , respe ctively, along with relaxation 
of building codes yield a predicted sales pr ice of approximately 
$ 36, 527, $12 ,481 l ower t han the $49 ,007 a verage . This reduction 
amounts t o almost $8. 00 per square foot in s av ings t o the consumer. 
Another significant c o mpo ne n t o f th e tot al co st of a new house 
that has subst antially i ncreased i n the recent years i s the actual 
construction costs of the unit . Table 14 delineates twenty-one 
construction cost components of the average single-family de t a c hed 
1/ David E. Ervin, et al . La n d Use Controls : Evaluating Economic 
and Political Effe cts Cambridg e Bal linger Publishing Co. , 
1977 p. 90 
59 
 
 house in Georgia. These figures include the combined cost of labor and materials. The average construction costs of a single-family dwelling increased from $14,459.01 in 1972 to $19,100.44 for the second quarter of 1976 . This represents a $4,641.43, or approximately 32 percent increase in a four and one-half year time span. 
60 
 
 TABLE 14 
A VE RA GE CONSTR UCTION COSTS OF SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSI NG AN D PERCENT DISTRIBUTION- 
 
1972 Cost 
 
1973 Cost 
 
1974 Cost 
 
1975 Costr 
 
2nd Qtr. 1976 Costp 
 
1973% 
 
1974% 1975% 
 
of Total of To tal ot Total 
 
Excavation M asonry Concrete Lumber Wood Flooring M illwork m Carpentry Lab or f-' Rooti ng Gutter s Lath, Plaster & Drywall T ile Work Floor Cov er ing - Electric Wiring Lighting Plumbing Heating Painting Insulation Hardware Appliances Incidental Cost 
 
s 226 .59 
1,107. 54 87 9 .94 
2,31 1.53 419 .91 
1,6 19.54 1,7 41.87 
313 .93 118 .44 860. 55 312 .95 260 .77 572.60 82.68 1,338.60 691. 80 703 .25 146.96 241.1 2 233 .53 274 .9 1 
 
s 229 .95 
932 .53 1,246.08 2,768.46 
568 .86 1,649.21 1,708.36 
343 .83 109 .01 873 .15 258 .30 424.73 606.96 137.59 1,356.18 746.51 661.19 228.84 296 .24 217 .81 321.92 
 
S 248.43 1,157 .68 1,446.35 3,056.00 753 .06 1,838 .26 1,837 .05 456.45 127.20 1,055.02 313. 60 605.14 658 .13 167.72 1,558.96 870 .69 743.37 285 .05 252.53 241.61 367.80 
 
$ 274.2 1 1,258.47 1,489. 23 2 , 6 04 .05 827 .90 2,041.39 1,908.16 506.19 137.42 1,067.10 280.04 676 .25 747.62 171.30 1,664.51 993.19 768.49 274 .46 307 .29 261.75 386.18 
 
$ 291 .07 1,263.92 1,532.80 2,688 .85 842.70 2 , 0 5 9 .75 1,927.45 513 .27 147 .92 1,083.65 277.90 724 .94 758.93 168.88 1,680.22 1,017 .58 802.05 310.66 319.64 284.19 404.07 
 
1.5% 6.0 8.0 17.7 3 .6 10.5 10.9 2 .2 
.7 5.6 1.7 2.7 3.9 
.9 8 .7 4 .8 4 .2 1.5 1.9 1.4 2.1 
 
1. 4 % 6 .4 8.0 16. 9 4.2 10.2 10.2 2.5 
.7 5 .9 1.7 3.4 3 .7 
.9 8 .7 4.8 4 .1 1.6 1.4 1.3 2 .0 
 
1.5% 6.7 8 .0 14 .0 4.5 10.9 10.3 2.7 
.7 5.7 1.5 3 .6 4.0 
.9 8 .9 5.3 4 .1 1.5 1.7 1.4 2 .1 
 
Total Cost 
 
$14,459.01 $15,685.71 $18 ,040 .10 $18,645.20 $19,100.44 100 .0% 100 .0% 100.0"0 
 
 -Note : Includes labor and materials, but not builder's overhead, profit , fi nanci ng , marketing and land cost 's r-revised p-preliminary 
 
1976% 
ot Total 
1.5% 6 .6 8 .0 14.1 4.4 10.8 10.1 2.7 
.8 5.7 1 .5 3.8 4 .0 
.9 8 .8 5.3 4 .2 1 .6 1.7 1.4 2.1 
100.0% 
 
National As s ociation of Horne Builders, Construction Comp on ent Costs for Single Family Structures, 1976 . 
 
 Policy Implications The cost of conventionally financed single-family housing in 
Georgia is increasing faster than income. By virtue of income constraints, conventional single-family housing is not a viable option for many Georgians. 
The alternatives available to consumers raises policy implications which must be addressed. Examples are as follows. 
Many Georgia citizens that cannot afford homeownership with conventional financing could afford housing through the lower interest rates provided by FHA, VA and/or GRFA. Yet these loans are not being made in large areas of the State by local financial institutions. What strategies could assist in making these loans more accessible to all Georgians regardless of their geographic location? 
Many Georgians may decide that the desire of homeownership is strong enough to forego other needs or to combine the income of two wage-earners. Attempts to stretch the family budget further may require more assistance in budgeting, self-help activities such as minor renovations and preventive maintenance. If there are two wage earners, more attention is needed to the availability of adequate day care services. 
Mobile homes as an opt ion is being used extensively in many rural areas. What ways can mobile homes be more effectively used t o achieve state housing goals? Can factory built housing be used more extensively in the State? 
For many Georgia families , homeownership is not a viable option, but the production of multi-family units in the State 
62 
 
 outside of metropolitan areas is very low. What actions are needed to stimulate multi-family production in the State? 
To reduce housing cost, site development loans, planned unit developments and cost saving production techniques are feasible alternatives . which should be explored. 
63 
 
  PROGRAM UTILIZATION 
An Assessment of Housing Production And Housing Assistance Programs 
 
  PROGRAM UTILIZATION (AN ASSESSMENT OF HOUSING PRODUCTION AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS) 
As the gap between housing need and effective housing demand continues to widen, the abilit y to efficiently channel housing resources to impact on the need increases . The magnitude of the need for housing in Georgia dictates t hat all resources available to increase the supply of affordable standard housing should be utilized to the maximum. 
This Chapter wi l l e xamine housing production and assistan c e programs operating in t he State and ascertain problems rel a t e d to the util ization o f those programs. The programs to be discussed in this chapter a re: 
Section 8 - Housing Assistance Payment Program Section 235 - Singl e-Family Homeownership Pro gram Section 502 - Rur al Singl e-Family Homeowner s hip Progr am Section 515 - Rural Multi-Family Rental Program 
Section 8 - Housing Assistance Payment Program The Congress, through the 1974 Housing and Community 
Development Act, authorized the De pa rt ment of Hous ing a nd Ur b a n Development (HUD) to utili ze a diff erent progr am te chnique and procedure for providing housing a ss i s t ance to eligible individuals and famili e s . The new pro g r am is c alled the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program. It provides that Housing 
67 
 
 Assistance Payments (HAPs) can be made to rental unit owners on behalf of eligible families and individuals living in either newly constructed, substantially rehabilitated or existing rental units. 
HUD is authorized to make HAPs directly to eligible owners either private, public or a joint venture - on behalf of eligible tenants or it may contract with a public housing agency to make said payments. Federal statute merely requires that an administrative instrumentality should be a state, county, municipality or other governmental entity, or public body which is authorized to engage in or assist in the development or operation of low-income housing . 
HAPs are the difference between either fifteen (15) or twenty-five (25) percent of an eligible individual's or family's income and the HUD established "fair-market rent" for the subject locality. Income criteria for eligible individuals and families are as follows Thirty percent of the HAP funds must be used for participants whose incomes are below fifty percent of the median income for the area. The remaining seventy percent may be used to make HAPs to participants whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent of the median income for the area. These payments made by HUD on behalf o f the eligible tenants living in eligible rental units are made monthly to the rental unit owner or their authorized representative (e.g., apartment complex manager) in the case of newly constructed or substantially. rehabilitated rental units. 
68 
 
 HAP funds can be contracted for intervals o f one (1) to five (5) years and renewable at the option of the owner for up to t we n ty (20) years. In the case of publicly owned units, the contract is renewable up to fort y (40) years maximum, or the terms of the mortgage if less than forty ( 40 ) years. 
In communities where there are a sufficient number of vacant standard rental units, HUD is required to make housing assistance payments on behalf of eligible families and individuals living in existing units. In communities in which there are not sufficient vacant standard rental units, HUD is authorized to make housing assistance payments on behalf of eligible families and individuals living in either newly constructed or rehabilitated rental units. 
Families, and p a rt icul arly senior citizens, do not hav e to move to r e c e i ve a ss i s t ance if (i) they are certified eligible for assistance, (ii) t he i r landlord is willing to "split" the rent between t he tenant and the agency, an d (iii) the unit they currently occupy meets the habitability standards. 
Status As stated in the p ro gr am descrip tion, Sectio n 8 Housing 
Assistance was authorized by the 1974 Housing Legislation. The program became operati ve in 1975 . By 1 976 , Geo rgia wa s f aring better than all o f its neighboring s t ates in committing revenue under t h e progr am . Committed revenue means HUD has offered a sponsor a housing assistance contract f or a specific amount of 
69 
 
 money and a developer has accepted the contract. For funds available to Georgia under the "Fair Share" Concept, 75% of the funds were actually committed or under contract. For Georgia's neighboring states in the south , committed funds ranged from a low of 33% in Alabama to a high o f 55% in Florida (See Table 15 ). It should be pointed out that the State of Georgia would be losing over six million dollars in housing assistance if GRFA were not involved in the Section 8 program. 
The GRFA Section 8 Program is operated by a central staff located in Atlanta and fifteen area administrators. Location of the area administrators are shown on the Map, Illustration 16. The GRFA was authorized 3,500 units with 3,050 earmarked for non-SMSA counties and 450 for SMSA counties. The GRFA can operate in 151 counties but not in areas with an ongoing Section 8 program. GRFA developed a staged implementation plan using the ChattahoocheeFlint APDC as the pilot area beginning August, 1976. All area admin~ istrators are now in place and the program is fully operational~ 
Georgia's high percentage of committed funds and GRFA's participation are certainly plus factors for the State. Committed funds , however, do not automatically translate into households who have been provided housing assistance by t he program. 
Table 16 shows the s tatus o f the Section 8 Existing Program in Geor gia . As of Jun e 30 , 1977 , a t o t a l of 10,495 units were under an Annual Contributions Contract between HUD and a public agency. Of the 10,495 under contract, 3,838 tenants have actually been 
70 
 
 TABLE 1 5 
 
SECTION 8 NEW AND EXI ST ING DOLLAR ALLOCATIONS By State in HUD Regio n I V 
 
FY Ge or gi a " F. S." 
 
75 76 77 TOTL. 
 
18 ,855,000 26 ,288 ,806 
9 ,740,392 54 ,884, 198 
 
Alab ama "F .S ." 
 
75 76 77 TOTL. 
 
15 ,7 27 , 0 00 22,504 ,812 
8 ,690 ,870 
 
S . C. " F . S . " 
 
75 76 77 TOTL . 
 
1 0 ,1 0 3 , 0 00 15 , 335 ,137 
5 ,635 ,060 
 
N. C. "F .S. " 
 
75 76 77 TOTL. 
 
20,317,000 31, 068, 590 11 , 0 83 , 9 2 6 
 
Miss . "F .S . " 
 
75 76 77 TOTL. 
 
10 ,657,000 14, 538 ,507 
5, 072 , 04 8 
 
Fl a . "F .S . " 
 
75 76 77 TOTL . 
 
26,820,000 43 ,018,047 16,368,646 
 
Tenn . "F.S." 
 
75 76 77 TOTL . 
 
17 , 730 ,000 25,293 ,018 
9,579,994 
 
Comm i tted Reven ue 15 ,554 ,305 18, 340 ,239 
 4 ,544 
10 , 44 5, 356 2 ,147,911 2,196 ,204 
8,2 21 ,070 4,396 ,790 
24 ,144 
17,593,138 7 , 396 , 008 204,951 
7 , 858 , 876 2,904,392 
904,608 
22,452, 402 15 ,864 ,422 
1,454,688 
10, 801,216 11,118 ,752 
5 ,168 ,640 
 
FY 75 & FY 76 
 
82% 60% 
0% 
 
75% 
 
66% 
9% 25% 
 
33% 
 
81 % 29 % 
1% 
 
50% 
 
86% 24 % 
2% 
 
4 9% 
 
78% 20% 18% 
 
44% 
 
8 3% 37% 
9% 
 
55% 
 
61% 44% 54 % 
 
49% 
 
FY 
 
Ken . " F . S." 
 
75 76 77 TOTL . 
 
14 ,715 , 000* 21,110,708 
7,775,064 
 
Committed Revenue 
16 ,997, 104 7 ,541 , 280 2 ,324,080 
 
FY 75 & FY 76 
 
1 5 5% 6 8% 30% 
 
36% 
 
Ex p lanat i o n of t he Tab le : 
1. I n arriving at the dollar a llocations , Fair Sha r e ( "F.S ." ) as de f ined i n the Housing and Community Act of 1974, Public Law 9 3 .383, 93 rd Congress, S . 3066, August 22, 1974 is population , extent of poverty counted twice and the extent of housing overcrowd ing. 
2. Committ e d Reven ue : me a ns HUD has offere d a spo n so r a hous in g a s s i s tance cont r act for a specific amount of money . Two fac to rs mak e up comm i t te d f u n ds. 1. HUD's o f f er of a con t rac t t o a d e v elop e r a n d 2 . t he de velope r' s acceptance of t he contract. 
71 
 
 TABLE 16 
 
STATUS OF EXISTING SECTION 8 PROGRAM IN GEORGIA 
 
NO. UNITS OUTSTANDING 
 
PHA 
 
DATE ACC 
 
NO. UNITS UNDER LEASE CERTS. OF PART. 
 
EXECUTED 
 
IN ACC 
 
TOTAL ELD. 
 
Americus 
 
5-5-76 
 
81 
 
15 0 
 
24 
 
Atlanta 
 
10-15-75 2-7-77 
 
1,001 1,711 
 
982 38 621 18 
 
982 1,456 
 
Augusta 
 
2-5-76 
 
300 
 
107 35 
 
165 
 
Columbus 
 
9-12-75 
 
375 
 
260 49 
 
347 
 
Decatur 
 
7-9-76 
 
100 
 
52 48 
 
III 
 
DeKalb County 
 
8-1-75 12-14-76 
 
300 
 
287 78 
 
464 
 
200 
 
Fulton County 
 
11-11-75 
 
200 
 
178 37 
 
178 
 
1-13-77 
 
1 ,000 
 
70 11 
 
404 
 
Georgia Residen- 9-23-76 
 
3,500 
 
329 182 
 
779 
 
tial Finance 
 
Authority 
 
Jonesboro 
 
8-11-75 3-25-76 8-13-76 
 
200 
 
200 91 
 
200 
 
150 
 
150 18 
 
150 
 
350 
 
268 82 
 
347 
 
Lithonia 
 
11-19-75 
 
96 
 
93 28 
 
96 
 
Marietta (City of) 3-25-76 12-30-76 
 
100 
 
100 41 
 
100 
 
200 
 
69 20 
 
121 
 
Macon Savannah 
 
10-6-76 8-5-76 
 
448 
 
52 35 
 
78 
 
83 
 
o0 
 
3 
 
Brunswick 
 
3-30-77 
 
100 
 
5 
 
1 
 
15 
 
TOTALS 
 
10,495 3,838 812 
 
6,020 
 
SOURCE: HUD Housing Management Branch, Area Office, Atlanta Area Office, June 30, 1977 
 
72 
 
 I 
 
G R FA - FIELD OFFICES 
 
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (Section 8) 
 
1C'-'C=F-~==:--T:::"-~--.:l~':;':'N;O'R~TH=:C'A:R:O'LI:NA:'::-'_--"'-"-- 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
4 
:l 
4 
a) 
 
4 
 
J 
 
4 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
COQ5tM PI QIn t.,- 
 
(Tc-o...1 
 
I 
 
~. 
 
"I 
 
FLOR IDA 
 
I 
 
73 
 
 assisted by the program. An additional 6,020 families have been certified as eligible by the public agency. 
For the 3 ,500 units under Contract with GRFA a tentative "fair share" allocation provides a basis for the number of units which can be made available in each of the counties eligible to participate. Those tentative allocations are based on population) housing condition and poverty as authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act and are listed in Table 17 
PROBLEMS  The two problems t h a t are most serious in regard to program 
implementation are the low fair market rents and the lack of housing suitable for occupancy under federal program standards. 
The condition of the housing stock in rural Georgia is poor. The housing st andards of t he Section 8 Program require indoor plumbing , hot a nd cold running water and structurally sound housing for the families eligib le f or the program to reside if subsidies are made available. The lack of h ousing meeting the program standards and the difficulty in finding adequate housing requirements present a large problem and hamper implementation. 
The low fair market rents CFMRs ) are often cited as a disin.,.. centive for landlords to participate in the program. The fair marke t rent probl em st ems f r om the fac t that the cost of utilities are included in the amount of rent the Department of Housing and Urban Development allows to be paid under the program to landlords. 
74 
 
 TABLE 17 
 
GRFA, Section 8, Existing Program Tentative "Fair-Share" Allocation 
 
County 
 
Assisted Units Available 
 
County 
 
Assisted Units Available 
 
Appling 
 
27 
 
Atkinson 
 
17 
 
Bacon 
 
17 
 
Baker 
 
13 
 
Baldwin 
 
53 
 
Banks 
 
18 
 
Bartow 
 
36 
 
Ben Hill 
 
30 
 
Berrien 
 
26 
 
Bibb 
 
39 
 
-J Bleckley 
 
23 
 
Vl Brantley 
 
14 
 
Brooks 
 
31 
 
Bryan 
 
10 
 
Burke 
 
60 
 
Butts 
 
12 
 
Calhoun 
 
21 
 
Camden 
 
6 
 
Candler 
 
7 
 
Carroll 
 
90 
 
Charlton 
 
10 
 
Chattahoochee 
 
7 
 
Cherokee 
 
19 
 
Clay 
 
12 
 
Clinch 
 
15 
 
Cobb 
 
33 
 
Coffee 
 
47 
 
Colquitt 
 
73 
 
Columbia 
 
17 
 
Cook 
 
24 
 
Coweta 
 
72 
 
Crawford 
 
15 
 
Crisp 
 
40 
 
Dade 
 
10 
 
Dawson 
 
7 
 
Dougherty 53 
 
Early 
 
34 
 
Echols 
 
6 
 
Effingham 13 
 
Elbert 
 
38 
 
Emanuel 
 
42 
 
Evans 
 
18 
 
Fannin 
 
31 
 
Fayette 
 
9 
 
Forsyth 
 
14 
 
Franklin 
 
25 
 
Gilmer 
 
45 
 
Glascock 
 
6 
 
Glynn 
 
6 
 
Grady 
 
38 
 
Greene 
 
28 
 
Gwinnett 
 
45 
 
Habersham 40 
 
Hancock 
 
30 
 
Haralson 
 
32 
 
Harris 
 
32 
 
Hart 
 
36 
 
Heard 
 
14 
 
Henry 
 
12 
 
Houston 
 
26 
 
Irwin 
 
21 
 
Jackson 
 
47 
 
(continued) 
County 
Jasper Jeff Davis Jefferson Jenkins Johnson Jones Lamar Lanier Laurens Lee Lincoln Long Lumpkin Macon Madison Marion McDuffie McIntosh Meriwether Miller Mitchell Monroe Montgomery Morgan Newton Oconee Oglethorpe Paulding Peach Pickens Pike Polk Pulaski Putnam Quitman Rabun 
 
Assisted Units Available 
16 18 43 
22 22 12 23 13 73 
8 16 10 20 32 19 37 32 16 48 17 44 28 17 26 
9 21 22 17 32 18 21 
9 21 19 
8 18 
 
County 
 
Assisted Units Available 
 
Randolph 
 
25 
 
Richmond 
 
42 
 
Rockdale 
 
14 
 
Schley 
 
10 
 
Screven 
 
33 
 
Seljlinole 
 
17 
 
Spalding 
 
71 
 
Stewart 
 
21 
 
Sumter 
 
9 
 
Talbot 
 
21 
 
Taliaferro 9 
 
Tattnall 
 
36 
 
Taylor 
 
24 
 
Telfair 
 
25 
 
Terrell 
 
35 
 
Thomas 
 
72 
 
Toombs 
 
18 
 
Towns 
 
12 
 
Treutlen 
 
18 
 
Troup 
 
98 
 
Turner 
 
21 
 
Twiggs 
 
14 
 
Union 
 
17 
 
Walker 
 
24 
 
Walton 
 
15 
 
Ware 
 
64 
 
Warren 
 
19 
 
Washington 46 
 
Webster 
 
10 
 
Wheeler 
 
17 
 
White 
 
18 
 
Wilcox 
 
18 
 
Wilkinson 23 
 
Worth 
 
34 
 
TOTAL 
 
3,500 
 
 Example; 
FMR (Fair Market Rent) Utilities Contract Rent 
 
County 
 
o BR 1 BR 
 
96 
 
109 
 
28 
 
38 
 
68 
 
7I 
 
2 BR 
129 50 79 
 
3 BR 
144 55 89 
 
Program Directors throughout the state and the nation indicate that the FMRs a re too low and hampers implementation of the p~ogram. Low fair market rent dissuades landlords from activily participating in the program, and thus slows full and speedy implementation of the program . 
Despite the fact that FMRs were increased in July, 1977 , t h e increases do not appear to be adequate to offset escalating utility costs. The greatest problem with regard to FMRs involves those non-SMSA areas where electricity and LP gas is relied upon heavily. The problem is most acute for 3 and 4 bedroom units where greater utility allowances can result in lower contract rent ceilings than for 1 and 2 bedroom units. 
In addition to the lack of standard rental units and the low FMRs, other problems include the need to provide assistance to tenants in locating standard units, the tremendous amount of paperwork involved in processing each client, and the fear of potential applicants of losing other types of financial assistance. 
For tQe Section 8 New Consttiction Program, the major pro~ trlem for new construction seems to be the lack o f permanent financing for the p roj e cts. Other p r o b l e ms cited for t h e new constru c tion p ro gr am i n c lude: 
 
76 
 
 Low f a i r market r e n t s allowed by HUD f o r new cons t ruction Suit abilit y o f ove ral l proj ect de s i gn A vari ety of o t h e r diff icu l ti es whi c h may b e described as " ove r all f e asibi l i ty of the proposed project " which includes such f actors as : a. Cost of pr o j e c t b. Numbe r o f units prop o s ed c. Site l oc at ion d. Comp l i an c e with a reawide hou sin g elemen t e . Compl i ance wi t h local i t y HAP Hou s i n g Assistance Plan 's 
r e commend a t i on fo r new con s truction 
77 
 
 SECTION 235j4 - SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OWNERSHIP SUBSIDIZED PROGRAM Program Description 
The Section 235j 4 program offers an opportunity for those families, whose adjusted annual income (AAI) does not exceed at the time of initi a l o ccupancy, 80% of the median income for the area , to purchase a new or substantially rehabilitated single family or condominium unit. (NOTE: Percent of median income may range from 50% for a family of one to 100% for a family of 8 or more.) No more than 40% of the homes in a subdivision may be Section 235 housing. 
The Section 235j4 program will provide assistance in t he form of monthly payments by the Secretary to the mort gagee "t o reduce interest costs on an insured market rate home mo r t g a g e to as low as ~ive percent if the homeowner cannot afford the mortgage payment with 20 percent of his income. The amount of subsidy will vary according to the income of each home own e r and the total amount of the mortgage payment at the market rate of interest. Family income are established for eligibility in each locality. 
The maximum mortgage amounts for a family of four or less is $32 )000 for a unit of three or fewer bedrooms. Families of five or more have a mo rtga g e l i mi t of $38 ,000 In high cost area s t he s e amount s are increase d t o $ 38, 000 a nd $44 , 000 respectively . Status 
A total o f $3 ,271 ,139 has been set aside for Georgia for the Section 235 pro g r am since January , 1976 . 
78 
 
 $1,942)620 - Metropolitan Areas  $1 , 3 28, 51.9 - Non-Metropolitan Areas 
$3,271,139 This set-aside would finance approximately 130 singlefamily units. Since activation of the program, only 52 loans have been made in Georgia - 29 in metro areas and 23 in nonmetro areas. Problems The reasons stated most often as to why the Section 235 Program is not being utilized are : 1. Builders lack of interest due to cost of lot and small amount of money to actually build housing. 2, Mortgage companies lack of interest because amount of paperwork caused by the requirement that an annual income recertification be completed. 3. Inability of families to afford a house if builder builds house that exceeds $25,000 .* (Higher cost house can be built, but buyer has to pay the difference.) 4 , The maximum income limits for eligible households is too low. 5. Stigma attached to the old program , such as : 
a. abandonment ; b. high rate of foreclosures ; c. real estat e and builder sold housing to families 
who were not economically able to assume homeownership. 
* Mortgage limits in creas ed Ln 1977 Housin g and Communi,ty Development Act. 
79 
 
 Section 502- The Rural Single-Family Homeownership Loan Program of the Farmer's Home' Administration 
Description The Farmer's Home Administration (FmHA) represents an opportun~ 
ity for substantial rural housing resources . The major housing program of FmHA is the 502 program. 
Section 502 is FmHA's single-family homeownership program for low and moderate income rural residents. Loans are made to buy, build, improve, or relocate homes and related facilities and t o bu y minimum adequate sites. The maximum mortgage amount generally does not exceed $21,000. The 502 program has two types of loan components : (1) Market Interest Rate Component and (2) Interest Credit Loan Component. The market interest rate is designed for families whose adjusted income does not exceed $15,900 per year. There is no subsidy assistance to these families. The Interest Credit Loan Component simply means that instead of paying the Market Interest Rate (normally 8%-9%) on the loan, the interest can vary from the Market Interest Rate down to 1%. In order to participate in the Interest Credit Program, the family's total adjusted income cannot exceed $8,500 per year . 
Status In 1975 and 1976 , Georgia received 27.1 and 30.7 million dollars, 
respectively, for the FmHA Pro gr ams. This a l l o c a t i o n may be viewed in a di f fe rent perspective when measured against need and funding 
80 
 
 in other states. Table  1 8 shows substandard housing in FmHA areas nationally, total housing dollars allocated for FY'75, housing dollars per substandard household and the rank among the fifty States . Based on this analysis prepared by the Housing Assistance Council, Georgia reflected an obligation figure of $168 per substandard unit versus the national average of $565. Georgia ranked number fifty on obligating FmHA funds based on substandard housing units. 
An analysis was prepared by the SOH to estimate additional dollars and housing units which would have been available if Geo rgia had received its "Fair Share" of FmHA 502 Funds. If Georgia had received 502 funds in proportion to its share of the nation's substandard housing, Georgia would have received almost $200 million dollars in additional housing assistance from 1966 to 1977 for the 502 Program alone. See Table 19 
A current profile of the 502 program in Georgia was developed based on loan approval from October, 1976 through April, 1977. (Table 20) An aggregate picture of FmHA loans show that it serves a represen~ tative distribution in terms of age, race, sex and income . Table ___2_1_ shows the distribution of FmHA by geographic location for FY '77 through May. It is interesting to note the range in number of loan appr ova l s b y e ach district office - a high of 447 in District II and a low of 121 in District VI. The data does not lend itself to an a na l ys i s of what type loans are being made in specific areas and to whom. Such questions require a more in-depth analysis. 
81 
 
 TABLE 18 
 
FmHA HOUSING PROGRAM DOLLARS IN FISCAL YEAR 1975 PER SUBSTANDARD HOUSEHOLD IN FmHA SERVED AREAS 
 
State 
 
Substandard Households in 
FmHA Areas 
 
FY 1975 Total 
Housing Dollars 
 
Housing Dollars 
per Subst'd HH 
 
Rank 
 
Alabama 
 
163,940 
 
$29,318 
 
$178 
 
49 
 
Alaska 
 
17,030 
 
5,553 
 
326 
 
43 
 
Arizona 
 
36,410 
 
27,810 
 
763 
 
22 
 
Arkansas 
 
112,270 
 
41 ,523 
 
369 
 
40 
 
California 
 
103,890 
 
77,579 
 
746 
 
23 
 
Colorado 
 
28,370 
 
37,958 
 
1,337 
 
6 
 
Connecticut 
 
17,500 
 
20,001 
 
1,142 
 
12 
 
Delaware 
 
8,970 
 
13,147 
 
1,465 
 
5 
 
Florida 
 
106,360 
 
76,808 
 
722 
 
24 
 
Georgia 
 
177,580 
 
30,309 
 
168 
 
50 
 
Hawaii 
 
16,120 
 
16,526 
 
1 ,025 
 
14 
 
Idaho 
 
19,860 
 
70 ,535 
 
3,551 
 
1 
 
Illinois 
 
110,340 
 
65,112 
 
590 
 
30 
 
Indiana 
 
102,302 
 
73,002 
 
713 
 
25 
 
Iowa 
 
61,200 
 
61,179 
 
999 
 
17 
 
Kansas 
 
38,270 
 
30,734 
 
803 
 
19 
 
Kentucky 
 
197,480 
 
53,477 
 
270 
 
45 
 
Louisiana 
 
132,540 
 
29,729 
 
224 
 
48 
 
Maine 
 
42,080 
 
113,287 
 
2,692 
 
3 
 
Maryland 
 
50,900 
 
40,324 
 
792 
 
20 
 
Massachusetts 
 
28,580 
 
14,152 
 
553 
 
31 
 
Michigan 
 
108,090 
 
90,989 
 
841 
 
18 
 
Minnesota 
 
86,930 
 
33,860 
 
389 
 
39 
 
Mississippi 
 
153,160 
 
54 ,894 
 
358 
 
41 
 
Missouri 
 
123,050 
 
50,971 
 
414 
 
37 
 
Montana 
 
23 ,250 
 
15,703 
 
675 
 
29 
 
Nebraska 
 
26,670 
 
27,105 
 
1,016 
 
15 
 
Nevada 
 
5,880 
 
6,539 
 
1,112 
 
13 
 
New Hampshire 
 
15,380 
 
15,405 
 
1,001 
 
16 
 
New Jersey 
 
24,800 
 
60,855 
 
2,453 
 
4 
 
New Mexico 
 
37 ,300 
 
12,711 
 
340 
 
42 
 
New York 
 
94,710 
 
72,713 
 
767 
 
21 
 
North Carolina 148,140 
 
98,677 
 
397 
 
38 
 
North Dakota 
 
24,140 
 
12,948 
 
536 
 
32 
 
Ohio 
 
145,670 
 
67,332 
 
462 
 
35 
 
Oklahoma 
 
64,970 
 
44,128 
 
679 
 
28 
 
Oregon 
 
30,620 
 
39,772 
 
1,299 
 
7 
 
Pennsylvania 
 
160,700 
 
50 ,428 
 
313 
 
44 
 
Rhode Island 
 
4,160 
 
4,933 
 
1,186 
 
11 
 
South Carolina 140,030 
 
37.000 
 
264 
 
46 
 
South Dakota 
 
27,390 
 
19,474 
 
26 
 
Tennessee 
 
173,010 
 
80,461 
 
34 
 
Texas 
 
233,980 
 
61,276 
 
47 
 
Utah 
 
12,330 
 
43,210 
 
2 
 
Vermont 
 
13,800 
 
17,348 
 
8 
 
Virginia 
 
182,290 
 
126,601 
 
27 
 
Washington 
 
36,860 
 
43 ,827 
 
10 
 
West Virginia 
 
104,920 
 
45 ,559 
 
36 
 
Wisconsin 
 
85,190 
 
44,357 
 
33 
 
Wyoming 
 
9,550 
 
12,068 
 
9 
 
UNITED STATES 3,968,680 
 
$2,244,880 
 
SOURCE: Housing Assistance Council, Rural Housing Goals and Gaps, 1975. 
 
82 
 
 TABLE '19 
 
FY 1977* FY 1976** FY 1975 FY 1974 FY 1973 FY 1972 CX) FY 1971 
w 
FY 1970 FY 1969 FY 1968 
 
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION SECTION 502 HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 
 
Comparative Program Expenditure-Georgia vIs Nation 
1976 
 
Nation*ide Program Fund Expenditure 
 
Georgia's "FairShare" Fund @ 4 .4% 
 
Actual Fund 
 
Georgia PrograJtl 
 
Expenditures 
 
Fund Utilization 
 
in Georgia 3.68% "Shortfall" 
 
Estimated Cost Per Unit 
 
$ 1,087,000,000 2,899,924,862 
 
$ 47,828,000 
127,596,693 
 
...... 30,767,822 
 
$ 96,828,871 
 
$ 16,500 
 
1,926,643,300 
 
84,772,305 
 
27,180,860 
 
57,591 ,445 
 
15 ,800 
 
1,589,883,200 
 
69,954,860 
 
58,265,130 
 
11,689,730 
 
15,200 
 
1,735,688,490 
 
76,370,403 
 
53,216,070 
 
23,154,333 
 
14, 400 
 
1,561,220,800 
 
68,693,715 
 
66,791,190 
 
1 ,902,525 
 
13,700 
 
1,362,275,872 
 
48,940,027 
 
66,340,109 
 
+ 17,400,082***. 
 
12 ,900 
 
756,351,941 
 
33,279,485 
 
31,250,762 
 
2,028,723 
 
11,700 
 
480,421,834 
 
21,138,560 
 
19,553,605 
 
1,584,955 
 
11,200 
 
486,968 .000 _ ___ 21. L2_26_. 59_2 
 
~_2_0-,-4].6--,-7J3~5 
 
~809 LSQ1_ __ _~ 700 
 
$ 13,886,378,299 $ 599,790,640 
 
$ 373,782,333 $ 195,590,489 
 
Estimated Unit "Shortfall" 
 
Estimated Percentage of Fair Shur Funds Not Utilized 
 
5,868 75% 
 
3,645 67% 
 
769 17% 
 
160 30'X, 
 
138 
 
2% 
 
+ 1,348 +35% 
 
173 
 
6% 
 
141 
 
7% 
 
75 
 
3% 
 
9.621 32% 
 
* Fund expenditures projected based on initial FmHA fund allotments to States. 
 
** Docs not include Federal 3-months transition quarter. 
 
*** Approximate unit cost based on unit cost estimates reported by FmHA. **** Substructed from column total. 
 
Comparative Program Analysis Unpublished Data, Staff of the State Office of Hbusin 
 
 TABLE 20 
 
FARMER'S HOME ADMINISTRATION 502 Housing Profile 
October, 1976 - April, 1977 
 
1. (7) Age of Applicant: A. Under 20 yrs. old B. 20 - 29 yrs. old C. 30 - 39 yrs. old D. 40 - 59 yrs. old E. 60 - 70 yrs. old F. Over 70 yrs. old 
 
2. (8) No. in Household: A. 1 member in household B. 2 members in household C. 3 members in household D. 4 members in household E. 5 members in household F. 6 members in household 
 
3. (15) Adjusted Family Income: A. Under $ 4 ,000 
B. $4,000 - $5 ,000 C. $5,000 - $6 ,000 D. $6,000 - $7 ,000 E. $7,000 - $8 ,000 F. $8,000 - $9 ,000 G. $9,000 - $10,000 H. $10,000 - $11 ,000 1. $11,000 - $12,000 J . $12,DOO - $13 ,000 K  $13,000 - $14 ,000 L. $14,000 - $15,000 
 
4. 
 
Race 
 
A. Blacks 
 
B. Whites 
 
5. (28) Amount o f Loan: A. Under $ 1, 00 0 B. $1 ,000 - $10,000 C. $10,000 - $15 ,000 D. $15,000 - $20,000 E. $20 ,000 - $25 ,000 F. $25 ,000 - $30 , 000 
 
No. 43 
588 267 157 
46 14 1,115 
62 266 308 265 
76 65 1,042 
36 24 72 123 123 129 108 129 
III 
89 65 76 1,085 
269 719 988 
31 131 
80 251 513 
48 1,054 
 
84 
 
% 3.85 52.74 23.95 14.08 4.12 1.25 
5.95 25.53 29.56 25.43 
7.29 6.24 
3.32 2.21 6.64 11.34 11. 34 11.89 9.95 11.89 10.23 8.20 5.99 7.00 
27.23 72.77 
2.94 12.43 
7.59  23 .81 
48.67 4.55 
 
 TABLE 2 1 
FARMER ' S HOME ADMI NI STRAT I ON Lo a n Mak i n g and Servicing Re port 
FY ' 77 th rough May ' 77 
 
DISTRICT I Carrollton 
Cartersville C e d a r t own Dalton Jasper LaFayette Newnan Rome Summerville 
TOTAL DISTRICT II Athens Blairsville Ca rnesville Cla rkesville Gaines ville Greensboro Hartwell Monroe Warrenton 
Washington Winder 
TOTAL DISTRICT III Americus 
Barnesville Covington Cuthber t Grif fin Macon Mc Do no u g h 
Montezuma Vienna 
TOT AL DISTRI CT IV Cochran ' Dub l in Eato nt o n Lo u i sville Madi s o n McRae Sandersvil le So pe r t on 
Swa i n sboro Sylvani a Wa y nesboro 
TOTAL 
 
Rura l Housi ng Lo a n s Transf e r s 
 
38 
 
4 
 
45 
 
1 
 
4 
 
5 
 
24 
 
4 
 
26 
 
3 
 
35 
 
0 
 
40 
 
2 
 
28 
 
14 
 
14 
 
5 
 
2 54 
 
38 
 
32 
 
10 
 
37 
 
11 
 
50 
 
3 
 
50 
 
5 
 
28 
 
2 
 
32 
 
9 
 
51 
 
11 
 
24 
 
0 
 
9 4, 
 
12 
 
21 
 
4 
 
28 
 
6 
 
44 i 
 
73 
 
15 
 
3 
 
21 
 
5 
 
41 
 
0 
 
7 
 
0 
 
47 
 
8 
 
20 
 
5 
 
14 
 
0 
 
42 
 
1 
 
19 
 
1 
 
226 
 
23 
 
34 
 
,r-r 
 
'1 .L ( 
 
1 
 
15 
 
1 
 
12 
 
4 
 
49 
 
0 
 
9 
 
0 
 
16 
 
2 
 
3 
 
2 
 
20 
 
5 
 
33 
 
1 
 
26 
 
8 
 
2 34 
 
31 
 
May Cr e d i t Sales 
1 0 2 2 4 0 0 2 4 15 
0 2 1 0 0 4 2 0 1 5 2 17 
1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 
8 
1 1 1 1 3 2 2 0 0 1 1 13 
 
Total Cr e d i t Sales Inventory 
 
4 
 
6 
 
4 
 
3 
 
11 
 
5 
 
8 
 
0 
 
8 
 
4 
 
3 
 
2 
 
1 
 
7 
 
14 
 
9 
 
15 
 
11 
 
68 
 
47 
 
2 
 
6 
 
4 
 
1 
 
4 
 
2 
 
6 
 
5 
 
0 
 
0 
 
13 
 
5 
 
16 
 
16 
 
11 
 
1 
 
7 
 
6 
 
15 
 
6 
 
4 
 
0 
 
82 
 
48 
 
16 
 
14 
 
6 
 
7 
 
1 
 
1 
 
14 
 
21 
 
7 
 
18 
 
2 
 
17 
 
8 
 
8 
 
9 
 
31 
 
7 
 
10 
 
70 
 
127 
 
12 
 
3 
 
5 
 
6 
 
23 
 
17 
 
6 
 
6 
 
8 
 
4 
 
10 
 
6 
 
12 
 
18 
 
5 
 
21 
 
11 
 
15 
 
12 
 
4 
 
8 
 
7 
 
112 
 
107 
 
85 
 
 FARMER 'S HOME ADMINISTRATION Loan Making and Servicing Report 
FY 177 through May '77 
(Continued) 
 
DISTRICT V Albany Bainbridge Blakely Cairo Camilla Colquitt Dawson 
Donalsonville Moultrie Sylvester 
TOTAL DISTRICT VI Alma Baxley Douglas Lyons Ocilla Reidsville Statesboro Tifton Valdosta Waycross 
TOTAL STATE TOTALS 
 
Rural Housing Loans Transfers 
 
24 
 
2 
 
10 
 
0 
 
6 
 
5 
 
15 
 
6 
 
18 
 
0 
 
18 
 
7 
 
14 
 
3 
 
5 
 
3 
 
5 
 
1 
 
15 
 
5 
 
130 
 
32 
 
14 
 
2 
 
7 
 
2 
 
19 
 
4 
 
11 
 
0 
 
7 
 
2 
 
11 
 
0 
 
9 
 
0 
 
9 
 
2 
 
13 
 
13 
 
21 
 
2 
 
121 
 
27 
 
1, 4 12 
 
224 
 
May Credit Sales 
1 1 3 2 3 0 0 4 1 0 15 
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
1 
69 
 
Total Credit Sales Inventory 
 
11 
 
11 
 
12 
 
42 
 
6 
 
12 
 
8 
 
35 
 
10 
 
14 
 
0 
 
0 
 
4 
 
3 
 
11 
 
19 
 
4 
 
4 
 
7 
 
20 
 
73 
 
160 
 
11 
 
1 
 
2 
 
0 
 
1 
 
1 
 
0 
 
1 
 
0 
 
2 
 
5 
 
0 
 
2 
 
4 
 
13 
 
23 
 
6 
 
15 
 
0 
 
1 
 
40 
 
48 
 
445 
 
537 
 
86 
 
 Problems The problems related to Section 502 will be discussed along 
with problems for Section 515. 
Section 515 - Rural Re n t a l Multi-Family Housing Loans 
Description Section 515 is FmHA's multi-f amily rental housing program for 
rural residents. Rural rental housing can be developed by full or limited profit motivated sponsors , (individuals or corporations) and non-profi t corporations . Public bodies such as local pub li c ho u s i ng authorities are also eligible for rural rental housing loans. There is no limit placed on the project's total development cost or the number or units. The size of the project would be determined by the demand for this type o f housing in the c ommu n i t y . Non-profit sponsors can obtain a 102% loan while pro fit and limited sponsors can obtain a loan up to 95% of the project' s development cost or appraised value, whichever is less. Status 
There are approximately 1, 200 units of 515 housing in Georgia. From 1970 through 1977 , almost $18 million dollars in housing assistance was expended in Georgia under the program. 
An analysis has be en c on du c t e d b y SOH to determine the shortfall (fair share minus actual) fo r 515 housing dollars in the state. The Fair Share Percentage Cal cu lation invol ves a basic allocation formula using four equally wei ghed c ompo n e n t s: 
1. Obligation - History (last ye ar's percents) 2. Percent elderl y 3. Poverty households in FrnHA a r e as 4. Percent occup i e d ho u s i ng in FrnHA a re as 
87 
 
 Excluding obligation history, Georgia~s fair share would be !3 . 24 9 9% of the national allocation. Over the seven year period (1970 - 1977) , Georgia fs fair share should have been $55 million instead of $17 million resulting in a shortfall o f approximately $38 million. See Tab le 22. 
Problems The analysis of the 502 and 504 programs shows that allocated 
funds are not based on traditional needs factors . The previous year's obligation level i s a maj o r factor in determining allocation level. Recognizing tha t ot her f a c t or s impact the allocation process, t he great disparities between States should be reconciled. 
Since passage o f t he 1975 Housing and Community Development Act, the Farmer's Home s ervice area was expanded to include places up to 20,000 pers o n s, o u ts i d e metropo litan a r e a s and with a s e r i o u s lack o f mortgage c r e d i t. The e f fec t o f t his requi rement wa s doubleedged. FmHA has been r ece i vi n g l a rger autho r i z a t i o n s without comparable i ncrea ses i n s t a f f. The addit iona l cities thus further compounded a FmHA prob l em . Citi es , on the o t h er hand , in the 10 , 0 0 0 to 20 , 000 p o p ulat i on ran ge whic h we r e a p proved can now utilize both HUD a n d FmHA programs . FmHA p r o gr ams do n o t requ i r e t h e type deliver y s ystem of developers and f inancia l institutions that gene r all y do n o t e xist i n small towns wh ich HUD p r ograms r equire. 
In s ummar y , the ma j o r prob l e ms of FmHA h ave been su ccinctly stated b y the Hcm si n g Ass ist a nce Coun c i l i n Ru ral Hous in g Goals and Gaps a s fo l l ows : 
88 
 
 TABLE 22 
 
1. National Obligation Calculation1 
 
515 SHGRTFALL 
 
Year 
 
Annual Obligation 
 
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 
 
549.0 102 .2 286 .0 
1 ,299.9 2,113 .2 3,064 .1 4,412 .5 
 
SUBTOTAL 11 ,826 .9 
 
1977 
 
5,700 
 
17,526.9 
 
Individuals 
 
Initial 
 
Subsequent 
 
0 .0 85.0 268.0 981. 2 1,234.0 
1,179.0 
1 ,972. a 
 
0.0 17 .2 18 .0 
65 .7 118.2 102.0 
5.6 
 
5 ,719.5 
 
326.7 
 
ORGANIZATIONS 
 
Profit 
 
Non-Profit 
 
Initial Subsequent _Initial Subsequent 
 
348.8 0.0 0.0 
120.0 
750 .0 753.9 2,250.3 
 
200.7 0.0 
0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 
159.0 
 
0 .0 
0.0 0.0 133 .0 0.0 814.0 0.0 
 
0.0 0 .0 0.0 
101..0a 
215.0 25 . 5 
 
4,223.0 359.2 
 
947.0 
 
251.5 
 
00 
\!) 
 
II . 
 
Fa ir Share Percen tage Calculation2 
 
The basic allocat ion formula uses four equally weighted components: 1. obligation - History (last year 's percents) *2 . percent elderly *3. poverty household in FmHA areas. *4. percent occupied houses in FmHA areas 
 
* Components 2, 3, 4 comprise the Fair Share (component 1 works to average out minor year by year random f l uc t ua t i on in expenditures) . 
 
Under these components in its FmHA areas , Georgia has: 
 
2.7351 % of Elderly Nationwide 3 .8746 % of Poverty Households Nationwide 
+ 3.14 % of Occupied Houses Nationwide 
9. 7497 3 - 3 .2499% of Need 
 
Therefore, Georgia 's fairshare is 3.2499% of the National Allocation 
 
 III . SHORTFALL 
 
Year 
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 
 
National Alloca tion_ (in lOoo'~ 
28 .440 .7 25 .637 .2 40 ,117 .9 105,062.6 173,314.0 292 ,356.3 499,983.0 545.000 ,0 
$1,709,911 .7 
 
Georgia's Fair Share (National Allocation X 3 .2499% 
924.3 833 .2 1 ,303 .8 3,414.4 5,632 .5 9.501. 3 16,248 .9 17.712.0 
$55,570.4 
 
Actual from I) 
549.0 102 .2 286.0 1,299.9 2,113 .2 3,064 .1 4 ,412 .5 5.700.0 
$17,526.9 
 
Shortfall (Fair share - Actual 
375.3 731. 0 1 ,017 .8 2,114.5 3 ,459.3 6,437.2 11,836 .4 12,012.0 
$37,983 .5 
 
\!) 
 
In the seven-year period from 1970 to 1977, Georgia experienced a shor tfall of $37 .98 3,500; This is a conservat i ve 
 
o 
 
estimate because these are not constant dollar figures. 
 
1 From FmHA annual Direct and Insured Rural Rental Housing Loan Obliga tions , reports for 1970 - 1976 
2 From supporting attachment for a memo to Honorable Jamie L . Whittle from FmHA regard ing the allocation of Program Funds . 
 
 A clearer set of national and state goals for FmHA programs Methods for a more equitable distribution of FmHA . programs among the states Staffing adjustments Greater public information about under-used programs in appropriate areas 
GRFA Home Ownership Loan Program 
Description Through a statewide network of participating mortgage lending 
institutions, the Georgia Residential Finance Authority (GRFA) is offering 7% mortgage interest rates on eligible FHA and VA loans under the Authority's Homeownership Loan Program. The purpose of this Program is to expand homeownership opportunities for credit worthy moderate income Georgia families who would normally find it difficult to qualify for a loan at the higher interest rates generally prevailing in the mortgage market today. The 7% rate is approximately It% below the prevailing interest rate on conventional mortgages and represents a savings of over $35 on each monthly mortgage payment on a typical $30,000 mortgage loan having a 30-year term. 
The GRFA Homeownership Loan Program is restricted to households having a maximum annual gross income of $14 ,500 if there is only one wage-earner, or up to $17,500 if more than one wage-earner is residing in the household. Certain nonrecurring income, extraordinary medical or other expenses may be excluded from income calcuations at the discretion of GRFA . The maximum sales price or appraised value (whichever is less) of a residence to 'be purchased cannot exceed $36,000. 
91 
 
 Eligible properties must be single-family, detached units and 
 
may be existing (used), new, or proposed construction. 
 
Status 
 
The initial sale of bonds in the amount of $50,000,000 was 
 
consumated November 10, 1976. GRFA Loan Progress Report for 
 
July , 1977, indicated the following loan activity: 
 
A) Number of approved loan applications at end of period: 
 
548 
 
SMSA 
 
354 
 
non-SMSA 194 
 
B) Loans purchased to date ! 
 
SMSA 329 
 
non-SMSA 
 
88 
 
C) Loans purchased to date (Dollar Value): 
 
$11,643,200 
 
D) Average loan amount purchased : 
 
$27,921 
 
Problems 
 
The loan activity to date, of the GRFA, has coincided with 
 
the lending ins titutions that are "FHA and VA approved lenders." 
 
If no FHA and VA lenders make loans in a locality, then the 
 
GRFA Homeown ership Loan Program is not available, 
 
The attached map , GRFA 76-A, "Loan Credit Application Geogra- 
 
phic Distribution", shows the location of GRFA lending activity 
 
and indicates the number of credit applications submitted by 
 
county. 
 
92 
 
 6/27/77 
-- 
93 
 
 Until recently the homeownership loan activity was greater in urban areas than in rural areas. The loan act i vity of non-SMSA counties has increased to the point that the r e quirement that GRFA make one-third of units financed available to non-SMSA areas is be ing met. 
Implications for State Housing Policies Policy formulation is of necessity a continuous process. 
Policies must be monitored, evaluated and reassessed as circumstances wa r r a n t , The Section 8 Existing program provides an example o f the dynamic nature of policy formulation. The expe r i e nc e of Georgia's program i n many areas of the State i s that the qu a l ity of the housing is too poor for the program to work. In many of the areas, the need is for new construction. 
The probl e m with Se c t ion 8 New Construction is that it does not provide permanen t financing thus hampering the success ful use o f this pro gram in the State because GRFA cannot currently provide finan c i ng fo r multi-family units. 
For GRFA's homeownership program, there seems to be a need to explore alternative ways to provide such financing to all eligible Georgians regardless of t he i r geographic location. At this p o i nt, the av a ilabi lity of t he program is dependent on local i n s t i tutions who make FHA or VA l o ans t hu s excluding large geograph ic area s who do not h a v e loc a l institutions to participate. 
In many i nst a n ces, the re appe a r s to be a great need for the State lev e l d ec is i o n mak e r s t o interface with the decision makers at th e f ederal l e vel to insure that State level concerns are adequ ately a ddresse d. Ex amples include problems related to 
94 
 
 inadequate staffing, low fair market rent, inequitable distribution formulas and low maximum mortgage allowances. 
None of the federal agencies which provide interest subsidies or on-going housing loan programs have formalized outreach programs geared toward potential applicants. There appears to be a need to develop a mechanism for improving the information flow to clients and potential sponsors. 
95 
 
  PROGRAM UTILIZATION 
An Assessment of Hou sing Rehabilit at ion Programs 
 
  PROGRA~ UTILIZATION 
An Assessment of Housing Rehabilitation Programs 
The deterioration of the stock of standard housing continues 
to add to the number of substandard housing units which need to 
be replaced. The problems of substandard housing and deteriora- 
tion of existing units can not be s o l ve d feasibly through new 
construction alone because of several reasons: 
(1) Adequate resources are not available to rely solely on new construction; 
(2) Even if adequate resources were available, it would be a self-defeating policy if adequate attention were not given to the existing standard stock and the specifications under which new housing are built; 
(3) Inflationary cost of new housing closes it out as an option for many low and moderate income households. 
The preservation of the existing housing inventory i s a major 
objective of the 1974 Housing and Community Development Act . This 
objective is exemplified in the programs of HUD and FmHA. 
The need for housing rehabilit ation in Georgia , available 
federal rehabilitation programs and an assessment of the rehabili- 
tation activities occurring in Georgia will be discussed in this I 
chapter. 
Statistical Need for Rehabilitation 
The Georgia Statewide Ho u s i ng Needs Analysis i ndica tes that 
by 1980, an additional 94 ,000 housing units will be needed to 
r ep l a c e losses from t he standard stock of housing in 1970. 
Housing units are lost from the s tock of standard hous i ng by: 
1 . deterioration into substandard condit i on 2 . loss due to nat ural disaster 3. loss due to man-made causes (demolition, conversion 
to commerical use , etc .) 
99 
 
 In 1970 there was a need to replace 204,500 substandard housing and 94,000 losses from the standard stock, representing a 46% increase (figures do not include population growth). 
Local Housing Assistance Plans (HAPs) provide statistical support for the scope and distribution of deteriorating housing units. Deteriorating is general ly defined as requiring repairs beyond routine maintenance. The data in Table 23 are~~aken f rom HAP's : an d show- the " total housing stock of each locality , total subtandard housing , and total substandard housing suitable f or rehabilitation. 
HAP data indicate that there are many rental units tha t a r e substandard and suitable for rehabilitation. However, with the excep tion o f the HUD 312 program, all other program resources are restricted t o use by home owners. The Section 8 existing program provides incentives to landlords if they make repairs. Ho wever, there is no l e ga l guarantee that if repairs are made by landlords , units wi l l be occupied by f a mi l i es wi t h rental assistance certificates. Data f rom the HAPs show the wide range of units which can be rehabilitated across the State. Fewer than 20% of the substandard housing is con sidered feasible for rehab in Maco n, Winder , McIntosh County and Vienn a v e r s u s over 90% in Atlanta and Decatur. Housing Rehabilitation Pro grams - ..,- Community Development Bloc -_ Grant Program. 
Th e large s t propo r t i on of reh ab i li t a t i o n which is occurring across the State is in c onne c t i on with the Community Development Bloc Gr an t P r ogr a m, (CDBG). Under the CDBG program , HUD is autho r i ze d to mak e gran ts t o st a t e s and units of general local go vernment to help t h em un de rtake community development activities . 
100 
 
 City / County 
 
Atl anta 
 
Ameri cu s 
 
Athen s 
 
Baxl ey 
 
Columbus 
 
Dal t on 
 
De catur 
 
DeKalb Co . 
 
Do u g l a s 
 
Lithon i a 
 
Mill edge vill e 
 
Ma c on 
 
Mar i et ta 
 
Moultri e 
 
J-' Newna n 
 
0 J-' 
 
T homa s t o n 
 
Thoma sv ill e 
 
To c c o a 
 
Wa shin g t on 
 
We st Poin t 
 
Wi n d e r 
 
To t a l Housin g Stock 
188,212 5,487 17,251 1 ,153 60,908 6 ,780 7 , 379 156 , 076 3,811 933 3, 775 43,204 12,406 4,801 4,319 3,577 5,520 2 ,755 1 ,566 1 ,585 2 ,346 
 
Total Subs tandard Hou sin g 
51, 9 61 1 ,123 698 159 1 , 482 350 417 6,032 867 107 686 4, 215 698 794 249 493 2 ,776 3 64 539 197 290 
 
TABLE 2 3 
 
HOUSING SUITABLE FOR REHABILITATION ENTITLEMENT CITIES FY 76 - 77 
Type Oc cupan c y of Uni ts Su it abl e fo r Rehabili tation 
 
Tot al Substandard 
 
Suit able for 
 
Rehabil it a ti on 
 
No . 
 
% 
 
Number and Per c ent 
 
owner o ccu p i e d 
 
Suitable for 
 
Reh abilitati on 
 
No. 
 
% 
 
Number a n d Perc ent 
 
r ent er occup ied 
 
Su i t abl e fo r 
 
Rehab ili t ati on 
 
No . 
 
% 
 
Ye ar o f Est i mate 
 
47,708 
 
96 
 
15,603 
 
33 
 
31,805 
 
167 
 
43 8 
 
39 
 
2 69 
 
61 
 
169 
 
39 
 
1976 
 
447 
 
64 
 
153 
 
34 
 
294 
 
66 
 
1976 
 
105 
 
66 
 
44 
 
42 
 
61 
 
58 
 
843 
 
57 
 
140 
 
17 
 
703 
 
83 
 
1976 
 
206 
 
59 
 
66 
 
32 
 
140 
 
68 
 
1975 
 
386 
 
93 
 
22 5 
 
58 
 
161 
 
42 
 
1976 
 
241 
 
40 
 
94 
 
39 
 
147 
 
61 
 
1976 
 
595 
 
69 
 
41 6 
 
70 
 
179 
 
30 
 
1975 
 
92 
 
86 
 
60 
 
65 
 
32 
 
35 
 
1975 
 
530 
 
77 
 
101 
 
19 
 
44 9 
 
85 
 
679 
 
- 16 
 
143 
 
21 
 
536 
 
79 
 
258 
 
37 
 
213 
 
83 
 
45 
 
17 
 
1976 
 
579 
 
73 
 
121 
 
21 
 
458 
 
79 
 
1970 
 
177 
 
71 
 
104 
 
58 
 
73 
 
42 
 
1 31 
 
27 
 
42 
 
32 
 
89 
 
68 
 
1970 
 
2, 446 
 
88 
 
1,610 
 
66 
 
836 
 
34 
 
1976 
 
316 
 
87 
 
163 
 
52 
 
1 53 
 
48 
 
1975 
 
227 
 
42 
 
155 
 
68 
 
72 
 
32 
 
1976 
 
149 
 
76 
 
17 
 
11 
 
132 
 
89 
 
1976 
 
40 
 
- 14 
 
20 
 
50 
 
20 
 
50 
 
1970 
 
NOTE : 
 
1. En titl emen t a n d Di s cre tionary Cit i es t h a t h ad in c ompl e t e HAP d a t a a r e no t in clud ed in lis t. 
2. Da ta taken f rom Hou sin g As si stan c e Pl an s s u b mit te d b y Ent it l ement a n d Di s cre t i on ary fund ed CDBG ci t ies during FY' 76 - 77. 
 
 HOUSING SUITABLE FOR REHABILITATION DISCRETIONARY CITIES FY 76 - 77 
 
City/County 
 
Total Housing Stock 
 
Total Substandard Housing 
 
Total Substandard 
 
Suitable for 
 
Re h a b i l i t a t i o n 
 
No. 
 
% 
 
Number and Percent 
 
owner o c cupi ed 
 
Suitable for 
 
Rehabili tation 
 
No. 
 
% 
 
Number and Percent 
 
renter oc cupied 
 
Suitable for 
 
Rehabilitation 
 
No. 
 
% 
 
Year o f Estimate 
 
Americus 
 
5,487 
 
1,123 
 
Blakely 
 
1 ,969 
 
388 
 
Chatham Co . 
 
20,504 
 
1,999 
 
Commerce 
 
1,298 
 
120 
 
Cusseta 
 
457 
 
57 
 
Dawson 
 
1,822 
 
926 
 
East Ellijay 
 
180 
 
38 
 
Ellijay 
 
522 
 
75 
 
Gainesville 
 
19,937 
 
4 ,061 
 
Gilmer Co . 
 
2,252 
 
619 
 
Gwinnett 
 
30,413 
 
2 ,475 
 
Hancock 
 
1,782 
 
1 ,131 
 
LaGrange 
 
I-' 0 
 
Liberty Co. 
 
8,392 3,667 
 
1,201 755 
 
IV 
 
Marion Co . 
 
1,532 
 
627 
 
McIntosh Co . 
 
3,307 
 
1 ,034 
 
Milledgeville 
 
7,371 
 
1,444 
 
Norcross 
 
1,482 
 
127 
 
Ocilla 
 
1,026 
 
380 
 
Putnam 
 
1,861 
 
403 
 
Richland Co. 
 
555 
 
142 
 
Sandersvill e 
 
1,801 
 
614 
 
Tennille 
 
615 
 
160 
 
Vienna 
 
818 
 
204 
 
Washington 
 
1,566 
 
539 
 
438 120 1,075 87 38 427 16 51 1,701 205 1,980 566 845 291 26 750 1,102 14 3 266 59 405 106 8 227 
 
39 
 
269 
 
31 
 
68 
 
54 
 
744 
 
72 
 
70 
 
67 
 
83 
 
46 
 
196 
 
42 
 
3 
 
68 
 
20 
 
42 
 
752 
 
33 
 
82 
 
80 
 
873 
 
50 
 
226 
 
70 
 
188 
 
39 
 
235 
 
-4 
 
19 
 
73 
 
550 
 
76 
 
364 
 
82 
 
6 
 
79 
 
21 
 
66 
 
85 
 
42 
 
23 
 
66 
 
114 
 
66 
 
29 
 
-3.92 
 
5 
 
42 
 
155 
 
61 
 
169 
 
57 
 
52 
 
69 
 
331 
 
80 
 
17 
 
87 
 
5 
 
46 
 
231 
 
19 
 
13 
 
39 
 
31 
 
44 
 
949 
 
40 
 
123 
 
44 
 
1,117 
 
40 
 
340 
 
23 
 
637 
 
81 
 
56 
 
73 
 
7 
 
73 
 
200 
 
33 
 
738 
 
43 
 
8 
 
50 
 
20 
 
32 
 
181 
 
39 
 
36 
 
28 
 
292 
 
27 
 
77 
 
63 
 
3 
 
68 
 
72 
 
39 
 
1976 
 
43 
 
1976 
 
31 
 
1976 
 
20 
 
1970 
 
13 
 
1970 Census 
 
54 
 
81 
 
1976 
 
61 
 
1976 
 
56 
 
1975 
 
60 
 
1976 
 
56 
 
1975 
 
60 
 
1975 
 
77 
 
1976 
 
19 
 
1976 
 
27 
 
1970 
 
27 
 
1976 
 
67 
 
1976 
 
57 
 
50 
 
1976 
 
68 
 
1975 
 
61 
 
1975 
 
72 
 
1975 
 
73 
 
1975 
 
37 
 
1970 
 
32 
 
1976 
 
SOURCE: 
 
Entitlement and Discretionary Cities that had incomplete HAP data are not included in this list. Housing Assistance Plans submitted by Entitlement and Discretionary funded CDBG cities during FY'76 - 77. 
 
 The rehabilitation of housing in local communities that receive CDBG grants is an authorized and a priority activity. 
A statewide housing rehabilitation survey was conducted of all CDBG recipients wi th rehabilitation components for FY'77. The purpose of the survey wa s , t o obtain data concerning the present types, level and cost of rehabilitation activities in local , communities in Georgia. 
The analysis of the rehabilitation programs across the state reflect the fi ndi ng in that survey. 
The cities and counties with on-going programs have --comp l Gted rehabilitation of 599 houses with CDBG funds provided by HUD. Table 24 shows the number of units rehabilitated in each area with a high of 269 reflected by the Oconee Area. 
The extent of repairs range from full completion of all necessary repairs to bring a house up to minimum property standards as prescribed by local ordinances, to completing only those repairs that are e s s e ntial to the health and safety of occupants. (See Table 25). Respondents to the survey also indicated that repairs depend on funding. 
When grants are made, most cities limit those grants to $5,000 or less. Where funding sources other than grants are used, the amount o f loan mon e y a v a i l a b l e may be up to $10,000 or more. 
1 03 
 
 TABLE  24  
 
Number of Housing Completed Under CDBG Rehabilitation Program Grant in Cities and Counties 
 
City 
Athens Atlanta DeKalb 
East Point Eatonton Douglas 
Oconee APDC Gainesville Macon Richmond County 
Mc I n t os h County Mi l l e dgev i l l e Sandersville Thomasville Toccoa Washington Winder 
Waycross 
 
Number 
35 75 
0 (Program being implemented) 
35 25 
0 (Program being prepared for implementation) 
269 8 
3 0 (Program soon to 
be started) 0 67 20 34 56 5 0 (Demolition program. 
No rehabilitation program) 0 (Program not underway) 
 
104 
 
 TABLE 25 
Type Repairs Within Maximum Rehabilitation Loan or Grant Amount 
 
All Repair s Nee de d to Bring House Up to Codes 
 
At hen s 
Atlanta DeKalb 
Oconee Ma c on Mi l l e dgevi l l e 
Sandersville 
Thomasville Toccoa 
Washington 
 
$10 , 000 10,000 10 ,000 7,500 10, 000 3,000 5,000 10 , 000 3, 500";~ 
10,000 
 
Minor Structural 
Improvements Needed to Protect Health and Safe t y 
Max i mum 
 
Eatonton Oconee Mc I n t o s h Sandersville 
 
$3,500 or less 5,000 - 7,500 3,500 or less 3,500 - 5,000 
 
* Owner must prov ide 25% mat ch . 
 
105 
 
 TABLE 26 
GRANT/ LOAN DI STRI BUT I ON OF CDBG RECIPIENTS WITH REHABILITATION PROGRAMS 
 
Type Funds Loan 
 
$3,5 00 o r Less Eato n to n 
 
Grant s 
f-' 
o 
m 
 
McIntos h Ct y Thomasvi lle Toc c oa 
 
$3 ,500 - $5, 0 00 East . Point Ga i n e s vi lle Mi B .e d gev i l l e 
At l a n t a Ea s t Poi nt Ga i n e s v ille Mac o n Milledgevi l le 
 
$5, 000 - $7 , 500 
Ocon e e APDC Hancock Ct y Baldwin Cty Eatont on Tennille Wri ghtsvill e Sander svi ll e 
 
$7, 500 - $10 ,000 
Richmond Cty Thomas vil l e 
 
Oc onee APDC Hancock Cty Baldwin Cty Eatonton Tennille Wrightsville Sandersville Putnam Cty 
 
$ 1 0 , 0 0 0+ Ath en s Atlant a DeKal b Cty Maco n Washin gt on 
DeKalb Cty 
 
 TABLE 27 
 
Supplemen tal Re h a b i l i t a t i on Funding Sources 
 
Locali t y 
Alma Athens At lant a DeKalb County 
 
f-' 0 
 
East Point 
 
-.l Gainesville 
 
Macon 
 
McIntosh County 
 
Thomasville 
 
Wa s h i n gt on 
 
TYPE OF FUNDING 
 
Sect~on-S-- 
 
Orban 
 
50 2 Substant i al 
 
Home- 
 
Low Interest 
 
312 
 
504 
 
Rehabi litation 
 
Steading Loan Program 
 
Others 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
Weatherization 
 
CDBG provides free 
 
labor; homeowner 
 
provides materials. 
 
X X 
 
X 
 
 Table 26 shows t h e ma ximum loan/grant amounts authorized by CDBG recipients and Tabl e 27 shows cities using supplemen t a l funds to leverage their CDBG funds such as 502,504, 312, Low interest r a te loan programs. Illustration 18 shows av a i l ab l e pUblic and private rehab resources. 
The cities that a llow $10 ,000 or more for loans are medium to large in population wit h the e xception of Thomasville and Washington. Evidence of the survey indicates that larger cities have additional hou s ing resources available to them that enables them to establish more comprehensive housing programs. 
HUD 312 Rehabilitation Lo an 'Program In the past, the HUD 312 program was limited to large urban 
cities with urban re newal programs . The 1974 CDBG program allows smaller cities to b e el igible t o u se 312 funds if they a re granted community d eve lopmen t moni es. The ability to utili ze the HUD 312 loan pro g ram p r ov i d es them wi t h an a d di t i o n a l rehabilitation resour ce t o att a c k and improve t heir existing housing stock . 
Un l e s s a c ommu n ity has a c odes p rogram or has developed standards within a desi gn a t ed rehab ilitation area, no 312 loan can b e made. 
All of t he p r opert ies t o b e rehabil itate d must b e located in (A ) a city that has an u r ban re newa l p roj ec t t h a t is not completed or ( B) the p r o p e r t i e s must be l o cated in a c ity t h at has been a warded commu n i t i es blo c g r a nt monie s . 
108 
 
 REHABILITATION RESOURCES 
 
Private Sector Loans 
 
Public Sector 
 
Other Housing Type 
Resources 
 
HUD 
 
312 Section 8 CDBG~ Title I 
 
~-~ '- 
 
.~ 
 
USDA 'FmHA 502 
504 
 
CSA Weatherization 
Program 
 
HEW Title XX Homemaker Services 
 
109 
 
 Loan Limitations 
1. The 1977 Housing and Community Development Act sets the maximum loan amount for residences at $27,000 per dwelling. 
2. An amount which when added to any outstanding indebtedness does not exceed the following dollar uni t costs: 
$45 ,000 f or a single-family residence; $48,750 for a two-family residence; $48 ,700 for a three-family residence; $56,000 for a four-family residence; $56 ,000 plus, not to exceed $7,700 for 
each family unit in excess of four . 
All 312 loans carry a 3% interest rate and are repayable in 20 
years or three-quarters of the economic life of the property after 
rehabilitation, whichever is less. 
FmHA-Section 502 - The Incentive Home Repair Loan Program 
The 502 Incenti ve Home Repa ir Loan Program is an interest credit 
program desi gned t o a s si s t f amil i e s whose total annual adjusted 
gross income is no t more t h a n $ 7 , 0 0 0 . The family must own and live 
in the home to be r epai red or occupy t he home immediately after the 
loan is made . Lo a n s ma y De made in the follow ing amounts; 
A. Fo r p ersons with an a d justed income which does not e x ce e d $3 ,000 , the l o a n amount may not exceed $3 , 0 00. A 1% i ntere s t rat e is charged; 
B. For persons wit h a n ad justed income which ranges bet we e n $ 3 ,000 a nd $5 ,000, the lo an amount may also rang e betwe en $ 3, 0 00 and $5,000 . A 2% int e rest rate is charged. 
C . Fo r persons wi t h a n adjuste d i ncome wh i ch r a n g e s be tween $5 ,000 a n d $7 , 00 0, t h e l oan amoun t may range b e tween $ 5 ,000 a nd $7, 00 0 . A 3% i ntere s t r ate i s charge d . 
The maximum loan per i o d is twe nt y -five ye ars for any loan amount. 
It is imp ort a n t to not e that a famil y wh o wi s h e s to use this 
l o a n p r o gr am mus t agree, a s a result o f the repair s , to bring the 
condition o f their home u p t o FmHA mi n i mum st a n d a r d s . 
110 
 
 FmHA-Section 504 - The Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program 
 
The 504 program is a repair program for owners occupying 
 
their own home. The maximum amount available to homeowners is 
 
$5,000 . Loans may be used for general repair purposes, installa- 
 
tion of plumbing, digging a well, or adding a room. On the 
 
other hand, the money cannot be used to build a house or improve 
 
the appearance of an existing house so as to make it appear 
 
luxurious. Grants are made when the applicant (restricted to 
 
elderly) does not have the ability to repay part or all of a 504 
 
loan. 
 
Loans up to $2 ,500 require only a promissory note while thos e 
 
of $2 ,500 to $5 ,000 require a lien on the house. 
 
Loans are attached to both the house and the owner. If a 
 
house changes owners, the new owner cannot obtain a 504 loan if 
 
FmHA has advanced $5 ,000 to the previous owner for repai rs to 
 
that specific house. If the amount of money advanced is less than 
 
$5,000 , the new owner can obtain the difference between the money 
 
previously advanced and $5 ,000 . 
 
Lo a n s may be made in the following amounts: 
 
* 
 
$1,500 for a maximum period of ten years 
 
* 
 
$1 ,500 $2 ,500 for a max i mum of fifteen years 
 
* 
 
$2 ,500 $5 ,000 for a maximum of twenty years 
 
Al l loans a re mad e at a 1% in t e re s t rate. 
 
In orde r to quali f y f or a loan, the borrower's total adjusted 
 
gross income cannot be less t ha n $3 , 500 per ye a r nor more than 
 
$5,000 per year . 
 
Under the 504 Repair Program , the home does not have to be 
 
brought up to FmHA's minimum housing standards. 
 
III 
 
 Implications for State Housing Policies 
Rehabilitation i s v iewe d as both an alternative and a complemen t to the construction of new housing . As the cost of housing continues to e s calate and as the realization grows that there are limited resource s such as l and, energy, water, etc., greater emphasis will b e required for preservation and/or improvement of the existing inventory . 
If the St ate i s to promote and to facilitate the rehabilitation eff o r t , suggestions made by the CDBG recipients warrant consideration by the State ~s po licy makers. Local governments point to the need to have assistance in mobilizini the va r i ous r e habilitatio n resources listed in t he previous section , so t hat local itie s c an "have more comprehensive housing rehabilitation activi ties . 
Codes are v i ewe d as being a necessary ingredien t for a succ e s s f ul rehab il i tat i o n progr am . Several localities suggested th~t t he State become more a ctively i nvo l v e d in assisting commu nities i n t he de v e l o pme n t and enforcement o f codes. 
The l i mitation i mp o se d by the CDBG Program is of concern since major r e habilitation seems to r e vo l v e around t hat program . Direct State assis t a nce i n l e ve r a ging funds was suggested as a means to i nc r e as e the cl ie n t g roup wh ich could be served by the program a n d t o re a ch l ocalitie s whi c h ar e i n te re sted in h ousing r e h a bi li t a t i o n b u t di d n ot r ec e i v e CDBG fu nds . 
Suggest i o n s appl i c ab l e t o property owner s as i ncentives for making  ho me r epa ir a n d im p r o v emen t i n c l u d e : t a x a batement, low i n t e r e s t r a t e l oan s a n d mor e c o d e e n f o r c e me n t . 
112 
 
 This discussion of rehabilitation has revolved around the CDBG Program because most city and/or county involvement in rehabilitation across the state is connected to that program. In the hundreds of cities and counties not fortunate to have received federal community development funds, they are not operating housing rehabilitation programs. Where only private capital is available for use in making home repairs, usually the interest rate is higher and therefore more costly than subsidized loan programs. 
Efforts to rehabilitate properties must recognize that most rental property is owned and managed by the private sector. Policies must be established which will impact the. private landlord and encourage maintenance and rehabilitation of rental property. 
11 3 
 
  PROGRAM UTILIZATION 
An Assessment of Housing Programs From The User's Perspective 
 
  PROGRAM UTILIZATION An Assessment of Housing from the User's Perspective 
Too often housing is seen as merely a place of shelter or a roof over one 's hea d . Housing, however, is one of the most complex commodities availab l e , and its price is structured in a correspondingly involved manner . 
When a consumer purchases the use of a housing unit -~ whether by renting or buying it -- he or she contracts J not for one commodity, but several J packaged as one J which generally are as foll ows : 
1. Shelter 2. En vi ro nme nt i n wh i c h the house e xists 3. Types, amounts and qualities of public services 
and public ut ili t i e s 4. Location (availab i l i ty to schools, shopping c ent e rs J etc .) 5 . Security of i nvestment (indicates the impact the 
selection of a house or apartment will have on his futur e mobi lity or fin a nc i a l securit y.) The aforementioned i t ems set a basis for the price structuring of housing . Inflationary influences, also, have their effects on the price. Its effect is generally increasing the price of the housing unit higher and faster than the actual rise of income. The results of this trend is that more households will have to l ook t o alt e r native t ype housing than the convent ional singlefami ly det ac hed ho u ses . One o f the a l t ern ative s is subsidized housing. Thi s chapter will examine t he utilization of subsidized housing fro m the c o n sume r ' s perspective. 
117 
 
 De veloper/ F i n a nc ial In st it u ti o n Perspective In order f or many o f the federal housing programs to operate, 
t he r e i s a tremendous need fo r participat ion by developers and fi na ncial institut i on s . Too often the decision is not to participate i n t he s e pr ograms. This section will examine reasons for non-part i cipatio n from the p r ivate sector . 
From the developer 's pers p ective , the primary problem is ( 1 ) l ack of interest in bu i l d i ng low to moderate income housing a n d ( 2 ) lac k o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n subs i d i ze d pr o g r a ms . The s e ne ga t ive f e e l ings a r e a r e s u lt of the f ollowing: 
- l ow profi t ma rg in in low a n d mode r a t e in com e hou sin g p ro duct i on ; 
- l im i t ed f inanc i ng f o r low to mode rate i n c ome hou s i n g ; - g r e a t l y incre as e d t ime deman d s and red tape e x ist s wh e n deve l o p e r s c ompl y with ~e gu l a t i o n s of F armers Home Admi ni stration 'and F e deral Hou s ing Admi n is tr a t i o n ; - large deve lopers wil l not p a r t i c i p a te in Farmers Home Administ r a t i o n Programs bec a us e t h e i r approval is giv en f o r only a limited number of un i t s at one time. Savi n g s an d Loan inst i t u tio n s provide 60% of all the loans in the coun t r y f or single- f a mi l y un i t s . The percent a g e in Georgia is s l i g h t l y h i g h e r . Norma l l y , the down payment i s 20%. Thus, the do wn paymen t f or a $2 5 , 00 0 house is $5 , 0 00 . I n additi o n to d own payme n t co sts , a closi ng c ost is requ ir ed . The c l o s i n g costs range usual l y fro m 2. 5% to 6.0% o f t he t o t a l housing costs. There is al so an insu r anc e fee wh ich i s normally 2.0% o f the total mortgage amou n t. Th es e c os ts wh ich c ome d irectly from t h e purchaser 
118 
 
 tends to eliminate many prospective homeowne rs from the conventional financing ma r k e t . 
Most Savings and Loan Associations do not participate in Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Administration pro~ grams . The following reasons have been cited : 
- Sufficient local d e ma n d exists for conventional loans; - Additional red tape is involved in government housing programs; - To accomodate the red tape and paper work additional persons wou l d have to be hired. There are a l s o legal barriers that prohibit development of hous i ng . In order for certain housing programs to be utilized, there are certain c r iterion that must be met, For example, areas are elimin a ted f rom FmHA housing programs if adequate private mort g a g e monies are a vai lab le in that region. Thus, the needs a nd t he income of t he p eople may very well fall in range of the programs, b u t t h is i s not a f a c t o r in determining whether or not FmHA ho us ing are app roved progr ams for t hat ar e a, I n e s s enc e the re are no i nc ent i ve s fo r developers or savings and loan inst i t u t i ons . I n f a ct , every option t hey have to part i cipat e i n f ederal programs is at a disadvantage as compared with their operat i ons in t he priv ate sector . 
Th e Co nsumer 's P e r s p e c t i v e The cons umer is the ultimate r e c i pient of housing programs, 
I n orde r fo r a pr ogram t o be successful, t here must be a consumer wh o needs and desi r es the se rv i c e s . Pr imary data was collected 
119 
 
 by means of a statewide survey. The purpose of the survey was to gather an overall opinion of Georgians toward housing policies and programs. Consumers, who are possibly eligible for the housing programs and agency officials of social institutions in the state were asked to participate. The agency officials were included because of their expertise in dealing with the client groups the housing programs were set up to reach. The officials represented the following agencies: 
Local Housing Authorities Community Action Agencies Cooperative Extension Services Title XX Agencies Division of Youth Services Department of Family and Children Services Area Offices on Aging Neighborhood Service Centers Community Development Bloc Grant Agencies The aforementioned programs were established to aid the low to moderate income in different areas, such as day care centers, welfare, etc. A listing of these agencies by counties and regional areas consisted of 1,023 a g e n c i e s . Using 10% of the population, the sample size was computed to be 103. A systematic random sample was conducted , u s i ng every lOth name to select the agencies t o be used in t he survey . At a predet e rmined cutoff date , 62% of the questionnaires had been returned. Thus thi s paper will reflect the attitudes and opinions of a p p r ox i ma t e ly t wo - t hir d s of the population surveyed. The purposes o f t h e ques tionn ai re we re as fol lows: 
To determi ne t he a ttitudes and opinions of citizens affected by housing programs 
To determine if Georg ians who live in public housing, 
12 0 
 
 rented rooms and mobile homes are satisfied with their living conditions 
To determine if Georgians would move if adequate housing were available 
To determine the target markets~ problems with purchasing and maintaining housing 
To determine if the consumers are aware of the programs that are available to them 
The findings of the questionnaire are as follows: 82.7% of the population surveyed live in public housing, 
mobile homes, or rent and 11.4% own homes. 67 .1% of the citizens surveyed feel as though they are 
living in fair to unsatisfactory conditions in relation to the amount of rent they are paying. 
Almost two-thirds, 61.4% feel as though the price of housing is a major constraint to purchaslng homes. 
Slightly over one-third, 36.1%, feel that the unavailability of housing units is a factor in purchasing housing. 
Everyone, 100%, feels that some type of problem is encountered in renting or purchasing houses. 
Over two- t hirds, 79.6%, are not aware of housing programs. 83.8% of t he citizens surveyed feel as though they may be eligibl e f o r t he go v e r nme n t s ' programs. Over o ne- third o f Georgia's citizens, 44.1%, have some type of knowledge about the programs through friends, 11.7% through news s t or i e s , 4 . 4% through TV, 39.7% through case workers. Over t wo - t h i r d s, 68.4%, have had recent home repairs or 
121 
 
 improvements. 
The factors that encourage home repairs/improvements are 
low interest rate loans, code enforcements and counseling and 
training in house ma i n t e n a n c e , the percentages being 31.5%, 28.4% 
and 40%, respectively . 
Half of the Geor gians surveyed, 50%, would be willing to 
move if adequate housing were available. 
Factors, in the order of importance, that are related to 
satisfactory living environment are as follows : 
1 . Transportation 2. Type of neighborhood 3. Job 4 , Relatives/friends (distance to) 5. Distance t o shopping centers 6. Distance to schools 7. Distance to church 8. Yard space 9 . Po rches (it is interesting to note that mo r e people agreed that t h i s f actor was not important than any of the items listed) 
68.3%, ove r t wo-thirds, have positive a t titudes toward 
s ub s i di z ed hou sing . 
The fac to r s , lis ted in t h e order of i mp ort a n c e , that 
are p rob lems in ma i nt a ining and o b t a i n i n g standard housing are 
a s f o l l ows : 
1 . Hous ing c o s t s 2 . Cost of home r e p a ir s 3. At t itudes t owa r d h ou sin g 4 . Lack of inf o rmat i o n 5. Too many r egula tio ns in housing i ndu s try 6. Shor t a ge of de v e l op e d s i tes (sewers , wat e r lines, etc.) 7. La c k of c o de e n f o r c e me n t s 
Act i v i tie s that c o n s u me r s f ee l are impo r t a n t t o maintain- 
ing a n d obt a i n i n g bet te r hou s i n g are l i s t e d below i n t he order 
of imp o rt an c e - - ( NOTE : Low int e r est rate lo a n s f o r i mprovement 
122 
 
 and technical assistance in conununities that want to Lrnp rove .: 
 
housing were felt to be of equal importance .): 
 
1. Purchase costs 2 Low interest rates on loans for improvements 
2 Technical assistance in conununities that want to improve housing 
 
3. Lo w i n terest rates on loans to purchase houses 4. Financial assistance 
 
95% of the Georgians surveyed felt that housing is a 
 
complex problem and requires the combined efforts of private 
 
enterprise, federal, state and local govenment and individual 
 
citizens if adverse housing is to be overcome in Georgia. 
 
A copy of the full questionnai~e is included in the Technical 
 
I 
Appendix ~ 
 
a s- well 
 
as- a, 
 
l:tsttng 
 
ot sul?Yey respondents. 
 
123 
 
 Implica t ions for State Housing Policies 
Programs should be offered with the Huser~ group in mind, first. Then a strategy should be set up to get the message to the user group. Several strategies could be related to the following: 
1. Formulate posters, brochures, pamphlets and distribute them to the social institutions to, in turn, place them in offices so that when the client groups are present, they can see them and read them, thus creating interest in the programs . The pamphlet, brochure or poster should have a detachable card or sheet to be mailed i n if more information is desired. The initial at t e nt i ongetter and the information to be mailed out should persuade t he interested party t o take some type of positive action. 
2. Announc eme n t s c ou l d be made on television and radio during prime times t o generat e user interest. 
3 . Public t r ans por tation (since a lot of the user groups may not own cars ) c ou l d b e u t i l i z e d by placing ads, along with det a c h abl e coupon s , to of fer informa t i o n o n the programs. This shou ld be pla ced only on t he rou tes that s erve target groups. 
I t is i mp o r t ant t o keep in mind that each item (pamphlet, brochure , a d ) should offer hous ingfs programs as benefits. They should be as ked to t a k e a d v a n t a ge o f the programs available t h i s is not a handout. 
Oftentimes , it i s n o t t he a v ailab i l i t y of housing units, but how to maint a i n s u ch hou sin g in the presence o f unemployment, ghet to cond itio n s an d cr ime. In such cases , home r e p a i r s / i mp r o v e ments s hould be emp h a s i z ed . Some type of mechanism should be formulat ed t o tr y to ins t i ll hou s e ma i nte n a n ce o r pride in the 
124 
 
 households to try to keep them up. Special seminars could be conducted to increase the aware~ 
ness of service providers of the requirements and eligibility for the available sUDsidized housing programs, Such seminars could also serve as a source of information exchange. 
For builders and savings and loan associations, it is necessary to determine appropriate State roles for increasing their involvement with subsidized housing. For example, in some States Technical Assistance i nv o lve s the actual packaging of applications which greatly reduces the red tape and the paperwork involved in using the programs. 
125 
 
  REGULATORY CONTROLS AS A FACTOR IN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 
 
  REGULATORY CONTROLS AS A FACTOR IN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 
In order to achieve the State housing goal, new housing must 
be construct ed to ab s or b increases in population and replace substandard and dilapidated housing. The need to provide standard housing for the residents of Georgia must be balanced with maintaining a healthy environment and stable community. Regulatory controls have been established by state and local governments to ensure that this balance is maintained. 
Regulatory controls that affect housing development have increased in number and complexity in recent years and have ultimately affected the amount of new housing construction in Georgia. This chap t er examines the significant state and local regulatory controls aimed at controlling housing construction. The viewpoints o f bot h the house buying community and the developer on regulatory controls are also discussed. 
Regulatory controls have caused a great deal of controversy in recent years, especially when the issue surrounds residential settlement patterns. State and local governments assume the posi~ tion that regulator y cont rols are necessary to maintain a quality environment and limit u northodox and impractical development that ultimately affect s the t otal communit y. However, developers feel that many land use cont rols a re burdensome, time consuming, costly. and arbitrary. While few developers feel that all land use controls should be eliminated , most feel that these controls are overly r e s t r i c t i ve a nd ineff icient ly administered . 
129 
 
 Regulatory controls that affect housing development include zoning and subdivision regulations, housing and building codes, and mobile home ordinances. These controls have all been cited as being significantly responsible for the cost, type and loca~ tion of new housing construction in Georgia. 
Zoning Regulations "Zoning has been the most influential pUblic technique for 
controlling private land use in America during the twentieth 1 
century ." Zoning is defined as the practice of dividing a land area into districts within which specified activities take place. Ideal ly, incompatible land uses are separated and undesirable external effects that characterize uncontrolled urban land uses are eliminated . 
The mechanics of separation require the designation of specific land use districts to include varying intensities such as single, multiple , or high density multiple family residential use. Within each land u se district, various regulations and restrictions apply to: 
(1) the use of land (permitted uses, lot sizes, set back requirements , parking facilities, open space requirements); 
(2) the height, s i z e , and u s e of buildings; (3) the dens i ty of population 
1. David E. Ervin , et al ., Land Use ControlS, p . 61. 
1 30 
 
 Go'mIrilinTtt l OS" Vfew "o'f Z"o"n"ihg Zoning regulations are favorably accepted by many citizens, 
especially homeowners who seek to protect their real estate investment from encro a c hme nt of unfavorable land uses . The home owning community perceive s zo ning ~s primary function as preserving the neighborhood of single f amily homes and eliminating any negative external effects. 
There are two classes of residential external effects that are of concern to a residential community. The first pertains to the eff ect non-residential activities has on residential prop e rt y v a l u e s . Wh en a land area near a residential area is used for other than residential purposes (ex. industrial establishment locates in a residential area), property values tend to decrease. The second class of externalit i e s includes the effects one residential activity has on ot h er r e s ident i a l uses , A common example is locatin g multi -family h ousin g near a n established residential communit y . Both classes of r e s i de nt i a l external effects have a direct effect on the physic a l and e c o nomi c value of a residential area . 
Wi t h i n a n y populated area , t h e r e are many families who are not able to afford si ng le-family housing a n d consequently do not agree with p resent z onin g p r a ctices. Zoning, i n ma n y urban areas of the state , exclu des c e r t a i n i ncome groups by s e tting very high standards for lot size , f loor area , set - backs and open space requ ir eme n t s . Th e s e h ig h s t a n d a r d s fo r c e the price of the hous ing unit we l l b e yon d th e me a n s o f l ow a nd mode rate income families. Zonin g pr a ct ices a r e a lso exclus ionary in t e rm s of the location 
1 31 
 
 of multi-family housing, Areas experiencing significant resi~ dential growth pressure rarely have adequate affordable sites for multi-family townhouse or apartment developments. Sites that are available are usually very expensive and the developer is forced to construct high' cost rental units. This situation further excludes low and moderate income families from securing housing in more desirable residential areas. 
There is a definite need to re~examine present zoning practices to achieve a variety of social goals based on equity at the local and regional level. Through inclusionary zoning practices, as opposed to exclusionary practices, low and moderate income hou s i ng could be expanded. Job opportunities and accessibility to outlying areas would be greatly enhanced. Educational as well as social opportunities would also improve. 
Developer's View of Zoning The developer , as with any business , must secure a profit to 
survive economic ally . He is, therefore, extremely interested in the zoning practices within hi s particular market area. The developer 's market will often determine whether he is favorable or u nf avor a b l e toward zoning regulat ions. If the market dictates that the developer bui l d moderate priced housing ($20,000 to $35,000), he will likely oppos e zoning regulations requiring large lots , minimum floor a reas and minimum lot frontage. He wi l l also oppo se a ny zoning regul ations that restricts his building from certa in locations z one d for other than residential uses. If, however , a ma r k et fo r h igh i ncome h o u s i n g exists, the developer 
132 
 
 will strongly support any zoning ~egulations that wtll " p r e s e r v e the integrityM of his development. The developer realizes that any additional costs incurred by zoning regulations will be paid by the home buyer. 
Developers are often interested in changing zoning regulations for their own benefit, The monetary gains that can be achieved from rezoning have caused many developers and land speculators to exert strenuous efforts to change zoning designations, Real estate developers recognize that the kind of zoning as well a s specific zoning provisions, such as density of use and height of building, greatly affect the value of the tract of l and . Surely, applying for variances, exceptions, and conditional uses is often spurred by potential economic gain. 
The developer often sees zoning regulations as placing too much pressure on urban l and uses. This pressure results in limited land available for housing development and construction. As a result, prices of developable land have increased dramatically, forcing developers to build homes for upper middle and high income families. This situation virtually eliminates low and moderate income families from the new housing market. 
Areas surrounding u r b a n centers tend to be less restrictive in enforcement and s t an dards in zoning regulations. As a result, developers a r e at tr acted t o t hese are as wh e n seeking residential building sites. This practice usually perpetuates urban sprawl and leap-frog development patterns that place tremendous stress on existing pub lic facil i ties of the area . The inefficiences asso ciated wi th this form of d eve lopme nt wil l det rimentally affect 
13 3 
 
 future areawide plann ing and development. 
Subdivision Regulat ions Subdivision regu l ations became widel y accepted in the Un ited 
States i n the e a r l y 1960 s as a t oo l in establishing a pattern of residential development. The purpos e of subdivision regulations is to control t he physical layout of a neighborhood and include minimum r equirements a nd design standards such a s st reet layout, shape a nd size o f blocks , mi n i mu m lot si zes, prope rty line intersect i o ns , eas eme n ts , an d pu bl ic s ite and open s pace re qu i rements. In addit ion , subdivision r e gu l at i on s provide t he procedures to be f o l l owe d in d e v elopin g and gainin g offici al a p p r o v a l of the plot of land being subdi v i ded. 
Zon i n g and sub divisio n r egulat i o n s are t h e ma jor control ove r the type and l ocat ion o f residential construct i on i n Georgia. The e x t e n t o f the se regulations vary greatly t hr ough out the state . I l lustration 19 shows the spatial distr ibution of zon ing and sub d i v i s ion pract ices in Ge orgi a . The t e c h n i c al a p pendix includes a comprehensive lis ting of counties a n d mun icipalitie s with z oning and/or s ub di v i s i o n regu l at i ons . A large port ion of the st ate does not have cont rol over s p ec i f i c land us e s . Fo r tunat ely , the areas tha t are control led by zoning and subdivision r e gu lation s a re , i n mo st case s, more heavily populated and represent a l a r ge percent age o f Georgia's total populat i on. Areas not under t he control of zon i ng an d subdivision r e gulations a re pr e dominant l y rural i n c haract e r and have few yearly housing st a rt s. Approximat el y 8 0 percent of Geo r g i a Ls population pre- 
134 
 
 Zoning and/or Subdivision Regulations by County or Municipality 
 
TEN 
 
N. ! N. I 
 
c. 
~ 
 
LEGEND 
 
County 
 
I\III\ 
 
Municipality  
 
...J 
 
Municipalities within counties may have adopted zoning and subdivision regulations. 
 
FLO 
 
R 
 
135 
 
 sently live tn areas under tae control ot z0ning and/or sub~ 
division regulations. 
Communi ty I S V1ew of SubdivisiOn Regulat 10ns The primary object ive s of land subdivision regulations from 
the standpoint of the community are set forth as follows in Section 14 of the General Planning Enabling Act of 1957, as amended (Ga. Laws 1957, p. 420; Code Ann, Sections 60~1214-21): 
(1) To encourage the development of economically sound and stable communities ; 
(2) To assure the provisions of required streets, ut i l ities, and other facilities and services to new developments; 
(3) To assure t he a dequa t e provisions of safe and convenient t r a f f i c access a nd c i rcul a t i on , both vehicular and pedestrian, in new land d evelopme n t . 
(4) To a ssure the p r o v i sio n s of needed public open spaces and buil d ing site s in n ew land developments through the dedication or r e s e r vation o f l a nd for recreation, educational, and other public purposes , and 
( 5 ) To a s sure , in gener al, t h e wise development of new area in h armony wit h t he Master Plan of the Community, 
If the f ol l owing ob ject ive s are met by the developer, both the p u r chase r a n d t h e commun i ty benefit f r om subdivision regulations . Purchasers of s ubdivided property benefit from the assurance that t heir resident i a l property is properly laid out and provided with ess e nt i al pu b lic faci l it ies. They are also assur ed that the i r i n v e s t men t wi l l b e mai n ta in e d and enhanced during t he s u cceed i ng ye a r s . 
The commu nity ben e fi t s b y sub d i vis ion re gulat ions through an increased muni cipal tax base a n d through p roperly controlled and mon i to red growth ma nag eme nt. Communi t y s ervices such as water, 
136 
 
 :=,ieviage treatment and educational facilities will not be faced with excessive operating and expansion costs. 
DeveTop'er 1s Vi'eW6f Subdivision Regulation's In order to adhere to the requirements and standards set by 
local subdivision regulations, the developer must make a substantial investment into a tract of land for plat approval. He must also comply with any procedural requirements established by the governing body. The time and money involved in plat approval have caused many developers to vocally express their dissatisfaction with subdivision regulations. Many developers feel t hat subdivision regulations are too restrictive, inordinately costly, and a prominent reason f or the increased cost of new housing. 
Developers have also expressed dissatisfaction with specific minimum design standards. Size of rights of ways (60 fee t wide in some areas), sidewalk requirements, block lengths and widths, residential setback lines, and the design of storm drainage facilities are common complaints . In addition, the time involved in fulfilling the administrative requirements for subdivision approval is often considered excessive and costly to the developer. 
Minimum s tandards required by subdivision regulations should be high enough to adequately protect the pUblic interest, but not too high to be unenforce a b le. Ma ny developers are forced to seek building sites on urban fringe areas outside of governmental control. By forcing dev elope rs away from building sites in urban areas , inefficient an d unsound de velopment patterns wi l l continue to exist . 
1 37 
 
 Bui ld in g a n d IIo u slng" Go"d:es 
Bu ild in g and Housin g codes have a gre at ef fect o n the 
housing industry i n terms of construction p ractices , cost and ma teria ls used, These c ode s provide the minimum allowable stan~ dards builde rs mu s t me e t throughout the const ruction process, Local ities wit h adopte d code s are listed in the Technical Appendix and a r e vi s u ally d isp l a yed o n the fol lowi ng maps, 
Bu ild ing Co des The build i ng code is a set of specifica tions and p r o c e du r e s 
de s igne d to cover a ll aspects of construct ion, Included in buil ding c ode s are s p ecia l ty code s such a s plumbing , he a t i ng and a ir conditionin g , e lect ri c a n d g as codes , All of these con t a i n mi nimum standards that mu s t b e me t throu g hout the con s t ruction proces s, 
The Building Code, as est ab l ished b y t he St a t e of Georgia a n d o f f ered f or adop t ion by coun t y and muni c ipal g ove rnme n t s , includes guidelines for det e rmining fir e district , establi s hing h e ight r e st riction s a n d minimum design l oads for ma s onry , s teel , c oncr et e and wood , and est a b lishes safeguards during t he a ctu a l proces s of cons t r u ction . 
Plumb ing Cod es State P lumbin g Co d e s we r e establis h e d and o ffe r ed for a dop t i o n 
t o c ount y an d mu ni cip al gov e rnme n t s t o e nsure t hat inst a l l a t i o n o f p l umb i n g a p p a r at us comply wi th mi n i mum co d e s . Plumb ing Codes 
138 
 
 Building Codes b~ Count~ or Municipalit~ 
 
T E N N. ! N. 
 
C. S' 
 
LEGEND 
 
County 
 
IIIIII 
 
Municipality  
 
....J 
 
Municipalities within counties may have adopted codes. Refer to Appendix . 
 
fLO 
 
R 
 
1 39 
 
 Plumbing Codes b~ Count~ or Municipalit~ 
 
T E N N. ! N. 
 
C. 
 
STATE 
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 
OF' 
GEORGIA 
OUTLINE ~AP SHOWING 
COUNTIES 
 
...J 
 
Municipalities within counties may have adopted codes . Refer to Appendix. 
 
f 
 
L 
 
o 
 
R 
 
1 40 
 
o 
 
A 
 
 Heating :I Air Conditioning Codes .~ Count~ or Munieipalit~ 
 
T E N N. 
 
c. 
----- . . - - - , - - - - - 1 
 
LEGEND 
 
County 
 
IIIIII 
 
Municipality  
 
~ 
-? 
 
 
dl 
 
./ 
 
 
 
-t: 
 
y 
-.J 
 
 
 
Municipalities within counties may 
 
have adopted codes. Refer to Appendix. 
 
fLO 
 
R 
 
I 
 
141 
 
o 
 
A 
 
 Electric Codes b~ Count~ or Municipalit~ 
 
T E N N. 
 
C. STATE 
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 
or 
GEORGIA 
OUTLINE MAP SHOWING 
COUNTIES 
 
1-  
 
Municipalities within counties may have adopted codes. Refer to Appendix. 
 
F 
 
L 
 
o 
 
R 
 
142 
 
D 
 
A 
 
 Gas Codes b)' Count)' or Municipalit)' 
 
T E N N. 
 
c. 
LEGEND 
 
County 
 
IIIIII 
 
Municipality  
 
y 
...J 
 
Municipalities within counties may have adopted codes. Refer to Appendix . 
 
fLO 
 
R 
 
I 
 
14 3 
 
D 
 
A 
 
 Housing Codes b~ Count~ or Munieipalit~ 
 
T E N N. ! N. 
 
-- c. .. 
 
LEGEND 
 
County 
 
IIIIII 
 
Municipality  
 
co 
..J 
 
F 
 
L 
 
o 
 
R 
 
144 
 
o 
 
A 
 
 include standards fo r plumbing f ixtures, traps and cleanouts, and vents and v e n ti n g. In addition, min i mum standards fo r wa t e r supply distribution, s anitary drainage systems, and storm drainage systems are included. 
Heating "and Air Cond i t ionin g Cod e Heating and Air Conditioning Codes control the installation 
and types of materials used in any heating or coo ling device within a housing unit. The established minimum s tandards include requirements controlling heat loss/heat gain, ven tilation , com bustion, and the actual ma c h i n ery used i n cen tr al a n d mo dul a r a ir condition ing u n i ts . Mi nimum s t a n dar ds hav e also be en established for const ruct i ng f irepl ace s and c himneys, 
Electric Code The National Electric Code has been adopt ed by t he s t a te of 
Ge o rgia as t h e St a t e El e c tric Code . The El e c tric Code i s de signe d to saf e guard per son s and property fr om hazards ar ising f rom the use o f electricity . The co d e c ont ains minimum st a n d ards for virtually all aspec t s of electric al installa tion and equipment. 
Gas Cod e The Geor gi a Gas Code wa s established to c o n tro l the i n s t al - 
l ation and utilization of devices operated with natura l gas . The Gas Code cont a i ns minimum s tan d a r ds f or instal ling gas pip i n g, appliances a n d othe r n a t u r al gas op erated equipment. Mi nimum s tandards a l so gov e r n ventilation and combustion metho d s a n d t he 
145 
 
 type o:e appliances installed i n a particular bu ilding , 
Ma nda t "ory Ther'maT and Li ghting Efficien"cySta"n"da"r'ds The 1977 Geor gi a Ge n e r a l Assembly passed R,B, 823 which 
directs the St a te Buil di ng Administration Board (SBAB) to develop and r ecommend st a tewi de thermal an d lighting ef ficiency standards t o the 1978 Gene ra l As s emb l y , Su c h s tandards a r e to reduce energy co nsump ti on a nd dollars spent for energy in buildings and must comply wi t h n a t ion a l s t a nda rds . 
Housi ng Code s Hous ing Code s are the minimum standar ds a dwelling uni t must 
mee t to be class i f i e d as s tan da r d hous ing, The Housing Code inclu de s minimum r equ i r emen t s fo r t he bas ic equipment (wat e r supply , s ewag e dispo s a l , k i t c h e n an d bathroom f acilities , refuse stor age and di sposal and heating fac ilities ), light and ventil at i o n , an d the e l e c t r i c a l system of a dwelling unit , The code also c ont ain s ge ne ra l r e qu i r ement s relating to s a f e an d sanitary maintenance a nd minimum dwel ling space requ irement s. 
Mob ile Home Ordinances Mobi le home s have b ecome a n i nc reasingl y i mpo r t a nt form of 
housing f or l ower and l owe r - mi dd le income hous eho l ds in Georgia . Unfortunately, many c i t izen s and l ocal off i c ial s view mobile homes as unde sirable e i t her i n p r i v a t e placement, in a mobile home park or in a mob i l e" home s u bd ivi sion , Mu c h o f t he ne ga t i ve attitudes towa r d mobi l e homes stems f rom mi s i n f ormat i on and lack of a de quat e 
14 6 
 
 local con t r-o Ls , . 1vJ0o:flenoJI)e~a;lCks- t hz-oughout the state are often poorly located, oBsolete, and ine~ficientlymanaged. 
In 1974, Congress passed the National Mobile Kome Act which established federal building standards for mobile homes. The purpose of the Act is to reduce the number of personal injuries, deaths and the amount of insurance costs and property damage resulting from mobile home accidents, and to improve the quality and durability of mobile homes. 
The State of Georgia adopted the Uniform Standards Code for the Mobile Homes Act to establish standards of construction, Buying and selling and placement of mobile homes. The Act is designed to protect the safety and welfare of the consumer. 
The placement of mobile homes is restricted in some ways in several counties in Georgia. Mobile home placement restrictions are found in zoning ordinances or specific mobile home ordinances. Most counties enforcing such ordinances restrict mobile homes f r om locating in res iden t ial areas ( R-l) and s ubdivision developments. Some counties require that mobile homes be placed only in mobile home parks or rural areas. Other counties require a minimum size lot ranging from 15 ,000 square feet to one a c r e of land. A petition signed by all s urrounding land owners may also be required before placement of a mobile home is allowed. 
Mobile home living is an economical alternative in supplying standard housing for low and moderate income Georgians . Unfortunately, present zoning practices and mobile home ordinances have virtually eliminated mobile home placement from the more desirable locations. County and municipal governments must accept 
147 
 
 mobile homes as a y i a o l e ~ean~ i n p~oviding haustng ~or their residents. Grea ter efforts should be made in developing and planning fo r mo b i l e home parks and subdivisions. 
Implication "f o r State HOli sin"g PoTici"es Regulatory cont rols have been developed by state and local 
governments to provide guidelines and to control the construction of new housing. These controls evolved over t he years for the purpose of protecting the social , economic and environmental welfare o f t he home owner as well as the community. 
Bu i l d i n g an d housing codes have been deve loped to prot e c t t he home buye r fr om"u nsou nd a n d hazardous bu ildi n gpractipe~ ~ " "" Throughout t h e State , c ommu n i t i e s have adopte d an d e nforced whichever co des th ey cho os e . Whi l e mo s t ci ties and counties select one of the national ly or regionally recognized sets of housing and construct ion codes (usu a l l y wit h local amendments), the dive r si ty of r equ i r eme n ts wit h in a smal l geographic area causes difficul t i es for t he dev e loper to st andardize his operations so t hat costs can be minimized. Because counties and municipalities require d i f f e re n t minimum stan d a r d s, d evel o p ers are unable t o s t andar d i ze their operation and p roduce housin g on a larger , mo r e economic a l scale . Va r i a tion s in buildin g codes effectively r e quire var iations i n s t r uctu r a l design between communities who rarely agree on building standards. 
An other p r ob lem ass ociated with st anda r d i z a t ion of building codes is the fai lure of communit ies to r evi se codes to current st andards p r omulgated by nat io nal code wr i tin g g roups . Several 
148 
 
 years may pass befor e a cornmun Lt y updates their codes to current standards. Differences in revision updating practices further widens the gap of building code standardization. 
Building codes must also be fairly and objectively enforced to ensure that the provisions of the code are met. Throughout the state, variations in enforcement have caused numerous problems for developers and communities involved in the construction process. 
Many areas face difficulties in employing qualified full time inspectors due to inadequate salaries, As a result, these areas are forced to hire either part~time or full-time persons that may not be qualified to enforce the codes. Most areas with code s have only one inspector who is responsible for enforcing all the codes. An inspector knowledgeable in one field such as plumbing, often has a very difficult time understanding the intricacies of electrical wiring. "Token" inspections and approval of plans, provided the building permit fee has been received, is often the prevailing practice, 
A training program should also be developed so that code enforcement personnel throughout the State will have an adequate background in the inspection of all areas of construction. As part of this total training effort, the State should establish a licensing procedure for housing code enforcement on a statewide basis. 
Mobile home living has become an increasingly popular form of housing for low and lower~middle income households in Georiga. Recently, there has been a growing concern over the placement and location of mobile homes within the local community . Zoning and 
149 
 
 mobile home ordinances have been established to restrtct the location of mobile homes, 
Monile home living will most likely continue to increase in popularity as the price of single~family homes becomes impossible to afford by a large s e gme n t of Georgia~s population, The State should therefore encou rage a n d assist local communities in pro~ viding adequate and attractive mobile home park sites, Standards should be established to provide asthetically pleasing, noncongested large lots for mobile homes, The adoption and enforcement of such standards wo u l d el iminate the present Hspot H installation of mobile homes throughout the State, and encourage private i nt e r ests to design and impl emen t mobile home parks.. 
The need to conse r ve energy should be pursued in housing as well as other appropriate areas, One mechanism for doing this is through mandat ory Thermal and Lighting Efficiency Standards, Such standards should comply wit h national standards but reflect local needs and conditions. 
Zoning and subdiv ision r e gu l at i ons are t he major control over the location and type of hou s i ng development , Both controls affect vi rtual ly the e ntire popul at ion of Georgia, Zoning regu~ lations should b e de signed t o also consider social goals, Socioeconomic class shoul d n o t b e t he deciding factor i n determining the l oc at i o n o f dif fere nt t ypes of hou sing developments. Inclusionary z o ning pr acti ce s s h o u l d be main t a ined b y t he local community so that e ve r y citizen wi l l have equal acc ess to a v a r i e t y of hous ing oppor t un i t i e s , 
Sun div ision regul a tions h av e been effect ive in establishing 
150 
 
 the pattern of residential development by providing minimum requirements and design standards tor the physical layout of a housing development. Recently, there has been a growing controversy concerning the requirements for suBdivision standards, design criteria, rights of ways, sidewalk requirements, block lengths and widths, residential setback lines and storm drainage facilities . These requirements should be examined to determine if their value is worth the added cost to the consumer. 
151 
 
  ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AFFECTING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 
 
  ENVIRONHENTAL CONCERNS AFFECTINC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 
Development of residential areas in previously under~ developed areas, or a change in intensity of development, may be viewed as a process of disruption and restoration of an ecological balance. Development typically involves a process of change from an agricultural or forest ecosystem to an urban ecosystem. Such development, in altering a former environment and creating a new environment, mayor may not have adverse effects. However, the potential for adverse effects has inspired federal, state and local governments to adopt legislation to control building p ractices that detrimentally affect the envi~ ronment. 
Several statewide environmental controls have been established to protect the physical environment from destructive building practices. Specific areas of environmental concern within the State include communities built on floodplains, marshlands , and coastal areas. In addition, specific controls over erosion and sedimentat ion, extraction of water and placement of septic tanks have been established to assure sound development practices. 
Environmental controls have become an essential part of the construction process. Before the developer is able to begin any site improvements on a tract of land, he must be aware of specific environmental controls, As with any control or regulation, there are costs which the developer must take into account when evaluating his potential buying market. 
155 
 
 Env i ronmen tal Co n trol s 
F loodplain Controls I n recent y e a r s, f l o o d destruction has b e c ome an increas- 
ing ly ser i ous p r o b lem in ma ny areas of t he country. Development along fl ood pl ains ha s his t or i c a l l y been a necessity for tr an sp ort a t i on, wa t er s u p p l y , sewage disposal a n d power g e n erat i o n . As de ve lopme n t i ncre as e d on flood plain areas, so d i d the c hance s o f f l oo d i n g caused b y i ncre as ing runoff. Prior to t h e 1960s , en g i n eer i n g me asu res such as dams , leve e s, and channel imp r ove me n t s we r e h eav ily emphasiz ed as solutions t o t h e fo o d p rob l em . Unf ortunatel y e ng i n e ering measures were not adequat e t o s o lve t he prob l em comp letely . As a result, lega l cont r o l s such as zoning , subdivision regul a t i ons and building a n d h ou s i n g c o d e s wer e est a b l i s h e d t o con t r o l the l o cat i o n , d e s i g n , con s t ruc t i o n , a n d q ua li t y o f ma terials o f bu i ld i n g s cons t r u cted in the f l oo dp lai n. 
Feder a l expendi t ures f or urb a n and rur a l floo d damage r edu c tio n t o t a led sev e r a l hu n d r e d mil l i o n do l l ars i n bo th 1975 an d 197 6. Act u a l floo d d ama g e s we r e e st i mate d to e x ceed 2 . 2 b i l l i on dol l a r s for cal e nda r year 1 975 a c cording t o t he U . S . Wa t e r Re s o u rc e s Co u nci l . The f i gur es r e ve a l t h e continuing c os t s to f e d e r a l t a x p ayers a nd p r ope r ty own e r s o f unwise fl o o dp la i n de v e lopme nt a n d inadequate l o cal f l oo dp l ain zoning a nd man a g emen t. As a r esu lt , t he Co u n c i l on En vi ro nmen tal Qual ity s t at e s t hat fed era l and state go v e r nme n ts have directed t he i r e ff orts at encou raging loca lit ies t o achieve a b e t t e r balance be t ween s tr uc t u r al mea sures intended to con tro l the fl ow o f flo o dwa t er s a n d n on-s t ruc tur a l me a s u r e s d e s i g n e d to 
156 
 
 promote uses of flood prone land which are more compatible with occasional flooding and less destructive to the natural environment. 
The National Flood Insurance Program was developed to aid communities forced t o use floodplains for growth expansion. The communities adopting this program can: 
1. Make their citizens eligible for federally subsidized flood insurance (virtually impossible to secure from private insurance market); 
2. Enable citizens and developers to obtain federally backed loans, and; 
3 . Enable themselves as local governments, to obtain certain federal grants f or development of local programs to combat future flooding problems. 
Housing development is greatly affected by the National Flood Insurance program. While the regulations of the programs do not prohibit new construction in flood~prone areas, precautions are required for whatever new housing is permitted in certain high hazard areas. In all cases, communities which plan future floodplain construction are required , at a minimum, to make housing production more compatible with the floodplain environment in order to reduce l o s s e s. A number of communities, either through zoning or special flood prevention ordinances, are reserving their floodplains as open space. 
Coastal Ma r s h l a n d P rotection The Coas tal Marshlan d Protection Act o f 1970 was estaolish~ ed to institute a permi t system authorizing any physical 
157 
 
 alterations to estuarine marshlands. The Act states that no person shall remove, fill, dredge, or drain or otherwise alter any marshland in the State of Georgia within the estuarine area, The purpose of the Act is to ensure that Georgia 's coastal marshlands are used in the public interest and for the benefit of all . 
The estuarine area has been defined as all tidely influenced waters, marshes, and marshland lying within a tide elevation range from 5.6 feet above and below mean tide level. Permits are required for any project construction or project maintenance within the area described above. 
In order to secure a permit, an application must be submitted to the Department of Natural Resources by the prospective developer. A $25.00 per acre charge that cannot exceed . $500.00 is required with the application. The applicant must also include information describing the proposed activity, the location and purpose of the activity , and a scheduling of the activity. A letter certifying that the applicant is not in violation of zoning laws from the local government must also accompany the application. 
If the application is approved and the permit is issued, the developer must adhere to all the provisions required in the permit. Periodi c on - s ite inspections are performed and a n y violation wi l l halt the pro j e c t immediately . The project can continue only when the provisions of the permit have been satisfied. 
158 
 
 The Coastal Marshland Protection Act is very restrictive in terms of housing development. The provisions of the Act require such stringent controls on any alteration of the coastal marshland areas that housing development is impractical. The Act explicitly states that the filling of marshland for residential uses is prohibited . While the possibility exists that housing could be built within the marshland areas of Georgia, the time and costs involved would make building a housing development prohibitive. 
Erosion and Sedimentation Control The Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1975 was established to authorize local governments to adopt erosion control ordinances where necessary to reduce water pollution caused by sedimentation. The rules of the Act apply to any development activity in which land is physically disturbed. According to the Ac t , a permit is required of developers wishing to build on undeveloped land. To obtain a permit, an application must be submitted by the prospective developer. The application must include information describing the pro~ posed activity, the location and purpose of the activity, and a schedule of the activity. Maps and other pertinent information must also accompany the application. If the permit is granted , the developer must adhere to the rules and regulations established by the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act . The rules generally control the stripping of v e ge t at i on, t he dur at i on of exposure, and the amount of exposed l and at a given time . I nspections are periodically conducted an d any violation results in permit 
159 
 
 revocation. The Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Act has had little 
effect on the location of housing developments in Georgia, but ha s had a great effect on the time and costs of a development. Previous construction practices designed to streamline construction time and cost are in most cases detrimental to the environment. The Act has forced builders to make a conscientious effort at developing sound construction practices aimed at preserving the natural environment. 
The Act r e qu i r e s that a permit be issued to build on undeveloped land. To obtain a permit for construction, losses in time and administrative costs are incurred by the developer. The application must be completed, submitted, evaluated and approved. This process could possibly take several weeks to 'c omp l e t e . The often quoted expression "Time is Money" is especially true of the construction industry due to the large amount of capital invested in land, labor and financing. The ultimate burden of the adtional costs a~e, however, assumed by the new home buyer. 
The actual construct ion of a housing development is also affected by erosion and sedimentation controls. The developer is required to fol low all regulations established by the Act from the init ial s t a ge o f c on s tru c t i on. I n the absence of controls, the developers could s trip and level t he land in a short period of time . They could then begin const r uction immediately . Under t h e r u l e s a n d regulations of the Act, the developer must construct his deve l opment in prescribed stages 
160 
 
 utilizing specific erosion and sedimentation control techniques. Water "Qua l i t y "Co n t r o l The State of Georgia has established Water Quality Stan- 
dards designed to protect the public health and welfare in accordance with the public interest for drinking water supplies, conservation of fish , game and other beneficial aquatic life, and agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other beneficial uses. The purpose of these standards is to enhance water quality and prevent pollution from point and non-point sources. 
Sewage treatment plants are the main source of discharge into streams and rivers. Sewage from residential, commercial and industrial uses is directed to the treatment plant where the natural processes of removing-pollutants is accelerated . A permit is required for any discharge into streams and rivers from a sewage treatment plant. 
Developers are extremely concerned with the availability and capacity of existing water treatment facilities in their housing market area. Facilities must be available before any construction can take place. If existing facilities are not adequate, the developer is forced to either abandon the proposed area of construction, construct his own sewage treatment facility, or extend sewer lines t o existing sewer facilities. All three alternatives can be costly, time consuming and in many cases may prohib it " housin g const ruc tio n a l t o g e t h e r . 
Septic tanks have traditionally been used as a temporary measure to treat sewage from res idential uses wneresewage treatment facilities were not available . Ideally, septic tanks 
16 1 
 
 were installed and used exclusively until sewer lines are installed. Septic tanks are designed so that sewage settles at the bottom of the tank and the water is released into the ground. Unfortunately, as septic tanks fill, the efficiency of the system decreases , causing pollution problems for surface and ground water suppl ies . 
A permit is now required for the installation of a septic tank for residential use. Before any construction can take place, the builder must submit an application to the Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Health Division. The permit requires that a detailed examination of the area be made to determine soil characteristic (percolation tests required by certified engineer), local topography (U.S.G.S. maps) , and dr a i n age characteristics. Minimum requirements are also placed on lot s izes (varies according to type of dwellingl5,OOO square foot lot required for average single-family dwelling) , proximi ty t o wat e r supply and source of water supply. A permit is granted to t he builde r provided all physical requirements are met. 
Wa t e r quali ty controls can have a great effect on housing development throughout the State. Water Quality controls will affect the cost of housing, the location of housing , and the type of housing being bui l t . 
The cost of construct in g a new home will undoubtably increase due t o mi nimum s tandards placed on the use o f septic tanks. The builder, before any construction can t ak e place, must submit an a p p l i cati on fo r a permit , h ire p r of e s s i o n a l 
16 2 
 
 ~rveyors to divide land into sufficiently large lots, and hire a professional engineer to perform soil tests. The cost of these items can be relatively high for the builder, especially if only a small number of lots are involved. The costs are ultimat~ly passed on to the consumer in higher housing costs or lower quality construction . 
Water Quality controls often restrict development in certain areas because of soil conditions, slope, and proximity to water supply. Areas with highly permeable soils, excessively steep grades or areas located close to water supplies are prohibited from using septic tanks, 
The type of hous ing permitted to be constructed will also be affected by water qualit y controls. Multi-family housing requires a large tract to meet standards for septic tank placement. As a r e s u l t , multi-family dwellings will, in most cases, be built where there are ex isting sewage treatment facilities . 
, 
Sand Dune Protection Re gu l a tio n s The Public Facilit ies Study prepared by the Office of Planning and Budget states that the City of Savannah Beach and Glynn County are the only commun i ties in Coastal Georgia that -" currently have adopted s and dune protection regulations. The intent of these regul at ions is to p rotect the public health, safety , and welfare b y insuring t h at development within certain specified districts occur without adversely affecting the natural functioning of t h e beach and sand dunes. No building is permitted within certain areas of the beach without a permit 
163 
 
 fro~ the local unit of government ; The State of Georgia is divided into four distinct Environ- 
mental Regions based on common natural and physiological ~eatures. Each r e gion has a unique physical environment that has a great influence on pot ent i a l housing development. These regions are Highlands, piedmont Coastal Plain and the Coast. Illustration 26 shows the location of the four environmental regions in the State. 
The purpose of this section is to examine the four environmental regions of Georgia and delineate the major constraints each region has on housing development. Natural features such as geology, topography , soils, vegetations and hydrology which may severely l imit hou s i ng development are examined and specific environmental problems of each region are identified. 
Natural Features t ha t Influence Housing Development The fo l lowing summary examines the State's geology, topography , soils , vegetat ion, and hydrology in terms of how these natural features affect the type, intensity and location of housing development. Geology Housing de velopment i s directly i nfluenced by the geolog ical character istics of t he four environmental regions of Ge o r g i a . The type, in tensity , a nd location o f different geologic formations may pos e potential problems in the construction p rocess. Ma s sive r ock st ruc t u r e s , which may be suitable for supporting f ou n d a ti o n s, ma y c ause problems in tapping 
16 4 
 
 GEORGI A' S ENVIRONMENTAL 
 
, 
 
REGIONS 
 
-_._". - - _. -;_ . 
 
. I 
 
", 
 
.- 
16 5 
 
 water supplies due to the difficult in penetrating the layer of rock above underground aquifers, Thin soils and rock out~ cropping also pre~ent obstacles for site improvements and de~ velopment of sanitary landfills, 
The presence of geologic faults tends to limit housing development because of t he potential for earthquakes. Mineral deposits that will most likely be mined in the future will also shift housing developments t o other areas. 
Topography The elevation and slope of a region will have a great effect on housing development . In higher elevations, where slopes are steep and more prevalent, the climate is extreme in winter months, sett lements are more isolated b y natural barriers and accessibility to diffe r e nt areas is difficult. In addition, site location and p reparation must be closely examined to avoid ma s s i v e erosion a nd l an d slides. I n lowe r elev a t ion s , a large a moun t of land is u n s u i t a b l e for housing construct i on due to flooding and shallow water tables. Certain t opographic features such as the barrier islands, beaches , a nd ma rs h lan d areas are also unsui table for large scale hous i ng deve lopment . Soils The qual i ty o f the s o il s det e r min e s the p otential of a site as a po ssib l e re s i de nt ial deve l op me n t. Ce r t ain types of soils lend themsel v es well to support ing structures and accommodating wastes disposed underground . Othe r soils h av e characterist i cs wh i c h sev e rely l imi t the types of development 
1 66 
 
 which may be safely conducted. Soils can be ge ne r a l l y characterized as having a development capacity~ a limit to the intensity of development that a section of the soil can support . Exceeding such a capacity can lead to erosion, instability of fou ndations, and septic tank failures. Consideration must also be given to the ability of soil to withstand periods of loss of vegetation cover. Certain soils erode rather severely wh e n exposed for even short periods of time. 
Ve getat i on The t yp e of v e g e t a t i o n cover of a land area may impose certain additional costs wh e n developed for residential uses. The cost of tree removal in heavily wooded areas and stabilizing of the soil aft e r v e g e t a t i o n is stripped may ma k e a housing developmen t phy s ical ly and e c on omi c a l l y impractical in certain locations in the st ate . Hydrology The hydrology of an area wil l have a great affect on the location and intens it y o f r e s ide n t i a l con structio n . An adequate wa ter supply of g o o d quality must be readily accessible for an area t o be con s i d ere d suitable f or housing development . Sewage d i scha r ge r equires a steady, r ela t i ve l y high volume flow o f wa t e r s o t hat p o l l u t ant s can assimilate through the hydrolog i c cycl e. Another housin g construction cons traint is t he depth o f the water tab le . Ar eas wi th h igh wa t e r t a b l e s ar e n o t suitable for developme n t du e t o pro bl ems as soc iate d wi t h foundation 
167 
 
 settlement and water s eepage. Development is also not recom~ mended in a c qui fer recharge areas because of t h e potential for contamination of u n derground water. 
* Re g"ional Co"n straf n t "s t"o" HOlising" De\iel"o"p'nle nt " Hi "ghl a n d 
Per haps t h e most s ev e r e constraint on hous ing development in the Highland region i s t he ava i l ab i l i t y of suitable soils. Mu c h of the region is covered by s teep slopes and thin soils a l l owi n g few sites for i n t e n s i v e const ruction. Poor soil conditions h ave caused ma ny e r o s i o n problems in the region especial ly wher e recreation a l a nd second home developments h a v e occurred a nd whe r e timb e r clear cutting practices pre~ vai l . Plac ement of sept i c tanks is a l s o restricted in much of the Hi g hl a nd r e g io n b e c aus e of poor soi l conditions. 
Ex tre me t o p ographic var i at i o n s such as elevation changes, va.r f'eg' a't e d "tq.p-Ography or s t e e p s lope s i s a l-so a .major c on s t r a'Lnt on h ousing devel o pme nt. Th e lack o f ava i l a b l e f lat b uilding si t es in t h e region h a s fo r c e d devel opme n t in flood plains and i n prev i ously settl ed and u r b an are a s . De v elopme nt on topographic extremes r equires a great deal of engine e r i ng talent and energy expenditures to overcome elevat i on diff erent i a l s . The di sru ptive effect s o f building o n e xt r e me t o p ograp h i c cond it i on s can produce severe and long term envir onment a l damage. 
Piedmont The P i e dmo n t r e g i o n is pr e sen t l y rece ivin g the g reatest amoun t of t h e State ~ s d evel opm e n t p r essures. Although the region is able to acconIDlo d ate most of the u rban an d i n du s t r i a l 
* Bas e d on Of f i c e of Plan ning and Budget, Enviro"nnien"ta l As"sess 
men t St u dy ,." St a t e L a n d Us e E l eme n t ( Dr a f t Re po rt) , 1 9 7 7. 
16 8 
 
 development to date, tae capacity for growth has been reached or exceeded in portions of the Chattahoochee . Flint and Ocmulgee River Basins. The basic problems lie in water supplies, sewage disposal and water pollution. 
Water supplies a r e limited in the Piedmont region especially in the Atlanta metropol i tan area. Tremendous demands on water supplies caused by population increases and growth in industrial and commercial development have placed a grea t stress on existing water treatment facilities. Expansion of these facilities is severely limited because of low flow levels of streams and rivers. 
Surface water pollution and contamination i s a major problem i n urban areas of the Piedmont. The problem is primarily caused by mi n ic ip al sewa ge a n d sto rm runoff. Many streams used for sewage discharge are s mall an d are limited in accommo dating effluent . Pollution is a l so contri bu ting to eutrophication of lakes in the southern port i on of the region . 
The Piedmont 's soils are generally good f or foundations but pose problems for sept ic tank use. The extensive and intensive development in the region, coupled wi t h predominant soil types not suited for septic t ank us e , has resulted in numerous and severe water pollut ion p r o b lems in t he region . This situation is further agg re v a t e d by the l ow t o mo d e rate flo w r at e s of streams originating in t h e Piedmont . 
Flooding i n the urban areas i s a not her constra i nt on hous ing develop~e nt in t he Pie dmo n t r e g i on. Incre as ing runoff from upstre ams d eve l opment has r e s t r i c t e d reside nt ial 
1 69 
 
 construction along urban streams. Coastal PTai'n The Coastal Plains region is currently experiencing rela- 
t i v e l y lit t le d eve l o pme n t t h a t threatens its natural environment. The region is , in fact, the best suited of Georgiats r e g i o n s to accommodate d e v e l op me n t of all types. The major cons t r a i nt s to housing construction in the Coastal Plains region are urban surface water pollution, groundwater pollution i n acquifer recharge areas, and swampy flood plains . 
A combi n a tion of factors have caused a significant water po llu t ion prob l em i n many urban areas. Municipalities equip ped wi t h inadequate sewage systems have been releasing effluent into ne arby st reams . Unfortunately, the streams are slow f lowing and are not c ap ab l e of accommodating the discharged effluent . 
One o f the major envi ro nme ntal problems i n the Coastal Plain r e g i o n is t he poten t ia l problems caused by development in acqu ifer r echa r ge a r eas located below the fall line. Future d e v e l op me n t in t his a r e a must be closely monitored so t h at groundwater s ou r c e s do not become contaminated . 
Floodpl a i ns in the Coast al Pl a i ns regio n a r e, in many c ase s , un s u i t a b le f or housi n g dev elopment because of surroundi ng sw amp l an d s . Mo st u rban d e v e l o pme n t s ten d t o l o c a t e on the up lands areas o f the regi on t o avoid f oundation a nd settlement prob lems . 
Co a s t  The Geor g ia Coast is un der go ing a per i o d o f preparation 
17 0 
 
 for ant icipated deve lopment. Although development in thB past has not been intensIve, a number of facto rs aTe rapidly changing the growth outlook. The enlargement of Fort Stewart, the establishment of a submarine facility at King's Bay, the potential for of fshore oil production, the completion of 1-95, and the rising coastal p r op e r t y prices in Florida all combine to produce a strong development impetus on the Georgia Coast. 
The Georgia Coast contains the state's most fragile and inter-dependent natural environment and is subject to numerous development constraints. Major areas of concern a r e the marshland areas, barr ier islands and floodplains. 
Mars hes , r i ve r s wamps a n d estuaries a r e h i g h l y valu able components o f the l i f e cycl e fo r sea and land wildl i fe. These areas are protec te d by t he Mar s h l a n d P r o t e c t i o n Act by restricting development t h a t wil l af f e c t the n at u r a l environment. Filling of marshl ands f or the purpos e o f residential development is explicitly restruct ed b y t he Ac t. 
Devel opment on barr ier i s lan d s i s a lso l i mi t e d b e c a u s e of the highly unstable nature of the islands . Beach front and sand dune d e v e l o pment r e qu i r e s e xtensive maintenance to fight natural and shi f t i ng p r ocesses . These areas are also vulnerable to v. i o l e nt weat h e r a nd h e avy wave act ion. 
Floodplain development i n Georgia t, s Coast r e g i o n is also limited because of s wampy condit i ons a n d the threat of floods. Floodplains in thi s r e gion are gener ally very broad and are periodically i nundat ed b y heavy rain f a l l . 
171 
 
  Ava:iTaoi T :tti 6 f Water and : S'eVier :sYst em's ' The avat Lab LLf t y of water and sewer systems in Georgia 
is a s ignif icant limi tat ion to new housing development. Throughout the s tat e , v ar i a t i o n s in the availability and adequa cy of both syst ems has dire c t l y affected tlie spatial d istribution of housing c on stru ction . Areas that possess adequate wa t e r a n d sewage fac il it i e s are able to expand their h ou s ing suppl y wi t h li tt le effect on the total system. Howe ver , a reas without wa t e r and sewage systems or with systems that a re i na dequa te will be limited in their growth potentia l . 
Ar eas wi tho u t wat er and sewage systems ma y also be faced wit h futu re e nviro nme n t a l p r obl e ms. Sur f ace water supplies wi l l d eter i o rate in qu a l i t y as more effluent is released into streams an d rivers. Ground wat er s u p plies wi l l also be d et rime n tall y af fecte d by polluti on caus e d b y the increasing use of s eptic tanks in c ertain areas of the state . Special consideration mus t be t a k e n i n the managemen t and p l anning of future wat er a n d sewage f acil ities t o me et the p h y s ic a l requirements of expand ing urban and rural a r eas. The f o l lowing d iscussion o f a v a ilab i lity o f wa ter and s ewer fa c i l i t i e s i s b ased on OPB's Public F a cilities Study . 
The public wa ter s ys t em t hro u gh ou t t he s t a t e is somewhat limited because ,o f phys ica l and geolog i c a l c h a racteristics in sp e c i fic are a s of the s t a t e . Capacity varies stat e wide because of the cost dif fere n ti al betwe e n g roundwater syst e ms an d surface 
172 
 
 ~ater systems. In South Georgia, most communities are located over the 
principal southeastern artisan acquifer where large volumes of water can be easily obtained by drilling. In North Georgia, the geology is much different and groundwater is not located uniformly throughout the area. Drilled wells often do not find water and those that do usually produce one~tenth to one-one/hundredth the water of the artisan acquifer. 
Several problem areas exist in terms of water supply throughout the state. The Atlanta Metropolitan Region, which makes up 25% of the state~s population, currently provides adequate water capacity to only 4% of the population. Rapid urbanization over the past two decades has forced the Atlanta area on the brink of a water supply crisis. 
In Northern Georgia , the public water system serves approximately 30% of the population of the area. Because most of the region is sparsely populated, the raw water supply appears to be adequate to meet t h e areas need for many years. The major obstacle facing the region lies in a lack of capital necessary to adequately develop the water resource. 
In the Southern portion of the state (Coastal Plain region) groundwater sources provide a de qu a t e water capacity to 92% of the ar ea 's populat ion. Wa t er supplies are readily available to commerical and residential users through the drilling of wells. 
The water systems in the Coastal region also have an adequate underground water supply to meet the needs of the 
17 3 
 
 area. Presen tly, 90% of the a~ea ~s' populat ton is adequately 
served b y' public wa t e r sys t ems , However, potential problems 
~ay occur in heavy i n dus t r i a l areas where pumping of water from u nder lyin g a cqu ifers h a s p roduced \"'c o n e s of depression. H Th is situat ion i s beginn i ng to occur in Savannah, . Brunswick an d St ; Ma r y s. 
Slight ly mo r e t h an 80% of t h e state ~s population is s e r v e d b y publi c sewe r s ys t ems havin g adequ a te capacity. Vi r t u a ll y all urb a n coun ties are adequately s erved with 76% of t he Rural-Urban count ies a n d 63% of Rural counties having a d equ ate s e we r s yst ems . 
Pre s ently , 84% o f the p o p ulati o n in Highl and region of northern Georgia is served by sewer systems wi t h a d e qu a t e c a pa c ity . While more of the majo r communit ies a re adequately ser ve d , several counties located a l ong potential growth c o r r i do r s su c h a s Gil~er , Calho u n, P icke n s, a n d Habersham do not have adequate sewer capacities . 
I n the Atlanta are a , nearl y 81% o f t he p opu lation is located in counties wi th adequate cap a c i ty. Howeve r , many l ower densit y fringe areas d o not have s y st e ms wit h adequate c a p a c i t y . Many parts of these frin g e are a s ar e sti ll heavily dependent on septic tanks and package p lants . 
The Coas tal Pl a ins r e g i o n has the l owest percen t a g e (69) of populat ion served by sewer sy stems wi th a d equate capacity. Wh ile the service r at e in t he ru ral c ount i e s e xce e ds the state average f o r r u r a l counties , seve ral of the middl e size cities, such a s Jesup , Americus, Tift on and Moultrie do n o t h ave 
174 
 
 sufficient capacity. The Coastal region has the highest percentage of popu-. 
lation served by systems wi t n. adequate capacity, Presently, 87% of the total population with 42% of the rural population are served by a dequate sewer systems. 
I'mplications f o r State Rousing Policies The environment has become a major factor in the location and construction of n ew housing developments through the State. Environmental constraints such as geology, topography, soils, vegetation and hydrology act as potential limitations to new housing development. Overall, the State of Georgia has few major constraints in terms of residential site availability. However , the State has designated certain areas such as  the coastal marshlands and floodplain areas as being environmentally sensitive in terms of housing development . Construction p r actic es have also been affected by recent environmentally related regulations . Controls over erosion and sedimentation and water quality have had a great effect on the construction o f new homes . De velopers a nd builders have now been forced to adhere t o buildi ng practices designed to minimally affect the envi ronment . The avai lab ili t y o f pub l i c wat er a nd sewer fac ilities is becoming a ma j o r f a c t o r i n the lo cat i on of new h ou sin g , espe~ cially in r u r al ar eas. Housing d e v e l opme n t s must e ither locate along wat er and sewer l ines , or they must s ecu r e a septic tank pe r mi t for e a c h h ousi ng uni t . The cost of obtaining a permi t an d meetin g t h e mi n imum stan d a rds requ ired of the 
175 
 
 permit can be costly! The extentton of water and sewer ltne~ IS a ve~y expensive 
operation. Most developers are unable to pay for this service and still offer reasonably priced housing, Many of Georgiats communities are unable to provide water and sewer services because of the difficulty in funding the project. Rural areas especially have a difficult time funding water and sewer projects because of inadequate revenue and tax base. The State should therefore assist local communities experiencing significant growth in housing development in obtaining the necessary funding. 
17 6 
 
 SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS 
 
  SUPPORT SERVICES FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 
A house is more than tlb r i c k and mortar". While adequate shelter (enough room, p rotection, plumbing, etc.) is a .major consideration, i t is of little use to provide shelter if it will not be used or if the household does not maintain the structure. In addition to the house itself , a housing consumerts choice is affected by the environment, availability of public services, service facilities and the security of his investment. A housing unit requires not only a complex infrastructure, but also a complex set of support services. This chapter will examine these non-shelter f a c t o r s that impact the successful use of shelter. The problem of support services oonsidered here ,i s important because every effort s hould be made to assure that the best results possible are g ained f o r each tax dollar sp~nt. 
An extensive review of the literature on housing reveals many comprehensive studies of the problems facing urban housing p r o g r ams. Th e l i teratu re coveri ng r u r a l hous i n g p r o b l ems wa s limited. However, problems of h ou si n g peculiar to rural areas are (1) the low d e n s i t y a n d c o nse q ue n t high time/mone y cost of t ransportation; ( 2 ) l a ck of rea d i ly accessible employment and (3) many elderly with their own s pe c ial p r o blems. 
Hou s i n g Dy s f unc t io n s Dysf unc t ions t hat work ag ain st t he a p p r o p r i at e use of shelter we re ide ntifi ed in Chap te r I I -- Need fo r Housing Assistance; Chapter II I -- Escal at i n g Hous ing Cost ; and Chapters IV - VI -Program Uti liza tion. One e x a mple of needs f o r h o u s i n g assistance is t he disproport ionate number o f e l derl y in nee d of 
17 9 
 
 housing. Frequently these elderly people require special services. Home delivered meals and housekeeping assistance for the arthritic cripple can keep him at home cheaper and with more dignity than a nursing home approach. Another example of a non-shelter factbt affecting housi ng i s the ~ew couple i ~ hat requires a seco,d wage earner to pay fo r t he expensive first home. If the mother plans to work , she needs child day care and possibly training or employment assistance. A third example is of the family with housing deterioration, because they didn't know that low interest government l o ans were available to fix the roof, they have allowed the leak to damage timbers and ceiling. 
Each of these three example problems relates to the lack of a support service . The y all display at least some needs for services that are supplied by agencies such as the Department of Labor, Departmen t of Hu ma n Resources, or Farmers Home Administration. While these type factors affect housing development and housing ut ilizat i on , we don 't k n ow their relationship or their strength of impact . 
Support Factors From the literature r ev i ew and an analysis of the findings, it appears t ha t the success of hou s ing depends on several types of non-shelter fac tors . These f act or s are : 1 . Ac c e s s t o jobs, 2 . Ac cess to s hopp i n g , 3 . A sens e o f neighborhood , e s pec i a ll y f or t he elderly, 4 . Supp or t serv i c e s /prot e ct ion ( i . e . , f i r e, police, sani- 
t a t i o n , sewe rage , tran s p o r t a t i o n. ) , 5 . Soci al services (acce s s t o recreation , health care, 
day car e , etc.) It i s generally a gr eed that an assessment of a de qu a cy of f a c i lit i e s and s erv i c e s does not l end itself t o macro-analysis. 
1 80 
 
 Additionally , time-distance studies for various $ervice$ cannot 
 
apply equally across the State. Because of these limitations, 
 
this chapter will recommend a process for assessing adequacy. 
 
Assessing Housing Factors - Distance/Travel Time 
 
Joseph DeChiara and Lee Koppelman in their extensive volumne, 
 
Manual of Housing/Planning and Design Criteria, comment on how 
 
distance effects housing: 
 
The need for a total living environment surpassing 
 
the simple need for basic shelter has emerged as a 
 
significant development in recent years. Many 
 
housirlg developments and neighborhoods, that appear 
 
stable and desirable are considered to~owe a portion 
 
of credit to ancillary community facilities 
 
. 
 
In addition, the quality of community life is further 
 
enhanced by the proper amount and location of edu- 
 
cational and socio-cultural facilities. (p.171). 
 
DeChiara and Koppe l man elaborate the concept of travel time 
 
by displaying maximum dist a n c e s / t r a v e l times to various support 
 
services. Their findings are displayed in the TIME/DISTANCE 
 
figure on page 159. 
 
Therefore, we see that the thrust~of planning the supporting 
 
\ 
 
; 
 
I 
 
environment is to consider locat i on and distance. However, 
 
location and distance does not bear directly on the quality 
 
and availability of these support services. An alternative is 
 
to develop a process that wi l l use the distance/travel time 
 
concepts proposed by DeCh iara and Koppelman as a basis for 
 
examining and emp i r ica l ly comp aring t h e operational ly defined 
 
success of a given proj ect wi t h e xisting community services. To 
 
get to this point , research is ne e de d , The concept is simple, 
 
much of the information i s avail able and the techniques would use 
 
applied statistical an a lysis. The problem , then, involves these 
 
steps: 1 81 
 
 TIME/DISTANCE TO SUPPORT SERVICES 
 
WAL KING 
5 to 10 5 to 10 5 to 10 
10 20 20 
 
x - -) ELE ~ENTAF Y SCHOOL (~ t o ~ Imile) x- -) LO C~L SHe PPING ( ~ to ~ mi l e) 
 
x- -) 
) 
 
PLA"'GROUN D ( ~ to ~ mil e) 
! 
: 
JUN OR HI GH ( ~ m Ie ) 
 
K CHl RCH ( 1 n.i.Le ) 
 
K HIGIH SCHOOL (1 mile) 
 
DRI VI NG 
 
30 30 t o 45 
 
J 
 
; 
 
. )< PLAY F ELDS 
 
i 
 
, 
 
. 
 
X- - - - - - - - l>' CO LLEGrE / VOC ED 
 
45 
 
l>' HOSPI'I ~L 
 
4 5 to 60 
 
?_- - - - - - - P< REGIONAL RECREATION 
 
4 5 t o 60 
 
- --- -- - - ~ REGIONAL SHOPPING 
 
60 
 
~ EMPLOYMENT 
 
6 0 to 90 
 
MAJOR CULTURAL 
 
IX" 
 
.Y 
 
MI NUTES 0 
 
10 20 
 
30 
 
45 
 
60 
 
90 
 
All distances given are considered to be maximums. In rural areas, low densit y may require the sub stitution of a u t omo t i v e or bus transportation for walking. 
182 
 
 1. Identify sources of data (such as the Human Resources Needs Indicator Model); 
2. Compile the data into one data-base; 3. Statistically analyze the impact of the various 
factors on measured success of on-going projects. The result of this process would be a system for estimating the probable impact of a given support service on a proposed housing project. Implications for State Housing Policy The primary implication for the State Office of Housing in Implementing an ana~ysis support services . is increased interagency coordination. By utilizing data bases in other departments, SOH's awareness of the problems and structures unique to other agency's service delivery mechanisms will be increased. By having greater working knowledge of operating programs that can facilitate Housing Development, we will be able to provide more integrated technical assistance. Also , understanding the operation of other agencies will help SOH provide and share information that will facilitate local and regional housing planning : activities. In addition to developing intra-agency coordination during the design and implementation stages, the information will assist SOH in developing its Technical Assistance priorities and assessing the existing plans of local and regional housing organizations. 
18 3 
 
  TECHNICAL APPENDIX 
 
  Percentage of Substanda rd Housing Occup ied b y Elderly 1 , 1970 Elderly Percentage of the Population 1970 and 1980 
 
Locality 
 
State 
 
Altamaha/Ga. Appling Bulloch Candler Evans Jeff Davis Tattnall Toombs Wayne 
 
Southern 
 
Atl a n t a Region Clayton Cobb DeKalb Douglas F u l t on Gwinnet t Rockdale 
 
Central Savannah Rive r Burke Columbia Ema n u e l Glascock Jefferson Jenkins Li n co l n McDuffie 
. Richmond Screven Ta l i a f er r o Wa r r e n Wi l k e s 
 
Ch a t t a h o o c h e e - F l i n t Carroll Cowet a Hea rd Me r iw e t he r Tr o up 
 
Coastal Bryan Ca md e n Chatham Ef fin gham Gl ynn 
 
% Substandard Housing Occupied by Elderly, 1970 2 
25.97 
25 .3 3 25.0 22. 6 26.9 29.4 28 .4 28.7 24.7 23.8 
20.69 8. 1 12 . 2 12.4 18.5 26.3 19 .9 17. 9 
28. 27 33.8 15. 1 31.5 29 .2 33.4 32.5 30 .2 26 . 2 18. 7 30 .8 42 .0 30 .1 34. 1 
26 . 18 23 .1 26 . 6 2 9.5 2 8.9 25 .8 
2 2 . 99 23 . 1 21. 8 22. 8 23 . 3 20 . 6 
 
% Population 
 
Elder 1970 
 
ly 1980 
 
3 
 
8.0 9. 1 
 
9.4 8.8 9.6 12.3 10.5 8.7 8.8 9.8 8.3 
 
12.0 11. 3 11. 3 19. 7 13.9 11.8 10.4 11. 3 12.5 
 
6.5 6.3 . 3.2 2.8 
4.5 4.8 5.3 5. 1 6.9 6. 7 8.6 9. 1 6. 1 5.7 6 .8 6.9 
 
6.6 10 .8 4.7 9.9 13.8 10 .5 10.3 10.3 7.4 6.6 11.5 17.5 11. 4 12.8 
 
9.5 12. 1 4 .3 12. 2 19 . 7 13. 1 13 .2 12.9 13.5 7 .5 14 .5 19. 1 13 . 4 15.0 
 
9.9 8.9 9.2 12. 6 10 .9 10.6 
 
11.8 9.0 11. 4 15 .2 12. 8 14 .9 
 
7. 8 10. 0 7.6 10.0 6. 1 8.6 8.3 10.9 7.9 7 . 7 7 . 3 9 .3 
 
% Change 
1970 1980 
. 1. 1 
2.6 2.5 1.7 7.4 3.4 3. 1 1.6 1.5 4.2 
-0.2 -0 . 4 
0 .3 -0.2 
0.2 0.5 -0.4 
1 
2.9 1.3 -0.4 2.3 5.9 2.6 2.9 2.6 6. 1 
9 3.0 1.6 2.0 2.2 
1.9 
1 
2.2 2.6 1.9 4. 3 
2.2 2.4 2.5 2 .6 -0.2 2.0 
 
1 87 
 
 Locality 
Liberty Long McIntosh 
Coastal Plain Ben Hill Berrien Brooks Cook Echols Irwin Lanier Lowndes Tift Turner 
Coosa Valley Bartow Catoosa Chattooga Dade Floyd Gordon Haralson Paulding Polk Walker 
Georgia Mountains Banks Dawson For syt h Fr ankl i n Ha b e r s h a m Ha l l Ha r t Lu mpk i n Rabun Stephens Towns Union Whit e 
He a r t o f Georgia Bl e c k l ey Dod g e La ur e n s Montgomery Pulaski Telf a i r Tr eu t l en Wh e e l e r Wil cox 
 
% Substandard Housing Occupied by Elderly, 1970 2 
22.0 29.5 27.2 
25.90 30.3 22.4 33.5 27.9 27.8 30.0 28.6 21.2 21.9 28.7 
23.65 21.3 19.5 26.8 25.5 22.7 22.5 26.3 22.4 26.1 23.4 
28.59 34.5 28.3 18. 7 40.2 25. 1 25.9 33 .2 19.8 30.9 32. 1 33.9 31.6 25.5 
31.04 31.7 32. 9 28.8 29.2 28.6 31.8 32.1 36.8 32.3 
188 
 
% Population 
 
Elder 1970 
 
ly 198 
 
0 
 
3 
 
4.6 _5 . 1 10.2 12.0 8. 7 9 . 6 
 
9.3 13.0 10.1 13. 1 9.4 10.0 11. 3 8.8 7.5 8.0 10.3 
 
11. 2 16.5 13. 1 16.4 11.3 
9.3 15.0 10.7 8.9 9.4 12.5 
 
8.7 10.6 8.2 9.8 6.6 7.8 9.2 12. 1 7. 7 9. 1 9. 1 11.6 8.7 10. 1 
9.8 11. 2 8.6 9.1 9.9 13.2 8.5 10.5 
 
9.4 10.9 10.4 7.7 11. 2 
9. 1 8.1 9.7 8.0 11. 9 9.4 13.0 13.3 10.6 
 
10.8 11. 1 11. 6 8.6 13.4 - 
10.6 9.3 11. 6 8.2 14.9 12 7 16 . 4 13 .3 11. 7 
 
10.8 9.3 10.7 10.6 10.7 10 .6 11. 1 10 .8 12.9 
13. a 
 
13.9 12.3' 
13 9 13.5 13.7 14.2 14.2 15.7 15.9 14.8 
 
% Change 
1970 1980 
0.5 1.8 0.9 
1.9 3.5 3 3.3 1.9 -.7 3.7 1.9 1.4 1.4 2.2 
1.9 1.6 1. 2 2 ..-9 1.4 2.5 1.4 1.4 
5 3.3 2 
1.4 0.2 1.2 0.9 2.2 1.5 1.2 1.9 0.2 3 3.3 3.4 
a 
1.1 
3.1 3 3.2 2.9 3 3.6 3. 1 4.9 3 1.8 
 
 ILocality 
 
ILowe r Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Clay Harris Muscogee Quitman Randolph Stewart Talbot 
 
Mc I n t o s h Trail 
 
( 
 
Butts Fayette 
 
Henry 
 
La ma r 
 
Ne wt o n 
 
Pike 
 
Spalding 
 
Upson 
 
Middle Flint 
I Crisp Doaly Macon 
I Marion Schley Sumter 
I Taylor We b s t e r 
Mi ddle Georgi a 
I Bi bb Crawford Ho u s t o n 
I Jones Mo nr o e Pe a ch Twi g g s 
I.__o r th Geo rg ia Che rokee 
I Fa nnin Gi l me r Mur ray 
I Pickens Whitf ield 
No r t he a s t Georgia l Barr ow Clarke Elbert Gr e ene J ac k s on Ma d i s o n Ho rg a n 
 
% Substandard Housing Occupied by Elderly, 19702 
25.24 5.8 42.5 29.6 15.5 33 .3 36 . 3 32.0 27 . 2 
25.07 27,8 20.6 23.4 27 .3 22.3 32.4 23.4 - 26. 6 
29. 23 26 .7 31. 5 31. 9 32 . 0 27 . 8 26 . 9 31.5 23 . 4 
21.0 3 21.7 27 .0 9. 6 21. 1 23 . 2 20 .4 28. 9 
25 . 70 20.6 29 .2 27 .5 2 6 .1 25 .9 17  1 
3 2 . 12 35.0 18 .8 3 6 .4 40. 0 30 . 9 31. 9 38 .9 
18 9 
 
% Population 
 
Elderl 1970 
 
y 1 
 
9 
 
8 
 
0 
 
3 
 
6.4 0.6 14.3 11. 1 6.0 11.5 14.0 10 .8 10.5 
 
8.6 0.4 20.1 11.9 8. 1 13.4 18.6 13. 1 12.8 
 
8.5 11.2 79 8.3 10.2 7.8 11.4 9.0 9.8 
 
10.6 12.4 7.3 8.6 12.4 9. 6 13.0 11.3 14. 1 
 
10.9 10.2 11. 7 10 .9 9.8 11. 6 11. 1 11.5 10 .7 
 
12. 7 13.0 14.9 12 .2 11 . 1 12 . 1 12 . 1 13 . 7 12 .6 
 
7 . 3 8 .8 8 .6 11. 0 9 . 4 10 .2 3. 7 4 .5 8 .0 7 .0 9 .8 11. 3 7  4 8 .2 
79 10 . 1 
 
8. 6 8.5 12 .5 11. 2 
8. 1 1 0. 7 
7. 1 
 
9. 4 8. 1 14 .0 13 .3 8.9 12 5 8.1 
 
9.0 10 .9 5 .9 10 .9 12. 5 10. 0 9. 2 
11. 5 
 
9.9 12 .0 5 .6 14. 1 17 . 2 11. 2 9.2 
1 3.6 
 
% Change 1970 1980 
2.2 -0.2 
5.8 0.8 2. 1 1.9 4 .6 2.3 2.3 
2. 1 1.2 -0.6 0.3 2.2 1.8 1.6 2,3 4. 3 
1.8 2.8 3.2 1.3 1.3 0.5 1 2.2 1.9 
1.5 2. 4 0 .8 0.8 -1. 0 1.5 0 .8 2.2 
0.8 0 .4 
1.5 2. 1 0.8 1.8 1 
0.9 1.4 0.3 3 .2 4. 7 1.2 
o 
2.1 
 
 -4Locality 
 
% Substandard Housing Occupied by Elderly, 1970 2 
 
Northeast Georgia continued 
 
Oco nee Ogl ethorpe Wa lto n 
 
31.6 41.2 25.2 
 
Oconee Baldwin Hancock Jasper Johnson Putnam Washington Wilkinson 
 
28 . 59 2 0 .1 31. 9 33.5 33.5 25.0 30.7 27.4 
 
Southeast Georgia Atkinson Bacon Brantley Cha r lton Clinch Coffee Pierce Ware 
 
25.2 24.6 28.0 26.1 20.0 25.4 25.2 29.3 24.2 
 
So u t h we s t Georgia Baker  Ca l h o u n Colquitt Decatur Dougherty Early Grady Lee Miller Mitchell Semino le Terrell Thomas Wo r t h 
 
27.72 38.4 37.6 25.7 28.8 17.0 31.2 33.9 26 .1 33.5 29.3 29.6 32.8 26.8 26.7 
 
% Population 
 
Elderly 1970 1980 
 
3 
 
10.3 11.5 9.9 
 
8.9 12.4 12. 1 
 
11. 1 12.2 10.5 12.6 10, 7 8.1 11.2 9.3 
 
10.7 7.2 12.3 15.5 13,4 9.6 14. 1 11. 9 
 
8.9 12 .2 8.8 13.0 9.1 12. 7 8.6 12.2 7.0 11. 6 7.8 9.9 8.0 11. 2 9.7 12.6 9.9 13.3 
 
8.9 10.8 12.0 9.6 10.4 5.6 11. 6 11. 3 7.4 11. 9 10 .3 10. 1 11.8 10.5 9.6 
 
10.9 11.9 13.5 13. 1 14.4 7.1 . 
13.8 13.9 6.8 15 .6 13.5 13.6 15.0 11.5 11.8 
 
% Change 1970 1980 
-1.4 0.9 2.2 
0.4 
5 
1.8 2.9 2,7 1.5 2.9 2.6 
3.3 4.2 3.6 3.6 4. 6 2.1 3.2 2.9 3.4 
2 1.1 1.5 3.5 4 1.5 2.2 2.6 -0.6 3.7 3.2 3.5 3.2 1 2.2 
 
1 Eld erly def i n e d as 65+ . 
2 Sour ce: Ga. State Office of Housing and Ga . Residential Finance Authority Georgia Statewide Housing Needs Analysis, 1975. 
3 Source: Office of Agi ng , Ga. Department of Human Resources, A Data Book on Aging, Georgia's Older Population, 1976. 
 
190 
 
 Re l a t i ve Dis tribution of All Ho u s i n g an d Inadequate Hous i n g Occupied b y Blac ks 
 
LOCALITY 
 
ALL HOU SIN G OCCU PIED BY 
BLACKS (%) 
 
I NADEQU ATE HOU S I NG OCC UP I ED BY 
BLACKS ( %) 
 
LOC ALI TY 
 
ALL HOUSING OC CUPIED BY BLACKS 
 
Al t a ma h a / Ga. So ut hern 
Ap pli ng Bull och Ca n dler Ev ans J e f f Da vis Ta t t n a l l Too mbs Wayne 
 
15 . 4 25 .7 2 2.0 2 6.9 15.2 18 .0 21. 3 15 . 6 
 
At l a n ta Re g io n a l 
 
Cl ayt on 
 
3.4 
 
Co b b 
 
3. 3 
 
DeKa lb 
 
10 . 6 
 
Dougla s 
 
6 .7 
 
Fu l ton 
 
32. 2 
 
Gwin nett 
 
3 .7 
 
Rock da le 
I-' 
xo 
 
12 . 9 
 
I-' Cen tr al Savann a h River 
 
Bu r k e 
 
48.9 
 
Columb i a 
 
16 .9 
 
Emanu e l 
 
22. 2 
 
Glasco ck 
 
14.6 
 
Je f f e r s on 
 
42 . 2 
 
Jenkins 
 
33.5 
 
Lincoln 
 
27 .5 
 
McDuff ie 
 
30.2 
 
Richmond 
 
26.7 
 
Screven 
 
34 .7 
 
Taliaferro 
 
44.3 
 
Warren 
 
44 .2 
 
Wilkes 
 
37.8 
 
32.2 53.7 43. 1 62. 2 43. 7 46. 2 49 . 7 4 3.8 
15.9 13. 4 24. 7 2 3.2 49. 3 13. 7 36 . 7 
80 .9 42 .5 48 .5 37 .5 74 .3 66 .7 69 .1 68.7 49.8 63.9 86. 1 78.8 81.4 
 
Chattahoochee-Flin t Carro l l Cowe t a He ard Meri we ther Troup 
Coastal Brya n Camden Chatham Effingham Glynn Liberty Long McIntosh 
Coastal Plain Ben Hill Berrien Brooks Cook Echols Irw in Lanier Lowndes Tift Turner 
 
1 1. 4 24 . 8 14.5 36 .3 25.6 
20 .8 28 . 0 29 . 1 18 . 3 21. 4 29 . 7 24. 3 34 . 0 
24 . 5 10.8 35 .2 22 .1 15 . 0 23.2 20.8 24.0 21.2 24 .4 
 
INADEQUATE HOUSING OCCUPIED BY 
BLACKS (%) 
29. 1 58.3 25.2 70 .9 54 .6 
52.6 72.3 57 . 1 54.4 47 .5 58.1 36.7 68 .7 
51 .9 29.6 72.9 62.6 N/A 60 .9 47.7 56 .5 53 .9 55.9 
 
 LOCAL I TY 
 
ALL HOUS ING OCC UPIED BY BLACKS 
 
Coo sa Val l e y Bartow Catoos a Chatooga Dad e Flo yd Gordo n Ha ra l s o n Paul d i n g Po lk Walk e r 
 
Geo r g i a Moun tai n s 
 
Ba nks 
 
Da wso n 
 
Forsy th 
 
t-' 
 
Frankl in 
 
\.0 N 
 
Hab ersh a m 
 
Ha ll 
 
Ha rt 
 
Lu mp kin 
 
Rabun 
 
St ephens 
 
Towns 
 
Un io n 
 
White 
 
Heart o f Geor g i a Bleckl ey Dodg e Laur ens Montgomery Pulask i Tel fair Treutlen Wheeler Wilco x 
 
9.8 1.0 7.2 
.8 10. 6 
4. 0 5.6 5.2 11. 9 8.0 
3 .4 ---- - 
.0 3 8 .0 2. 6 7.6 15.9 1.6 
.52 9.0 
------ 
-----3.3 
18.2 17 .6 26.7 23.9 30.1 24 .7 24.1 20.8 21.5 
 
I NADEQUATE HOUSING OCCUPIED BY BLACKS 
20 .4 N/ A 14.8 N/ A 2 6. 1 11.2 2 0.9 14 . 4 27 .2 
3 .9 
N/ A N/ A N/A 18.8 
2.7 19 .5 40 .8 N/A N/A 24.9 N/A N/ A N/A 
51.8 42.8 61.4 57.6 67.9 55.5 50 .5 34.3 58.8 
 
LOCALIT Y 
 
ALL HOUSING O.CCUPIED BLACKS 
 
Lo we r Ch a tt ahoochee Cha t t ahoochee Cl ay Har r is Mu s c o ge e Quitman Randolph Stewart Ta lbot 
Mc I n t o s h Trail Butts Fayet t e He nr y Lamar Newton P i ke Spalding Upson 
Middle Flint Cr isp Dooly Macon Marion Schley Sumter Taylor Webster 
Middle Georgia Bibb Craw ford Hou s ton J o n es Mon r oe Peac h Twiggs 
 
19.9 45.2 29. 7 21.5 44.8 43.8 49.5 51. 8 
26.2 11. 2 23.1 28.8 23 .5 28.5 20.1 21.3 
30.6 36.1 49.8 41.0 35.0 35.2 34.0 43.7 
28.4 37.8 12.2 30.3 36 .3 45.0 43.6 
 
I NADEQUATE HOUSING OCCUPIED BY BLACKS 
42.4 84.4 72.4 41.9 88.9 81.2 82.8 91.9 
63.9 38.9 65 . 7 69.6 51.9 64 . 1 50.0 57 . 7 
74.5 76.5 84.6 70.7 67.6 74. 1 66.1 83.9 
61.3 76.9 44.1 73.2 74.8 86.3 74.0 
 
 LOCAL I TY 
 
ALL HO USING OCCUPIED BY BLACKS 
 
No rth Ge o r gia Cherokee Fann i n Gilmer Murray Picken s Wh itfield 
 
Nort heast Georgia 
 
Barrow 
 
Clarke 
 
El b e r t 
 
Green e 
 
Jackson 
 
Madiso n 
 
Morgan 
 
I-' 
~ 
 
Oconee 
 
w Oglethrope 
 
Walton 
 
Oconee Baldwin Hancock Jasper Johnson Putnam Washington Wilkinson 
 
South east Georgia Atkinson Bacon Brantley Charlton Clinch Coffee Pierce Ware 
 
2.8 . 14 . 03 .49 
2.8 3.3 
12.4 17. 1 23. 1 38.4 
9 .3 10.2 35.3 10.8 24.4 19.7 
28.3 57.5 31.9 21.4 28.4 41.7 34 .9 
23. 1 9.3 8. 1 
25.1 22.4 18.3 15.4 2..0.,.1_ 
 
I NADEQU ATE HOUSING OCCUPIED BY BLACKS 
N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6. 2 
35.7 52. 2 47.9 49.5 22.2 26 .1 74 .6 34 .6 57.6 45.8 
72 . 1 88.3 78.6 47 .9 82.5 74.8 71. 7 
45.8 23 .1 N/A 62 '. 3 55 .2 42.3 37.2 
42 ~3 
 
L OCA L I T Y 
 
ALL HOUSING OCCUPIED BLACKS 
 
So u th west Geo r gia Bak e r Calhoun Colq u itt Decatur Dougherty Early Grady Lee Mill e r Mitchell Seminole Terr ell Thomas Worth 
 
39.5 48.1 18.2 32 .3 28.8 33.9 25. 7 31.5 19.2 36.9 23.5 45.6 31. 25 26.3 
 
INADEQUATE HOUSING OCCUPIED BY BLAC KS 
71.5 83 .6 48.4 69.5 65.9 72. 1 56.8 82.5 54.7 74.8 67.9 84.9 64.3 67.4 
 
SOURCES: U. S . Bureau of Census, 1970, Census o f Hous ing, General Housing Characteristics, 197 1. U. S . Bu r e a u of Census, "1970 Special Tabula t ions of Owner and Rente r Occup ied Un its by Living Condition , Georgia," 1973. 
 
 BUILD ING P ERMIT ACTIVITY STAT E OF GEORGI A 
1970 - 1976 
 
LOCALI TY 
 
1970 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
1971 SF MF 
 
1 97 2 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
1 973 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
1 97 4 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
1 975 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
197 6 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
TOTAL 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
Alt am ah a/G a. Southern 
 
Ap p l i ng 
 
20 - 
 
-- 
 
25 - 
 
9 
 
- 
 
3 
 
- 
 
4 
 
- 
 
3 
 
- 
 
64 
 
Bull o ch Candl er 
 
85 
 
36 
 
7 2 10 8 
 
67 
 
11 3 4 2 
 
44 
 
68 
 
- 
 
37 
 
- 
 
41 - 
 
20 - 
 
18 - 
 
13 - 
 
2 
 
- 
 
10 
 
- 
 
52 
 
36 
 
388 337 
 
18 
 
12 
 
157 
 
12 
 
Eva ns J ef f Dav i s Ta t t nal l 
 
7 
 
2 
 
35 
 
- 
 
18 
 
6 
 
27 5 54 8 29 - 
 
14 
 
4 
 
76 - 
 
38 - 
 
9 
 
- 
 
4 
 
52 
 
4 
 
2 
 
7 
 
32 
 
72 
 
97 
 
18 
 
- 
 
7 
 
- 
 
7 
 
- 
 
5 
 
- 
 
2 02 
 
8 
 
41 
 
42 
 
12 
 
- 
 
26 
 
26 
 
28 
 
- 
 
1 92 
 
74 
 
Toomb s 
 
i--' \.D 
 
Wa yn e 
 
63 
 
4 
 
47 
 
4 
 
151 8 67 6 
 
146 30 
 
70 
 
10 
 
23 
 
8 
 
49 
 
20 
 
31 
 
- 
 
25 - 
 
17 
 
8 
 
15 
 
2 
 
36 
 
- 
 
14 
 
- 
 
50 6 
 
68 
 
248 
 
32 
 
~ 
 
At la n ta Regio n 
 
Cl a yton Cobb DeK a lb Dou g l a s Fult on Gwinn ett Rockdal e 
 
1509 1490 1945 4 1 06 1 7 8 2 3 18 7 17 2 2 8 94 9 3 7 1 6 0 901 7 6 
 
2 15 0 2 106 35 55 5785 5444 42 14 4747 171 8 2 1 15 1 64 8 2 1 56 284 
 
3 0 0 1 71 39 3 4 7 1 10,07 6 39 73 58 7 1 3 65 3 3808 1 6 4 2 1 6 2 2 14 87 95 
 
7 24 86 
 
1101 72 
 
1306 - 
 
- 
 
- 
 
485 - 
 
616 - 
 
1975 880 6 31 34 12,5 3 2 22 83 53 3 9 2 3 9 8 2 5 6 8 15 30 817 9 3 1 360 
 
1 4 85 3 60 2 5 0 8 1068 359 5 2 0 6 1 2460 1786 151 2 83 5 1954 54 
 
36 8 11 2 636 2 
 
1109 18 2 907 1 28 371 1 2 
 
485 - 
 
10 96 4 2789 37 4 1284 2 
5 07 - 
11 8 8 4 46 
2344 2 32 4 52 - 
 
989 2 99 17 22 9 56 1 61 2 9 18511 28,6 13 4 739 158 13,439 30, 868 15,85 8 6396 4328 4 36 
 
Ch attaho o ch e e-Fl int Carr oll Co wet a Heard 
M~riweth er 
Troup 
 
90 
 
167 107 28 
 
1 26 108 55 17 4 
 
1 
 
- 
 
2 
 
- 
 
20 
 
- 
 
34 - 
 
141 2 7 
 
2 78 155 
 
85 
 
44 
 
4 11 5 3 
 
- 
 
- 
 
23 
 
- 
 
176 24 
 
55 
 
270 36 
 
66 
 
3 9 7 51 
 
2 
 
- 
 
21 8 
- 
 
- 
8 
 
17 - 
 
19 
 
- 
 
290 76 
 
199 10 
 
29 
 
- 
 
219 3 
 
1 
 
- 
 
9 
 
- 
 
163 4 
 
31 
 
7 
 
287 - 
 
1- 
 
18 - 
 
283 7 
 
43 3 582 1713 389 
78 1 40 1530 30 3 
 
 LOCA L IT Y 
 
1970 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
19 71 SF MF 
 
1972 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
1973 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
1974 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
19 75 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
1976 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
TOTAL 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
Centr al Sa v a nnah Riv er 
 
Bu rke 
 
4 
 
- 
 
Col um bia 
 
36 1 - 
 
Ema n u e l 
 
14 2 - 
 
22 - 
3 07 6 1 
190 - 
 
34 
 
- 
 
31 
 
36 
 
46 
 
5 03 1 2 
 
- 4 12 
 
475 
 
136 - 
 
12 0 - 
 
42 
 
Glasc ock Jeffe rso n J en ki n s Li n c o l n McDuffie 
 
57 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
44 
 
3 
 
52 - 
 
60 - 
 
- 
 
- 
 
55 10 
 
133 - 
 
-- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
54 
 
7 
 
62 
 
- 
 
54 
 
13 
 
- 
 
- 
 
7 
 
31 
 
14 
 
25 - 
 
29 
 
Richm on d 
 
11 6 0 1 1 8 4 1577 13 4 6 117 2 943 75 1 4 9 1 6 6 1 
 
Sc r eve n Ta l iafe r ro 
 
- 
 
- 
 
1 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
20 
 
- 
 
21 
 
- 
 
15 
 
2 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
Har r en 
 
15 
 
- 
 
22 - 
 
23 
 
- 
 
8 
 
- 
 
6 
 
IH lkes 
 
30 
 
2 
 
54 - 
 
27 
 
- 
 
30 
 
2 
 
19 
 
Coas t a l 
 
I-' \.0 
 
Br y a n 
 
U1 
 
Ca md e n 
 
Ch a t h am 
 
Effin gham 
 
Glyn n 
 
Li b ert y 
 
Long 
 
McInto sh 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
6 
 
- 
 
11 - 
 
709 165 3 1 135 41 3 
 
22 
 
4 
 
22 8 
 
307 88 
 
665 137 
 
21 
 
2 
 
3 
 
- 
 
64 
 
- 
 
47 - 
 
- 
 
- 
 
19 
 
- 
 
2 
 
- 
 
- 
 
46 
 
- 
 
4 
 
10 0 3 17 2 6 2 6 118 6 5 3 
 
15 
 
6 
 
23 
 
- 
 
14 
 
4 17 7 7 2 2 9 2 915 1 2 8 
 
20 
 
- 
 
17 
 
- 
 
39 
 
22 
 
- 
 
2 
 
- 
 
- 
 
Co astal Pl ain s Be n Hill Be r r i e n Br o o k s Co ok Ec h o ls 
 
78 
 
2 
 
22 
 
4 
 
17 
 
- 
 
53 
 
- 
 
24 56 
59 - 
33 - 
54 - 
 
1 89 2 
 
42 
 
2 
 
37 
 
28 
 
28 
 
5 
 
- 
 
4 
 
44 
 
- 
 
10 - 
 
23 
 
55 
 
4 
 
39 
 
10 
 
12 
 
-- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 50 2 
 
35 
 
- 
 
17 
 
- 
 
742 - 
 
41 - 
 
10 
 
31 
 
- 
 
- 
 
10 
 
- 
 
- 
 
9 
 
- 
 
- 
 
18 
 
- 
 
33 - 
 
2 
 
- 
 
2 
 
- 
 
37 
 
2 
 
6 76 58 5 13 8 789 96 
 
c oJ 
 
15 
 
- 
 
10 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
4 
 
1 
 
- 
 
2 
 
- 
 
- 
 
9 
 
- 
 
8 
 
- 
 
154 330 2 7 06 
422 85 32 262 66 9 5 82 2 77 17 7 
 
36 73 
10 
31 22 48 7 4 5 
4 4 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
4 
 
9 
 
- 
 
4 50 694 63 
 
2 
 
9 
 
- 
 
92 
 
14 7 3 2 
 
- 
 
3 58 - 
 
- 
 
25 
 
2 
 
4 
 
- 
 
6 
 
51 
 
- 
 
14 6 
 
1023 4 4 3 5 8 4 3 
 
14 
 
- 
 
1 19 
 
282 16 
165 - 
 
223 8 623 
 
38 
 
- 
 
1 98 
 
4 33 1 2 20 20 5 2 2 
2 
 
3 
 
12 
 
- 
 
57 
 
- 
 
439 
 
65 
 
- 
 
9 
 
2 
 
17 
 
- 
 
144 
 
34 
 
- 
 
36 
 
- 
 
4 
 
- 
 
1 67 
 
- 
 
10 
 
5 
 
12 
 
16 
 
235 
 
35 
 
 LOCALITY 
(Coastal Pl ains) Irwin Lanier Lownd es Tift Turner 
 
C00sa Vall ey 
 
Bartow 
 
Cat oosa 
 
Ch attoo g a 
 
Dade 
 
Flo yd 
 
Gordon 
 
Haralson 
 
Pauldin g 
 
Polk 
 
I-' 
 
Walker 
 
\0 
 
0\ 
 
Georgia Mount ains 
 
Bank s 
 
Dawson 
 
Forsyth 
 
Franklin 
 
Habersh am 
 
Hall 
 
Hart 
 
Lumpkin 
 
Rabun 
 
Steph ens 
 
Towns 
 
Union 
 
White 
 
1970 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
- 
 
- 
 
28 - 
 
393 19 
 
39 
 
4 
 
-- 
 
1 971 SF MF 
 
5 
 
- 
 
24 - 
 
456 141 
 
127 - 
-- 
 
40 
 
2 
 
30 8 
 
7 
 
6 
 
30 - 
 
- 
 
- 
 
109 14 
40 -- 
 
67 
 
248 109 150 
 
14 - 
 
42 5 1 
 
19 
 
3 
 
-- 
 
1 26 14 
 
227 10 
 
60 
 
16 
 
35 1 2 
 
- 
 
-- 
 
1972 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
10 
 
- 
 
-- 
 
2 11 45 2 
 
93 
 
- 
 
1 
 
1973 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
7 
 
- 
 
8 
 
- 
 
191 31 
 
72 
 
118 
 
- 
 
1974 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
7 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
20 2 
 
- 
 
27 
 
80 
 
- 
 
- 
 
31 
 
24 
 
28 
 
4 
 
9 
 
- 
 
58 
 
14 2 - 
 
- 
 
13 
 
36 
 
- 
 
23 - 
 
15 
 
9 
 
6 
 
- 
 
- 
 
6 
 
68 
 
53 
 
43 
 
92 
 
90 
 
13 
- 
 
66 - 
 
32 
 
- 
 
59 
 
- 
 
26 
 
8 
 
8 
 
- 
 
10 
 
2 
 
476 100 513 lR 
 
42 
 
24 
 
34 
 
4 
 
195 22 
 
- 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
52 
 
88 
 
1975 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
-2 
 
- 
 
201 - 
 
10 
 
- 
 
-- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
-- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
329 2 3 
 
27 
 
- 
 
11 
 
- 
 
194 - 
 
16 
 
2 
 
-- 
 
1976 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
2 
 
- 
 
-- 
 
23 7 16 
 
21 
 
4 
 
- 
 
- 
 
23 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
7 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
437 32 
 
20 
 
40 
 
7 
 
- 
 
181 - 
 
13 
 
9 
 
- 
 
- 
 
TOTAL 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
33 60 
 
1891 659 
 
389 
 
206 
 
1 
 
161 
 
50 
 
187 
 
175 
 
151 
 
15 
 
6 
 
11 4 3 598 
 
260 
 
91 
 
81 
 
13 
 
191 2 14 2 
 
222 
 
67 
 
52 
 
88 
 
- 
 
227 4 
33 - 
 
25 
 
30 
 
48 2 48 
 
2 
 
- 
 
- 
 
4 
 
-- 
 
35 
 
6 
 
296 - 
 
12 - 
29 - 
 
631 19 2 
 
4 
 
- 
 
8- 
-- 
 
59 85 
 
476 35 
 
20 
 
3 
 
351 53 
 
5 
 
- 
 
290 8 
 
24 
 
- 
 
21 
 
- 
 
5 
 
725 443 7 92 18 0 409 
 
5 
 
- 
 
4 
 
- 
 
5 
 
7 
 
- 
 
14 
 
16 
 
6 
 
- 
 
- 
 
5 
 
- 
 
- 
 
57 
 
16 
 
10 2 38 
 
- 
 
- 
 
87 
- 
 
- 
= - 
14 
- 
- 
- 
- 
 
249 - 
 
3 
 
- 
 
1 
 
- 
 
4 21 2 
 
14 
 
- 
 
8 
 
- 
 
3 
 
- 
 
98 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
2- 
 
2 
 
- 
 
2 
 
1 
 
- 
 
1 
 
- 
 
283 - 
 
8 
 
- 
 
5 
 
12 
 
552 6 
 
6 
 
- 
 
10 
 
2 
 
8 
 
- 
 
84 
 
- 
 
1 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
2 1 72 9 2 
 
89 
 
3 
 
110 
 
42 
 
4012 885 
 
40 
 
53 
 
22 
 
16 
 
522 
 
145 
 
1 
 
8 
 
 LOCALITY 
He a r t of Ge org i a Bl eck1 ey Do d g e Lau r e n s Montgo mery Pu l a s k i Telfair Tr e u t l en Wh e e l e r Wi lco x 
 
Lower Ch a t t ah o o c h e e 
 
Chattahooc hee 
 
Clay 
 
Harri s 
 
Musco g ge 
 
Quit man 
 
I-' 
 
Ran d o l ph 
 
\.D 
 
St e wa r t 
 
-.J 
 
Talbot 
 
McI nt os h Tra i l Bu tts Fayette Henr y Lamar Newto n Pi ke Sp a ld in g Up so n 
 
Mi d d le Fl i n t Cr i s p Do o l y Maco n Mar ion Schl e y Sum t er Ta ylor 
Web s t er 
 
1 97 0 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
-- 
 
7 
 
- 
 
1 3 5 65 
 
- 
 
- 
 
9 
 
- 
 
21 - 
 
24 
 
- 
 
7 
 
- 
 
12 - 
 
1971 SF MF 
 
30 - 
 
42 2 
 
14 8 - 
 
- 
 
- 
 
25 - 
 
25 - 
 
35 - 
 
8 
 
- 
 
6 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
4 
 
- 
 
18 6 8 77 6 
 
- 
 
- 
 
21 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
1 
 
2 
 
14 - 
-9- 
 
146 2 74 9 
-- 
 
46 - 
35 - 
 
2 
 
- 
 
18 
 
12 
 
18 4 3 2 
 
171 28 
 
6 
 
- 
 
93 
 
36 
 
- 
 
- 
 
22 4 - 
 
2 
 
- 
 
23 8 
185 16 
295 18 
24 - 
22 0 1 7 
-- 
370 140 
10 4 
 
156 3 6 
 
20  - 
 
28 
 
- 
 
- 
 
63 
 
93 
 
7 
 
- 
 
102 45 24 - 
103 - 
82 61 
18 - 
 
19.72 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
12 - 
 
57 
 
8 
 
102 - 
 
35 
 
- 
 
31 
 
- 
 
25 
 
8 
 
72 
 
- 
 
21 
 
- 
 
6 
 
- 
 
1973 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
14 
 
- 
 
17 
 
- 
 
70 
 
- 
 
15 - 
 
21 
 
- 
 
18 
 
- 
 
22 
 
- 
 
13 
 
- 
 
5 
 
- 
 
1974 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
18 
 
- 
 
8 
 
- 
 
71 
 
72 
 
5 
 
- 
 
9 
 
- 
 
8 
 
4 
 
15 
 
- 
 
9 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
1 975 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
9 
 
- 
 
34 - 
 
48 
 
18 
 
9 
 
- 
 
5 
 
- 
 
18 
 
- 
 
9 
 
- 
 
20 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
19 7 6 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
12 
 
- 
 
18 
 
12 
 
89 
 
20 
 
4 
 
- 
 
14 
 
- 
 
8 
 
- 
 
5 
 
- 
 
3 
 
- 
 
4 
 
- 
 
TOTAL 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
95 
 
183 
 
22 
 
663 
 
175 
 
68 
 
1 14 
 
123 
 
12 
 
182 
 
81 
 
33 
 
5 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
5 
 
- 
 
4 
 
- 
 
2 
 
2 
 
5 
 
5 
 
2 
 
4 
 
- 
 
1 
 
- 
 
3 
 
- 
 
23 
 
- 
 
1 
 
- 
 
1 
 
- 
 
13 
 
- 
 
4 
 
- 
 
1 
 
- 
 
29 
 
7 
 
1 20 5 8 3 4 633 3 1 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
26 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
20 
 
- 
 
-- 
 
3 
 
- 
 
2 
 
- 
 
350 
- 
17 
- 
- 
 
138 
- 
 
486 
- 
 
166 
- 
 
504 
- 
 
15 1 
- 
 
6508 
- 
 
284 5 
 
- 
 
26 
 
- 
 
13 
 
- 
 
169 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
35 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
8 
 
2 
 
16 
 
2 
 
63 0 - 
 
23 
 
2 
 
729 - 
 
14 
 
2 
 
35 2 
 
6 
 
22 
 
- 
 
149 - 
 
423 4 
 
5 1 1 10 
 
3 14 
 
12 
 
323 - 
 
28 
 
7 
 
38 
 
- 
 
8 
 
- 
 
13 
 
- 
 
128 36 
 
4 
 
- 
 
33 7 - 
 
25 
 
- 
 
92 
 
7 
 
5 
 
- 
 
329 - 
 
13 
 
4 
 
58 
 
3 
 
130 - 
 
11 2 29 
 
- 
12 
 
3 26 0 
 
- 
- 
 
14 
 
6 
 
9 
 
- 
 
57 
 
12 
 
186 - 
 
39 3 - 
 
20 
 
- 
 
194 4 
 
7 
 
- 
 
33 0 - 
 
11 
 
- 
 
17 3 
 
38 
 
2 4 1 5 54 
 
2 43 0 7 2 
 
1 37 
 
7 
 
91 5 
 
103 
 
30 
 
2079 152 
 
84 
 
14 
 
84 
 
- 
 
7 
 
- 
 
28 
 
- 
 
51 
 
48 
 
86 
 
8 
 
- 
 
- 
 
17 
 
- 
 
3 
 
2 
- 
- 
 
16 - 
 
- 
 
- 
 
4 
 
- 
 
73 
 
6 
 
2 
 
- 
 
13 
 
2 
 
568 
 
1 37 
 
61 
 
196 
 
2 
 
88 
 
74 
 
49 
 
2 32 22 
 
8 
 
- 
 
4 
 
- 
 
8 
 
2 
- 
 
16 
 
2 
 
1 
 
- 
 
19 
 
4 
 
3 
 
- 
 
33 9 
 
468 
 
49 
 
 LO CAL IT Y 
Middle Georgia Bibb Crawford Houston Jones Monro e Pea ch Twiggs 
 
No rth Geor g ia Cheroke e Fannin Gilm er Murray Picken s Whitfi eld 
 
f-' 
 
Northeast Georgi a 
 
\J:) 
co 
 
Barrow 
 
Cl ark e 
 
El b e r t 
 
Gr ee n e 
 
Jackson 
 
Ma d i s o n 
 
Morgan 
 
Ocone e 
 
Oglethorpe 
 
Walton 
 
Oconee Baldwin Hancoc k Jasper Johnson Putnam Washin gton Wilkinson 
 
1970 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
959 8 5 6 
 
18 
 
- 
 
361 164 
 
15 
 
24 
 
40 
 
4 
 
1971 SF MF 
7 33 1 15 2 14 4 28 64 
30 47 63 
 
1972 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
7 6 1 952 
 
17 
 
- 
 
6 28 202 
 
34 
 
68 
 
156 - 
 
1973 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
543 83 2 
27 - 
656 4 2 
 
14 
 
- 
 
92 
 
- 
 
1974 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
47 3 
 
187 
 
46 
 
- 
 
5 47 
 
128 
 
13 
 
- 
 
56 
 
- 
 
1975 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
5 24 7 2 
 
42 
 
- 
 
38 2 - 
 
- 
 
- 
 
68 
 
- 
 
197 6 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
605 52 
 
57 
 
- 
 
470 130 
 
- 
 
80 
 
98 
 
7 
 
TOTAL 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
45 98 22 1 347 2 
 
4 1 03 730 
 
106 
 
1 72 
 
5 57 
 
74 
 
7 
 
10 
 
32 2 
 
12 
 
6 
 
11 - 
 
1 
 
- 
 
8- 
 
5 
 
8 
 
6- 
 
84 
 
- 
 
117 2 
 
355 - 
 
9 
 
- 
 
7 
 
- 
 
11 - 
 
114 - 
 
530 12 
 
518 
 
- 
 
12 
 
- 
 
2 
 
- 
 
2 
 
- 
 
8 
 
- 
 
7 
 
- 
 
1 
 
- 
 
12 8 6 
 
104 
 
- 
 
67 6 - 
 
3 
 
- 
 
2 
 
- 
 
6 
 
16 
 
- 
 
- 
 
714 4 
 
2 
 
- 
 
4 
 
- 
 
5 
 
6 
 
107 - 
 
67 
 
52 
 
7 2 274 
 
95 
 
759 38 
 
174 2 9 
 
28 
 
21 
 
2 
 
21 
 
4 
 
28 32 51 32 41 654 34 3 
 
28 6 
30 8 1 2 93 
 
18 
 
- 
 
87 2 2 
 
52 
 
- 
 
61 
 
18 
 
1 
 
- 
 
2 
 
- 
 
23 
 
- 
 
24 4 
 
40 
 
379 8 1 5 60 2 1023 47 6 479 37 7 508 24 9 
 
80 
 
2 6 1 1 23 177 2 0 
 
252 1 3 0 4 8 
 
8 
 
2 
 
23 - 
 
4 
 
- 
 
12 - 
 
18 
 
2 
 
9 
 
- 
 
5 
 
- 
 
10 
 
- 
 
8 
 
2 
 
81 
 
6 
 
13 
 
- 
 
12 
 
- 
 
10 
 
- 
 
6 
 
- 
 
5 
 
- 
 
62 
 
127 - 
 
2 
 
- 
 
66 - 
 
1 
 
- 
 
81 
 
- 
 
96 
 
- 
 
67 
 
5 
 
78 
 
- 
 
102 2 
 
617 
 
7 
 
1 
 
- 
 
1 
 
- 
 
3 
 
- 
 
5 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
13 
 
25 
 
- 
 
350 22 
 
60 
 
4 
 
64 
 
2 
 
44 
 
2 
 
41 
 
- 
 
34 
 
- 
 
6 18 
 
30 
 
20 
 
4 
 
15 2 
 
12 - 
 
5 
 
- 
 
8 
 
- 
 
10 
 
10 
 
7 
 
10 
 
77 
 
26 
 
321 2 
 
182 38 
 
260 8 
 
253 50 
 
143 
 
10 
 
13 6 2 
 
129 3 6 
 
14 24 146 
 
40 
 
71 
 
37 - 
 
- - -- 
 
15 
 
- 
 
16 2 
 
26 
 
- 
 
34 - 
 
47 
 
- 
 
41 - 
 
28 
 
2 
 
- 
 
- 
 
43 73 
-- 
 
72 
 
88 
 
48 
 
14 
 
27 
 
227 - 
 
42 
 
- 
 
25 
 
2 
 
15 
 
1 
 
9 
 
12 
 
16 
 
- 
 
6 
 
2 
 
2 
 
22 
 
4 
 
20 - 
 
28 
 
37 
 
- 
 
25 
 
- 
 
17 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
6 
 
60 
 
45 
 
- 
 
- 
 
34 
 
- 
 
6 
 
16 
 
- 
 
- 
 
1 
 
- 
 
- 
 
29 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
33 
 
24 
 
30 2 
 
25 7 
 
13 
 
- 
 
341 
 
12 
 
- 
 
74 
 
32 
 
2 
 
- 
 
87 
 
2 
 
14 
 
- 
 
201 
 
4 
 
16 
 
- 
 
166 
 
75 
 
1 
 
- 
 
7 
 
 LOCALITY 
 
Sl a s h Pine Atkinson Bacon Brantley Charlton Clinch Coffee Pierce Ware 
 
Southwest Geor gi a 
 
Baker 
 
Calhoun 
 
Colquitt 
 
Decatur 
 
Doughert y 
 
Early 
 
t-' 
 
Gr ady 
 
\D 
 
\D 
 
Lee 
 
Miller 
 
Mitchell 
 
Seminole 
 
Terrell 
 
Thomas 
 
Worth 
 
STATE TOTALS 
 
1970 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
1971 SF MF 
 
19.72 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
1973 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
1974 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
1975 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
1976 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
TOTAL 
 
SF 
 
MF 
 
32 - 
 
4 
 
- 
 
4 
 
- 
 
9 
 
- 
 
56 
 
4 
 
15 - 
 
98 
 
- 
 
23 4 
5-- 
 
6 
 
40 
 
84 - 
 
42 - 
 
139 10 
 
71 
 
8 
 
31 - 
 
14 
 
8 
 
18 - 
 
9 
 
- 
 
198 
 
20 
 
5 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
3 
 
- 
 
17 
 
- 
 
- 
 
3 
 
2 
 
- 
 
- 
 
2 
 
6 
 
2 
 
- 
 
11 
 
8 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
1 
 
- 
 
3 
 
- 
 
19 
 
40 
 
159 - 
 
83 
 
- 
 
70 
 
- 
 
109 2 
 
1 23 - 
 
684 
 
6 
 
43 - 
 
33 
 
6 
 
30 
 
- 
 
20 
 
- 
 
37 
 
- 
 
220 
 
6 
 
1 63 116 166 138 133 
 
1 26 92 
 
40 
 
1 2 3 11 
 
91 4 
 
441 
 
95 
 
- 
 
55 
 
- 
 
15 7 2 
53 - 
 
814 184 800 449 
 
29 - 
 
96 - 
 
34 
 
- 
 
66 12 
 
95 12 - 
 
80 4 
8- 
 
72 - 
 
69 - 
 
26 - 
 
110 - 
 
13 - 
 
42 6 
 
89 
 
- 
 
70 - 
 
93 104 
110 - 
 
113 80 
 
49 
 
2 1 2 28 
 
51 
 
- 
 
93 
 
14 
 
20 
 
706 751 527 1251 2 69 
 
34 
 
- 
 
10 
 
2 
 
9 
 
76 
 
13 
 
38 
 
- 
 
63 
 
137 1 24 90 
 
14 
 
44 
 
8 
 
- 
 
1 
 
- 
 
3 
 
77 - 
 
40 - 
 
16 
 
29 - 
 
8 
 
- 
 
4 
 
32 
 
4 
 
44 
 
- 
 
11 
 
126 174 2 23 1 20 36 
 
43 
 
104 23 
 
- 
 
12 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
16 
 
19 
 
4 
 
1 60 238 6 0 
 
- 
 
- 
 
- 
 
8 
 
97 
 
8 
 
--- 
 
-5- 
 
- 
 
3 
 
- 
 
- 
 
7 
 
- 
 
- 
 
16 
 
2 
 
- 
 
39 
 
3 
 
- 
 
21 
 
- 
 
37 - 
 
479 
 
294 
 
28 
 
12 
 
319 
 
46 
 
355 2 46 3 7 0 9 3101 
 
12 
 
4 
 
52 - 
 
- 
 
- 
 
1- 
 
1 90 
 
6 
 
426 
 
41 
 
4 46 
 
142 
 
38 
 
21 
 
- 
 
298 
 
9 
 
- 
 
193 
 
9 
 
9 
 
1 67 
 
21 
 
45 
 
3 
 
65 
 
404 
 
8 
 
24 
 
28 7 
 
1 28 
 
SOURCE: U. S . Bur e au o f Census - C-40 - Construction Reports : Hou s in g Authoriz ed b y Buildin g Perm it s an d Pub lic Contrac t s . 
 
 ALTAMAHA GEORGIA SOUTHERN 
 
APDC 
 
Appling County Baxley 
 
Bulloch County Statesboro 
 
Candler County Metter 
 
Evans County Claxton 
 
Jeff Davis County Hazelhurst 
 
N 
o 
 
Tattnall 
 
County 
 
0 
 
Glennville Reidsville 
 
Toombs County 
 
Lyons Vidalia 
 
Wa~e County esup . 
 
Zoning  .: D. ... Hsg . Bldg . . Elect. Plumb. Gas .J!t;g./A.C. Mobile Home 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
.. x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
 ATLANTA REGION 
 
APD C 
 
Clayt on Coun ty For e s t Park 
Lake Ci t y Mor row 
Mountain Vi ew Riverdale , 
 
Cobb County Acworth Aus t e ll Kennesaw 
Mar i e t t a Powde r Springs Smyrna 
 
DeKalb County 
 
Avondale Estates 
 
Chamblee 
 
Decatur 
 
tv 0 
 
Doraville 
 
f-' Pine Lake 
 
Douglas County Douglasville 
 
Fulton County 
Alpharetta Atlanta College Park 
East Point Fairburn Hapeville 
Palmetto Roswell Union City 
 
Gwinnett County Buford 
Lawrenceville 
 
Zoning 
X 
X 
X 
X X 
x 
X 
 
S , D, ' 
X 
X 
X 
X X 
x 
X 
 
, Hsg', ' , , BTdg', ' , , E'l.ect, ' P'Lumb. ' , Gas ' Htg, / A. C, Mobile HomE 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x' 
 
x 
 
," x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
 ATLANTA REGION (con t ) 
 
APDC 
Loganville Norcross Snellville 
Rockdale County Conyers 
 
Zon i ng S. D. 
 
Hsg . _ Bldg . 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
. El ect. 
x x 
x 
x 
x 
 
Plumb .  Gas  Htg./A .C. 
x, 
x x 
x 
x 
 
Mobile Home 
 
IV 
o 
IV 
 
 CENTRAL SAVANNAH RI VER 
 
APDC 
 
Burke Coun t y Waynesboro 
 
Columbia County Harlem 
 
Emanuel County Swainsboro 
 
Glascock County . 
 
Jefferson Coun ty Lou i sv i lle Wrens Wadley 
 
Jenkins County Millen 
 
~ Lincoln County 
w 
McDuffie County Thoms on 
 
Richmond County 
 
Augusta 
 
- 
 
Screven County Sylvania 
 
Taliaferro County 
 
Warren County 
 
Wilkes County Washington 
 
Zoning S . D. 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Hsg . Bldg . 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Elect. Plumb . Ga s Htg ./A.C . Mobile Hom. 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
 CHATTAHOOCHEE FLINT 
APDC 
Carroll County Bowdon Carroll ton Mt. Zion Temple Villa Ri ca Whitesburg 
Coweta County Gr antvil l e Moreland Newnan Sh a r p s bu r g Tu r in Seno ia 
Heard County N Franklin 
0 
.t:>. Merriwether Coun t y Greenville Manchester Woodbury 
Troup County Hogansville LaGrange West Point 
 
Zoning S.D . 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
X 
 
(P) 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Hsg . 
X 
x 
 
Bldg . 
X x x x 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
El ec t. 
X x x x x 
X 
x 
 
Plumb . 
X x x x x 
X 
x 
 
Gas Htg . /A.C . Mobile Home 
 
X 
x x x 
x x x. 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
 COASTAL 
APDC 
Br~an County embroke 
Rich-mond Hil l 
Camden County Kingsland St. Marys Woodbine 
Cha t ham County Savannah Garden City Pooler Thunderbol t Port Wentwort h Savannah Beach Vernonburg 
N 
~ ~f f ingham Coun ty Guyton' Ri ncon Springfield 
Glynn County Brunswick 
Liberty County Allenhurst Flemington Hinesville Midway Riceboro Walthourville 
Long County Ludowici 
McIntosh Coun t y Darien 
 
Zon ing 
X x x 
X x x. x 
X x x x x x x 
(P) 
X 
(P) 
x 
X x 
X x x x x x x 
(P) (P) 
(P) x 
 
S. D. 
X x x 
(P ) x .x x 
X x x x x x x 
(P) 
X 
(P) 
x 
X x 
X x x x x x x 
(P) (P) 
(P ) x 
 
Hag . 
X x 
X x 
X x x 
 
Bldg . 
X x x 
X x x x 
X x x x x x x 
 
X 
 
x x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) (P) 
 
(P) 
 
Elect. Plumb. Ga a Htg . /A.C. Mobile Home 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
 COASTAL PLAI N 
APD C Ben Hill County" 
Fitzgerald Berr Len County 
Nashville Brooks Coun ty 
Qui tman Cook County 
Adel Echols County Irwin County 
Ocilla ~ Lanier County m Lakeland 
Lowndes County Valdosta 
Tift County Tifton 
Turner County Ashburn 
 
Zoni n g 
X x 
 
S .D. 
x" 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Hsg. x 
 
Bldg . 
X x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Elec t . Plumb. Gas Ht g . /A.C. Mobile Homt 
 
X 
 
J 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
.X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
'x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
 COOSA VALLEY 
 
APDC 
 
Bartow County Adairsville 
Car t er sv i l l e Emer son 
 
Catoo sa County For t Oglethor pe Ringgold 
 
Chattooga County Me n l o Summerville Trion 
 
Dade Coun ty Trenton 
 
N Floyd County 
 
0 --.J 
 
Cav e Spri ng 
 
Rome 
 
Gordo n County Calhoun 
 
Har al s on County 
Brem e n Buchanan Tallapoosa 
Wa c o 
 
Paulding County Hiram Dallas 
 
Polk County Cedartown Rockmart 
 
r 
Zon i ng S.D . 
 
Hsg . Bldg . Elect. Plumb . Gas Ht g . /A . C. Mobile Hom 
 
x 
 
x' 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
, 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
.' 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
X 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
 COOSA VALLEY (con t ) 
 
APDC 
Walker County LaFayette Lookout Mountain Rossville 
 
Zon i n g 
x x x 
 
S .D. 
x. 
x x 
 
Hag , 
x 
 
Bldg . 
x 
x x x 
 
Elect. Plumb. Gas H~KJA.C. Mobile Hom, 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
N 
o 
00 
 
 GEORGIA MOUNTAI NS 
 
APDC 
 
Banks County Maysvi l le 
 
Dawson Coun t y Daws onv i lle 
 
Forsyth Count y Cummi ng 
 
Fr ank lin County Carne svil l e Lavonia Roys t on Fr ankl in Spr i ngs Canon 
 
Habersham Count y 
 
Clarkesville 
 
Cornel i a 
 
tv 0 
 
Baldwin 
 
1.0 Demorse t 
 
Hall Count 
Ga invesv~l le 
Flowerly Branch Lula 
 
Hart County Hartwell 
 
Lumpkin Coun t y Dahlonega 
 
Rabun County Clayton Mountain City Tallulah Falls 
Ste"phens County Toccoa 
 
Zoning S . D. x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x. 
 
(Prf} 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Hsg. (P ) 
 
Bldg. x 
 
Elect . Plumb. Gas Htg ./A. C. Mobile Home 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
xx 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
(P) 
 
(P) 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
.."; 
 
(P) 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
 GEORGIA MOUNTAJ:NS (con t ) 
 
APDC 
Towns County Hiawassee Young-Ha r r i s 
Union count!: Blairsvil e 
White Count y Cleveland Helen 
 
Zon i n g S . D. (P) 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Hag. Bldg . 
x x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
El e c t . Plumb . Gaa__~H~K.lA. C. Mobil e Home 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) 
x x 
 
[\J 
 
..:.' 
 
I-' 
o 
 
 HF.ART OF GEORGIA 
 
APDC 
Bleckley County Cochran 
Dodge County Eastman 
Laurens County Dubl in Dudley 
 
Mo ntgomery Coun t y Mount Ve rnon Uvalda 
 
N Pulaski County 
 
I-' I-' 
 
Hawk i nsville 
 
Telfair County Jacksonvill e McRae 
 
Treutlen County Soperton 
 
Wheeler County Glenwood 
 
Wilcox County 
 
Zoning S .D. 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Hsg . Bldg. Elec t~ Plumb. Gas Htg./A.C. Mobile Home 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
it 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
 LOWER CHATT AHO O CHE ]~ 
 
APDC 
Chattahoochee Count y Cusseta 
Clay County Fort Gaines 
Harris County Hamilton Pine Mountain Shiloh Waverly Hall 
Muscogee County Columbus 
Quitman County Georgetown 
tv I-' 
tv Randolph County Cuthbert Shellman 
Stewart County Lumpkin Omaha Richland 
Talbot County Talbotton Woodland 
 
Zon ing 
x (P) (P) (P) (P) (P) x x 
x 
x x x x x 
x (P) 
 
S.D. 
(P) 
(P) 
(P) 
(P) 
(P) x x (P) x 
x 
(P) (P) (P) (P) 
 
Hsg . 
x x 
 
Bldg. 
x x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) (P) x (P) x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Elect. Plumb. Gas Htg./A.C. Mobile Home 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
x 
 
 McJ:NT0SH. TRA:E:L 
APDC 
Butts County Jackson Flovi l l a 
Fayette County Faye ttevi lle Brooks Peachtree Ci t y Tyr one ' Woolsey 
Henrr; Coun t y Mc onough Hamp t on Locus t Grove Stockbridge 
~ Lamar countf ' w Barnesvil e 
Newton County Cov i ngt on Mansfield Oxford PotE}rdale 
Pike County Zebulon Concord Williamson 
spaldinfcounty Griff n _ 
Upson County Thomaston 
 
Zoning x x 
 
S . D. x x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Hs g . 
x x x 
 
Bldg . 
x x x 
x x x x x x 
x x x x x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Elect. Plumb . Ga s Htg ./A.C. Mobile Home 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
 MIDDLE f LI NT 
APDC Crisp County 
Cordele 
Dooley County Bryonville Pinehurst Unadilla Vienna 
Macon Count 
Marshallv~11e 
Montezuma Oglethorpe ~N Mar~ on County Buena Vista 
Schley County Ellaville 
Sumter County Americus 
Taylor County Butler Reynolds 
Webster County 
 
Zoning x 
 
S .D . x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x x 
 
 
 
x x 
 
Hsg . x 
 
Bl dg. 
x x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Elec t . Plumb . Gas Htg./A .C. Mobile Home 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
 MI DDLE GEORGIA 
 
AP DC 
Bibb County Macon 
 
Crawford County Roberta 
 
Hou stan County Centervill e 
Perry Warner Robbins 
 
Jones County Gray 
 
Monr oe County 
 
Peach County 
 
Bryon 
 
N I-' 
 
Fort Valley 
 
lJl 
 
Twiggs County Jeffersonville Danville 
 
Zoning 
x x 
x x 
x x x x 
x x 
 
S .D. 
 
Hag . 
x x 
 
Bl dg . 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x x 
 
Elect. Plumb . Ga s Ht g . /A . C. Mobile Home 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
.... 
 
X 
 
,. 1 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
r 
 
x x 
 
 NOR,TH. GEORGIA 
APDC 
Cherokee County Ball Ground Canton Waleska Woods t ock 
Fannin County Blue Ridge Mor ganton 
Gilmer County Ellijay 
Murray County Chatswor th 
~ Pickens County m Jasper 
Whitfield Coun t y Cohutta Da l t on Tunnel Hill Varnell 
 
Zon i n g 
x 
x x x 
x 
 
S .D. 
x x x 
x x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
'x 
 
x 
 
Ha g . 
x 
x 
 
Bldg . 
x 
x x 
x 
x 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Elec t . Plumb. Gas Ht g. jA. C. Mobile Home 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
 NORTHEAST GEO~G~ 
 
APDC Barrow Count y Winder 
Clarke County Athens 
El ber t Count y Elberton 
'Gr eene County Green sbor o 
J ack s on County Connner ce Jefferson 
N f-J 
-J Madison County Comer 
Mor gan Count y Madison 
Oconee County 
Oglethorpe County 
Walton County Monroe 
 
Zoning S . D. 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x, 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Hsg . Bl dg. 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
x x x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
El ec t. Plumb. Gas Htg ./A. C. Mobile Home 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
 OCONEE. 
APDC 
Baldwin countr Mil ledgevil e 
Hanco ck Coun ty Sparta 
J a sper County Monticello 
Johnson Coun t y Wrightsvil le 
Pu t nam Count y Ea t o n t o n 
tv I-' 
00 Wash i n t on Coun t y Sandersvi l l e Tennille 
Wilkinson County Gor don 
 
Zon ing 
x 
 
S . D. 
x 
x 
 
x 
x 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x (P) 
 
x 
 
Hag. 
x x x 
 
Bldg . 
x x 
 
_Ele c t . 
x 
x 
 
Pl umb. x x 
 
Ga8_H~g_,-LA. C. 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Mob ile Home x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x x 
 
x 
 
 SOUTHEA$T GEORGIA SLASH PINE 
 
APD C Atki n son Count y 
 
Bacon County Alma 
 
Br antley Coun t y Nahun t a Hoboken 
 
Charl t on Count y Fol k s ton 
 
Cl inch County Argyl e Dupont 
 
N f--' 
 
Homervi l l e 
 
1.0 
 
Coffee County Br oxt on 
 
Dougla s 
 
Pierce County Blackshear Patterson 
 
Ware County Waycross 
 
Zon i ng 
x 
x x 
x x x x 
x x x x 
 
S. D. 
x 
x 
x x x x x x 
 
Hag. Bl dg . El ec t. Plumb . Ga s Htg./A . C. Mobile Home 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
(P) 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
(P) 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
(P) 
 
x 
 
x 
 
~; 
 
 SOUTHWEST GEORGI A 
 
APDC 
Baker Coun t y 
Calhoun Count y Ar l i ngton Edi s on 
Co lquitt Count y Doerun Moult rie Norman Par k 
Decatur Coun t y Bainbridge 
Dou~herty Count y 
A bany 
tv 
~ Earlr County Ba kely 
Grady County Cairo Whigham 
Lee County Leesburg Smithville 
Miller County Colquitt 
Mitchell County Baconton Camilla Pelham 
Seminole County Donalsonville 
 
Zon i ng S . D. 
 
Hsg. Bldg. Elect . Plumb . Gas Htg . / A. C. Mobile Home 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x x 
 
x 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
X 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x x x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
 SOUTHWEST GEOR,GIA (cont ) 
 
AP DC Terre l l Count y Daws on 
Thoma s Coun t y Boston Meigs Thoma svi l l e 
Wor t h Coun t y Sylvester Warwick 
 
Zoning S .D. 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
Hs g . x 
 
Bldg. x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
I 
 
Elec t . Pl umb . Gas Ht g ./A. C. Mobile Home 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
x 
 
tv tv f-' 
 
.--- - 
 
 STATEWIDE HOU SING REHABILITATIO N SURVEY 
 
Cf. t y 
 
_ 
 
Resp ond ent's Name 
 
_ 
 
Tit 1 e-;--__-----,,-;-- 
 
_ 
 
Tel ephon e No. 
 
_ 
 
PLEASE CHECK APPROPRIATE RESPONSE. WHERE MORE THAN ONE ANS,rnR DESCRIBES THE ACTIVITIES OF A COMMUNITY, 
MORE THAN ONE RESPONSE MAY BE CHECKED . EXAMPLE, A COMMUNITY MAY HAVE A REVOLVING LOAN FUND AND A GRANT P ROGRAM. 
 
1. Wh at type o f r ehabil it a tion (pr og ram d o e s yo u r c i t y op er at e? 
 
a . loan guarant e ed program 
 
d. gr ant 
 
b . r evolving loan fund 
 
e. other (Please s p e c i f y ) 
 
c . emergency repair loans 
 
2. How long has the city be en invol v ed in housing rehabilitation? 
 
a . 1 year 
 
c. 3 years 
 
b . 2 years 
 
d. 4 years or longer 
 
3. What resourc es are b eing utilized in the city to rehabilitate housing? 
 
a . CDBG 
b . Sec. 312 
c. Sec . 502 a nd 504 
d . Sec. 8, Substant ial Rehab . 
 
- - - -e . 
f. 
--g. 
 
Urban Homesteading 
Conventional Home Improvement Loans 
Lo w interest rate conventional loans. 
 
4 . How many hous es have been rehabilit ated under th e Communit y Development Program? 
 
5. How many houses ha ve been rehabilitated under oth er pro gr ams? 
 
a. _ _b. 
 
312 Sec. 8 , Rehab . 
 
c . 502 and 504 d . Other (Please specify) 
 
6 . Are rehabilit ation loans being made in pre-selected target neighborhoods? 
 
a. YES 
 
b. NO 
 
7. If YES to 6, wh a t fa ctors we re consider ed in the selection? 
 
a. Early signs of deterioration 
b . Substantial deterioration 
c . Neighborhoods d emonstrat ing interest in imprQvement 
 
d . Willingness of private e n t e r pr i s e (bankers, developers) to invest in the area . 
e . Other (Please specify) 
 
8. What criteria are used for indiv idual loan and/or grants? 
 
a . Income 
 
e . Resid ential Lo cation 
 
b . Age 
 
Lo an to Value Ratio 
 
c. Ra c e 
d. Physical Condition of Structure 
 
--g. Other (Please specify) 
 
222 
 
 9 . What are the maximum limits of the loan or grant programs? 
 
LOANS 
 
GRANTS 
 
NONE 
 
NONE 
 
_____$3 ,500 or less 
 
_____ $3,500 or less 
 
______$3,500 - $5 ,000 
 
______$3,500 - $5,000 
 
______$5,000 - $7,500 
 
______$5,000 - $7,500 
 
______$7,500 - $$10,000 
 
______$7,500 - $10,000 
 
_____$10,000 or more 
 
_____$10,000 or more 
 
10.What is the average loan amount? $ 
 
__ 
 
11.What is the average grant amount? $ 
 
__ 
 
12.Do you consider the maximum loan/grant amounts adequate for the type repairs needed? 
 
a. llS 
 
b . NO 
 
, 13 .What type repairs or improvements are made on the housing? 
 
a. All repairs needed to being house up to housing codes 
b. Adding indoor toilet facilities 
 
d . Minor structural improvements needed to protect health and safety 
e. Other (Please specify) 
 
c . Repairs which can be made within maximum loan and/or grant amounts 
 
14.What incentives are needed to encourage more owners to rehabilitate their homes and/or properties? 
 
a. Tax abatements b. Low interest rate loans 
 
d. Public awareness of the individual's responsibility in community improvement 
 
c . Code Enforcement 
 
e. No incentives needed but rather more new construction of 'low and moderate income housing in order 
to demolish dilapidated structures . 
 
15.Are tax ahatements made available after home improvements have been made through the city's rehabilitation loan program? 
 
a. llS 
 
b. NO 
 
16.Who processes rehabilitation loan applications? 
 
a. Banks 
 
c. Other (Please specify) 
 
b. C D Agency 
 
17.Who services rehabil itation loan applicat ions? 
 
a. Banks 
 
c. Other (Please specify) 
 
b. C D Agency 
 
18.What housing conditions data were used to determine housing suitable for rehabilitation? 
 
a. Census 
 
c. Interior housing survey 
 
b. Exterior housing survey 
 
d. Other (Please Specify) 
 
223 
 
 19.Based on your practical experience with housing rehabilitation, do you consider the estimate of housing suitable for rehabilitation in the housing assistance plan to be accurate? 
 
a. YES 
 
_ _b. NO 
 
If no, why? 
 
a. too high 
 
b. too low 
 
20.What do you consider to be major problems in implementing a housing rehabilitation program? 
 
a. Inadequate funding 
b. Extremely poor housing conditions 
 
c. Lack of interest by potential participants 
d. Other (Please specify) 
 
21.What suggestions would you make for increasing b enefits of housing rehabilitation activities? 
 
22.What assistance could the State provide in the area of housing rehabilitation? 
 
224 
 
 1 . Wha t t y p e of hous i ng do most of your clien ts li ve in? 
 
publ ic h ou sing r e n t h ouse mobile ho me o t h e r ( p leas e sp ec ify) 
 
apartment rent room own home 
 
2 . I n rel ation to wh at the y ar e p ayi n g , what is your opinion o f th e t y p e o f l i v i n g a c c o mo d a t i o n s your clients are getting? 
 
ex c e l l e n t 
 
go o d 
 
fair 
 
unsatisfactory 
 
3. I f any o f yo u r clien ts h ave t r ied to ren t or buy a house other than the one th e y p r e s e n tly live i n, wh a t problems did they e n count er mo s t? 
 
t o o e xp e nsiv e no p r ob l e m 
 
not available o t h e r (please specify) 
 
4 . Are m st o f y our cl i ent s fami l iar wi t h federal . housing other 
 
t ha n p ub l ic h ou sin g ? 
 
YE S NO . 
 
5 . Wh i c h o f t h e f ol l owi n g woul d y ou sa y they are familiar with? 
 
F HA In s u r e d HUD 2 3 1 221 ( d ) (3 ) FmHA 5 02 HUD Se c ti o n 8 
 
HUD Section 235:4 VA Gu a r ant e e d FmHA 504 FmHA 515 
 
6 . Do y o u f e e l t h a t a ma j o r i t y o f your cli en t s are eligible for fe d e ra l l y fu n d e d h o us i ng pr o gra ms ? 
 
YES NO 
 
7 . Fr om wh a t so u rc e di d your cli en t s lea r n a b o u t p rog rams availabl e f rom Housi n g and Ur ba n De velo p ment o r F a r me rs Home Admin is t r a t ion ? 
 
f riend o the r 
 
_ _ news s t o r y 
 
t .v . advertisement 
 
8. Are repai rs or home impro v emen t s made f r e q u e n t l y ? 
 
YES NO 
 
9 . Wh a t type a ssistan c e wo uld en cour ag e mo r e o wn ers to make hom e im pr o ve men ts? ( Pleas e r ank , t h e hi g h e s t p o i n t being 1) 
 
low i n t e re s t rate loans c od e enf orc ement 
 
counse ling and t raini n g in housing maintenance 
 
10 . Wo u l d y o u r clie nts be wi ll i n g t o move if ade qua t e h o using wer e a vaila b l e in a nothe r ar ea ? 
 
YES NO 
 
1 1 . Please rank in t h e orde r of impor t ance t o yo u r cl ien ts, the f o l l owi n g c on c e r n i n g wher e they liv e, t h e hi gh e st po i n t be ing 1 . 
 
shopping ce nter d ist anc e t o churc h tr an s p ort ati on dist anc e to job 
 
yard 
 
225 
 
ty pe n e ighbo r hood di s t a n c e t o f ri e n d s and 
rel a t i ve s s choo l 
po r ch e s o th e r (pleas e s pe ci fy ) 
 
 12,. Wha t is t h e gen~ral attitude toward federa lly funded housing? 
 
Positive 
 
___ Negative 
 
13 . Whi ch o f ' t h e followi n g do you consider to be a problem in obtai n i ng a nd ma in tai ning standard housing? 
 
h ousing costs lack o f c od e en forcement cost o f h ome repairs l a c k of info r ma t ion on housing 
p r o b l ems and resources 
 
too many regulations in: the housing industry 
attitudes toward low-income housing 
shortage of developed s!tes (i.e., water and sewer) 
 
1 4. Wha t t y p e activities would be helpful to Georgia citizens in o b t a i n i n g and ma in t a i n i n g better housing? 
 
low interest rate housing loans to purchase homes stimulate construction of rental units p ro v ide fin a n c i a l assistance to eligible renters who 
pay e xc e ssive rents p r ovide t echn ical assistance to communities who want to 
imp r ov e housing conditions pro v ide l ow interest rate loans to owners to make home 
i mprovements ot he r ( pl e a s e specify) 
 
1 5 . Do you a g re e wi t h t he fol lowing statement? "Housing i s a 
 
complex prob l e m a nd requires the comb ined efforts of private 
 
e n terp rise , fed eral, state and local government and individual 
 
ci tizen s i f adv e r se h ousin g is to be overcome in Georgia." 
 
YES NO 
 
1 6 . Do you h ave a n y add it ional comments or problems concerning 
 
hous ing? 
 
YES NO 
 
I f s o, pleas e p l a c e th o s e comments on t h e bottom of this sheet . 
 
An d t o help u s anal yze t hi s i nf or mat io n , we ' d app rec iate a little info rmation' a b o u t yo urse l f ( Re me mbe r you will not be iden tified in the survey report) 
 
a . Wha t Age ncy a r e you affili at e d with? b . Wh at area do you se rv e ? c . Wh a t i s y o u r name and tit l e ? 
 
226 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
  Bibliography 
Altamaha Ge o r g i a Southern Area Planning and Development Commission, Housing Needs Analysis. Baxley Geor gia, June, 1977. 
Ameri can I n st i t u t e o f Arch itects, National Housing Po l i cy . Wa s i n g t o n , D. C., May, 1976. 
At l a n t a Regio n a l Commiss i o n , Ar e a wi d e Waste Water Manag ement. Atlanta , Ga. , 1977. 
Ce ntral Savannah River Are a P l a nni n g and Development Comm i s s i o n , Ce n t r a l Sa v a n nah Ri ver Area Housing P ro gram, Part V - Loca l Co d e s and Codes Program. Augu s t a , Ga . , February , 1971. 
Ch a t t ahoo c h e e - F l i n t Ar e a P l a nn i ng and Development Commi s s i o n, Areawide Hou s i n g Element. LaG range Ga ., J u n e , 1976. 
Ch a t t a h oo c h e e - Fl i n t Ar e a Plan n i ng an d Development Comm i s s i on , Regi o nal Hous i n g Needs Analysis , P h as e T. La Gr a n ge , Ga. , 1974. 
Ci ty o f Al b a ny . Hou s i n g Ass ist an ce Pl a n of Communit y De v e l opmen t Bl o c Gran t Ap p l i c a t i o n . Albany, Ga. , 1976. 
Ci t y o f Alma . Ho u s ing Assistance Plan o f Commu n ity Devel o pment Bloc Gran t Applic a tion. Alma ~ Ga., 1976. 
Ci t y o f Amer i c u s . Housing Assistan ce Plan of Commu n i t y Devel opment Blo c Gr ant Ap p l icat i o n. Americus, Ga., 1976 . 
Ci t y o f Athe ns . Housi ng As si st a n c e Plan of Community Deve l o pme nt Bloc Grant Appl i c at io n . At h e n$, Ga. , 1976. 
City of At l a n t a . Housing Ass i s t a n c e Plan o f Commu n i t y De velopme n t Blo c Grant Ap p l i c a t i o n . At l an t a , Ga., 1976 . 
Ci t y o f Augusta . Hou si ng As si s t a n c e P l an of Cs mmu n i t y Deve lopment Bloc Gran t Appl icat ion . Au gu s t a, Ga. , 1976 . 
Ci t y of Bainbridg e . Ho u sing Ass i s t a n c e Plan of Community De v elopment Bl oc Grant App l i c a t io n . Bainbridge, Ga., 1976. 
229 
 
 Ci ty of Bl akel y . Housing Assistanc e P l a n of Communit y Deve l o pme n t Bl d c Grarit Appl i~ation . Blakely, Ga ., 1 976 . 
Cit y of Brunswick. Hou s i n g Assistan ce Plan of.Community Developmen t Bloc Gr a nt Application . Brunswick, Ga., 1976 . 
City of Ca mi l l a . Hou sing As s i st an ce Plan of Community Development Bl o c Gr ant Application . Camilla, Ga., 1976 . 
Ci t y of Carrol l t o n. Housing Assistance Plan o f Commu n i t y De velopment Bl oc Grant Application. Carrollton , Ga ., 1976 . 
Ci t y o f Ca r te r s v i l l e . Hous in g Assistance Plan of Community De ve l o pmen t Bloc Grant Appli cation. Cartersville , Ga . , 1976. 
Ci t y of College Par k . Housin g Assistance Plan of Community De v e lopme n t Bloc Gr a n t Appli c a tion . Coll ege Park , Ga . , 1976 . 
Ci t y o f Co lumbus . Hous ing Assist ance Plan of Community Dev e l o pme n t Bloc Gr a nt Applicat ion. Columbus , Ga. , 1976 . 
Ci ty o f Comme rce. Hou sing Ass ist ance Pl an of Commu ni t y Dev el opment Bloc Grant App licat i on. Commerc e, Ga . , 1 976 . 
City of Corde le. Housi ng Assis tanc e P lan of Commu n i ty De ve lopme nt Bloc Gr a n t Appl i cation . Cordele, Ga . , 1 9 7 6. 
Ci ty of Cu ss e t a . Housing Ass istan c e Pl an of Community De v el opment Blo c Gran t App li cat io n . Cus se ta , Ga . , 1976. 
Ci ty of Dalton . Ho using Assistance P lan of Communi t y Dev elopment Bl o c Gran t Application. Da lton , Ga . , 1976 . 
Ci ty of Daws o n. Hou sin g As s i s tance Pl an of Community De v e lopme n t Bl o c Gr a n t Application. Dawson , Ga . , 1976 . 
Ci t y of De cat ur . Hou sing Assis t a nce P lan o f Commu n i t y De v e lopme nt Bl oc Gran t Applicatio n . De catu r , Ga . , 1 9 76. 
23 0 
 
 City of Dubli n. Hou s i n g Assistance Plan of Community De v elopmen t Bl oc Grant Application. Dublin , Ga. , 1976 . 
Ci ty o f East El l i jay . . Hou s i n g Assistance Plan of Community De v e l o pme n t Bl o c Grant Application. East Ellijay, Ga., 1976 . 
Ci t y o f Elli j a y. Ho usin g Ass i s t a n c e Plan of Community De v e l opm e n t Bl o~ Gr aht App lic a t i o n . Ellijay, Ga. , 1976. 
Ci t y o f Ga i nes v il le. Hou sing Assis t an ce P lan ~f' Community De v e l o pme n t Bloc Gr an t Application. G aine~ville, Ga., 1976 . 
Cit y of Hawk i n svi l le . Hous ing As s istanc e Plan of Community De v e lopme nt Bloc Gr a nt Ap p l i c a t i o n . Hawkinsvi l le , Ga . , 1976. 
Ci t y of Hin esv i l le . . Hou s i n g As s is tan c e P lan of Community De v e l o pme n t Bloc Gr ant Ap p l i c at ion. Hinesville, Ga., 1976 . 
Ci t y of La Gr ange . Hous ing Assi s tan c e Plan of Community Developme n t Bl oc Gran t Applic atio n. LaGrange, Ga . , 1976 . 
City of Lit hon i a . Housi ng As s i s t a n c e P l a n of Community De v e l o pme n t Blo c Gran t Ap p l i c a t i o n . Li thonia , Ga ., 1 976 . 
City o f Macon. Housi n g Assis tan c e P l a n of Commu n i t y De v e l opme n t Bloc Gran t Ap p l i c at i o n . Ma c o n , Ga. , 1976 . 
City o f Marietta. Housi ng As s i s t a n c e Plan o f Co mmunity Deve l opm e nt Blo c Gr a n t Appl i cat i on . Ma r i e t t a , Ga. , 1976 . 
City o f Mi lledgeville. Housi n g Ass i stance Pl an of Community Deve l o pme n t Bloc Grant Ap p licat ion . Mi l le d g e v i l l e, Ga. , 1976 . 
Cit y of Mo u ltrie. Hou sing As si s tan ce P lan of Commu n i t y Dev e lopmen t Bloc Gr a nt Appl icat i o n. Mou l tr i e, Ga. , 1976 . 
City of Newn a n. Hou si ng Ass i st a n c e Pl a n o f Commu n it y Dev e l opme nt Bl o c Gr ant App l icat ion. Newn a n , Ga., 1976 . 
231 
 
 Cit y of No r c r o s s . Housing Assistance Plan of Community Development Blo c Grant Application. Norcross, Ga., 
197 6. 
City of Oc i l l a. Housing As s i s t an c e Pl an of Communi ty Developmen t Bl o c Grant Application. Ocilla, Ga., 1976 . 
City of Richland . Housing Assistance Plan of Community Development Bloc Grant Application. Richland, Ga . , 
I976. 
City of Sa n d e r s v i l l e . Housing Assi s tance Plan o f Commu n i t y De v elopmen t Bloc Gran t Application . Sandersville , Ga ., 1976. 
Ci t y o f Sh e l l ma n . Housing Assistance P l a n of Community Dev elopment Bloc Grant Application. She llman , Ga., 
1976 . 
City of St. Marys. Housing Assistance Plan of Community Dev elopmen t Bloc Gr a nt Application. St. Ma r y s , Ga., 
19 76 . 
Cit y of Swa i nsb o r o . Housin g Assistance Plan o f Commu ni t y De v e lopment Bl o c Grant Application. Swain sboro, Ga. , 
19 76. 
Ci ty o f Tenn ille. Ho u s in g As sistan ce Plan o f Community Dev elopment Bloc Grant Appli c a tion . Ten n i l l e, Ga . , 
1976 . 
City o f Tho maston. Hou sing Assistance Plan o f Community De v el o pmen t Bloc Grant Appli catio n . Thomaston , Ga., 1 976. 
Cit y o f Th oma s v i l l e. Hou s ing Ass ist a n ce Pl an of Community Development Bl o c Grant Ap p li c a ti on. Tho masville, Ga., 1976 . 
Ci ty of Toccoa. Hou si n g Ass istance P lan o f Communit y De v e l o pme n t Bloc Gran t Ap p l i c a t i o n . To c co a , Ga . 1 976. 
City of Va ldosta. Hou sing Assistance Pl an o f Commu ni t y De v e lopme nt Bl o c Gra n t App l i cat ion . Valdos t a , , Ga . , 
197 6 . 
Cit y of Vienna. Hous in g As s istance Plan o f Communit y De v elopment Blo c Gr ant App l icat ion. Vie nn a, Ga. , 1976. 
232 
 
 Ci ty of Was h i n gt on . Hou s i n g As sistance Plan of Commu n i t y De v el opme n t Bloc Gr ant Application . Wash in gt o n, Ga . , 1976 . 
Ci t y o f Waycro s s . Housing As s ist a nc e P lan of Communi t y De v e l opme n t Bloc Grant App li c ation . Wayc r o s s , Ga . , 1976. 
Ci ty o f We s t Poi nt . Housing Assistance Pl a n of Commu n i t y De v e l opme n t Bloc Grant Application. We s t Poi n t, Ga . , 1976 . 
Ci t y o f Win d e r. Housin g Assis ta nce Plan of Communi t y Deve lopmen t Bloc Grant Appl i c a t ion. Wind e r , Ga . , 1976 . 
Ci t y of Wrightsville. Housing Assi stance P lan of Commu n i t y Dev elopme n t Bloc Grant Applicat ion. Wr i g h t sv il l e , Ga . 1976. 
County of Bacon. Housing Assistance P lan of Communit y Devel opme n t Bloc Grant Ap pl i c a t i o n . Al ma , Ga . , 1976 . 
Coun t y of Bib b . Hou s i n g As s istance Plan o f Community Devel o pme n t Bloc Gr ant Applicatio n . Ma c o n , Ga., 1976 . 
County of Carroll . Hous ing Assistance P lan of Communi t y Deve lopme n t Bloc Grant Application. Ca r r o l l t o n, Ga . , 1 97 6. 
Coun t y o f Chatham. Housing Assistance Plan of Communi t y Developme n t Bloc Grant Appli cation. Savannah, Ga . , 1976 . 
Cou n ty of Cr awf o r d . Housi ng Assistance P l a n o f Commu n i t y De v e l opme n t Bloc Grant Application. Robe rta, Ga . , 1976 . 
Cou n t y o f Dad e. Hou s ing Assi s tance Plan of Commun i t y De v e lopme n t Blo c Gr a n t Appli cation. Trenton, Ga ., 1976 . 
Cou n t y of Dec a tur. Hou s in g Ass i stan ce Plan of Commun i t y Developmen t Bl oc Grant Applic a t i o n. Bainbr i d g e, Ga . , 1 97 6. 
Coun t y of DeKa lb. Housi ng Ass i s t a n c e P l a n of Commun i t y De v e l opme n t Bloc Grant App lication. Decatur, Ga. , 1976 . 
233 
 
 County o f Doo l y . Hou s i ng Assis tan ce P l a n of Communit y Deve lopment Bl oc Gr~nt Appl i c a t i o n . Vi e nna , Ga . , 1976 . 
Cou nt y of Dou gh e r t y . Hou s i n g Assistance Pl a n o f Communit y De vel op ment Bl o c Grant Ap p l i c a t i o n. Al bany, Ga . , 1 976 . 
Co u nty of Dou glas . Housi n g As sis tan c e Pl a n o f Commun ity De v el opment Bl o c Gran t Appli c atio n . Do u glasvil l e , Ga . , 1976 . 
County o f Gi lmer. Housing Assistan ce P l a n o f Community Deve l o pment Bloc Gr an t App l i c at i o n . Ellijay, Ga . , 1976 . 
Co unt y of Gla s c o c k . Hou sin g Ass ist ance Plan of Community De v e l opme n t Bloc Gran t App l i c at i o n . Gi b s o n , Ga. , 1 976. 
County o f Gwi nnett. Housin g Assistance P lan of Community De ve lopmen t Blo c Gr a n t Ap p lication . Lawre n cev i l le , Ga . , 1 976 . 
Coun ty o f Hanco c k. Housing Assi s t a nc e P l a n of Communi ty De ve lop men t Bl o c ' Gr a n t App li c at i o n. Sp arta , Ga ., 1 9 7 6. 
County of Houston . Hou si n g As s i s tan ce Plan of Community De v el opme n t Bloc Gra n t App l i c a t i o n . Wa rne r Rob i n s , Ga . , 1 976. 
Cou n t y of Je f f e r son . Hous in g Assist a nce P l an of Commu n i t y De v elopment Bl o c Gran t Application. Loui s v i l l e , Ga ., 1976 . 
Cou n t y o f Lib e r t y. Ho us ing As sis tance Pl a n of Commun i t y De v e lopme nt Blo c Gr a n t Appli cat i o n. Hin esvi ll e, Ga., 1976 . 
Co u n ty of Mar i o n. Hous i n g As si s t a nc e P lan o f Communi ty Dev e lopme n t Blo c Gr a nt Ap p l ic a t i o n. Buena Vi s ta , Ga . , 1 976 . 
Coun ty of McInt os h . Hou s i n g Ass ist an ce Plan o f Commu n i t y De v elopme nt Bl o c Gr a n t Appl i c at i o n. Dar i en, Ga . , 1976 . 
Count y o f Putnam . Hou s i n g Assis t ance Plan of Commun i ty Developme n t Bl o c Gr a n t Appl i c a t i o n . Ea t o nto n, Ga . , 197 6. 
23 4 
 
 Coun t y of Ri chmon d . Hou s i n g Assi stan c e Plan o f Community De v e l o pme n t Bl o c Gran t App l i cat i on . Augu s ta, Ga ., 1976 . 
Eaves , E l si e , How the Many Costs o f Hou s in g Fit To gether, Re s e a r c h P aper # 1 6 , Gove rnmen t P r i n t i n g Office, Wa s h i n g t o n , D . C . , 1 96 9. 
Ervin , Da v id E ., e t . a l ., La nd Us e Controls : Evaluating Econ omi c and Political Ef fect s. Cambridge , Mass., 1977. 
Ge o r gia De partmen t o f Huma n Resour ces , Human Resources Ind i c a t o r Mo d e l, At l a n t a , Ga ., 
Georg i a Departmen t of Human Re sources , Of f i c e o f Ag ing, Da t a Book on Aging , Atlant a , Ga. , 1976. 
Ge o r g i a De p a r t me n t of Commu n i t y Affa ir s / Stat e Offic e of Housing, Comparati v e Fe d eral Housi n g Program Data . Unpub l is hed . Atl anta , Ga . , 1 9 7 6 . 
Geo rg ia Departme nt o f Community Affai rs/S tat e Off ice of Housi n g, A Plann e d Sy stem fo r Ho us i n g De l ive r y in Appalach i a n Geo r g i a , Atl anta , Ga . , 197 5 . 
Ge o rgi a Depar t me n t o f Commu n i ty Affai r s/ Stat e Of f ice of Housing and Geor gia Residen t i a l Au t ho r it y , Georg i a Stat ewide Hou sing Nee d s Analys is , 1 9 7 0- 1 9 8 0, At lanta, Ga., 1976 . 
Georg ia Offi c e of Pl anni ng and Budget, Env iro nme n t a l Ass es s me n t : St a t e La n d Us e Eleme nt , Atlan t a, Ga. , 1 9 7 7 . 
Geo rgia Offi c e o f Pl a n ni ng an d Bu d get, Off ice of Ene r g y Resourc es, St a te o f Geo r g i a Ene r gy Cons e rv a t i o n Plan , Atla n t a , Ga . , Ma y , 1 977. 
Georgi a Offi c e of Planning a n d Budge t , Pub lic Facil i t i e s S t u dy , Atl a nt a , Ga ., 1 9 7 7 . 
Geo rg i a Mountains Area Plan ning a n d De v e lopme nt Comm i ss i o n, Ar e a wi de Hou sin g Program , Ga i nesvi l le , Ga., 1 9 7 6 . 
Georg i a Mou nt a ins Are a Plann ing and De v elopment Comm i s s i o n , Are a wi de Hou s i n g Policie s and S tr at e g ies P lan, Ga i n e s v i l l e , Ga ., April , 1 977 . 
He art of Ge o r g i a Ar e a Pl anning a nd De velopmen t Comm i s s i o n , Hou si n g Aggre g a te Market An a l y s i s , Eastman, Ga. , 1973. 
235 
 
 Housing Assistance Council, Rural Housing Goals and Gaps, A Review of Federally Subsidized Housing Production in Rural Areas, 1969-1975. Washington, D.C., 1975. 
Joint Center for Urban Studies of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, The Nations Housing, 1975-1985, Cambridge, Mass., 1977. 
McIntosh Trail Area Planning and Development Commission, Areawide Housing Plan, Griffin, Ga., June, 1976. 
Middle Georgia Area Planning and Development Commission, Housing Data File, Macon, Ga., 1971. 
Middle Flint Area Planning and Development Commission , Regional Development Plan, Phase II Regional Aggregat e Housing Market Analysis for the Middle Flint Area, Ellaville, Ga., 1972. 
National Association of Home Builders, Construction Component Costs for Single-Family Structures, Washington , D. C., 1976 . 
Northeast Georgia Are a Planning and Development Commission, Areawide Housing Element, Athens, Ga., April, 1977. 
North Georgia Area Planning and Development Commission, Areawide Housin g Element , Part I, Dalton, Ga . , June , 1977. 
Ocone e Ar e a Plannin g and De v e lopment Commission, Housing Ne e d s Anal y sis . Mill e dgev i l l e , Ga ., March, 1974 . 
Secretar y o f Ag r i cu l tu r e , Ru ra l Development Progress Re p o r t (Fourth An n u a l Report to the Se cretary of Agricultur e t o the Congress) , Washin gton , D.C., 1977 . 
Southeas t Geor g ia Ar ea Plannin g and Development Commission, Ar eawide Housin g Ne e ds Anal ysis , Wa y c r o s s, Ga. , 1977. 
Southern Bu ild i n g Code Congre ss, Southern Building Code Directory, 1976 . 
Southwest Geo r g ia Ar e a Plannin g a n d De velopment Commission, Ar e awi d e Housin g El e me nt, Camilla, Ga., April, 1977. 
United States Dep a r tment of Commer c e , Bureau of the Census, Construction Reports C-40 Housing Authorized by Building Perm i ts and Publi c Contr acts, Washington , D.C., 1970-76. 
236 
 
 Uni ted States Dep artment of Commerce , Bur e a u of t h e Census and De p a r t me n t of Housin g and Urban De ve lopment, Ch a r a c t e r i s t i cs of New Hou s i n g, 1976, Co n st r u c t i o n Re po r ts C-25-76-1 3 , Ju l y , 1977. 
United St a t e s Depar t me nt o f Commerce, Bure au of Census 1970 Spe c ial Ta bu l a ti o n of Owner an d Re nt e r Occupied Uni t s by Li v i n g Conditio n , Geo r gia, Washington, D.C., 1973 . 
United St at e s De p a rtmen t o f Ho us i ng and Urb an Development (HUD) , Reh a b ili t at ion F i n a n c i n g Han dbo o k , Washington, D.C . , 1974. 
United S t a t es Dep ar tme nt o f Hous i ng a n d Ur b a n Development ( HUD) Sec ti o n 8 Exis tin g Housing Assi s tance Payments Pro gr am Pro c e s sing Handbook ; Substanti a l Rehab ilitation Han dbook an d New Const r u c t i o n Ha n db o o k, Wa sh ingt o n , D.C. 
United S t at e s Wa t e r Re s o u r c e s Cou n c i l, 1976 Na t i o n a l As s e s s me n t , P re l i mi n a r y Da ta, Was hingt on, D .C. , 1976. 
We st Virg i n i a Housing Deve lopmen t Fun d, Rural Homes Rehab i l i t a t i o n a nd Eva l u a t i o n Pro gr am F i nal Re p o r t, 1975 . 
23 7 
 
 I . Surv e y Responde n t s - St a t e Housing Rehabil itation Su r v ey 
Ci t y of Alma, P r oj ec t Rehabilitation Of fic e Su r ve y Da t a , 1977 . 
City of Athe ns, Dep a rtment of Commu n i t y De v e lopment, Housin g Re h a b i litatio n Survey Data, 1977. 
City o f Atl an t a , Departme nt of Commu n i t y a nd Human De velopmen t , Housin g Rehabil i t a ti o n Surve y Da t a , 1977. 
City of Doug las , De p a rtme nt of Commu ni t y De v e lopme nt, Housing Rehabilitation Survey Data, 1977 . 
Ci t y o f East Po i n t , De p a r t me n t of Commu n i t y Developmen t , Hous ing Re h a b i l i t atio n Su r vey Da t a, 1977 . 
Cit y of Eatont on , Department o f Community Development Hous in g Re hab ili t a ti on Survey Data, 1 9 7 7 . 
Cit y of Ma c o n, Dep a r t ment of Commu n i t y De velopment , Hou sing Re habili tation Surv e y Da t a , 1977. 
Ci t y o f Mi l l edgevill e , De p artment of Communit y De v e l opment, Ho u si ng Re habi l i t ation Su r ve y Dat a, 1 9 7 7 . 
Ci t y o f Thoma s v i l l e , Department of Communit y Devel o pment , Hou sing Re hab il itat i o n Su r v e y Data , 1 9 7 7 . 
Ci t y of Toccoa, Communit y Deve l opm e n t De p a r t me n t , Ho us in g Rehabilitation Sur v e y Da t a , 1977 . 
Ci t y of Wa shingto n, Publi c Hous in g Au t h o r i t y , Ho u si n g Re h a b i l i t a t i on Su r v ey Data , 1977 . 
Ci t y o f Wi n d er, Cit y Hall , Hous ing Re habi li t a t i o n Da t a, 1977. 
De Ka lb Count y, Hous i n g Ass i st a n ce Coord i nat o r , Hou s i n g Re h a b i li t a t i o n Su r ve y Da ta, 1 97 7 . 
Ga i n esv i l l e/ Ha l l Coun t y , De p a r t me n t o f Communit y De v e l opme n t , Hous i n g Rehabi li t a tion Sur vey , 1977 . 
Mc Intos h County Dep ar tmen t of Communi ty De v e l opment , Ho us ing Re h a bil i tati on Surve y Da ta, 1977. 
Oc o n e e Ar ea Plan ni ng an d Deve lopmen t Commi ss ion, Hou s i n g Re h a b i l i t a t ion Surv e y Da ta, 1977 . 
Ri c hmo n d County, Count y Commissioner s, Hou sing Re h a b i l i t a t i o n Sur v e y Da ta , 197 7 . 
238 
 
 RESPONDENTS - SOH ATTITUDI NAL SURVEY 
 
COMMUNI TY ACT ION AGENCY 
Allied Community Services , I nc . Jackso n County , Ga . 
Eco nomi c Opport u n i ty Atl ant a , In c., Fult o n, Do uglas , Gwinnett, Ro c k d a l e Coun t i e s 
Atl a nta , Ga. 
Mi dd l e Geor gia Communit y Ac t ion Age n c y 
Wa rn e r Robins, Ga . 
Nort h Geo r gia Community Ac t i on Ag e n c y , Inc., 
J a s p er, Ga . 
S las h Pine Commu n it y Ac t i o n Agen c y , I n c ., 
Wa y cro s s , Ga . 
Ta llat o on a Equ a l Op p o r t u n i t y Agen cy , In c . , 
Carter sv i l l e , Ga . 
We s t Ce n t r a l Ge o r g i a Commu nit y Ac t i o n Age ncy, In c . , 
Mo n t e z uma , Ga . 
COMMUNI TY DEVELOPMENT CI T IE S 
Ai l ey Ga i n e s v i l l e Tr e nt on Wa y n e s b o r o 
COOPERAT I VE EXTENS ION SERVI CE , UN I VERS I TY OF GEORGIA 
Lo c a t i o n o f Co u nty Ex t e n t i o n Se r v i c e Pe r sonnel 
Br a n t l ey Coun ty Ea r ly Co u nt y Mc I n t o s h Co u n t y Sc r e v e n Cou nt y Te l f a i r Co u n ty Wor th Coun t y 
 
DAY CARE CENTER 
Commu nit y Day Care an d Deve l opment Cent er , 
Ca r t e rsvil le , Ga . 
Dawson County Da y Care Center , Dawsonvi l l e , Ga. 
Go o d Shepherd Da y Car e Center , Aug u s t a , Ga . 
Mar t in Lu t he r King Center for So c ial Ch an ge Da y Care Center , 
At l a nt a , Ga . 
Peach Da y Ca re Cen t e r , Fo r t Va l l e y , Ga. 
Save t h e Ch ildren Commu n i t y De velopme nt Ce nte r, Nort hwe s t Georg i a Fountain 
LaFay e t te, Ga. 
Shel ter i ng Arm s Day Car e Center Ca b b a g e t own 
At l ant a , Ga. 
Wh i t f i e l d - Da lt o n Da y Ca r e Cen ter Da l ton, Ga . 
DEPARTMENT OF FAM I LY AND CH ILDREN SERVI CES 
Ba rtow Count y , Carte r s v i l l e , Ga. 
Berr ien Co u nt y, Na s hv i l l e , Ga . 
Can d l er Coun t y , Met t e r, Ga. 
Cl ay Count y , Fo r t Ga ine s, Ga. 
Cowe t a Coun t y , Newnan , Ga . 
Echol s County , 
Fan n in Coun ty, Blu e Ri d g e , GA . 
Ha b e r sham Count y, Clarke svi l l e , Ga. 
Lee Co u nt y , Le e s b u r g , Ga. 
 
239 
 
 DEP ARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHI LDREN SERVI CES (Co n t i n u e d ) 
McDuff ie Coun t y , Th oms o n , Ga. 
McInt o sh Cou n t y, Da r ien , . Ga . 
Northeas t Geo r gia, Athen s , Ga. De par t men t o f Human Re sour c e s 
South Metropolit an Cou n t y, Co v i n g t o n , Ga . Di str i c t Of f i c e, Newton , Cty. 
Wal ton Co un t y , Logansville , Ga. 
Wi lkE3 Coun ty, Washin g t on , Ga . 
Wi lk i n s o n Count y, I r wi n t o n , Ga. 
HOUSING AUTHORITY 
Ashbu rn Athens Bl ue Ridge Ca l h oun Carter s vi ll e / Bar t ow Co u n t y Co rde l e Doo l y Coun t y Glyn n Cou n ty Mac on / Bi b b Co u n t y Mill e dgev i l l e Re i dsville Ringo l d Seni o a Sylve s ter Thomas ville/Boston Toc co a Wa yc r o s s Wr i g ht s v i l l e 
SENIOR CI TI ZEN AGENCY 
At h e n s Commun i t y Coun c i l on Ag in g Cl a r k e Count y , At hen s , Ga . 
Ma r i e t t a - Co b b Commun i t y Servi c e s Center 
Cobb Co unty Se nior Citizen Progr am Ma r i e t t a , Ga. 
Oconee Cent er fo r Senior Citizens , 
 
YOUTH SERVI CES 
Chatham Count y . p e p a r t me n t 'o f Human ResouFc es Yout h Ce n te r 
Savanna h , Ga. 
Wh i t f i e l d Coun t y De p a r t me n t o f Huma n Resource s Yout h Se r v i c e s Divis i on 
Da l t o n , Ga . 
OTHERS 
Pu b li c Sc ho o l , Perry Home s , Ama n d a Laud e r s, FS W/VT, 
Atl a n t a, Ga. 
Ge o r g i a Mount a in s Plan n ing a n d Devel opment Comm ission 
No rthern Ar e a o f White Coun ty , Ga . 
Ti tl e XX, Social Se r vic e s, Bu t t s Cou nt y , Ga . 
Berry Co l l e g e Chi l d Deve lopmen t Cente r , F loyd Cou nt y 
Rome, Ga . 
Court Ser v i ce s , Dep a r t me n t of Human Se r vice s , Lib e r t y , Lo ng, McInt o sh , Br y a n Cou nt i e s 
Gr ady Hos p i t a l F a mi l y P lan n i ng Pro g ram, Fu l t on and DeKalb Cty . 
At lan ta , Ga . 
Court Ser v i c e s , Wash i n gt o n Co un ty , Sand e r s vil le , Ga . 
 
240 
 
 ~ 
 
L 
 
II~Ni~~JI1IIIlflI11~~i~1!IUI'lllll 
 
3 2108 05354 1390