lake angelus citywesternes.com/oakgov/reports/lake angelus city dir.pdf · 2019. 12. 6. · tagalog...

Lake Angelus city

City Profiles Lake Angelus city

Lake Angelus city I.17.1 Draft Report for Internal Review: 12/6/2019

Lake Angelus city

DEMOGRAPHICS

Population Estimates

Table I.17.1, at right shows the population for Lake

Angelus city. As can be seen, the population in Lake

Angelus city increased from 290 persons in 2010 to

308 person in 2018, or by 6.2 percent.

Several pieces of data presented in the profile are only

available at the county level. A sub-set of the county

level data are presented here to give a more complete

view of Lake Angelus city. Although a city may span

several counties, for the county level data pieces, was

selected. For a more in-depth county level view, please

refer to in Volume II of this profile.

Census Demographic Data

In the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses, the

Census Bureau released several tabulations in addition

to the full SF1 100 percent count data including the

one-in-six SF3 sample. These additional samples, such

as the SF3, asked supplementary questions regarding

income and household attributes that were not asked

in the 100 percent count. In the 2010 decennial

census, the Census Bureau did not collect additional

sample data, such as the SF3, and thus many important

housing and income concepts are not available in the

2010 Census.

To study these important concepts the Census Bureau

distributes the American Community Survey every year

to a sample of the population and quantifies the results as one-, three- and five-year averages. The

one-year sample only includes responses from the year the survey was implemented, while the five-

year sample includes responses over a five-year period. Since the five-year estimates include more

responses, the estimates can be tabulated down to the Census tract level, and considered more robust

than the one or three year sample estimates.

Table I.17.1 Population Estimates

Lake Angelus city

Census Population Estimates

Year Population Percent Yearly

Change

2000 316 .

2001 314 -0.6%

2002 311 -1.0%

2003 309 -0.6%

2004 307 -0.6%

2005 303 -1.3%

2006 300 -1.0%

2007 297 -1.0%

2008 294 -1.0%

2009 292 -0.7%

2010 290 -0.7%

2011 302 4.1%

2012 304 0.7%

2013 308 1.3%

2014 309 0.3%

2015 308 -0.3%

2016 308 0.0%

2017 310 0.6%

2018 308 -0.6%



Diagram I.17.1 Population

Lake Angelus city 2000 – 2018 Census Estimate Data

Population Estimates

Population by race and ethnicity through 2017 in shown in Table I.17.2. The white population

represented 98.5 percent of the population in 2017, compared with black populations accounting

for 0.0 percent of the population in 2017. Hispanic households represented 9.6 percent of the

population in 2017.

Table I.17.2 Population by Race and Ethnicity

Lake Angelus city 2010 Census & 2017 Five-Year ACS

Race 2010 Census 2017 Five-Year ACS

Population % of Total Population % of Total

White 279 96.2% 257 98.5%

Black 1 0.3% 0 0.0%

American Indian 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Asian 8 2.8% 4 1.5%

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Other 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Two or More Races 2 0.7% 0 0.0%

Total 290 100.0% 261 100.0%

Non-Hispanic 289 99.7% 236 90.4%

Hispanic 1 0.3% 25 9.6%

The change in race and ethnicity between 2010 and 2017 is shown in Table I.17.3. During this time,

the total non-Hispanic population was 236 persons in 2017. The Hispanic population was 25.



Table I.17.3 Population by Race and Ethnicity

Lake Angelus city 2010 Census & 2017 Five-Year ACS

Race 2010 Census 2017 Five-Year ACS

Population % of Total Population % of Total

Non-Hispanic

White 278 96.2% 232 98.3%

Black 1 0.3% 0 0.0%


Asian 8 2.8% 4 1.7%


Other 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


Total Non-Hispanic 289 100.0% 236 100.0%

Hispanic

White 1 100.0% 25 100.0%

Black 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


Asian 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


Other 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


Total Hispanic 1 100.0 25 100.0%

Total Population 290 100.0% 261 100.0%



The group quarters population was 0 in 2010, compared to 0 in 2000. Institutionalized populations

experienced a percent change between 2000 and 2010. Non-Institutionalized populations

experienced a percent change during this same time period.

Table I.17.4 Group Quarters Population

Lake Angelus city 2000 & 2010 Census SF1 Data

Group Quarters Type 2000 Census 2010 Census % Change

00–10 Population % of Total Population % of Total

Institutionalized

Correctional Institutions 0 % 0 % %

Juvenile Facilities . . 0 % .

Nursing Homes 0 % 0 % %

Other Institutions 0 % 0 % %

Total 0 100.0% 0 100.0% %

Non-Institutionalized

College Dormitories 0 % 0 % %

Military Quarters 0 % 0 % %

Other Non -Institutionalized 0 % 0 % %

Total 0 100.0% 0 100.0% %

Group Quarters Population 0 100.0% 0 100.0% %



The number of foreign born persons is shown in Table I.17.5. An estimated 1.5 percent of the

population was born in Canada , some 1.1 percent were born in Germany , and another 0.8 percent

were born in England .

Table I.17.5 Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population

Lake Angelus city 2017 Five-Year ACS

Number Country Number of Persons Percent of Total

Population

#1 country of origin Canada 4 1.5%

#2 country of origin Germany 3 1.1%

#3 country of origin England 2 0.8%

#4 country of origin Korea 2 0.8%

#5 country of origin Philippines 2 0.8%

#6 country of origin Afghanistan 0 0.0%

#7 country of origin Africa n.e.c 0 0.0%

#8 country of origin Albania 0 0.0%

#9 country of origin Argentina 0 0.0%

#10 country of origin Armenia 0 0.0%

Limited English Proficiency and the language spoken at home are shown in Table I.17.6. An

estimated 1.2 percent of the population speaks Spanish at home, followed by 0.8 percent speaking

Tagalog .

Table I.17.6 Limited English Proficiency and Language Spoken at Home

Lake Angelus city

2017 Five-Year ACS

Number Country Number of Persons Percent of Total

Population

#1 LEP Language Spanish 3 1.2%

#2 LEP Language Tagalog 2 0.8%

#3 LEP Language Arabic 0 0.0%

#4 LEP Language Chinese 0 0.0%

#5 LEP Language French, Haitian, or

Cajun 0 0.0%

#6 LEP Language German or other West Germanic languages

0 0.0%

#7 LEP Language Korean 0 0.0%

#8 LEP Language Other Asian and Pacific

Island languages 0 0.0%

#9 LEP Language Other Indo-European

languages 0 0.0%

#10 LEP Language Other and unspecified

languages 0 0.0%



Disability

Disability by age, as estimated by the 2017 ACS, is shown in Table I.17.7. The disability rate for

females was 10.9 percent, compared to 10.5 percent for males. The disability rate grew precipitously

higher with age, with 50.0 percent of those over 75 experiencing a disability.

Table I.17.7 Disability by Age

Lake Angelus city 2017 Five-Year ACS Data

Age

Male Female Total

Disabled Population

Disability Rate

Disabled Population

Disability Rate

Disabled Population

Disability Rate

Under 5 0 % 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

5 to 17 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

18 to 34 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

35 to 64 2 2.9% 0 0.0% 2 1.5%

65 to 74 3 14.3% 2 14.3% 5 14.3%

75 or Older 9 37.5% 12 66.7% 21 50.0%

Total 14 10.5% 14 10.9% 28 10.7%

The number of disabilities by type, as estimated by the 2017 ACS, is shown in Table I.17.8. Some

4.0 percent have an ambulatory disability, 2.1 percent have an independent living disability, and 0.0

percent have a self-care disability.

Table I.17.8 Total Disabilities Tallied: Aged 5 and Older

Lake Angelus city 2017 Five-Year ACS

Disability Type Population with

Disability

Percent with

Disability

Hearing disability 18 6.9%

Vision disability 2 0.8%

Cognitive disability 4 1.6%

Ambulatory disability 10 4.0%

Self-Care disability 0 0.0%

Independent living disability 5 2.1%



Education

Education and employment data, as estimated by the 2017 ACS, is presented in Table I.17.9. In

2017, some 122 persons were employed and 0 were unemployed. This totaled a labor force of 122

persons. The unemployment rate for Lake Angelus city was estimated to be 0.0 percent in 2017.

Table I.17.9 Employment, Labor Force and Unemployment


Employment Status 2017 Five-Year ACS

Employed 122

Unemployed 0

Labor Force 122

Unemployment Rate 0.0%

In 2017, 98.4 percent of households in Lake Angelus city had a high school education or greater.

Table I.17.10 High School or Greater Education


Education Level Households

High School or Greater 124

Total Households 126

Percent High School or Above 98.4%

As seen in Table I.17.11, some 19.3 percent of the population had a high school diploma or

equivalent, another 12.9 percent have some college, 36.1 percent have a Bachelor’s Degree, and

30.9 percent of the population had a graduate or professional degree.

Table I.17.11 Educational Attainment

Lake Angelus city

2017 Five-Year ACS Data

Education Level Population Percent

Less Than High School 2 0.9%

High School or Equivalent 45 19.3%

Some College or Associates Degree 30 12.9%

Bachelor’s Degree 84 36.1%

Graduate or Professional Degree 72 30.9%

Total Population Above 18 years 233 100.0%



ECONOMICS

Labor Force

Table I.17.12, shows the labor force statistics for Oakland County from 1990 to the present. Over

the entire series the lowest unemployment rate occurred in 2000 with a rate of 2.6 percent. The

highest level of unemployment occurred during 2009 rising to a rate of 13.0 percent. This compared

to a statewide low of 3.6 in 2000 and statewide high of 13.7 percent in 2009. Over the last year, the

unemployment rate in Oakland County decreased from 3.5 percent in 2017 to 3.3 percent in 2018,

which compared to a statewide decrease to 4.1 percent.

Table I.17.12

Labor Force Statistics Oakland County

1990 - 2018 BLS Data

Year

Oakland County Statewide

Unemployment Rate Unemployment Employment Labor Force Unemployment

Rate

1990 36,305 568,400 604,705 6.0% 7.6%

1991 45,205 559,027 604,232 7.5% 9.2%

1992 46,161 573,564 619,725 7.4% 9.0%

1993 36,907 590,400 627,307 5.9% 7.2%

1994 26,935 605,463 632,398 4.3% 6.0%

1995 22,710 611,547 634,257 3.6% 5.3%

1996 22,974 624,984 647,958 3.5% 4.9%

1997 20,152 637,112 657,264 3.1% 4.3%

1998 19,458 649,774 669,232 2.9% 3.9%

1999 19,140 660,710 679,850 2.8% 3.7%

2000 17,757 661,139 678,896 2.6% 3.6%

2001 27,109 634,356 661,465 4.1% 5.2%

2002 33,489 613,059 646,548 5.2% 6.3%

2003 36,211 608,748 644,959 5.6% 7.2%

2004 36,453 606,421 642,874 5.7% 7.0%

2005 35,221 607,355 642,576 5.5% 6.8%

2006 35,882 598,658 634,540 5.7% 7.0%

2007 36,277 589,416 625,693 5.8% 7.0%

2008 40,300 569,123 609,423 6.6% 8.0%

2009 78,817 527,731 606,548 13.0% 13.7%

2010 73,177 548,699 621,876 11.8% 12.6%

2011 58,221 552,660 610,881 9.5% 10.4%

2012 50,751 565,454 616,205 8.2% 9.1%

2013 49,021 579,614 628,635 7.8% 8.8%

2014 40,898 590,414 631,312 6.5% 7.2%

2015 29,950 604,103 634,053 4.7% 5.4%

2016 27,253 626,153 653,406 4.2% 5.0%

2017 23,490 641,085 664,575 3.5% 4.6%

2018 22,462 648,277 670,739 3.3% 4.1%



Diagram I.17.2, shows the employment and labor force for Oakland County. The difference between

the two lines represents the number of unemployed persons. In the most recent year, employment

stood at 641,085 persons, with the labor force reaching 664,575, indicating there were a total of

23,490 unemployed persons.

Diagram I.17.2

Employment and Labor Force Oakland County

1990 – 2018 BLS Data



Unemployment

Diagram I.17.3, shows the unemployment rate for both the State and Oakland County. During the

1990’s the average rate for Oakland County was 4.6 percent, which compared to 6.0 percent

statewide. Between 2000 and 2010 the unemployment rate had an average of 5.9 percent, which

compared to 7.1 percent statewide. Since 2010, the average unemployment rate was 6.5 percent.

Over the course of the entire period the Oakland County had an average unemployment rate that

lower than the State, 5.7 percent for Oakland County, versus 6.9 statewide.

Diagram I.17.3 Annual Unemployment Rate

Oakland County 1990 – 2018 BLS Data



Earnings:

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (B.E.A.) produces regional economic accounts, which provide a

consistent framework for analyzing and comparing individual state and local area economies.

Diagram I.17.4, shows real average earnings per job for Oakland County from 1990 to 2017. Over

this period the average earning per job for Oakland County was 66,078 dollars, which was higher

than the statewide average of 55,363 dollars over the same period.

Diagram I.17.4 Real Average Earnings Per Job

Oakland County BEA Data 1990 - 2017



Diagram I.17.5, shows real per capita income for the Oakland County from 1990 to 2017, which is

calculated by dividing total personal income from all sources by population. Per capita income is a

broader measure of wealth than real average earnings per job, which only captures the working

population. Over this period, the real per capita income for Oakland County was 60,715 dollars,

which was higher than the statewide average of 40,295 dollars over the same period.

Diagram I.17.5

Real Per Capita Income Oakland County

BEA Data 1990 - 2017

Poverty

The rate of poverty for Lake Angelus city is shown in Table I.17.13. In 2017, there were an estimated

7 persons living in poverty. This represented a 2.7 percent poverty rate, compared to 1.2 percent

poverty in 2000. In 2017, some 0.0 percent of those in poverty were under age 6, and 28.6 percent

were 65 or older.

Table I.17.13 Poverty by Age

Lake Angelus city 2000 Census SF3 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data

Age 2000 Census 2017 Five-Year ACS

Persons in Poverty % of Total Persons in Poverty % of Total

Under 6 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

6 to 17 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

18 to 64 2 50.0% 5 71.4%

65 or Older 2 50.0% 2 28.6%

Total 4 100.0% 7 100.0%

Poverty Rate 1.2% . 2.7% .



HOUSING

Housing Production

The Census Bureau reports building permit authorizations and “per unit” valuation of building

permits by county annually. Single-family construction usually represents most residential

development in the county. Single-family building permit authorizations in Lake Angelus city

increased from 0 authorizations in 2017 to 2 in 2018.

The real value of single-family building permits increased from 0 dollars in 2017 to 850,000 dollars

in 2018. This compares to an increase in permit value statewide, with values rising from 253,139

dollars in 2017 to 260,191 dollars in 2018. Additional details are given in Table I.17.14.

Table I.17.14 Building Permits and Valuation

Lake Angelus city Census Bureau Data, 1980–2018

Year

Authorized Construction in Permit Issuing Areas Per Unit Valuation,

(Real 2017$)

Single-

Family

Duplex

Units

Tri- and

Four-Plex

Multi-Family

Units

Total

Units

Single-Family

Units

Multi-Family

Units

1980 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1981 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1982 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1986 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1987 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1988 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1989 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1990 4 0 0 0 4 492,372 0

1991 3 0 0 0 3 693,163 0

1992 1 0 0 0 1 360,715 0

1993 1 0 0 0 1 403,587 0

1994 1 0 0 0 1 313,627 0

1995 1 0 0 0 1 276,455 0

1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1997 4 0 0 0 4 635,380 0

1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1999 4 0 0 0 4 846,943 0

2000 2 0 0 0 2 901,315 0

2001 1 0 0 0 1 1,202,103 0

2002 2 0 0 0 2 837,532 0

2003 1 0 0 0 1 869,100 0

2004 2 0 0 0 2 823,460 0

2005 1 0 0 0 1 798,611 0

2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2007 1 0 0 0 1 1,558,659 0

2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 1 0 0 0 1 2,585,105 0

2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2016 2 0 0 0 2 702,824 0

2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2018 2 0 0 0 2 850,000 0



Diagram I.17.6 Single-Family Permits

Lake Angelus city Census Bureau Data, 1980–2017

Diagram I.17.7

Total Permits by Unit Type Lake Angelus city

Census Bureau Data, 1980–2017



Housing Sales

In 2019 there were 4 sales, averaging $1,341,356. This compares to 6 sales averaging $1,304,167

in 2018.

Table I.17.15 Assessed Values

Lake Angelus city 2015 – 2019 Oakland County Assessor Data

Year Median Value Average Value Number of Sales Total Sales ($)

2015 650,000 650,000 1 650,000

2016 1,225,000 1,563,000 5 7,815,000

2017 1,275,000 1,275,000 2 2,550,000

2018 1,175,000 1,304,167 6 7,824,999

2019 1,159,000 1,341,356 4 5,365,425

Diagram I.17.8

Assessed Values and Number of Sales Lake Angelus city

Assessors Data 2015-2019



Housing Characteristics

Households by type and tenure are shown in Table I.17.16. Family households represented 73.8

percent of households, while non-family households accounted for 26.2 percent. These changed

from 76.9 percent and 23.1 percent, respectively.

Table I.17.16 Household Type by Tenure

Lake Angelus city 2010 Census SF1 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data

Household Type 2010 Census 2017 Five-Year ACS

Households Households Households % of Total

Family Households 100 76.9% 93 73.8%

Married-Couple Family 92 92.0% 88 94.6%

Owner-Occupied 86 93.5% 86 97.7%

Renter-Occupied 6 6.5% 2 2.3%

Other Family 8 8.0% 5 8.6%

Male Householder, No Spouse Present

4 50.0% 5 80.0%



Female Householder, No Spouse

Present 4 50.0% 0 80.0%

Owner-Occupied 4 100.0% 0 %

Renter-Occupied 0 0.0% 0 %

Non-Family Households 30 23.1% 33 26.2%



Total 130 100.0% 126 100.0%

Table I.17.17 below shows housing units by type in 2010 and 2017. In 2010, there were 151 housing

units, compared with 146 in 2017. Single-family units accounted for 100.0 percent of units in 2017,

compared to 100.0 in 2010. Apartment units accounted for 0.0 percent in 2017, compared to 0.0

percent in 2010.

Table I.17.17 Housing Units by Type

Lake Angelus city

2010 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data

Unit Type 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year ACS

Units % of Total Units % of Total

Single-Family 151 100.0% 146 100.0%

Duplex 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Tri- or Four-Plex 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Apartment 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Mobile Home 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Boat, RV, Van, Etc. 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 151 100.0% 146 100.0%



Table I.17.18, shows housing units by tenure from 2010 to 2017. By 2017, there were 146 housing

units. An estimated 93.7 percent were owner-occupied, and 13.7 percent were vacant.

Table I.17.18 Housing Units by Tenure

Lake Angelus city 2010 Census & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data

Tenure 2010 Census 2017 Five-Year ACS


Occupied Housing Units 130 86.1% 126 86.3%

Owner-Occupied 120 92.3% 118 93.7%


Vacant Housing Units 21 13.9% 20 13.7%

Total Housing Units 151 100.0% 146 100.0%

Households by income for the 2010 and 2017 5-year ACS are shown in Table I.17.19. Households

earning more than 100,000 dollars per year represented 67.5 percent of households in 2017,

compared to 73.1 percent in 2010. Meanwhile, households earning less than 15,000 dollars

accounted for 4.8 percent of households in 2017, compared to 0.0 percent in 2000.

Table I.17.19 Households by Income

Lake Angelus city 2010 & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data

Income 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year ACS

Households % of Total Households % of Total

Less than $15,000 0 0.0% 6 4.8%

$15,000 to $19,999 3 2.3% 2 1.6%

$20,000 to $24,999 0 0.0% 2 1.6%

$25,000 to $34,999 4 3.1% 2 1.6%

$35,000 to $49,999 6 4.6% 7 5.6%

$50,000 to $74,999 9 6.9% 9 7.1%

$75,000 to $99,999 13 10.0% 13 10.3%

$100,000 or More 95 73.1% 85 67.5%

Total 130 100.0% 126 100.0%



Table I.17.20 shows households by year home built for the 2010 and 2017 5-year ACS data. Housing

units built between 2000 and 2009, account for 13.8 percent of households in 2010 and 8.7 percent

of households in 2017. Housing units built in 1939 or earlier represented 27.8 percent of households

in 2017 and 25.4 percent of households in 2010.

Table I.17.20 Households by Year Home Built


Year Built 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year ACS

Households % of Total Households % of Total

1939 or Earlier 33 25.4% 35 27.8%

1940 to 1949 6 4.6% 4 3.2%

1950 to 1959 14 10.8% 25 19.8%

1960 to 1969 19 14.6% 14 11.1%

1970 to 1979 13 10.0% 18 14.3%

1980 to 1989 6 4.6% 8 6.3%

1990 to 1999 21 16.2% 11 8.7%

2000 to 2009 18 13.8% 11 8.7%

2010 or Later . . 0 0.0%

Total 130 100.0% 126 100.0%

The distribution of unit types by race are shown in Table I.17.21. An estimated 100.0 percent of

white households occupy single-family homes, while percent of black households do. Some 0.0

percent of white households occupied apartments, while percent of black households do. An

estimated 100.0 percent of Asian, and percent of American Indian households occupy single-family

homes.

Table I.17.21 Distribution of Units in Structure by Race


Unit Type White Black American

Indian Asian

Native

Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders

Other Two or

More Races

Single-Family 100.0% % % 100.0% % % %

Duplex 0.0% % % 0.0% % % %

Tri- or Four-Plex 0.0% % % 0.0% % % %

Apartment 0.0% % % 0.0% % % %

Mobile Home 0.0% % % 0.0% % % %

Boat, RV, Van, Etc. 0.0% % % 0.0% % % %

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



The disposition of vacant units between 2010 and 2017 are shown in Table I.17.22. By 2017, for

rent units accounted for 0.0 percent of vacant units, while for sale units accounted for 20.0 percent.

“Other” vacant units accounted for 25.0 percent of vacant units, representing a total of 5 “other”

vacant units.

Table I.17.22 Disposition of Vacant Housing Units

Lake Angelus city 2010 Census & 2017 Five-Year ACS Data

Disposition 2010 Census 2017 Five-Year ACS


For Rent 2 9.5% 0 0.0%

For Sale 3 14.3% 4 20.0%

Rented Not Occupied 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Sold Not Occupied 0 0.0% 6 30.0%

For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use 8 38.1% 5 25.0%

For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Other Vacant 8 38.1% 5 25.0%

Total 21 100.0% 20 100.0%

The age of a structure influences its value. As shown in Table I.17.23, structures built in 1939 or

earlier had a median value of, 0 while structures built between 1950 and 1959 had a median value

of 930,600 and those built between 1990 to 1999 had a median value of 1,575,000. The newest

structures tended to have the highest values and those built between 2010 and 2013 and from 2014

or later had median values of 0 and, 0 respectively. The total median value in Lake Angelus city was,

1,071,400.

Table I.17.23 Owner Occupied Median Value by Year

Structure Built Lake Angelus city

2017 5-Year ACS Data

Year Structure Built Median Value

1939 or earlier 0

1940 to 1949 0

1950 to 1959 930,600

1960 to 1969 800,000

1970 to 1979 843,800

1980 to 1989 0

1990 to 1999 1,575,000

2000 to 2009 2,000,001

2010 to 2013 0

2014 or later 0

Median Value 1,071,400



Housing Problems

Households are classified as having housing problems if they face overcrowding, incomplete

plumbing or kitchen facilities, or cost burdens. Overcrowding is defined as having from 1.1 to 1.5

people per room per residence, with severe overcrowding defined as having more than 1.5 people

per room. Households with overcrowding are shown in Table I.17.24. In 2017, an estimated 0.0

percent of households were overcrowded, and an additional 0.0 percent were severely overcrowded.

Table I.17.24 Overcrowding and Severe Overcrowding


Data Source

No Overcrowding Overcrowding Severe Overcrowding

Total

Households % of Total Households % of Total Households % of Total

Owner

2010 Five-Year ACS 111 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 111

2017 Five-Year ACS 118 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 118

Renter

2010 Five-Year ACS 19 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 19

2017 Five-Year ACS 8 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8

Total

2010 Five-Year ACS 130 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 130

2017 Five-Year ACS 126 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 126

Incomplete plumbing and kitchen facilities are another indicator of potential housing problems.

According to the Census Bureau, a housing unit is classified as lacking complete plumbing facilities

when any of the following are not present: piped hot and cold water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or

shower. Likewise, a unit is categorized as deficient when any of the following are missing from the

kitchen: a sink with piped hot and cold water, a range or cook top and oven, and a refrigerator.



There were a total of 0 households with incomplete plumbing facilities in 2017, representing 0.0

percent of households in Lake Angelus city. This is compared to 0.0 percent of households lacking

complete plumbing facilities in 2010.

Table I.17.25 Households with Incomplete Plumbing Facilities

Lake Angelus city 2010 and 2017 Five-Year ACS Data

Households 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year ACS

With Complete Plumbing Facilities 130 126

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 0 0

Total Households 130 126

Percent Lacking 0.0% 0.0%

There were 0 households lacking complete kitchen facilities in 2017, compared to 130 households

in 2010. This was a change from 0.0 percent of households in 2010 to 0.0 percent in 2017.

Table I.17.26 Households with Incomplete Kitchen Facilities

Lake Angelus city 2010 and 2017 Five-Year ACS Data

Households 2010 Five-Year ACS 2017 Five-Year

ACS

With Complete Kitchen Facilities 130 126

Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 0 0

Total Households 130 126

Percent Lacking 0.0% 0.0%

Cost burden is defined as gross housing costs that range from 30 to 50 percent of gross household

income; severe cost burden is defined as gross housing costs that exceed 50 percent of gross

household income. For homeowners, gross housing costs include property taxes, insurance, energy

payments, water and sewer service, and refuse collection. If the homeowner has a mortgage, the

determination also includes principal and interest payments on the mortgage loan. For renters, this

figure represents monthly rent and selected electricity and natural gas energy charges.

In Lake Angelus city 26.2 percent of households had a cost burden and 14.3 percent had a severe

cost burden. Some 0.0 percent of renters were cost burdened, and 0.0 percent were severely cost

burdened. Owner-occupied households without a mortgage had a cost burden rate of 30.9 percent

and a severe cost burden rate of 18.2 percent. Owner occupied households with a mortgage had a

cost burden rate of 25.4 percent, and severe cost burden at 12.7 percent.



Table I.17.27 Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden by Tenure


Data Source Less Than 30% 31%-50% Above 50% Not Computed

Total Households % of Total Households % of Total Households % of Total Households % of Total

Owner With a Mortgage

2010 Five-Year ACS 36 58.1% 16 25.8% 10 16.1% 0 0.0% 62

2017 Five-Year ACS 39 61.9% 16 25.4% 8 12.7% 0 0.0% 63

Owner Without a Mortgage

2010 Five-Year ACS 40 81.6% 5 10.2% 4 8.2% 0 0.0% 49

2017 Five-Year ACS 28 50.9% 17 30.9% 10 18.2% 0 0.0% 55

Renter

2010 Five-Year ACS 12 63.2% 4 21.1% 0 0.0% 3 15.8% 19

2017 Five-Year ACS 6 75.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 25.0% 8

Total

2010 Five-Year ACS 88 67.7% 25 19.2% 14 10.8% 3 2.3% 130

2017 Five-Year ACS 73 57.9% 33 26.2% 18 14.3% 2 1.6% 126



Housing Problems by Income

Table I.17.28 shows the HUD calculated Median Family Income (MFI) for a family of four for Oakland

County. As can be seen in 2019 the MFI was 76,300 dollars, which compared to 71,600 dollars for

the State of Michigan.

Table I.17.28 Median Family Income

Oakland County 2000–2019 HUD MFI

Year MFI

State of

Michigan MFI

2000 63,200 55,400 2001 66,500 57,600 2002 69,900 60,600

2003 66,700 60,500 2004 66,800 60,700 2005 67,800 61,300

2006 69,700 62,100 2007 66,700 62,100 2008 68,400 60,700

2009 71,000 63,800 2010 69,800 62,800 2011 64,400 59,600

2012 65,300 60,400 2013 64,400 59,600 2014 64,600 60,400

2015 67,700 62,400 2016 66,900 62,500 2017 68,600 64,100

2018 70,900 67,300 2019 76,300 71,600

Diagram I.17.9

Estimated Median Family Income Oakland County vs. Michigan

HUD Data: 2000 – 2019



Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)

The following table set shows Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data.

Housing Problems by Income, Race, and Tenure

Diagram I.17.10

Total Housing Problems by Race Lake Angelus city

HUD CHAS Data: 2012 – 2016

Diagram I.17.11 Owner Housing Problems by Race

Lake Angelus city




Diagram I.17.12

Renter Housing Problems by Race Lake Angelus city




Table I.17.29 through Table I.17.34 show households with housing problems by race/ethnicity.

These tables can be used to determine if there is a disproportionate housing need for any racial or

ethnic groups. If any racial/ethnic group faces housing problems at a rate of ten percentage points or

high than the jurisdiction average, then they have a disproportionate share of housing problems.

Housing problems are defined as any household that has overcrowding, inadequate kitchen or

plumbing facilities, or are cost burdened (pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing). In

Lake Angelus city, 0 Black homeowner households face housing problems, 4 Asian households, and

0 Hispanic homeowner households face housing problems.

Table I.17.29 Percent of Homeowner Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race

Lake Angelus city

2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data

Income

Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic (Any

Race) Total

White Black Asian American

Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race

With Housing Problems

$0 to $22,890 100.0% % % % % % % 100.0%

$22,891 to $38,150 100.0% % % % % % % 100.0%

$38,151 to $61,040 100.0% % % % % % % 100.0%

$61,041 to $76,300 100.0% % % % % % % 100.0%

Above $76,300 33.3% 0.0% 100.0% % % % % 34.7%

Total 43.4% 0.0% 100.0% % % % % 43.9%

Without Housing Problems

$0 to $22,890 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

$22,891 to $38,150 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

$38,151 to $61,040 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

$61,041 to $76,300 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

Above $76,300 66.7% 100.0% 0.0% % % % % 65.3%

Total 56.6% 100.0% 0.0% % % % % 56.1%



Table I.17.30 Homeowner Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race

Lake Angelus city 2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data

Income

Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic

(Any Race)

Total White Black Asian

American Indian

Pacific Islander

Other Race


$0 to $22,890

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$22,891 to

$38,150 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$38,151 to $61,040

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$61,041 to $76,300

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Above

$76,300 30 0 4 0 0 0 0 34

Total 46 0 4 0 0 0 0 50


$0 to

$22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$38,151 to $61,040

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to

$76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300

60 4 0 0 0 0 0 64

Total 60 4 0 0 0 0 0 64

Not Computed

$0 to $22,890

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$38,151 to

$61,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total

$0 to $22,890

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$22,891 to

$38,150 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$38,151 to $61,040

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$61,041 to $76,300

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Above

$76,300 90 4 4 0 0 0 0 98

Total 106 4 4 0 0 0 0 114



In total, some 0 households face housing problems in Lake Angelus city. Of these, some 0 black

households, 0 Asian households, and 0 Hispanic renter households face housing problems.

Table I.17.31 Renter Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race

Lake Angelus city


Income

Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic (Any

Race)


American Indian

Pacific Islander

Other Race


$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$38,151 to $61,040

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to

$76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to

$38,150 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$38,151 to $61,040

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Total 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

Not Computed

$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$38,151 to

$61,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total

$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$38,151 to $61,040

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to

$76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Total 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14



Table I.17.32 Percent of Renter Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income

Non-Hispanic by Race Hispanic (Any Race)


American Indian

Pacific Islander

Other Race


$0 to $22,890 % % % % % % % %

$22,891 to

$38,150 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

$38,151 to $61,040

% % % % % % % %

$61,041 to $76,300

% % % % % % % %

Above

$76,300 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

Total 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%


$0 to $22,890 % % % % % % % %

$22,891 to $38,150

100.0%

% % % % % % 100.0%

$38,151 to

$61,040 % % % % % % % %

$61,041 to $76,300

% % % % % % % %

Above $76,300

100.0%

% % % % % % 100.0%

Total 100.0

% % % % % % % 100.0%

Overall, there are 50 households with housing problems in Lake Angelus city. This includes 0 black

households, 4 Asian households, 0 American Indian, 0 Pacific Islander, and 0 “other” race

households with housing problems. As for ethnicity, there are 0 Hispanic households with housing

problems. This is shown in Table I.17.34.



Table I.17.33 Percent of Total Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income


(Any Race) Total


Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race


$0 to $22,890

100.0% % % % % % % 100.0%

$22,891 to $38,150

50.0% % % % % % % 50.0%

$38,151 to

$61,040 100.0% % % % % % % 100.0%

$61,041 to $76,300

100.0% % % % % % % 100.0%

Above $76,300

30.0% 0.0% 100.0% % % % % 31.5%

Total 38.3% 0.0% 100.0% % % % % 39.1%


$0 to

$22,890 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

$22,891 to $38,150

50.0% % % % % % % 50.0%

$38,151 to $61,040

0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

$61,041 to

$76,300 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

Above $76,300

70.0% 100.0% 0.0% % % % % 68.5%

Total 61.7% 100.0% 0.0% % % % % 60.9%



Table I.17.34 Total Households with Housing Problems by Income and Race

Lake Angelus city


Income


(Any Race) Total


Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race


$0 to $22,890 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$22,891 to $38,150 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$38,151 to $61,040 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$61,041 to $76,300 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Above $76,300 30 0 4 0 0 0 0 34

Total 46 0 4 0 0 0 0 50


$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 70 4 0 0 0 0 0 74

Total 74 4 0 0 0 0 0 78

Not Computed

$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total

$0 to $22,890 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$22,891 to $38,150 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

$38,151 to $61,040 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$61,041 to $76,300 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Above $76,300 100 4 4 0 0 0 0 108

Total 120 4 4 0 0 0 0 128



These racial/ethnic groups were also disproportionately impacted by severe housing problems, as

seen in Table I.17.38. Severe housing problems include overcrowding at a rate of more than 1.5

persons per room and housing costs exceeding 50 percent of the household income. Some 0 black

homeowner households face severe housing problems, as well as 0 Asian homeowner households,

and 0 Hispanic homeowner households.

Table I.17.35 Percent of Homeowner Households with Severe Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income



American

Indian

Pacific

Islander

Other

Race

With A Severe Housing Problem

$0 to $22,890 100.0

% % % % % % % 100.0%

$22,891 to $38,150

0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

$38,151 to

$61,040 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

$61,041 to $76,300

50.0% % % % % % % 50.0%

Above $76,300 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% % % % % 3.9%

Total 10.5% 0.0 0.0% % % % % 9.8%

Without A Severe Housing Problems

$0 to $22,890 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

$22,891 to

$38,150

100.0

% % % % % % % 100.0%

$38,151 to $61,040

100.0%

% % % % % % 100.0%

$61,041 to $76,300

50.0% % % % % % % 50.0%

Above $76,300 95.7% 100.0% 100.0% % % % % 96.1%

Total 89.5% 100.0% 100.0% % % % % 90.2%



Table I.17.36

Percent of Renter Households with Severe Housing Problems by Income and Race Lake Angelus city


Income



American Indian

Pacific Islander

Other Race


$0 to $22,890 % % % % % % % %

$22,891 to

$38,150 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

$38,151 to $61,040

% % % % % % % %

$61,041 to $76,300

% % % % % % % %

Above $76,300 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

Total 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%


$0 to $22,890 % % % % % % % %

$22,891 to $38,150

100.0%

% % % % % % 100.0%

$38,151 to $61,040

% % % % % % % %

$61,041 to

$76,300 % % % % % % % %

Above $76,300 100.0

% % % % % % % 100.0%

Total 100.0

% % % % % % % 100.0%



Table I.17.37 Percent of Total Households with Severe Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income


(Any Race) Total


Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race


$0 to $22,890 100.0% % % % % % % 100.0% $22,891 to $38,150 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0%

$38,151 to $61,040 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0% $61,041 to $76,300 50.0% % % % % % % 50.0%

Above $76,300 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% % % % % 3.6%

Total 9.4% 0.0% 0.0% % % % % 8.8%


$0 to $22,890 0.0% % % % % % % 0.0% $22,891 to $38,150 100.0% % % % % % % 100.0%

$38,151 to $61,040 100.0% % % % % % % 100.0% $61,041 to $76,300 50.0% % % % % % % 50.0%

Above $76,300 96.2% 100.0% 100.0% % % % % 96.4%

Total 90.6% 100.0% 100.0% % % % % 91.2%



Table I.17.38 Total Households with Severe Housing Problems by Income and Race


Income


(Any Race) Total


Indian Pacific

Islander Other Race


$0 to $22,890 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$22,891 to $38,150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Above $76,300 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Total 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12


$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

$38,151 to $61,040 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$61,041 to $76,300 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Above $76,300 100 4 4 0 0 0 0 108

Total 116 4 4 0 0 0 0 124

Not Computed

$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total

$0 to $22,890 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$22,891 to $38,150 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

$38,151 to $61,040 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

$61,041 to $76,300 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

Above $76,300 104 4 4 0 0 0 0 112

Total 128 4 4 0 0 0 0 136



As seen in Table I.17.40, the most common housing problem tends to be housing cost burdens. More

than 42 households have a cost burden and 12 have a severe cost burden. Some 0 renter households

are impacted by cost burdens, and 0 are impacted by severe cost burdens. On the other hand, some

42 owner-occupied households have cost burdens, and 12 have severe cost burdens.

There are a total of 42 owner-occupied and 0 renter-occupied households with a cost burden of

greater than 30 percent and less than 50 percent. An additional 12 owner-occupied 0 renter-

occupied households had a cost burden greater than 50 percent of income. Overall there are 79

households without a housing problem.

Table I.17.39 Percent of Housing Problems by Income and Tenure


Housing Problem $0 to $22,890 $22,891 to

$38,150 $38,151 to

$61,040 $61,041 to

$76,300 Above

$76,300 Total

Owner-Occupied

Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities

% % % % % %

Severely Overcrowded with > 1.51

people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing)

% % % % % %

Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5

people per room (and none of the above problems)

% % % % % %

Housing cost burden greater that

50% of income (and none of the above problems)

100.0% % % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Housing cost burden greater than


% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Zero/negative income (and none

of the above problems) % % % % % %

has none of the 4 housing problems

% 0.0% % % 86.7% 82.3%

Total 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 90.8% 89.5%

Renter-Occupied

Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities

% % % % % %

Severely Overcrowded with > 1.51

people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing)

% % % % % %

Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5

people per room (and none of the above problems)

% % % % % %

Housing cost burden greater that


0.0% % % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Housing cost burden greater than


% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Zero/negative income (and none of the above problems)

% % % % % %

has none of the 4 housing problems

% 100.0% % % 13.3% 17.7%

Total 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.2% 10.5%



Table I.17.40 Housing Problems by Income and Tenure


Housing Problem $0 to

$22,890

$22,891 to

$38,150

$38,151 to

$61,040

$61,041 to

$76,300

Above

$76,300 Total

Owner-Occupied

Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0

Severely Overcrowded with > 1.51 people per

room (and complete kitchen and plumbing) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none of the above problems)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Housing cost burden greater that 50% of income (and none of the above problems)

4 0 0 4 4 12

Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income

(and none of the above problems) 0 4 4 4 30 42


0 0 0 0 0 0

has none of the 4 housing problems 0 0 0 0 65 65

Total 4 4 4 8 99 119

Renter-Occupied


Severely Overcrowded with > 1.51 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing)

0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0

Housing cost burden greater that 50% of income


Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and none of the above problems)

0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0


Total 0 4 0 0 10 14

Total


Severely Overcrowded with > 1.51 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing)

0 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0

Housing cost burden greater that 50% of income


Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and none of the above problems)

0 4 4 4 30 42


0 0 0 0 0 0


Total 4 8 4 8 109 133

Cost Burdens

For owner occupied housing, elderly non-family households are most likely to be impacted by

housing cost burdens, with 80.0 percent of these households having a cost burden or severe cost

burden. For lower income owner households, elderly non-family households and large families are

most likely to experience cost burdens. Some 100.0 percent of elderly non-family and percent of

large family households below 30 percent HAMFI face cost burdens or severe cost burdens. These

data are shown in Table I.17.41



Table I.17.41 Owner-Occupied Households by Income and Family Status and Cost Burden

Lake Angelus city


Income Elderly

Family

Small

Family

Large

Family

Elderly

Non-Family

Other

Household Total

No Cost Burden

$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 0 0 0 0 0 0

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 25 25 4 4 4 62

Total 25 25 4 4 4 62

Cost Burden

$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 4 0 0 0 0 4

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 4 0 4

$61,041 to $76,300 0 4 0 0 0 4

Above $76,300 10 10 0 4 4 28

Total 14 14 0 8 4 40

Severe Cost Burden

$0 to $22,890 4 0 0 4 0 8

$22,891 to $38,150 0 0 0 0 0 0

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0 0 4 4

Above $76,300 4 4 0 4 0 12

Total 8 4 0 8 4 24

Cost Burden Not Computed

$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 0 0 0 0 0 0

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total

$0 to $22,890 4 0 0 4 0 8

$22,891 to $38,150 4 0 0 0 0 4

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 4 0 4

$61,041 to $76,300 0 4 0 0 4 8

Above $76,300 39 39 4 12 8 102

Total 47 43 4 20 12 126



Renter households are impacted at a higher rate by cost burdens than owner households. Some 16

renter occupied households faced cost burdens, compared to 50.8 percent of owner occupied

households. Of these, there are 0 renter households with incomes less than 30 percent HAMFI facing

housing problems.



Table I.17.42 Renter-Occupied Households by Income and Family Status and Cost Burden


Income Elderly Family

Small Family

Large Family

Elderly Non-Family

Other Household

Total

No Cost Burden

$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 0 4 0 0 0 4

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 0 4 4 0 4 12

Total 0 8 4 0 4 16

Cost Burden

$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 0 0 0 0 0 0

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0

Severe Cost Burden

$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 0 0 0 0 0 0

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cost Burden Not Computed

$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 0 0 0 0 0 0

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total

$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 0 4 0 0 0 4

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 0 4 4 0 4 12

Total 0 8 4 0 4 16



In total, some 39 households face cost burdens, and 10 face severe cost burdens. This includes 113

owner households and 10 renter households, as seen in Table I.17.43.

Table I.17.43 Households with Cost Burden by Tenure and Race


Race No Cost

Burden Cost Burden

Severe Cost

Burden

Not

Computed Total

Owner-Occupied

White 60 35 10 0 105

Black 4 0 0 0 4

Asian 0 4 0 0 4

American Indian 0 0 0 0 0

Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0

Other Race 0 0 0 0 0

Hispanic 0 0 0 0 0

Total 64 39 10 0 113

Renter-Occupied

White 10 0 0 0 10

Black 0 0 0 0 0

Asian 0 0 0 0 0




Hispanic 0 0 0 0 0

Total 10 0 0 0 10

Total

White 70 35 10 0 115

Black 4 0 0 0 4

Asian 0 4 0 0 4




Hispanic 0 0 0 0 0

Total 74 39 10 0 123



Lead-Based Paint Risks

Table I.17.44 shows the risk of lead-based paint for households with young children present. As seen

therein, there are an estimated 0 households built between 1940 and 1979 with young children

present, and 4 built prior to 1939.

Table I.17.44 Vintage of Households by Income and Presence of Young

Children Lake Angelus city


Income One or more

children age 6 or younger

No children age 6 or younger

Total

Built 1939 or Earlier

$0 to $22,890 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 0 8 8

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0

Above $76,300 4 24 28

Total 4 32 36

Built 1940 to 1979

$0 to $22,890 0 4 4

$22,891 to $38,150 0 0 0

$38,151 to $61,040 0 4 4

$61,041 to $76,300 0 4 4

Above $76,300 0 49 49

Total 0 61 61

Built 1980 or Later

$0 to $22,890 0 4 4

$22,891 to $38,150 0 0 0

$38,151 to $61,040 0 4 4

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0

Above $76,300 4 35 39

Total 4 43 47

Total

$0 to $22,890 0 8 8

$22,891 to $38,150 0 8 8

$38,151 to $61,040 0 8 8

$61,041 to $76,300 0 4 4

Above $76,300 8 108 116

Total 8 136 144



Elderly Housing Needs

Table I.17.45 shows the rate of housing problems for elderly households. Some 19 elderly and 16

extra-elderly households have housing problems. Of these, some 4 elderly households with housing

problems have incomes less than 30 percent HAMFI, and 4 extra-elderly households have incomes

below 30 percent HAMFI.

Table I.17.45 Households with Housing Problems by Income and Elderly Status


Income Elderly Extra-Elderly Non-Elderly Total


$0 to $22,890 4 4 0 8

$22,891 to $38,150 0 4 0 4

$38,151 to $61,040 0 4 0 4

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 4 4

Above $76,300 15 4 15 34

Total 19 16 19 54


$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 0 0 4 4

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 10 20 40 70

Total 10 20 44 74

Not Computed

$0 to $22,890 0 0 0 0

$22,891 to $38,150 0 0 0 0

$38,151 to $61,040 0 0 0 0

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 0 0

Above $76,300 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0

Total

$0 to $22,890 4 4 0 8

$22,891 to $38,150 0 4 4 8

$38,151 to $61,040 0 4 0 4

$61,041 to $76,300 0 0 4 4

Above $76,300 25 24 55 104

Total 29 36 63 128



Fair Housing Survey Results

Table I.17.46 If you work/reside in Oakland County:

Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Role Total

Do you live in Oakland County, but work in a different county?

Do you work in Oakland County, but live in a different county?

Do you live and work in Oakland County?

Missing

Total

Table I.17.47 What Community do you live in?

Lake Angelus city Fair Housing Survey

Community Number of

Respondents: Community

Number of Respondents:

Total



Table I.17.48 Role of Respondent?

Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Role Total

Homeowner

Renter/Tenant

Homeless

Missing

Total

Table I.17.49

If you work in the housing industry what is your primary role? Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Role Total

Housing Provider/ Landlord/ Property Manager

Appraiser

Contractor/Developer

Insurance Provider

Law/ Legal Services Provider

Lending/ Mortgage Provider

Government Employee

Service Provider

N/A

Missing

Total

Table I.17.50

Best Describes Current Housing? Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Familiarity Total

Single-family home

Duplex

Condo/Townhouse

Apartment building with 1-4 floors

Apartment building with 5 or more floors

Mobile Home

Homeless Shelter

Missing

Total



Table I.17.51

Do you currently rent from a housing authority, use a voucher, or receive some other form of rental assistance?


Response Total

Yes

No

Not Sure

Does not Apply

Missing

Total

Table I.17.52

If yes, what type of assisted housing do you live in? Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Tenure Total

Assisted/ Low-Income/ Senior Housing Complex

Permanent Supportive Housing

Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8)

Don’t Know

Other

Missing

Total

Table I.17.53

How long have you lived in your neighborhood?


Response Total

Less than 1 year

1-5 years

6-10 years

11-20 years

21-30 years

More than 30 years

Missing

Total



Table I.17.54

If you had a choice would you continue to live in your neighborhood?


Response Total

Yes

No

Not sure

Total

Table I.17.55 Which of the following were the most important

reasons you decided to live in your neighborhood? Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Reasons Total

To live near family and friends

To be close to work

Access to Goods and Services

To be near public transportation

Physical accessibility of the building

Nearby schools for my children/ grandchildren

Access to job opportunities

Neighborhood Safety

Affordability of Housing

I grew up here

No choice

Nowhere else to go



Table I.17.56 Neighborhood/Development


Question Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Don’t Know Missing

How would you rate each of the following aspects of your neighborhood/housing development:

Table I.17.57

Neighborhood/Development Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Question Easy Moderately Difficult Difficult Don’t Know Missing

Please indicate how easy it would be for you to get to each of the following places:



Table I.17.58

During the past five years, have you looked for a new place to live?


Response Total

Yes, looked for a home to rent

Yes, looked for a home to buy

No

Does not apply

Total

Table I.17.59 If yes, did you have trouble finding safe, quality housing that you could afford in a neighborhood

you would like to live in? Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Response Total

Yes

No

Don’t know

Total

Table I.17.60 If yes, do you think it was

because of any of the following: Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Reasons Total



Table I.17.61 Questions Regarding Fair Housing Complaints


Complaints Yes No Don’t

Know

Does Not

Apply Missing Total

If you have ever been discriminated against by your landlord, did you complain?

Were you satisfied with the outcome?

Table I.17.62 Questions Regarding Home Loan Applications

Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Applications Yes No Don’t Know

Does Not Apply

Missing Total

During the past five years have you applied for a loan to purchase a home, to refinance your mortgage, or

take equity out of your home?

Was the application you made during the past five years approved?



FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS

Table I.17.63

How familiar are you with fair housing laws? Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Familiarity Total

Very Familiar

Somewhat familiar

Not familiar

Missing

Total

Table I.17.64

Federal, State, and Local Fair Housing Laws Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Question Yes No Don't Know

Missing Total



Table I.17.65 Are you aware of any of these fair housing barriers in your community?


Question Yes No Don't

Know Missing Total



Table I.17.66 Are you and/or your community affected by lack of access to any of these factors listed below?

Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Question Not at

All Slightly Moderately Significantly Don’t Know Missing Total

Table I.17.67 Do you believe these issues are happening in your community? If so, how much are the issues impacting your

community? Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Question Not at

All Slightly Moderately Significantly Don’t Know Missing Total



About You and Your Household

Table I.17.68 What is your age?


Age Responses

Under 18

18-24

25-34

35-45

46-54

55-61

62 and older

Missing

Total

Table I.17.69 Persons in your household

Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey

Question Responses

How many people live in your household?

How many people under the age of 18 live in your household?



Table I.17.70 Disability and Accommodation


Disability & Accommodation Question Yes No Don’t Know Missing Total

Table I.17.71 What is the highest level of school that you have completed?


Education Responses

Grade school or some high school

High school degree or equivalent

Completed vocational/technical school

Some college but no degree

Bachelor’s degree

Master’s degree or higher

Missing

Total



Table I.17.72 Which of the following describes your current status?


Employment Responses

Employed full-time

Employed part-time

Unemployed and looking for work

Unemployed and not looking for work

Unable to work due to a disability

Stay-at-home caregiver or parent

Retired

Student

Other

Missing

Total

Table I.17.73 Do you consider yourself Hispanic, Latino, Latina or of

Spanish origin? Lake Angelus city

Fair Housing Survey Yes/No Responses

Yes, Hispanic/Latino/Latina, or of Spanish origin

No, not of Hispanic/Latino/Latina, or of Spanish origin

Missing

Total



Table I.17.74 What is your race?


Race Responses

Table I.17.75 What is your Gender?


Gender Responses

Male

Female

Transgender

Non-binary

Other

Prefer not to answer

Missing

Total

Table I.17.76 What was your household income in 2018


Income Responses

$0 to $50,000

$50,001 to $100,000

$100,001 or more

Missing

Total



Fair Housing Complaints

Table I.17.77 Fair Housing Complaints by Basis

Lake Angelus city HUD Fair Housing Complaints

Basis 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

Disability

Race

Familial Status

National Origin

Retaliation

Religion

Sex

Color

Total Basis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Complaints

0.0

Table I.17.78 Fair Housing Complaints by Closure


Basis 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

No cause determination

Litigation ended -

no discrimination found

Conciliation/settle

ment successful

Complaint withdrawn by

complainant without resolution


complainant after resolution

Administrative

hearing ended - discrimination found

Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Complainant

failed to cooperate

DOJ dismissal

Closed because trial has begun

Total Closures 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Complaints 0.0



Table I.17.79 Fair Housing Complaints by Issue


Issue 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or

services and facilities

Discriminatory

refusal to rent

Discrimination in terms/conditions/

privileges relating to rental

Discriminatory

refusal to rent and negotiate for rental

Discriminatory advertising, statements and

notices

Discriminatory financing

(includes real estate transactions)

Failure to make reasonable accommodation

Discriminatory

acts under Section 818 (coercion, Etc.)

False denial or representation of availability - sale

Discriminatory refusal to sell

Discrimination in

services and facilities relating to sale

Other discriminatory acts

Discrimination in the terms/conditions

for making loans

False denial or representation of

availability - rental

Discrimination in terms/conditions/

privileges relating to sale

Discriminatory

refusal to negotiate for rental

Discrimination in terms and conditions of

membership



Discrimination in the appraising of

residential real property

Discrimination in

the making of loans

Non-compliance

with design and construction requirements

(handicap)

Discrimination in services and

facilities relating to rental

Using ordinances

to discriminate in zoning and land use

Failure to permit reasonable modification

Otherwise deny or make housing unavailable

Discriminatory refusal to negotiate for sale

Discriminatory advertisement - rental

Denial of membership

None

Steering

Failure to provide accessible and

usable public and common user areas

Discrimination in the selling of residential real

property


availability

Other non-compliance with

design and construction requirements

Failure to provide an accessible building entrance

Discriminatory refusal to sell and negotiate for sale

Restriction of choices relative to a rental

Discriminatory acts under Section 901

(criminal)

Total Issues 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



Total Complaints 0.0



Fair Housing Complaints Found With Cause

Table I.17.80 Fair Housing Complaints by Basis


Basis 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

Disability

Race

Familial Status

National Origin

Retaliation

Religion

Sex

Color

Total Basis

Total Complaints

Found with Cause

Table I.17.81 Fair Housing Complaints by Closure


Basis 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

No cause determination

Litigation ended - no discrimination found

Conciliation/settleme

nt successful


complainant without resolution

Complaint

withdrawn by complainant after resolution

Administrative hearing ended - discrimination found

Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Complainant failed

to cooperate

DOJ dismissal

Closed because trial has begun

Total Closures



Total Complaints Found with Cause



Table I.17.82 Fair Housing Complaints by Issue


Issue 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or services and

facilities

Discriminatory refusal to rent

Discrimination in terms/conditions/privileges relating to rental

Discriminatory refusal to rent and negotiate for rental

Discriminatory advertising, statements and notices

Discriminatory financing (includes real estate transactions)

Failure to make reasonable accommodation

Discriminatory acts under Section 818 (coercion, Etc.)

False denial or representation of availability - sale

Discriminatory refusal to sell

Discrimination in

services and facilities relating to sale

Other discriminatory

acts

Discrimination in the terms/conditions for

making loans


availability - rental

Discrimination in terms/conditions/privile

ges relating to sale

Discriminatory refusal to negotiate for rental

Discrimination in terms and conditions of membership

Discrimination in the appraising of residential real property

Discrimination in the making of loans

Non-compliance with design and

construction requirements (handicap)

Discrimination in services and facilities relating to rental



Using ordinances to discriminate in zoning

and land use

Failure to permit reasonable

modification

Otherwise deny or make housing

unavailable

Discriminatory refusal to negotiate for sale

Discriminatory advertisement - rental

Denial of membership

None

Steering

Failure to provide accessible and usable

public and common user areas

Discrimination in the

selling of residential real property

False denial or

representation of availability

Other non-compliance

with design and construction requirements

Failure to provide an accessible building entrance

Discriminatory refusal to sell and negotiate for sale

Restriction of choices relative to a rental

Discriminatory acts

under Section 901 (criminal)

Total Issues

Total Complaints Found with Cause



Appendix

IDIS CHAS Tables

NA - 15: Table 1

0% - 30% of Area Median Income Lake Angelus city

2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data 0% - 30% of Area Median Income

Has one or more of four housing problems

Has none or more of four housing problems

Household has no/negative income, but non of the other housing problems

Total 4 0 0

White 4 0 0

Black 0 0 0

Asian 0 0 0

American Indian 0 0 0

Pacific Islander 0 0 0

Other Race 0 0 0

Hispanic 0 0 0

NA - 15: Table 2

30.1% - 50% of Area Median Income Lake Angelus city

2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data 30.1% - 50% of Area

Median Income

Has one or more of four

housing problems

Has none or more of four

housing problems

Household has no/negative income, but

non of the other housing problems

Total 4 4 0

White 4 4 0

Black 0 0 0

Asian 0 0 0



Other Race 0 0 0

Hispanic 0 0 0

NA - 15: Table 3

50.1% - 80% of Area Median Income


50.1% - 80% of Area Median Income




Total 4 0 0

White 4 0 0

Black 0 0 0

Asian 0 0 0



Other Race 0 0 0



Hispanic 0 0 0

NA - 15: Table 4


2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data 80.1% - 100% of Area Median Income




Total 4 0 0

White 4 0 0

Black 0 0 0

Asian 0 0 0



Other Race 0 0 0

Hispanic 0 0 0

NA - 20: Table 1 (Severe Housing Problems)

0% - 30% of Area Median Income Lake Angelus city

2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data 0% - 30% of Area Median Income




Total 4 0 0

White 4 0 0

Black 0 0 0

Asian 0 0 0



Other Race 0 0 0

Hispanic 0 0 0




Median Income


housing problems


housing problems



Total 0 8 0

White 0 8 0

Black 0 0 0

Asian 0 0 0



Other Race 0 0 0

Hispanic 0 0 0





2012–2016 HUD CHAS Data 50.1% - 80% of Area Median Income




Total 0 8 0

White 0 4 0

Black 0 0 0

Asian 0 0 0



Other Race 0 0 0

Hispanic 0 0 0




Median Income


housing problems


housing problems



Total 4 4 0

White 4 4 0

Black 0 0 0

Asian 0 0 0



Other Race 0 0 0

Hispanic 0 0 0

NA – 25


Housing Cost Burden 50% Not Computed

Total 74 39 10 0

White 70 35 10 0

Black / African American 4 0 0 0

Asian 0 4 0 0

American Indian 0 0 0 0

Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0

Other Race 0 0 0 0

Hispanic 0 0 0 0

Lake Angelus city


NA-10


Housing Problems with one or more Severe Housing Problems

Renter Owner

Number of Households Less Than

30% MFI

30% - 50% MFI

50% - 80% MFI

80% - 100%

MFI

Total Less Than

30% MFI

30% - 50% MFI

50% - 80% MFI

80% - 100%

MFI

Total

Having 1 or more of four housing problems

0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 8

Having none of four housing problems

0 4 0 0 4 0 4 4 4 12

Household has negative income, but none of the other housing problems

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NA-10 Table

Lake Angelus city 2012–2016 HUD C

lake angelus citywesternes.com/oakgov/reports/lake angelus city dir.pdf · 2019. 12. 6. · tagalog...

Documents