Trends l%etropolitan America, 1

AN INFORMATION REPORT Trends 0 l%etropolitan America, ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS Washington, D.C. 20575 February 977 M 08

PREFACE ACIR has maintained a continuing interest in metropolitan social and economic disparities and their implications for intergovernmental relations in central cities and suburbs since it published its study with that title in January 965. The Commission revisited the field in Volume of its Fiscal Balance study in October 967. Most recently, the Commission published selected data on central city suburban social and economic disparities in an appendix to its City Financial Emergencies report of July 973. This volume expands and updates data the Commission has published previously. Demographic data, in particular, covers a long time span, 900 to 973, to give the user an important historical perspective. Hopefully this publication will establish benchmark data which other scholars can use to illuminate new insights on the growth and development of urban America. Robert E, Merriam Chairman

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report represents a continuation of the valuable working relationship the ACIR staff has with the Maxwell School of Syracuse University and with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. After DHEW had commissioned Professor Seymour Sacks and the Syracuse Research Corporation to probe further into population trends in American cities and suburbs, ACIR requested and received permission to use part of the SRCHEW research to extend its reporting on social and economic disparities in urban America. Once the project got underway, Professor Sacks and members of the ACIR staff were encouraged to find additional data including some information about general revenue sharing not heretofore presented in this manner. ACIR is grateful to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for encouraging the publication of the data. The Commission expresses its special thanks to Professor Sacks and his two colleagues Professor Robert Ross of Union College and Professor George Palumbo of Wittenberg College who found and shaped the data for presentation in this volume. Staff involvement on the Commission's end of this research rested with Will Myers. Wayne F. Anderson Executive Director John Shannon Assistant Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary... Trends in Metropolitan America... 3 Highlights... 3 Where People Live... 3 Population Density... 4 Racial Composition... 4 Age Composition... 5 Per Capita Income... 5 Jobs... 6 Retail Trade... 6 Governments and Taxes... 7 Special Federal Aid to Cities... 8 Technical Note on Data and Terminology... 9 Tables. Population. Central Cities (cc) and Suburbs (occ). 900. 930. 960. 970. 973... 2. Central City Area Population as a Proportion of Total SMSA Population. 900.930. 960.970. 973... 4 3. Central City Acreage. 900. 930. 960. 970. 973... 7 4. Population Density in Central City Areas. 900. 930. 960. 970. 973... 20 5. Population in Central City Areas. by Race. 960 and970... 23 6. Change in Race Distribution of Central City Area Population. 960to 970... 7. Race Distribution of Population in Central City Areas. 960 and970... 29

8. Population by Age Groups in Central City Areas, 960 and 970.......... 32 9. Change in Population by Age Groups in Central City Areas, 960 and 970.......................................................... 0. Per Capita Income, Central City and Outside Central City Areas, 960 and 973........................................................... Index of Per Capita Income, Central City and Outside Central City Areas, 960 and 973.............................................. 2. Change in Employment by Place of Work, 960970..................... 3. Manufacturing Employment Inside (cc) and Outside Central City (occ) Areas, 963 and 972.......................................................... 4. Retail Sales Inside (cc) and Outside (occ) Central City Areas, 963 and 972............................................... 5. Percent Change in Retail Sales in Major Metropolitan Areas Between 963 and 972, for SMSAs, Central City (cc), Suburb (occ), and Central Business District (CBD)..................................... 6. Number of Underlying and Overlying Local Governments in Large Cities,972.... 7. Per Capita NonSchool Taxes, Central City and Overlying County, 972 and 975.......................................................... 8. Change in Per Capita NonSchool Taxes, Central City and Overlying County, 972 to 975......................................... 9. Per Capita General Revenue Sharing Entitlements, Sixth Entitlement Period, 97576......................................................... 20. Annual Rate of Change in Fiscal Capacity Indicators, Central City City and Outside Central City Areas.................................... 2. Many of Our Major Central Cities are Experiencing Financial Difficulty, Would You Favor or Oppose Special Federal Aid for These Central Cities?.... Appendix: Area Components of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas.....

SUMMARY Trend data on population, income, trade employment, and finances of the central cities in the 85 largest metropolitan areas of the United States show that central cities which cannot reach out to encompass the growth occurring outside their boundaries are in a dangerous condition of decline in economic and political importance. The relative decline of the economic base of these central cities is proceeding at a faster pace than the relative decline in the income of city residents as compared to suburban residents. Most of the central cities that closely fit this description are in the East and Midwest. They include Boston, Buffalo, New York City, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Louis. The central cities in the 85 largest metropolitan areas of the United States had a population of about 5 million in 970. Each of these areas, except Albany, had a central city population of 50,000 or more in 970. The Albany metropolitan area is included because it has been in previous ACIR reports on this subject.

TRENDS IN METROPOLITAN AMERICA* HIGHLIGHTS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE While the population of America's major metropolitan areas continlies to grow, many of the central cities have passed their peak population and are now characterized by population decline. More than half of the central cities in the 85 largest metropolitan areas lost population between 960 and 973 due both to the decline in the natural increase in population and to outmigration. (Table.) Major metropolitan areas in the South, West, and Midwest continue to grow in population while the major metropolitan areas in the East had, on the average, less population in 973 than in 970. (Table.) By 973, the major Eastern central cities, on average, contained only 34 percent of their metropolitan area population. Currently, Hartford, Boston, Newark, Patterson, and Pittsburgh contain as few as one in five persons residing in their metropolitan areas. (Table 2.) In only 2 of the 85 largest metropolitan areas does the population in the *See technical note on data and terminology on page 9 of the publication. central city represent as much as 60 percent of the total population. (Table 2.) The growth of the suburbs has characterized America since, at least, 930. Except in the South where central cities have annexed their suburbs, the central city proportion of the metropolitan area population has persistently declined. (Table 2.) The concentration of population in central cities remains most pronounced in the South where 2 of 27 central city areas contain an aboveaverage percentage (6%) of their metropolitan area population. (Table 2.) In the South and the West, most central cities in major metropolitan areas have expanded into surrounding territory from period to period since 900. while, all but three central cities in major Eastern metropolitan areas have had virtually unchanged boundaries since 930. In the Midwest, such central cities as Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Wichita, Grand Rapids, Kansas City, Omaha, Columbus, and Toledo have expanded their boundaries, following the pattern in the South and West, while other central cities such as Detroit, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Cleveland have

been hemmed in since 930 as have been the Eastern central cities. (Table 3.) POPULATION DENSITY Most major central cities are becoming less densely populated; some because they have added territory; others because they have lost people. Over the period 900 973, data on the number of persons per acre in central cities of major metropolitan areas show virtually all the major cities were "filling in" between 900 and 930. Since 960, and in some cases even earlier, many cities have begun to "thin out" because of both annexation of sparsely settled areas formerly outside the central city boundaries and central city population loss. (Table., 4. Only six central cities in the 85 largest SMSAs have a density as great as 20 persons per acre or 2,800 persons per square mile.' New York is in a class by itself with almost 40 persons per acre. Jersey City, Newark, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Boston all have a density of.20 or more persons per acre. (Table 4.) 'The following information may be helpful to use as a reference point in analyzing Table 4. Persons ~~uivalent to Population Per Acre Per Square Mile Example City 6,400 Los Angeles 9,600 Miami 2,800 Chicago 6,000 Jersey City 9,200 None 25,600 New York Population density per square mile for the U.S. in 970 was 57.5 persons. Among states, Rhode Island had the most population per square mile in 970902.5; Alaska has the leastless than one. Major central cities in the West and South, with the exception of San Francisco and Miami, are all much less densely settled, usually on the order of five to seven persons per acre. Oklahoma City represents the extreme case of a class of major central cities with very low density. It has one person per acre or about 640 persons per square mile, a density that reflects the fact that some central cities encompass suburban and rural areas. Major central cities outside the East could experience a doubling of population yet retain a density less than the average in Eastern central cities. If major central cities in the South and West continue to annex surrounding suburban jurisdications or consolidate with an overlying county, they may never experience the density of settlement attained in Eastern cities. (Table 4.) RACIAL COMPOSITION The population decline which characterized the major cities of the East between 960 and 970 reflected a substantial drop in white population during the decade. No major central city in the East showed a gain of white population from 960 to 970. The Midwest central cities that gained white population between 960 and 970 also each annexed an area at least 38 percent the size of the city at the start of the period. (Tables 3 and 5.) On average, in major central cities, the white percent of population declined from 82.8 to 78., while the black percent of population rose from 5.6 to 9.6 The remaining small percentage of the population falls under the classification "other nonwhite." (Table 7.) The rate of change in the black population of major cities was greatest in the

West, next greatest in the East, followed and two in the Midwest, had fewer elby the Midwest, and least in the South. derly persons in their population in 970 The largest rates of change occurred than in 960. Hartford, Newark, and Rowhere the proportion of black popula chester, among these, were the cities tion was lowest to start with. (Table 6.) where the elderly as a proportion of total population did not rise. (Table 9.) On average, the major cities in the South still had a higher proportion of blacks in their total population in 970 than did major cities in other regions. (Table 7.) Significant numbers of other nonwhite population, other than blacks, occur only in New York, Chicago, Honolulu, and several California cities. While all cities gained other nonwhite population between 960 and 970, in general, the percentage of central city area population represented by this group remains less than 2 percent. (Table 6.) AGE COMPOSITION Major cities in all regions, on average, had a greater proportion of older popula Pion in 970 than they had in 960. (Table 9. In general, where central city population was trending downward, the downward trend was less steep for the elderly population. Where the central city population trended upward, the trend was steeper for the elderly population. Thus, the rate of change in elderly population, as contrasted to youth and working age population, was greater in major central cities with a few exceptions. The exceptions were Columbus (Ohio), Toledo, Madison, and San Jose, PER CAPITA INCOME* Per capita income is generally lower in the major central cities of the country than in their suburbs. The exceptions are those major central cities such as Indianapolis, Wichita, and Omaha as well as the major central cities of the South which encompass both city and suburban population within the city limits. (Table 0.) Major central cities, particularly in the East, enjoyed a clear per capita income advantage over their surrounding areas in 960. By 973, the central city per capita income advantage over its suburbs was a phenomena confined largely to the South and West. Indeed, by 973, not one central city in the East and only three in the Midwest had greater per capita income than their suburban area. (Table 0.) In all, a mere of the major central cities in the 85 largest metropolitan areas held their own or improved their per capita income position relative to their suburbs between 960 and 973. Of these major cities, five were in the South. Except for Louisville, the five major cities in the South expanded their *The Bureau of the Census now makes intercensal all which sub estimates of per capita income on a county and stantially between 960 and 970 and municipal basis for the use of the US. Treasury Indianapolis, Jacksonville, and Nashville Department in distributing general revenue sharing funds. The latest available data provide per capita all Of which consolidated with their Overincome estimates for the year 973comparable to the lying County. (Tables 3 and 9). data presented in the 960 and 970 Censuses of Only eight central cities, six in the East Population. (Tables 0 and.)

CORRECTION Under Per Capita Income on page 5, the boldfaced type sentence in the second paragraph should read "~ajor central cities, on the average, enjoyed a clear ' cut per capita income advantageover their surrounding areas in 960."

boundaries between 960 and 973. In the Midwest, Indianapolis and Wichitatwo of the also extended their boundaries substantially after 960. (Table 0.) In 960, per capita income in central cities in the South was significantly below the national average the regional mean being 0.89 of the national mean. By 973, the regional mean per capita income in central cities of the South had moved up to 0.96, not greatly, different than the nationwide average central city per capita income. Similarly, in Southern suburban areas, per capita income moved closer to the national average. (Table.) Albuquerque, El Paso, Corpus Christi, Memphis, Tulsa, Mobile, Columbus, (Ga.), Shreveport, and Jackson appear to contain virtually all of the high income persons in their metropolitan areas. Per capita income in the area outside these central cities is sharply lower than per capita income in the central city. (Table.) To depict the trend in the location of employment in the 85 largest metropolitan areas, the Journey To Work data reported in 960 and 970 population censuses have been analyzed. This analysis of employment by place of work shows that in the decade of the 960s an increasing proportion of jobs in major metropolitan areas were located outside the central city. Major central cities in the East suffered an actual loss of jobs. In other regions, major central cities held their own as the focus of employment if they were able to expand their territory. Generally, where central city acreage remained relatively unchanged over the decade, job expansion was significantly greater outside than inside the central city. (Tables 2 and 3.) In the South, seven central cities (Memphis, El Paso, San Antonio, and Tulsa the annexing cities and the citycounty consolidations of Columbus (Ga.), Jacksonville, and Nashville) contained more than 80 percent of the manufacturing jobs in their metropolitan areas in both 963 and 972. All seven cities acquired the territory with employment centers during the period. Between 963 and 972 only three major central cities in the South lost manufacturing employment Atlanta, New Orleans, and Richmond. (Table 3.) In the Midwest, the central cities that were big gainers in manufacturing employment between 963 and 972 were also cities that expanded their boundaries Fort Wayne, and Wichita, along with the consolidated citycounty of Indianapolis. (Tables 3 and 3.) When the data on change in employment by place of work is associated with the data on manufacturing employment, it appears that central cities are becoming less the locus of manufacturing activity in urban America and, proportionately at least, more the locus of other economic activities. While manufacturing employment declined in many major cities, these cities experienced no decline or a modest increase in total employment by place of work. (Tables 2 and 3.) RETAIL TRADE Retail trade volume in the major metropolitan areas of the United States grew much slower in the central city than in the suburbs between 963 and 972. The

exceptions to this generalization were the annexing cities of Wichita, Omaha, Tulsa, Knoxville, Memphis, Corpus Christi, and San Jose, and the citycounty consolidations of Columbus (Ga.), Indianapolis, and Jacksonville, which, in effect, absorbed their suburbs during this period. (Table 4.) Trade volume in the major central cities no longer represents the majority of retail trade in the nation's 85 largest metropolitan areas. In the South, where major central cities have expanded to encompass suburban growth, major cities continue to account for the majority of SMSA retail trade volume. In other regions, central cities account for less than half the regional trade volume on average. (Table 4.) Retail sales in central business districts (CBD) of major central cities across the country have fallen in absolute terms despite substantial increases in prices over the period 963972. Retail sales tend to be increasingly dispersed across the metropolitan area away from the CBD, away from the central city area, and into the suburbs. (Table 5.) GOVERNMENTS AND TAXES Major central cities in the United States are not the sole local government exercising jurisdiction over their residents. Every major central city, with the sole exception of Baltimore, shares its territory with at least one and frequently several other independent local governments. In addition, although no systematic information is available to document the practice, borrowing and other financial authority in many large cities is delegated to dependent bodies such as school boards and housing and redevelopment authorities. (Table 6.) Because local government structure is determined by state laws which vary, general statements about the structure of major metropolitan areas cannot portray the variety and number of governmental units and their diverse responsibilities. (Table 6.) Since the advent of Federal general revenue sharing, new data have become available on taxes of general purpose local governments. Per capita nonschool taxes are shown for central city governments and any overlying county government in Table 7.* The pressure of per capita nonschool taxes is heaviest in the central city governments in the East, next heaviest in the West, followed by the Midwest, and lightest in the South. (Table 7.) Federal general revenue sharing has generated data showing that between *Where general purpose governments impose taxes for schools, an adjustment is made to exclude the equivalent of such levies in order to obtain comparable data on taxes imposed for nonschool purposes. Because county government includes city as well as noncity residents it is useful to have an indication of the overall relative fiscal activity of city and county governments. The exhibit column in Table 7 depicts the relative importance of city versus county government. Where the number of the column is less than one, the scale of central city government activity as measured by total nonschool city taxes is larger than is the scale of county government as measured by total nonschool county taxes. Where the number is greater than one, the scale of county government activity as measured by total nonschool county taxes is greater than central city government by the corresponding measure. In the case of Pittsburgh, for example, its total nonschool taxes in 975 amounted to $63.2 million, just slightly less than Allegheny County's nonschool taxes of $66.7 million, hence, the scale number of.0. In the case of Chicago, its nonschool taxes in 975 amounted to $596.7 million while Cook County's amounted to $52. million, producing a scale number of 0.26.

972 and 975, per capita nonschool taxes of central city governments rose at a faster rate than per capita nonschool taxes of their overlying county governments in all regions except the South. (Table 8.) Reflecting state rather than local fiscal decisions, per capita nonschool taxes in only five cities and eight counties were lower in 975 than in 972. Milwaukee among major central cities stands out as the only place where both city and county nonschool taxes were lower in 975 than in 972, in this case a clearcut state decision to provide local property tax relief. (Table 8.) The fiscal plight of the central city governments was one of the many issues intended to be addressed by the Federal general revenue sharing program. Per capita general revenue sharing entitlements go in substantially greater volume to the central cities than to counties and other governments outside the central city in the 85 largest metropolitan areas. (Table 9.) Baltimore, Newark, Philadelphia, and Pittsburg all receive per capita revenue sharing entitlements at least twice as large as the average per capita entitlement of governments in their suburbs. A similar relationship prevails between the central city government and governments in the suburbs in eight of the 23 metropolitan areas in the Midwest, 5 of the 28 in the South, and six of the 20 in the West. In general, Federal general revenue sharing funds act to decrease fiscal disparities as between the central city government and the governments of suburban jurisdictions in the major metropolitan areas of the nation. (Table 9.) With a few exceptions, such as Philadelphia, New York, and Washington, D.C., the central city governments in the 85 largest metropolitan areas are dependent mainly on the real property tax for revenue. Comparable property tax base data for central cities is not available because both the definition of the tax base and assessments vary from state to state in accordance with law and local practice. In connection with their reporting on municipal bonds, Moody's Investors Services collects property tax base information from most major cities. This information was used to develop an annual growth rate in the property tax base over the years 9660 to 97372. The annual growth rate is based on the average of yeartoyear changes on the assumption that assessment practices remain essentially unchanged from one year to the next in the same city. Where there was a known change in assessment practices, data involving that year were excluded in computing the average growth rate. Where information was available for a central city government that had remained essentially unchanged in territorial extent over the period 960970, an income growth rate was calculated as an indication of the underlying economic revenue potential of the residents of the central city. Where both assessed value and income measures are available, the growth rate in assessed value for the city is substantially below the growth rate in income for the same city. Thus, the relative decline in the economic base of the city is proceeding at a somewhat faster pace than the relative decline in the income of city residents. (Table 20.) SPECIAL FEDERAL AID TO CITIES Following the newspaper coverage of New York City's financial crisis, a rash of

stories emphasized the potential for similar financial difficulties in other major cities. During March 976, in the following question and response, AClR attempted to gauge the public attitude on whether the Federal government should offer additional financial help to central cities. Many of our major central cities are experiencing financial difficulty. Would you favor or oppose special Federal aid for these central cities? Favor Oppose No opinion Although the polling results indicate a clear plurality favor special Federal aid for central cities in financial difficulties, the results within respondent categories indicate a wide divergence of opinion. For example, 70 percent of the respondents in the Northeast would favor a Federal program and only 22 percent would oppose it, whereas only 39 percent of the respondents in the South would favor the program and 46 percent would oppose it. (Table 2.) Opponents of special Federal aid to cities exceed proponents in such respondent categories as farmers and farm laborer, dwellers in rural and new suburb areas, the Midwest region as well as the South, and those who own their own homes. (Table 2.) Well aboveaverage support for the idea is indicated for respondents in the youngest age group, city multifamily and apartment dwellers, the Eastern region, and nonwhites. (Table 2.) TECHNICAL NOTE ON DATA AND TERMINOLOGY Metropolitan area refers to the standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) used by the Bureau of the Census in its 970 Census of Population reports. This data represents the benchmark for all other data presented in this report. Except in the New England states, a standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) is a county or group of contiguous counties which contains at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants or more, or "twin cities" with a combined population of at least 50,000. In addition to the county, or counties, containing such a city or cities, contiguous counties are included in an SMSA if, according to certain criteria, they are socially and economically integrated with the central city. In a few cities, where portions of counties outside the SMSA as defined in 967 were annexed to the central city, the population living in those counties is not considered part of the central city. In the New England states, SMSAs consist of towns and cities instead of counties. Each SMSA must include.at least one central city, and the complete title of an SMSA identifies the central city or cities. The population living in SMSAs is designated as the metropolitan population. The population is subdivided as living in the central city area (cc) and living outside the central city area (occ). For purposes of this report, all metropolitan areas are analyzed in terms of their boundaries for the 970 Census of Population. These boundaries have been used consistently for the population data as far back as 900 as well as currently. Thus, the St. Louis SMSA with a population of 2,362,000 in 970 compares to its SMSA with a population of 858,000 in

900. Also, the Tulsa SMSA with a population of 476,000 in 970 had a mere 6,000 population in 900 and the city of Tulsa did not exist. Population in the central city or cities in each SMSA in each year is based on the boundaries then in existence. Thus, Tulsa had no population in 900 because it did not exist, but it had a population of 335,000 by 973. The constituent parts of each of the 85 largest SMSAs in 970 are listed in the Appendix to this report. The fiscal data apply to the specific governments identified in the tables except in the case of the general revenue sharing entitlements. Thus, in the case of Chicago, central city means only the municipal government of Chicago and county means only the Cook County government. The treatment of fiscal data on a per capita basis may involve double counting of population where city residents are also served by an overlying county. The enactment of Federal general revenue sharing opened a source of uptodate fiscal data on local units of general government. On behalf of the U.S. Treasury Department, the Bureau of the Census, Governments Division, collects information on local taxes and reports such information for each local government after deducting an amount equivalent to the taxes for local support of schools in those cities and counties where such taxes are intermingled with taxes for nonschool purposes. The nonschool tax amounts are used along with per capita income to determine tax effort one element in the formula used to distribute general revenue sharing funds to local governments. and standard deviations by re gion and for the entire set of the 85 largest SMSAs are presented as an evaluation tool in each table. Statisticians will recognize that these two statistics can be used to calculate the coefficient of variation a simple indicator of the extent to which the mean describes accurately the SMSAs as a group. In general, where the standard deviation exceeds the mean, the statistical observations are from SMSAs that are dissimilar with respect to the measure shown in the table. Thus, in Table it may be noted that the populations of SMSAs in the East are quite dissimilar the standard deviation is about twice the size of the mean while the populations of SMSAs in the South are less dissimilar because the standard deviation in this case is about half the size of the mean. When the central city population is shown as a proportion of total SMSA population, as in Table 2, one characteristic common to most SMSAs becomes evident. The standard deviation of these data for each region is about onethird the size of the mean. In a normal distribution of a specific measure, one would expect to find about 60 percent of all the observations to fall within plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean. In Table 7, which shows the race distribution of the population, the standard deviation of the white population ranges from about onefifth to onetenth of the mean for the regions. Central cities are thus substantially uniform with respect to this measure. At the same time, the relationship of the standard deviation to the mean for the black population indicates that central cities are quite dissimilar with respect to this measure.

Table POPULATION, CENTRAL CITIES (cc) AND SUBURBS (occ) (in thousands) 900 930 960 970 973 REGION AND SMSA CC OCC CC OCC CC OCC CC OCC CC OCC East Bridgeport, CT Hartford Washington, DC 7 7 80 73 279 33 47 64 64 47 487 29 56 8 62 387 763 3 2 56 232 58 505 756 204 48 234 48 522 733 229 Baltimore, MD Boston, MA Springfield' 509 209 56 760 27 75 805 264 78 387 250 26 939 864 697 898 288 205 905 64 64 22 280 249 877 250 68 222 272 26 Worcester Jersey City, NJ Newark 8 6 206 80 246 277 95 77 37 374 442 807 86 42 276 334 405 284 76 67 260 348 382 474 70 77 255 343 367 483 Paterson* Albany, NY* Buffalo 39 95 86 209 352 56 248 49 296 224 573 339 279 907 278 378 532 774 282 076 256 465 462 886 277 077 250 493 425 99 New York Rochester Syracuse 3437 376 63 7 08 72 6930 045 328 20 209 92 778 292 38 43 26 347 7894 3677 296 586 97 439 7646 3763 276 6 84 458 Philadelphia, PA Pittsburgh Providence, RI* 294 598 452 632 236 72 95 86 670 353 330 347 2002 2340 604 80 357 464 948 2869 520 88 342 567 86 2944 479 885 330 593 476 243 793 23 840 488 577 452 902 94 77 88 884 56 800 006 85 84 744 030 Midwest Chicago, IL Fort Wayne, IN Gary* 699 386 45 32 22 35 3376 073 5 32 220 4 3550 2670 6 70 347 225 3366 33 2 77 02 330 303 372 3829 85 02 328 32 Indianapolis Des Moines, IA Wichita, KS 69 90 62 20 25 42 364 209 43 30 6 476 440 208 57 254 26 744 365 200 85 276 2 728 407 99 95 26 3 Detroit, MI Flint Grand Rapids 286 4 3 57 88 82 569 609 56 83 69 27 670 2092 96 29 77 284 5 2688 93 303 97 34 386 2804 8 326 90 362 Minneapolis, MN* Kansas City, MO St. Louis 366 94 64 82 575 283 736 46 400 30 822 596 796 685 475 67 750 354 744 069 507 746 622 740 669 59 487 79 558 785

Table (Continued) POPULATION, CENTRAL CITIES (cc) AND SUBURBS (occ) (in thousands) 900 930 960 970 973 REGION AND SMSA CC OCC CC OCC CC OCC CC occ cc OCC Midwest (Continued) Omaha, NE Akron, OH Cincinnati 03 0 43 57 326 29 24 99 255 32 45 393 30 56 290 35 502 765 347 92 275 403 452 932 372 203 26 45 426 956 Cleveland Columbus Dayton 382 6 26 92 85 44 900 388 29 23 20 79 876 033 47 283 262 464 750 33 539 376 243 606 678 327 540 406 24 634 Toledo Youngstown" Madison, WI 32 07 53 63 9 50 29 59 2 48 58 55 38 32 226 282 26 95 387 305 203 332 73 7 377 330 95 347 69 3 Milwaukee 285 20 578 237 74 537 77 686 690 726 230 22 360 94 529 236 726 25 599 595 746 667 589 747 694 848 558 799 650 937 South Birmingham, AL Mobile Jacksonville, FL 38 4 38 37 28 260 259 68 78 30 26 340 380 94 68 20 254 300 438 90 86 528 0 295 460 88 200 547 0 Miami Tampa* Atlanta, GA 20 5 6 32 90 08 32 42 74 270 92 29 643 456 36 487 529 334 932 493 58 496 893 353 06 509 654 45 046 Columbus Louisville, KY Baton Rouge, LA 8 45 205 90 20 43 5 308 3 3 37 6 0 390 334 52 77 54 84 36 465 65 9 60 6 335 504 289 5 New Orleans Shreveport Jackson, MS 287 33 6 53 8 66 459 68 77 76 48 57 627 279 64 7 44 76 593 452 82 2 53 05 573 509 84 9 63 Charlotte, NC Oklahoma City, OK Tulsa 8 37 0 48 0 6 83 45 85 89 4 58 20 5 324 87 26 57 24 68 366 274 33 45 284 48 373 3 335 56 Knoxville, TN Memphis Nashville 33 79 02 66 8 42 06 04 253 86 54 69 256 497 77 70 292 74 225 623 46 448 93 82 234 658 29 427 28 Austin, TX Corpus Christi Dallas 22 25 5 8 43 2 53 25 28 48 260 247 86 25 67 98 679 439 25 43 204 80 844 7 289 52 22 85 85 788

Table (Continued) POPULATION, CENTRAL CITIES (cc) AND SUBURBS (occ) (in thousands) 900 930 960 970 973 REGION AND SMSA CC OCC CC OCC CC OCC CC OCC CC OCC South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston 6 9 27 60 45 76 02 29 63 67 292 65 276 37 356 26 938 480 322 37 393 368 232 752 353 36 359 403 296 856 San Antonio Norfolk, VA* Richmond 53 37 64 62 85 67 232 90 75 54 83 73 587 28 49 58 29 26 654 209 48 26 249 268 756 75 392 296 238 298 5 55 64 45 6 89 04 63 332 232 202 56 397 300 243 263 408 326 249 307 West Phoenix, AR Tucson Anaheim, CA* 6 5 8 6 4 48 03 33 23 4 78 439 224 22 52 288 45 58 386 262 88 445 974 63 495 302 3 473 23 Fresno Los Angeles* Sacramento 2 25 05 65 29 47 53 92 380 828 94 96 33 232 2823 325 9 433 65 247 3 74 3857 254 546 73 262 309 3832 267 596 San Bernardino* San Diego San Francisco* 5 3 8 7 40 09 8 34 48 62 98 388 222 586 573 459 07 540 308 834 696 66 077 2032 327 869 757 72 033 20 San Jose Denver, CO Honolulu, HI 22 39 34 50 39 9 58 87 288 97 38 65 204 438 493 435 294 206 445 69 54 72 324 304 523 633 55 847 334 35 Albuquerque, NM Portland, OR Salt Lake City, UT 6 22 90 60 54 32 27 9 302 53 40 68 20 6 372 449 89 258 243 72 382 626 75 38 273 8 375 686 69 43 Seattle, WA* Spokane Tacoma 8 53 37 2 38 8 366 77 6 35 07 57 557 550 8 96 47 73 584 837 70 6 54 256 552 830 73 27 49 243 62 35 95 26 24 42 353 90 479 546 630 743 554 753 695 898 562 797 672 894 Total 90 08 436 35 47 223 856 296 553 542 954 657 583 693 96 96 574 730 926 85 *Multiple central cities. See Appendix

Table 2 CENTRAL CITY AREA POPULATION AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL SMSA POPULATION, 900,930,960,970,973 (.OO equals total SMSA population) REGION AND SMSA East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC Baltimore Boston Springfield Worcester Jersey City Newark Paterson Albany Buffalo New York Rochester Syracuse Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita Detroit Flint Grand Rapids Minneapolis Kansas City St. Louis

Table 2 (Continued) CENTRAL CITY AREA POPULATION AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL SMSA POPULATION, 900,930,960,970,973 (.OO equals total SMSA pipu~ation) REGION AND SMSA 900 930 960 Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo Youngstown Madison Milwaukee South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville Miami Tampa Atlanta Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge New Orleans Shreveport Jackson Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa Knoxville Memphis Nashville Austin Corpus Christi Dallas

Table 2 (Continued) CENTRAL CITY AREA POPULATION AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL SMSA POPULATION, 900,930,960,970,973 (.OO equals total SMSA population) REGION AND SMSA 960 930 960 970 South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston San Antonio Norfolk Richmond West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Jose Denver Honolulu Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City Seattle Spokane Tacoma Total

Table 3 CENTRAL CITY ACREAGE 900,930,960,970,973 (in thousands of acres) REGION AND SMSA 900 East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC Baltimore Boston Springfield Worcester Jersey City Newark Paterson Albany Buffalo New York Rochester Syracuse Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence 7.9 0.96 38.4 20.26 24.68 20.29 23.68 8.32 3.06 7.2 3.78 24.79 83.56 0.9 0.84 83.34 8.0 6.84 29.79 42.7 Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita Detroit Flint Grand Rapids Minneapolis Kansas City St. Louis 7.9 5.29 8.8 34.55 8.4 0.73 65.46 6.70 39.28 Acreage not available.

REGION AND SMSA Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo Youngstown Madison Milwaukee South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville Miami Tampa Atlanta Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge New Orleans Shreveport Jackson Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa Knoxville Memphis Nashville Austin Corpus Christi Dallas Acreage not available 900 5.40 7.47 22.54 22.58 0.2 6.47 6.03 6.4 3.06 24.75 27.37 4.5 3.64 5.92 0.56 2.73 25.6 2.54 9.77 6.30 5.33 Table 3 (Continued) CENTRAL CITY ACREAGE 900,930,960,970,973 (in thousands of acres) 930 25.03 24.06 45.88 45.29 24.68 4.82 2.79 2.60 4.93 26.34 36.00 28.48 32.7 9.00 6.88 27.53 22.27 3.80 23.02.76 25.6.99 0.52 2.39 9.42 3.84 6.90 29.23 6.62 2.50 26.74

REGION AND SMSA 900 Table 3 (Continued) CENTRAL CITY ACREAGE 900,930,960,970,973 (in thousands of acres) 930 South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston San Antonio Norfolk Richmond 8.29 5.74 29.9 3.87 2.88 5.35 30.94 8.64 29.70 45.95 22.86 2.2 5.36 30.20 27.69 West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Jose Denver Honolulu Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City Seattle Spokane Tacoma Total Acreage not available. 27.40 2.89 35.52 36.70 53.70 22.27 26.73 7.46 2.66 9.7 25.45 4.2 24.04 3.6 4. 5.50 300.04 8.77.45 59.93 60.90 4.96 37.09 53.70 40.6 33.3 43.84 26.55 29.66 63.45 84.38 39.64 46.32

Table 4 POPULATION DENSITY IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS (in persons per acre) REGION AND SMSA 900 East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC Baltimore Boston Springfield Worcester Jersey City Newark Paterson Albany Buffalo New York Rochester Syracuse Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence 8.9 7.2 7.2 25. 22.7 6.2 4.9 24.7 8.8 9.2 3.4 4. 8.7 5.9 9.9 5.5 24.9 4.0 5. 6.7 Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita Detroit Flint Grand Rapids Minneapolis Kansas City St. Louis Acreage not available. 4.4 8.5 9.2.7 N.A. 5.7 8.2 5.5 9.8 4.6

Table 4 (Continued) POPULATION DENSITY IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS 900,930,960,970,973 (in persons per acre) REGION AND SMSA Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo Youngstown Madison Milwaukee South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville Miami Tampa Atlanta Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge New Orleans Shreveport Jackson Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa Knoxville Memphis Nashville Austin Corpus Christi Dallas Acreage not available. 900 6.6 5.7 4.4 6.9 2.3 3. 8.2 8.6 2.8 0.9 4.9 9. 0.4 4.7 8.5 6. 2.2 2.9 0.4 2.8 8.0 930 8.5 0.5 9.8 9.8.7 3.5 3.3 9.7.7 2.9 2.5 5.5 8.0 7.5 7.7 4.0 2..3 3.3 7.6 3.6 6.4 4.5 6.6 9.5 0. 6.2 8.6 9.2 4.2, 9.7

Table 4 (Continued) POPULATION DENSITY IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS 900,930,960,970,973 (in persons per acre) REGION AND SMSA 900 930 South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston San Antonio Norfolk Richmond.8 3.2 5.4 7.8 6.3 West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Jose Denver Honolulu Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City Seattle Spokane Tacoma Total N.A. 3.8 0.0.5 N.A. 3.6 0.7 4.0 2.0 4.6 2.9.9 4.5 3.5.0 6.7.6 9.6 4.5 0.7 7.O 2.4 5.0.6 7.7 2.5 7.4 4.2 8.3 4.3 3.6 8.3 3.6 3.3 8.0 Acreage not available.

Table 5 POPULATION IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS, BY RACE REGION AND SMSA White Other Black NonWhite White Black Other NonWhite East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC 40,556 36,890 344,876 29,425,864 209,550 25,509 44,082 537,87,565 2,054 9,834 Baltimore Boston Springfield 6 0,350 628,694 273,32 480,02 524,338 256,87 420,244 04,483 23,009 5,434 7,692,403 Worcester Jersey City Newark 83,768 238,740 265,680 72,440 202,669 68,256 3,353 54,705 207,260 706 3,26 6,883 Paterson Albany Buffalo 252,774 262,70 458,584 230,074 234,44 364,44 49,20 20,263 94,390 3,05,795 4,64 New York Rochester Syracuse 6,637,93 293,832 203,688 6,047,46 244,068 73,536,673,697 49,76 2,297 8,580 2,369 2,69 Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence,467,466 502,528 344,48,278,28 42,439 323,603 654,729 05,060 6,797 5,588 2,600 2,399 735,877,504,47 646,05,373,870 228,28 409,0 4,64 4,945 Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary 2,72,200 49,086 26.29 2,208,686 57,886 28,96,00,976 8,825 0,253 57,237 7 0,650 Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita 404,24 97,392 232,98 607,593 88,069 246,94 34,028,428 26,820 2,233,002 2,765 Detroit Flint Grand Rapids Minneapolis Kansas City St. Louis,82,360 6,308 62,309 77,324 390,925 534,000 838,827 38,06 73,888 70,874 39,404 365,23 660,48 54,37 22,328 29,772 2,047 254,479 2,09 966,383 2,653 3,549 3,

Table 5 (Continued) POPULATION IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS, BY RACE REGION AND SMSA White Other Black NonWhite White Black Other NonWhite Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati 274,83 252,00 392,564 3 0,486 226,378 325,347 Cleveland Columbus Dayton 622,836 392,84 204,622 458,049 437,076 68,327 Toledo Youngstown Madison 277,64 87,354 23,606 332,087 58,292 68,350 Milwaukee 675,05 605,48 480,4 559,569 428,460 443,068 South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville 205,020 30,950 55,976 73,920 22,70 375,976 Miami Tampa Atlanta 225,234 385,320 300,479 256,456 405,985 240,499 Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge 84,680 3 9,800 06,552 2,955 274,302 8,950 New Orleans Shreveport Jackson 392,502 07,420 92,592 323,403 9,756 92,647 Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa 44,720 28,880 234,900 67,323 307,24 287,65 Knoxville Memphis Nashville 90,243 3 2,63 37,360 5,466 379,088 358,848 Austin Corpus Christi Dallas 6,262 57,648 547,953 29,37 9,66 626,544

Table 5 (Continued) POPULATION IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS, BY RACE REGION AND SMSA White Black Other NonWhite White Black Other NonWhite South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston 268,548 299,040 720,384 5,796 56,248 24,802,656 7 2 2,84 30,600 3 2,359 904,875 8,377 78,286 3 6,829 3,222 2,753,095 San Antonio Norfolk Richmond 543,562 299,66 27,020 4,677 7,739 9,542,76 2,095 438 597,847 28,08 43,769 49,7 3,534 04,832 6,54 6,283 998 253,067 58,334 77,659 63,399 966,63 290,969 82,537 0,597 83,84 3,022 3,090 West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento 4 3,538 202,672 283,968 9,966 2,39,08 66,743 2,072 6,996,728 0,374 344,406 2,033 4,390 2,332 2,304 2,660 87,53 2,224 542,539 249,229 429,305 43,835 2,50,584 207,336 27,92 9,20 7,32 5,926 523,809 27,220,048 4,469 9,36 6,304 49,206 9,843 San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Jose Denver Honolulu Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City Seattle Spokane Tacoma 208,458 528,306 874,530 97,268 457,997 80,262 95,7 35,68 85,03 52,997 76,475 39,209 2,432 34,380 58,30 2,040 30,073,76 3,68 5,624,52 25,065 2,353 5,880,0 0,34 74,69 4,692 4,930 2 2,562 2,42 5,208 2,457 8,938 2,72,9 279,78 69,366 724,955 47,75 457,994 0,07 233,220 352,757 70,74 5 6,025 65,385 40,286 22,82 52,949 220,826,42 46,828 2,273 5,36 2,425 2,09 37,986 2,26 0,506 5,859 24,384 3,48 7,382 9,262 2 2,49 5,7 8,47 3,5l 6 29,804 3,069 3,862 45,824 530,905 38,28 84,442 25,27 52,983 458,944 540,994 58,202 26,437 36,374 6,36 Total 448,590 794,622 97,085 70,84 7,347 26,392 437,320 78,999 33,063 243,35 3,38 36,257

Table 6 CHANGE IN RACE DISTRIBUTION OF CENTRAL CITY AREA POPULATION 960 to 970 REGION AND SMSA White Change in Population Black Other NonWhite Rate of Change Other White Black NonWhite East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC,30 25,026 35,325 0,22 9,296 26,64,409,730 2,967.O7.I8.39 Baltimore Boston Springfield Worcester Jersey City Newark 30,329 04,356 7,24,327 36,07 97,424 94,4 4,056 8,609,307 7,997 69,55 2,67 2,83,5 520 2,574 5,668.2.I6.06.06.I5.36 Paterson Albany Buffalo 22,699 28,269 94,439 23,73 5,529 23,634 2,826,239,504.08.I0.20 New York Rochester Syracuse 589,776 49,763 30,52 584,357 26,229 0,065 27,3,733,089.08.I6.I4 Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence 89,84 90,088 20,544 26,20 4,92 5,06 9,582,996,328.I2.I7.05 89,825 37,276 66,694 35,892 9,462 29,436.I4.ll Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary 503,53 8,800 43,094 288,026 7,233 25,238 32,387 388,303.I8.05.I6 Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita Detroit Flint Grand Rapids Minneapolis Kansas City St. Louis 203,469 9,323 3,996 343,533 23,29,579 69,449 479 68,768 62,628,236 7,008 77,85 20,07 8,68 9,872 28,922 39,979,28 586,495 7,08 574 852 878 2,599,6.50.04.06.29.I4.07.09. 00.3

Table 6 (Continued) CHANGE IN RACE DISTRIBUTION OF CENTRAL CITY AREA POPULATION 960 to 970 Change in Population Rate of Change REGION AND SMSA White Black Other NonWhite White Black Other NonWhite Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton 35,673 25,63 67,26 64,787 44,262 36,294 9,399 0,495 6,458 37,058 22,582 7,82,227 536,258 2,628,756 72.2.I0.I7.26.ll.I7.37.27.5.4.29.30.0.84.25.oo.86 2.7 Toledo Youngstown Madison Milwaukee 54,473 29,06 44,744 69,903 3,407 5,674,086 43,55,69 790,369 2,748.9.I5.36.I0.33.4.7.69 5.09 3.49.55.74 5,654 44,423 38,768 66,878 2,905 6,75.03.20.39.20.77.4 South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville 3,099 8,780 220,000 8,262 4,404 7,290 26 86 2,770.I5.06.4.06.07.52.77.95 6.89 Miami Tampa Atlanta 3,222 20,665 59,979 0,85 6,208 68,388,76,025,003.3.05.I9.6.23.36 3.02 2.24 2.06 Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge New Orleans Shreveport Jackson 28,275 45,497 2,398 69,099 2,336 55 9,70 6,203 990 33,786 5,282 9,690 422 694 5,73 200 307.33.I4.ll.I7.ll.29.23.02.4.09.8.2.78 3.36.36.2 Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa Knoxville Memphis Nashville Austin Corpus Christi Dallas 22,603 25,36 52,265 6,223 66,475 22,488 58,055 33,968 78,59 6,974 2,585 2,703,80 58,65 55,338 5,850,449 8,245 522 4,252 5,630 476,373,74 2,46 2,082 5,562.5.08.22.67.2.6.36.2.4.30.33.56.08.3.70.24.5.62 2.59.93.54 2.4 2.76 6.90 5.76 2.47 2.73

Table 6 (Continued) CHANGE IN RACE DISTRIBUTION OF CENTRAL CITY AREA POPULATION 960 to 970 REGION AND SMSA South (Continued) White Change in Population Black Other NonWhite White Rate of Change Other Black NonWhite El Paso Fort Worth Houston San Antonio Norfolk Richmond 42,052 3,39 84,49 54,285 8,084 6,749 37,90 72,045 2,58 22,038 02,027 8,034 3,795 3,290 23,938 28,722 West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento San Bernardino 7,260 San Diego 9,060 San Francisco 49,574 San Jose Denver Honolulu Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City Seattle 3,028 Spokane,090 Tacoma,077 43,9 79,590 Total,220 22,790 6,840 2,205 5,404 5,552 79,403 5,87 0,389 8,569 62,525 9,02 6,755,097,743 5,80 597 2,92 36 4,626 9,92 42,243 35,977 75,832

Table 7 RACE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS REGION AND SMSA White Black Other NonWhite White Black Other NonWhite East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC 90. O/o 84.5 45.2 9.8% 5.3 53.9 0. O/o 0.2 0.9 82.7% 70.8 27.7 6.3% 27.9 7..oO/o.3.3 Baltimore Boston Springfield 65.0 90.2 94.9 34.7 9. 5.0 0.3 0.7 0. 53.0 82.4 9.3 46.4 6.4 8.2 0.6.2 0.5 Worcester Jersey City Newark 98.8 86.5 65.6. 3.3 34. 0. 0.2 0.3 97.7 77.8 44.0.9 2.o 54.2 0.4.2.8 Paterson Albany Buffalo 90.6 94.5 86.2 9.3 5.3 3.3 0. 0.2 0.5 8.5 9.4 78.7 7.4 7.9 20.4. 0.7 0.9 New York Rochester Syracuse 85.3 92.4 94.3 4.0 7.4 5.2 0.7 0.2 0.5 76.6 82.4 88.0 2.2 6.8 0.8 2.3 0.8. Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence 73.3 83.2 96.4 26.4 6.7 3.3 0.3 0. 0.3 65.6 79.3 94.4 33.6 20.2 4.9 0.8 0.5 0.7 84.2 3.7 5.4 3.6 0.3 0.2 75.8 8. 23. 8.0.o 0.4 Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary 76.4 92.6 75.3 22.9 7.2 24.5 0.7 0.2 0. 65.6 88.9 66. 32.7 0.6 33.4.7 0.4 0.5 Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita 84.9 94.9 9.7 5.0 4.9 7.8 0.2 0.2 0.5 8.6 93.8 89.3 8.0 5.7 9.7 0.3 0.5.o Detroit Flint Grand Rapids 70.8 82.3 9.7 28.9 7.5 8.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 55.5 7.4 88.0 43.7 28..3 0.8 0.5 0.7 Minneapolis Kansas City St. Louis 96.9 82.3 7.2 2.5 7.5 28.6.7 0.2 0.2 94.3 77.2 58.7 4.0 22. 40.9.7 0.7 0.5

Table 7 (Continued) RACE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS REGION AND SMSA Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo Youngstown Madison Milwaukee South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville Miami Tampa Atlanta Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge New Orleans Shreveport Jackson Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa Knoxville Memphis Nashville Austin Corpus Christi Dallas White 9.3% 86.9 78.2 7. 83.4 78. 87.3 82.9 98. 9. 84.5 8.4 60.3 67.5 76.6 77.4 84.5 6.7 73.0 82.0 70. 62.6 65.5 64.3 72.0 87.0 90.0 8.3 62.9 80.8 86.7 94.4 80.7 Black 8.3% 3.0 2.6 28.6 6.4 2.8 2.6 7.0.2 8.4 5. 8.5 39.6 32.4 23.2 22.4 5.4 38.3 26.9 7.9 29.8 37.2 34.4 35.7 27.9.6 8.6 8.5 37.0 9. 3. 5.5 9.0 Other NonWhite 0.4% 0. 0.2 0.3 0.2 0. 0. 0. 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0. 0. 0.2 0.2 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.2 0. 0..4.4 0.2 0. 0. 0.2 0. 0.3 White 89.4% 82.2 7.9 6.O 8.O 69. 85.7 77.9 97.2 84.4 78.6 2. 57.8 64.3 75.7 76.6 82.2 48.4 73.3 75.9 7.7 54.5 65.8 60.2 69.4 83.9 86.6 86.8 60.8 80. 87. 93.7 74.2 Black 9.9% 7.5 27.6 38.3 8.5 30.5 3.8 2.7.5 4.7 20.6 2.2 42.0 35.4 23.7 22.7 7.5 5.3 26.2 23.8 27.9 45.0 33.9 39.7 30.3 3.7 0.6 2.8 38.9 9.6 2.0 5.2 24.9 Other NonWhite 0.7% 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5.3 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.4 2.8 0.4 0.3 0.3.o. 0.9

Table 7 (Continued) RACE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS REGION AND SMSA White Black Other NonWhite White Black Other NonWhite South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston 97.3% 84.0 76.8 2. O/o 5.8 22.9 0.6% 0.2 0.3 96.4% 79.4 73.4 2.6% 9.9 25.7.oO/o 0.7 0.9 San Antonio Norfolk Richmond 92.6 7.4 58.0 7. 28. 4.8 0.3 0.5 0.2 9.4 67. 57.6 7.6 3.4 42.0.o.5 0.4 76.3.2 23.3.3 0.2 0.3 73.6 2.5 25.3 2.8 0.7 0.6 West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim 94.2 95.6 98.6 4.8 3.3 0.6.o.I 0.8 93.3 94.8 96.3 4.8 3.5.6.9.7 2. Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento 90.2 84.7 87.3 7.8 2.2 6.3 2.0 3. 6.4 86.7 78.8 8.5 9.6 6.5 0.7 3.8 4.7 7.8 San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco 93.9 92.2 79.0 5.6 6.0 4.3 0.5.8 6.7 90.7 88.9 67.3 7.4 7.6 20.5.9 3.5 2.2 San Jose Denver Honolulu 96.7 92.9 27.3.o 6. 0.4 2.3.o 72.3 93.6 89.0 33.9 2.5 9. 0.7 3.9.8 65.4 Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City 97. 94.4 97.9.8 4.2 0.8.2.4.3 95.7 92.2 96.8 2.2 5.6.2 2. 2.2 2.0 Seattle Spokane Tacoma 92. 97.5 94.7 4.5.3 4.0 3.4.2.3 88.3 97.0 90.8 6.5.3 6.8 5..8 2.5 89.2 6.2 4.7 3.8 6.0 6.6 86.4 5.0 6.5 5.3 7.0 4.8 Total 82.8 3. 5.6 2.0.5 7.8 78. 4.8 9.6 4.5 2. 7.

Table 8 POPULATION BY AGE GROUPS IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS Less Than 8 More than 65 Working Age REGION AND SMSA 960 970 960 970 960 970 East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC Baltimore Boston Springfield Worcester Jersey City Newark Paterson Albany Buffalo New York Rochester Syracuse Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita Detroit Flint Grand Rapids Minneapolis Kansas City St. Louis

Table 8 (Continued) POPULATION BY AGE GROUPS IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS REGION AND SMSA Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo Youngstown Madison Milwaukee South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville Miami Tampa Atlanta Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge New Orleans S hreveport Jackson Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa Knoxville Memphis Nashville Austin Corpus Christi Dallas Less Than 8 More Than 65 Working Age

Table 8 (Continued) POPULATION BY AGE GROUPS IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS REGION AND SMSA Less Than 8 More Than 65 Working Age South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston San Antonio Norfolk Richmond West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Jose Denver Honolulu Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City Seaiiie Spokane Tacoma Total

Table 9 CHANGE IN POPULATION BY AGE GROUPS IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS 960and970 REGION AND SMSA Less Than 8 Change in Population More Than 65 Working Age Rate of Change Less More Than Than 8 65 Working Age East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC,495,299 4,47,35 642,660 680 4,657 2,63.0.04.02 Baltimore Boston Springfield 2,357 8,367 2,828 0,975 3,826 2,00 3,98 33,807 2,238.05.08.07 Worcester Jersey City Newark 4,53 4,242 4,48 522,677 6,032 5,49 2,935 30,986.05.07.I2 Paterson Albany Buffalo,738,28 22,663 3,435 3,33 280,873 3,703 46,357.0.08.I5 New York Rochester Syracuse 70,292 3,437 7,969 34,05 4,060 53 90,543 4,303 0,38.0.07.08 Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence 8,770 36,386 0,583 9,345 2,426 2,953 63,975 49,940 6,570.05.I4.03 2,604 2,44 9,352 3,629 20,636 32,045.04.09 Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita Detroit Flint Grand Rapids Minneapolis Kansas City St. Louis 22,720 3,96 9,268 05,22 6,072 942 53,532 935 5,549 28,087 7,2 34,69 8,723 2,995 2,976 7,722,02 5,84 4,788 2,452 2,933 4,357 4,379 944 69,03 9,644 0,608 45,666 2,530 6,374 9,85 4,27 2,8 27,970 0,590 92,687.08.0.05.54.02.ll.I2.03.2.06.03.2

Table 9 (Continued) CHANGE IN POPULATION BY AGE GROUPS IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS 960and970 REGION AND SMSA Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo Youngstown Madison Milwaukee Less Than 8 7,69 0,340 2,08 33,8 9,44,566 24,200 9,655,973 0,696 Change in Population More Than 65 5,599 3,790 249 7,226 4,54 60 6,246 7 2,303 8,95 Working Age 23,532 8,050 28,73 84,063 44,68 7,435 39,054 3,262 32,924 2,499 Less Than 8.6.I0.I3.I.2.I3.22.I2.30.04 Rate of Change More Than 65.9.3.0.08.ll.02.7.0.22.ll Working Age.4.04.I0.I6.6.05.22.I0.43.05 2,05 3,02 4,39 5,7,66 63,674.02.8.ll.0.03.8 South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville 22,898 0,462 7,795 6,7 4,040 7,566 22,39 2,422 92,439.I8.I2.73.20.32.95.I.02.67 Miami Tampa Atlanta 2,025,594,887,439 25,055 6,524 20,336,25 5,263.6.0.0.30.33.6.ll.04.0 Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge 0,678 7,063 2,397 3,280 4,503 3,775 24,42 6,040 2,522.23.I2.04 50.ll.42.37.07.4 New Orleans S hreveport Jackson Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa Knoxville Memphis Nashville Austin Corpus Christi Dallas 7,98 3,479 39 9,022 6,539 9,377 3,982 4,40 92,585 5,0 7,66 48,069 8,986 5,253 3,75 5,894 7,539 9,263 8,66 4,007 2,977 3,477 4,670 8,548 25,388 9,268 6,0 25,84 28,22 4,960 40,857 7,092 63,438 47,23 25,664 98,783.07.05.oo.2.05.2.39.22.70.23.09.20.6.38.43 50.27.45.8.36.25.24 59.38.07.0.07.22.5.28.63,25.66.43.29.25

Table 9 (Continued) CHANGE IN POPULATION BY AGE GROUPS IN CENTRAL CITY AREAS 960and970 REGION AND SMSA Less Than 8 Change in Population More Than 65 Working Age Less Than 8 Rate of Change More Than 65 Working Age South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston San Antonio Norfolk Richmond 3,73 7,062 90,80,7 3,628 9,902 6,042 8,756 26,88 2,807 5,46 4,522 26,427 2,582 77,8 43,22 8,067 6,76.ll.05.25.04.09.4.45.30.50.30.22.9.8.0.33.4.03.2 6,58 34,236 9,582 6,86 39,069 56,386.20.45.4.25.27.43 West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Jose Denver Honolulu Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City Seattle Spokane Tacoma 39,577 9,582 47,638 7,58 86,335 22,07 26,388 24,307 29,433 94,388 5,46,687 8,494 5,394 3,836 27,520 8,693 358 6,88 0,549 9,487 4,29 36,439 6,762 7,52 7,629 7,75 9,28 5,503 7,840 5,93 3,705 3,60 4,025 93 639 86,042 30,769 00,675 2,253 228,826 34,53 52,500 8,764 8,8 38,84 2,243 34,647 28,293 2,289 2,965 50,895 2,738 6,503.23.2.40.5.0.37.32.2.I0.2.03.lo.0.04.2.I5.I4.0.50.63 52.30.2.3.35.40.05.58.0 54.60.06.8.05.04.03.36.26.66.29.3.3.44.23.0.25.07.20.25.05.02.6.02.08 4,72 34,62 8,80 8,274 50,80 59,346.3.32.30.22.26.30 Total 7,268 3,973 7,959 5,576 5,793 6,938.08.32.23.24.4.32

Table 0 PER CAPITA INCOME CENTRAL ClTY AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL ClTY AREAS 973 Ratio of cc to occ REGION AND SMSA CC OCC Ratio of cc to occ CC OCC Ratio of cc to occ 960 Ratio of cc to occ East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC Baltimore Boston Springfield.75.83.98.90.8.90.78.72.84.79.79.85.03 0.86 0.85 0.87 0.98 0.94 Worcester Jersey City Newark.0.93.65.95.9 56 0.94 0.98 0.86 Paterson Albany Buffalo New York Rochester Syracuse.77.99.90.84.9..72.93.85.84.80.96 0.93 0.93 0.94.oo 0.87 0.86 Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence.82.99.O.83.9.97.0 0.9 0.95.90.I.83.0 0.93 0.05 Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary.86.07.95.80.87.87 0.92 0.8 '0.90 Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita.93.08.09.04.95..2 0.87.O Detroit Flint Grand Rapids.88.8.99.80.94.92 0.90 0.79 0.92 Minneapolis Kansas City St. Louis.0.03.82.92.92.78 0.90 0.89 0.95

Table 0 (Continued) PER CAPITA INCOME CENTRAL ClTY AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL ClTY AREAS 973 Ratio of cc to occ REGION AND SMSA OCC Ratio of cc to occ OCC Ratio of cc to occ 960 Ratio of cc to occ Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati $ 846 20 2 203.I5.05.oo $360 407 3920.0.95.93 0.95 0.90 0.92 Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo Youngstown Madison 2693 230 2 27 2009 936 873.68.8.92.oo.96.8 4773 4376 4292 4340 3920 4304.66.8.77.86.87.9 0.96 0.99 0.83 0.86 0.90 0.77 Milwaukee 2305.9 4628.82 0.90 204 239.98.2 423 364.89.0 0.9 0.07 South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville 347 0 84 3738 2668.84.28 * 0.72 0.80 * Miami Tampa Atlanta 20 724 98 4635 40 6 463.77.93.84 0.88 0.89 0.83 Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge 287 946 493 2672 406 3320.28.9.O4.08.0 0.84 New Orleans Shreveport Jackson 673 307 92 3544 2648 2640.93.29.37 0.90 0.9 0.72 Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa 443 850 560 352 3793 3 4.22.04.35 0.89 0.97 0.9 Knoxville Memphis Nashville 570 220 934 3334 2982 3895.03.9.95.09 0.88.43 Austin Corpus Christi Dallas 520 22 906 3679 2372 4055.98.34.09 0.88 0.93 0.93

Table 0 (Continued) PER CAPITA INCOME CENTRAL ClTY AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL ClTY AREAS 973 Ratio of cc to occ REGION AND SMSA OCC Ratio of cc to occ CC OCC Ratio of cc to occ 960 Ratio of cc to occ South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston $ 405 782 735.2.09.8.35.97.05.20 0.88 0.89 San Antonio Norfolk Richmond 937 63 2055.73.02.94.65.92.90 0.88 0.90 0.96 603 3 5.4.25.06.20 0.93 0.4 West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Jose Denver Honolulu Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City Seattle Spokane Tacoma Total 74 942 236 702 2453 2069 82 2054 25 6 2390 2050 689 393 2026 693 989 770 85 970 305 948 383.I5.oo 0.86 0.9.09 0.9 0.97 0.86 0.87 0.97 0.92 0.87 0.92 ** 0.95 0.82 0.97 0.80 0.98 0.90 0.9 0.07 0.92 0.09 'City and county consolidated with only four small municipalities excluded and therefore relationships are not applicable. "City and county consolidated and therefore relationships are not applicable.

REGION AND SMSA East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC Baltimore Boston Springfield Worcester Jersey City Newark Paterson Albany Buffalo New York Rochester Syracuse Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita Detroit Flint Grand Rapids Minneapolis Kansas City St. Louis Table INDEX OF PER CAPITA INCOME CENTRAL ClTY AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL ClTY AREAS 960 and 973 Central Outside City Central Index City lndex (.00 = $987) (.00 = $948) 973 Central Outside City Central Index City lndex (.00 = $3784) (.00 = $409)

Table (Continued) INDEX OF PER CAPITA INCOME CENTRAL ClTY AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL ClTY AREAS 960and973 960 973 Central Outside Central Outside City Central City Central index City Index City lndex l ndex REGION AND SMSA (.OO = $987) (.OO = $948) (.OO = $3784) (.00 = $409) Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo Youngstown Madison Milwaukee South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville Miami Tampa Atlanta Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge New Orleans Shreveport Jackson Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa Knoxville Memphis Nashville Austin Corpus Christi Dallas

REGION AND SMSA Table (Continued) INDEX OF PER CAPITA INCOME CENTRAL ClTY AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL ClTY AREAS 960 and 973 960 Central Outside City Central Index City lndex (.OO = $ 987) (.OO = $948) 973 Central Outside City Central Index City lndex (.OO = $3784) (.OO = $40 9) South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston San Antonio Norfolk Richmond West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Jose Denver Honolulu Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City Seattle Spokane Tacoma Total 'City and county are consolidated and therefore relationships are not applicable

Table 2 CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK, 960970 REGION AND SMSA OCC Percent* Change in cc Acreage East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC Baltimore Boston Springfield* Worcester Jersey City Newark Paterson' Albany' Buffalo New York Rochester Syracuse Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence' Unweighted Average 4.6 4.0 24.2 24.0 36.5 29.2 Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary* Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita Detroit Flint Grand Rapids Minneapolis' Kansas City St. Louis 2. 22.5 8.0 2.2 62.2 79.0 34. 5.

Table 2 (Continued) CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK, 960970 REGION AND SMSA CC OCC Percent * Change in cc Acreage Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati 5.8% 6.4 3.8 33.2% 44.3 36.5 Cleveland Columbus Dayton 2.9 20.5 4.0 62.6 45.8 30.5 Toledo Youngstown* Madison 6.7 49.2 0.4 38.4 Milwaukee 0.2 76.5 Unweig hted Average 7.0 6.5 65.0 33.8 South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville 5.7 3.8 23.9 5.5 Miami Tampa Atlanta 7.4 2.2 9.5 80.7 70. 26.0 Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge 5. 2.5 57.6 47.7 New Orleans S h reveport Jackson 0.0 0.2 78.6 7.9 Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa 4.8 38.5 35.4 54.2 2. 9.8 Knoxville Memphis Nashville 4.O 22.4 8.0 8.5 Austin Corpus Christi Dallas 49. 6.0 4.2 57. 2.7 7.5

Table 2 (Continued) CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK, 960970 REGION AND SMSA South (Continued) CC OCC Percent* Change in cc Acreage El Paso Fort Worth Houston 0.7 9.5 5.4.7 26.9 58. San Antonio Norfolk Richmond 49.4 6. 25. 64.4 Unweig hted Average 43.2 40. West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim* Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Jose Denver Honolulu Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake Seattle Spokane Tacoma Unweighted Average Total Unweighted Average 'More than onhcity. "The city as defined in 960 changed. Not available. Source: Census of Population, 960 and 970, Journey to Work (Adjusted).

Table 3 MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT INSIDE (cc) AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL CITY (occ) AREAS, 963 and 972 (in thousands) 972 as a Percent of 963 REGION AND SMSA SMSA OCC SMSA OCC CC OCC East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC 67 90 50 30 68 28 64 86 55 35 73 36 Baltimore Boston Springfield 9 293 67 87 2 0 23 80 273 62 89 24 26 Worcester Jersey City Newark 48 0 250 3 83 76 46 95 245 7 72 98 Paterson Albany Buffalo 76 62 63 4 3 lo6 86 59 52 32 48 99 New York Rochester Syracuse 47 2 67 220 24 47 990 38 6 233 48 35 Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence 536 272 26 27 90 6 498 262 32 295 99 73 2 3 262 99 80 99 228 07 84 Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary 86 36 98 352 4 2 909 45 00 479 9 8 Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita 6 22 43 46 7 27 23 27 39 30 9 6 Detroit Flint Grand Rapids Minneapolis Kansas City St. Louis 494 69 65 64 260 293 22 30 54 49 3 539 75 9 20 256 359 44 82 63 58

Table 3 (Continued) MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT INSIDE (cc) AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL REGION AND SMSA Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo Youngstown Madison Milwaukee CITY (occ) AREAS, 963 AND 972 (in thousands) SMSA 35 9 54 280 80 04 7 69 3 94 OCC 8 32 77 4 23 7 35 3 75 SMSA 38 94 57 269 89 9 82 87 6 200 OCC 6 43 89 38 27 47 26 49 4 94 972 as a Percent of 963 CC OCC 56 9 65 90 70 205 85 20 South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville 63 9 2 29 5 5 67 24 24 32 0 0 02.9 0.3 00.0 200.0 59.0 Miami Tampa Atlanta 43 37 96 24 3 44' 86 59 6 60 23 68 36.8 250.0 50.0 76.9 92.3 54.5 Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge 4 88 5 30 9 20 2 7 2 52 4 38.4 200.0 03.4 73.3 26.6 44.4 New Orleans Shreveport Jackson 49 9 2 8 2 3 55 20 6 26 5 4 93.5 44.4 24.2 250.0 33.3 33.3 Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa 33 27 30 0 3 2 46 40 43 20 6 8 3.0 200.0 4.6 200.0 94.4 66.6 Knoxville Memphis Nashville 35 47 47 5 4 3 4 60 56 7 6 0 20.0 3.3 25.5 50.0 35.2 76.9 Austin Corpus Christi Dallas 6 0 0 6 24 3 53 5 4 46 60.0 500.0 75.0 66.6 24.4 9.6

Table 3 (Continued) MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT INSIDE (CC) AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL CITY (occ) AREAS, 963 AND 972 (in thousands) 972 as a Percent of 963 REGION AND SMSA SMSA OCC SMSA OCC CC OCC South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston 5 5 09 32 26 7 60 24 55 San Antonio Norfolk Richmond 24 6 46 3 3 2 32 28 50 4 7 2 West 40 30 2 53 4 9 20 Phoenix Tucson Anaheim 4 7 97 2 4 4 72 9 3 20 78 Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento 4 746 35 8 433 27 9 780 22 2 460 0 San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco 38 60 96 25 04 56 65 8 37 20 2 San Jose Denver Honolulu 95 70 8 7 32 2 35 95 20 04 53 3 Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake 8 65 32 2 29 5 86 34 46 2 Seattle Spokane Tacoma 22 2 7 38 5 3 09 2 20 6 6 4 93 70 48 99 03 76 58 lo6 Total 8 84 52 80 25 76 63 92 'Not available on grounds of disclosure. Not applicable. Source: 963'and 972 Census of Manufacturing.

Table 4 RETAIL SALES, INSIDE (cc) AND OUTSIDE (occ) CENTRAL CITY AREAS 963and972 (in millions of dollars) 972 as a Percent of 963 REGION AND SMSA SMSA OCC SMSA OCC CC OCC East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC $487 889 3394 $235 57 204 $9 70 7396 $59 348 5643 Baltimore Boston Springfield 2268 38 9 67 00 2628 396 45 7 6829 53 2777 5204 702 Worcester Jersey City Newark 444 690 2507 42 423 860 843 99 3992 389 6 3372 Paterson Albany Buffalo 783 879 647 34 393 960 3327 60 2722 2755 979 889 New York Rochester Syracuse 5229 087 769 500 496 423 24 48 94 339 9457 223 873 Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence 5537 2820 064 3 75 864 736 048 4775 944 6770 3676 599 2555 3 5 272 4460 556 2777 2524 Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary 4 50 268 6080 725 339 946 644 Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita 5 47 02 2590 793 868 702 95 39 Detroit Flint Grand Rapids 309 225 335 9833 84 328 760 636 8 7 Minneapolis Kansas City St. Louis 825 697 744 4202 2970 4996 2529 729 3833

Table 4 (Continued) RETAIL SALES, INSIDE (cc) AND OUTSIDE (occ) CENTRAL CITY AREAS 963and972 (in millions of dollars) 972 as a Percent of 963 REGION AND SMSA Midwest (Continued) SMSA OCC SMSA OCC CC OCC Omaha Akron Cincinnati $65 797 63 $ 59 382 830 $294 8 7 900 Cleveland Columbus Dayton 2672 8 97 422 343 56 30 6 960 279 Toledo Youngstown Madison 822 605 340 337 369 99 844 849 23 Milwaukee 703 655 66 660 974 775 0 807 234 South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville 822 4 658 269 32 238 732 238 70 Miami Tampa Atlanta 584 38 56 949 380 593 258 378 2630 Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge 224 953 3 2 36 344 32 57 063 93 New Orleans Shreveport Jackson 076 326 26 37 7 40 37 49 95 Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa 469 790 573 9 228 54 587 598 233 Knoxville Memphis Nashville 452 862 6 77 4 63 338 240 55 Austin Corpus Christi Dallas 282 299 799 8 75 555 84 04 56

Table 4 (Continued) RETAIL SALES, INSIDE (cc) AND OUTSIDE (occ) CENTRAL CITY AREAS 963 and 972 (in millions of dollars) REGION AND SMSA SMSA OCC SMSA OCC 972 as a Percent of 963 CC OCC South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston $374 826 233 $2 227 545 $785 80 59 $24 808 506 25.5 4.2 65.7 355.9 232.0 276.3 San Antonio Norfolk Richmond 794 673 653 80 36 80 822 450 357 297 527 597 23.5 37.2 7.8 387.5 60.6 33.6 775 499 226 220 780 245 666 724 207.4 279.8 39.8 23.7 West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim 6 396 439 324 30 867 27 3 978 3864 09 lo6 2669 202.5 342.2 238.2 353.3 208.9 307.8 Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento 600 0474 065 23 5584 606 963 677 989 360 9304 309 63.4 55.8 52.6 66.6 48. 26.0 San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco 300 384 4437 754 606 2323 2567 3232 7629 590 69 4833 78.3 20.8 207.3 267. 32.2 208.0 San Jose Denver Honolulu 206 485 606 75 668 2726 3446 489 629 2 28 344 24.0 26.9 6.3 38.5 23.3 309.0 Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City 383 243 654 24 59 253 874 25 6 35 64 308 734 225.6 266.6 66.8 252.0 53.8 290. Seattle Spokane Tacoma 698 364 408 625 86 45 3243 690 794 672 99 382 46.4 267.5 76.6 23.3 56.6 263.4 69 238 806 303 323 3764 742 22 2 82.9 258.0 35. 56.4 Total 572 224 72 048 2988 3703 636 2099 7.5 52.0 44.6 83.3 Source: 963 and 972 Census of Retail Trade. Vol. II.

Table 5 PERCENT CHANGE IN RETAIL SALES IN MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS BETWEEN 963 AND 972, FOR SMSAs, CENTRAL CITY (cc), SUBURB (occ), AND CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) REGION SMSA OCC CBD East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC Baltimore Boston Springfield Worcester Jersey City Newark Paterson Albany Buffalo 05.4 0.6 49. New York Rochester Syracuse Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence Midwest Ch jcago Fort Wayne Gary Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita Detroit Flint Grand Rapids Minneapolis Kansas City St. Louis

Table 5 (Continued) PERCENT CHANGE IN RETAIL SALES IN MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS BETWEEN 963 AND 972, FOR SMSAs, CENTRAL CITY (cc), SUBURB (occ), AND CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) REGION AND SMSA SMSA cc OCC CBD Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo Youngstown Madison Milwaukee 2.l0/0 33.6.9 8.8 2.6.8 5.9 2.6 6.6 0. 9.5 5.6 South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville Miami Tampa Atlanta Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge New Orleans Shreveport Jackson Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa Knoxville Memphis Nashville Austin Corpus Christi Dallas 30.0 45.0 8.9 28.7.3 5.9 23.0 2.3.5 36.2 6.6 20.6 6. 32.3 3.6 3.2 8.5 8.5 8.3 9.0 4.2

Table 5 (Continued) PERCENT CHANGE IN RETAIL SALES IN MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS BETWEEN 963 AND 972, FOR SMSAs, CENTRAL CITY (cc), SUBURB (OCC), AND CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) REGION AND SMSA South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston San Antonio Norfolk Richmond SMSA cc OCC CBD 5.5% 4. 30.5 2.2 6.6 6. 26.3 07.4 79.8 28.5 39.8 23.7.6 27.4 West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Jose Denver Honolulu Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City Seattle Spokane Tacoma 94.6 56.6 63.4 Total 45.3 43.7 33.9 32.2 9.4 34.3 20.0 6. 23.0 0.7 8. 64.0 2.7 4. 0.6 7.7 37.6 5.3 28.0 5.4 2.7 Not applicable. Source: US. Bureau of the Census, Census of Business.

Table 6 NUMBER OF UNDERLYING AND OVERLYING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN LARGE CITIES, 972 REGION AND CITY East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC Exhibit: Local School Special Governments County District(s) District(s) in the SMSA Baltimore Boston Springfield Chicopee Holyoke Worcester Jersey City Newark Paterson Clifton Passaic Albany Schenectady Troy Buffalo New York City Rochester Syracuse Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence Pawtucket Warwick Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary Hamrnond East Chicago Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita Detroit Flint Grand Rapids 0 4 2 4 8 2 7 4 2

' Table 6 (Continued) NUMBER OF UNDERLYING AND OVERLYING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN LARGE CITIES, 972 REGION AND CITY Midwest (Continued) Minneapolis St. Paul Kansas City St. Louis Omaha Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo Youngstown Warren Madison Milwaukee County 3 0 2 School District(s) 6' 2 4 * 3 * 3 2* 3 2 2 2 * Special District(s) 3 6 2 3 5 4 4 5 4 5 7 5 3 3 Exhibit: Local Governments in the SMSA 2 8 256 483 234 98 260 20 28 6 37 07 84 49 South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville 0 County County 3 5 2 92 35 9 Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Atlanta 2 County County County* 2* 3*' 3 3 3 33 45 86 Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge New Orleans Shreveport Jackson 0 2 Parish Parish Parish 2 2 2 0 3 6 8 6 42 30 26 Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa 5 2 County 4 3 3 2 3 20 77 5 Knoxville Memphis Nashville Austin Corpus Christi Dallas 0 0 0 0 5 7 * 2 3 4 2 7 3 33 5 38 26 63 20

I Table 6 (Continued) NUMBER OF UNDERLYING AND OVERLYING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN LARGE CITIES, 972 Exhibit: Local School Special Governments REGION AND CITY County District(s) District(s) in the SMSA South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston San Antonio Norfolk Portsmouth Richmond West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim Garden Grove Santa Ana Fresno Los Angeles Long Beach Sacramento San Bernardino Riverside Ontario San Diego San Francisco Oakland San Jose Denver Honolulu Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City Seattle Everett Spokane Tacoma 24* 4 6 4 2 0 7 7 6 4 20* 6 7 State 2 'Includes higher education district(s). "Special district in existence in 972. Information not ava~lable. Source: 972 Census of Governments, Vol., government organization and unpublished materials from the governments division, Bureau of the Census.

Table 7 PER CAPITA NONSCHOOL TAXES CENTRAL ClTY AND OVERLYING COUNTY 972 and 975 REGION AND ClTY City Taxes County Taxes Total Taxes City Taxes County Taxes Total Taxes Exhibit: Scale of Activity County as Percent City East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC Baltimore Boston Springfield $ 88 268 429 5 357 49 $ $ 88 268 429 5 357 60 $ 96 282 504 78 39 200 $ 8 $ 96 282 504 78 39 28 0.25 Worcester Jersey City Newark 205 20 66 2 60 89 27 80 255 32 65 8 7 78 02 338 243 283 0.20..40 Paterson Albany Buffalo New York Rochester Syracuse Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence 97 7 24 365 8 3 20 49 52 85 83 95 0 36 49 202 207 365 23 24 20 85 9 99 92 472 2 0 4 242 32 27 58 9 99 05 20 0 42 77 290 29 472 3 5 234 242 75 27.57.I9.35.29 2.69.0 Unweighted Average Weighted Average 93 00 287 05 35 4 2 33 228 8 300 99 237 22 36 37 4 45 4 32 278 02 374 2 Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita 47 85 lo6 5 80 77 27 37 49 65 38 74 22 55 5 45 5 87 72 07 2 Ill 92 28 40 40 70 35 2 5 2 47 2 8 27 0.26 0.87.6 0.94 0.49 Detroit Flint Grand Rapids 75 97 83 30 28 24 205 25 07 205 88 36 36 25 24 47 3 0.32 0.80 0.62

Table 7 (Continued) REGION AND ClTY PER CAPITA NONSCHOOL TAXES CENTRAL ClTY AND OVERLYING COUNTY 9T2and975 City Taxes County Taxes Total Taxes City Taxes County Taxes Total Taxes Exhibit: Scale of Activity County as Percent City Midwest (Continued) Minneapolis St. Paul Kansas City St. Louis $2 9 55 20 $67 48 33 $88 67 88 20 $44 22 209 259 $88 68 39 $232 90 248 259.39 0.90 0.25 Omaha Akron Cincinnati 04 03 62 37 3 39 4 34 20 20 30 98 44 37 45 64 67 243 0.4 0.59 0.49 Cleveland Columbus Dayton 05 82 3 44 32 34 49 4 47 46 6 4 54 30 43 200 46 84 0.97 0.4 0.85 Toledo Youngstown Madison 88 82 83 45 26 39 33 lo8 22 04 8 04 34 30 36 38 48 40 0.42 0.58 0.6 Milwaukee 05 86 9 03 59 62 0.88 Unweighted Average Weighted Average 2 34 30 34 37 4 34 9 49 33 64 3 35 47 59 46 40 20 36 8 76 46 95 43 South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville 92 90 9 42 2 34 9 54 7 00 57 3 2 48 00 082 0.46 Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Atlanta Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge New Orleans Shreveport Jackson 25 lo6 97 07 lo6 04 20 3 03 84 77 58 36 80 30 8 24 202 64 33 87 lo6 34 20 3 2 lo8 43 3 85 43 28 45 49 43 4 94 97 58 38 47 49 2 35 240 7 23 290 28 94 49 43 35 29 2.63.03.9.36 0.75 0.24 0.5

Table 7 (Continued) REGION AND ClTY PER CAPITA NONSCHOOL TAXES CENTRAL ClTY AND OVERLYING COUNTY 972and975 City Taxes County Taxes Total Taxes City Taxes County Taxes Total Taxes Exhibit: Scale of Activity County as Percent City South (Continued) Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa $2 80 63 $4 22 27 $62 02 90 $50 02 20 $52 26 33 $202 28 53 0.46 0.38 0.34 Knoxville Memphis Nashville 99 86 6 37 48 36 34 6 09 49 38 64 49 73 49 0.56 0.66 Austin Corpus Christi Dallas 79 72 36 20 28 22 99 00 58 95 89 75 26 52 43 2 4 2 8 0.3 0.68 0.4 El Paso Fort Worth Houston 67 87 03 2 7 28 79 04 3 82 20 37 2 36 58 03 56 95 0.29 0.62 0.57 San Antonio Norfolk Richmond 53 3 227 3 66 3 227 67 207 3 7 34 0 207 3 7 0.60 Unweighted Average Weighted Average 02 3 02 29 25 27 26 22 27 35 27 35 32 48 9 37 37 33 36 30 69 54 54 45 West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim 90 09 8 33 63 79 23 72 60 05 4 0 54 76 83 59 90 93 0.90 0.89.47 Fresno Los Angeles Long Beach Sacramento 3 00 3 lo8 39 39 9 29 270 239 232 45 75 33 47 6 48 48 27 26 323 28 274 2.02.4 22.8 2.7 San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco Oakland 97 8 320 26 0 80 98 98 6 320 224 34 02 384 68 8 92 lo8 252 94 384 276 4.78.75 2.29

Table 7 (Continued) PER CAPITA NONSCHOOL TAXES CENTRAL ClTY AND OVERLYING COUNTY 972 and 975 REGION AND ClTY City Taxes County Taxes Total Taxes City Taxes County Taxes Total Taxes Exhibit: Scale of Activity County as Percent City West (Continued) San Jose Denver Honolulu $ 77 79 54 $ 05 230 72 $ 00 $205 230 72 $2.09 Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City 93 67 64 65 2 26 54 55 9 75 66 0.42 0.64.45 Seattle Spokane Tacoma 48 82 34 54 05 36 52 36 38 204 4 74 0.7 0.70 0.65 Unweighted Average Weighted Average 8 54 207 65 46 65 62 70 74 46 85 55 220 66 247 75 Total Unweighted Average Weighted Average 65 64 208 92 57 79 2 6 7 8 47 39 40 0 203 77 257 8 Source: Office of Revenue Sharing, Initial Data Elements, entitlement periods 4 and 7.

Table 8 CHANGE IN PER CAPITA NONSCHOOL TAXES CENTRAL CITY AND OVERLYING COUNTY 972 to 975 REGION AND ClTY City Change in Amount County Total City Rate of Change County Total East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC Baltimore Boston Springfield $8 4 75 27 34 5 $7 $8 4 75 27 34 58 0.04 0.05 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.34 0.64 0.04 0.05 0. 7 0.8 0. 0 0.36 Worcester Jersey City Newark 6 45 5 5 8 3 2 63 28 0.57 0.38 0.09 0.42 0.30 0.5 0.56 0.35 0. Paterson Albany Buffalo New York Rochester Syracuse Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence 22 82 68 07 92 7 32 7 6 6 6 6 0 0 6 28 88 84 07 02 7 32 6 0.23 0.70 0.55 0.29 0.78 0.3 0.5 0. 0.4 0.2 0.07 0. 9 0. 0.09 0.7 0.9 0.44 0.34 0.29 0.48' 0.03 0.5 0.05 0.4 Unweighted Average Weighted Average 44 74 6 2 50 74 0.22 0.26 0.7 0. 7 0.2 0.25 Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita 40 3 6 3 5 3 9 5 3 4 0 8 6 36 2 0.27 0.5 0.0 0.05 0.39 0.9 0.04 0.08 0.8 0.08 0.08 0.24 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.25 0.0 Detroit Flint Grand Rapids Minneapolis St. Paul Kansas City St. Louis 30 4 5 23 3 54 58 6 8 2 20 6 36 22 6 44 23 60 58 0.7 0.4 0.06 0.9 0.03 0.35 0.29 0.20 0.29 0.04 0.3 0.42 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.06 0.23 0.4 0.32 0.29

Table 8 (Continued) CHANGE IN PER CAPITA NONSCHOOL TAXES CENTRAL ClTY AND OVERLYING COUNTY Change in Amount Rate of Change REGION AND ClTY City County Total City County Total Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati 0.5 0.25 0.22 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.25 0.2 Cleveland Columbus Dayton 0.39 0.4 0.25 0.23 0.03 0.26 0.34 0.28 0.25 Toledo Youngstown Madison 0.8 0.44 0.25 0.24 0.5 0.08 0.04 0.37 0.5 Milwaukee 0.02 0.3 0.5 Unweighted Average Weighted Average 0.2 0.22 0.08 0.06 0.7 0.9 South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville 0.67 0.30 0.0 0.35 0.48 0.57 0.33 0.0 Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Atlanta Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge New Orleans Shreveport Jackson 0.4 0.07 0.2 0.34 0.2 0.39 0.24 0.27 0. 0.2 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.84 0.63 0.7 0.46 0.9 0.04 0.08 0.55 0.2 0.45 0.24 0.27 0.2 0.9 Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa 0.43 0.34 0.45 0.27 0.07 0.22 0.39 0.23 0.39 Knoxville Memphis Nashville 0.24 0.28 0.28 0. 8 0.33 0.23 0.29 0.28 Austin Corpus Christi Dallas 0.20 0.24 0.29 0.30 0.86 0.95 0.22 0.4 0.38

Table 8 (Continued) CHANGE IN PER CAPITA NONSCHOOL TAXES CENTRAL ClTY AND OVERLYING COUNTY Change in Amount Rate of Change REGION AND ClTY City County Total City County Total South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston $24 52 64 0.22 0.38 0.33 San Antonio Norfolk Richmond 34 76 80 0.26 0.58 0.40 Unweighted Average Weighted Average 4 39 0.29 0.27 West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim 36 8 33 0.7 0.05 0.36 Fresno Los Angeles Long Beach Sacramento 42 53 42 42 0.3 0.34 0.33 0.30 San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco Oakland 54 33 64 52 0.76 0.26 0.20 0.33 San Jose Denver Honolulu 28 5 8 0. 8 0.28 0.2 Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City 2 8 2 0.00 0.9 0.05 Seattle Spokane Tacoma 58 59 40 0.39 0.94 0.28 Unweighted Average Weighted Average 39 40 0.25 0.25 Total Unweighted Average Weighted Average 38 49 0.25 0.24 Source: See Table 3

Table 9 PER CAPITA GENERAL REVENUE SHARING ENTITLEMENTS SIXTH ENTITLEMENT PERIOD, 97576 REGION AND SMSA OCC Ratio: CC OCC Central City Government Overlying County Government East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC Baltimore Boston Springfield Worcester Jersey City Newark $5.46 6.2 5.67 59 8.09 2.6 5.64 25.66 5.53.73.66.54 2.58.90.07.89.02 2.5 $26.74 26.84 36.32 29.93 34.42 2.6 29.5 7.29 24.56 $.5 8.90 8.80 Paterson Albany Buffalo 3.42 4.66 2.79.6.58.50 9.28 6.23 20.30 6.34 6.90 2.32 New York Rochester Syracuse 8.5 5.06 20.4.86.48.2 34.44 4.8 2.77 8.7 54 Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence 3.63 7.76 4.84 2.0 2.00.85 27.44 27.32 27.40 8.8 Unweighted Average 6.38 3.54.67 0.39 24.4 7.26 4.9 4.88 Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita 3.90 2.79 6.40 3.36 4.65 4.23.98.30.60.26.42.28 23.84.9 9.4 6.83.35.77 3.70 5.5 7.06 9.44 6.40 Detroit Flint Grand Rapids 4.44 2.86 3.30 2.32 2.32.87 28.48 23.3 20.46 5.07 6.72 4.47 Minneapolis St. Paul Kansas City St. Louis 5.43 5.43 0.44 3.95.79.66 2.88.78 7.95 7.28 24.72 24.79 9.64 8.40 5.3

Table 9 (Continued) PER CAPITA GENERAL REVENUE SHARING ENTITLEMENTS SIXTH ENTITLEMENT PERIOD, 97576 REGION AND SMSA OCC Ratio: CC OCC Central City Government Overlying County Government Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo Youngstown Madison Milwaukee $.57 2. 3.85 3.09 9.98 0.86 8.52 2.78 2.43 7.62.65.79 2.4 2.22 2. 2.46 2.7.47.98.93 $3.65 6.63 23.33 23.0 6.82 2.I4 3.87 3.0 7.96 9.76 $5.43 5.03 6.26 5.94 4.25 5.57 4.65 5.64 6.67 4.30 Unweighted Average South 3.22 2.04.89.38 8.7 4.75 5.89 2.39 Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville Miami Tampa St. Petersburg Atlanta Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge New Orleans Shreveport Jackson Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa Knoxville Memphis Nashville Austin Corpus Christi Dallas 5.85 5.6 9.55 7.23.29.29 29.0 5.72 2.98 3.3 9.23 4.09 3.44.70 2.42 8.2 9.35 8.22 7.94 4.49 9.03 2.75 2.2 2.00.95 2.4 2.68.52.O6.58 3.7 2.24.66 2.0 2.35 2..72.40 2.93.60 2.53 3.94.40.66 25.24 23.96 8.6 24.79 20.20 2.07 5.54 24.8 30.2 29.79 3.85 25.9 23.65 8. 7.02 9.59 9.99 8.85 20.0 3.72 6.76 6.98 9.77 7.30 2.06 0.0 5. 5.24.02 4.33 7.98 6.52 4.38 5.85 7.4 0.34 3.98 9.89 4.6

Table 9 (Continued) PER CAPITA GENERAL REVENUE SHARING ENTITLEMENTS SIXTH ENTITLEMENT PERIOD, 97576 REGION AND SMSA OCC Ratio: CC OCC Central City Government Overlying County Government South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston $6.29.90.O5 3.92.67.78 $9.32 5.63 4.0 San Antonio Norfolk Richmond 8.29 23.20 0.0 2.20.0 2.54 2.45 25.6 25.60 Unweighted Average 3.70 5.20 2..7 20.70 5.30 West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim 4.79 2.75 4.00.40 2.36.2 5.07 9.37 8.64 Fresno Los Angeles Long Beach Sacramento 2.78.60.60 7.73.73 2.39.90.64 9.92 5.7 9.49 3.96 San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco Oakland 22.69 6.26 4.93 4.93.50.2.80.72 7.07 0.08 26.95 5.79 San Jose Denver Honolulu 4.48 2.87.oo.33.99.oo 0.62 25.62 9.89 Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City 26.3.49 6..35 3.9 2.32 25.96 25.40 24.22 Seattle Spokane Tacoma 2.60 6.57 9.32.94 4.23 3.55 8.39 20.08 26.08 Unweighted Average 3.69 4.97.96.8 8.46 5.86 All Cities Unweighted Average 4.5 4.36.90.72 20.4 6.23 Source: Office of Revenue Sharing, General Revenue Sharing Payment Summary, entitlement period 6

Table 20 ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE IN FISCAL CAPACITY INDICATORS CENTRAL ClTY AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL ClTY AREAS Total Income 959972 REGION AND ClTY Central City Assessed Value 9660 to 973/72* Central City (cc) Outside Central City (OCC) Ratio: CC OCC East Bridgeport Hartford Washington, DC.044.03.053.066.074,3 0.66 0.4 0.46 Baltimore Boston Springfield.046.04.042.092.06.072 0.49 0.67 0.59 Worcester Jersey City Newark.045.043,03.075.053,062 0.60 0.8 0.50 Paterson Albany Buffalo.050.044.027.069.080.064 0.7 0.55 0.42 New York Rochester Syracuse.047.034.030.069.088.077 0.68 0.39 0.39 Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence,047.030,049,070,059.079 0.66 0.50 0.62 Midwest Chicago Fort Wayne Gary Indianapolis Des Moines Wichita.034,043,043.078.082,00 0.43 0.52 0.43 Detroit Flint Grand Rapids.035.043,082.I0 0.43 0.43 Minneapolis Kansas City St. Louis,035.023,00,073 0.35 0.32

Table 20 (Continued) ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE IN FISCAL CAPACITY INDICATORS CENTRAL ClTY AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL ClTY AREAS' Total Income 959972 REGION AND ClTY Central City Assessed Value 96 /6O to 973/72* Central City (cc) Outside Central City (OCC) Ratlo: CC OCC Midwest (Continued) Omaha Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo Youngstown Madison Milwaukee South Birmingham Mobile Jacksonville Miami Tampa Atlanta Columbus Louisville Baton Rouge New Orleans Shreveport Jackson Charlotte Oklahoma City Tulsa Knoxville Memphis Nashville Austin Corpus Christi Dallas

REGION AND ClTY South (Continued) El Paso Fort Worth Houston San Antonio Norfolk Richmond Table 20 (Continued) ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE IN FISCAL CAPACITY INDICATORS CENTRAL ClTY AND OUTSIDE CENTRAL ClTY AREAS Total Income 959972 Central City Assessed Value 9660 to 97372* Central City (cc).054 Outside Central City (occ).i2 Ratio: CC OCC 0.45 West Phoenix Tucson Anaheim Fresno Los Angeles Sacramento San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Jose Denver Honolulu Albuquerque Portland Salt Lake City Seattle Spokane Tacoma.082.090.05.042.064,043.043.050.I26.I25.060.079.I9.097.07.085.065 0.72 0.85 0.53 0.53 0.44 0.6 0.59 Income and the assessed value of local taxable property frequently are used as measures of local fiscal capacity. This table presents the average annual rate of change in the assessed value of local property in certain core cities where the information is available from Moody's over the period 9660 to 97372 and the annual rate of change in total income for central cities and outside areas where boundaries have remained essentially unchanged over the 959 to 972 (cf Table 2). Average per capita income for all central city areas stood at $,987 in 960 and at $3,784 in 973 (Table ) indicating an average rate of change of,05. The rates of change in per capita income for central city areas showa substantially slower growth rate in the East and Midwest. Outside central city areas in all regions enjoyed a faster rate of change than central city areas. 'Excludes changes in any year in excess of k20 percent which are assumed to reflect major reappraisals, changes In assessment level, and annexation of new area. "Data not available on a comparable basis for beginning and ending years.

Table 2 MANY OF OUR MAJOR CENTRAL CITIES ARE EXPERIENCING FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY, WOULD YOU FAVOR OR OPPOSE SPECIAL FEDERAL AID FOR THESE CENTRAL CITIES? TOTAL U.S. PUBLIC Men Women 829 Years of Age 3039 4049 5059 60 Years or over Less than High School complete High School complete Some College Professional Managerial Clerical, Sales Craftsman, Foreman Other Manual, Service Farmer, Farm Laborer Rural Old Suburb New Suburb City Family City Multifamily City Apartment Northeast North Central South West Favor 48% 47 49 56 48 46 46 4 46 49 49 53 45 47 49 52 29 33 46 4 50 70 72 70 43 39 44 Oppose 40% 45 37 35 42 45 4 42 37 4 45 42 45 39 40 39 45 55 42 48 40 9 20 22 47 46 44 No Opinion 2% 8 4 9 0 9 3 7 7 0 6 5 0 4 9 26 2 2 0 8 8 0 5 2 Under $5,000 Family Income $5,000 $6,999 $7,000 $9,999 $0,000$4,999 $ 5,000 or over 46 52 49 48 48 38 36 37 43 44 6 2 4 9 8 No Children in Household With Children under 8 With Teenagers 27 46 50 50 42 39 39 2 White NonWhite 47 60 43 9 0 2 Own Home Rent Home 44 56 45 3 3

Appendix AREA COMPONENTS OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS AKRON, OH Portage County Summit County ALBANYSCHENECTADYTROY, NY Albany County Rensselaer County Saratoga County Schenectady County ALBUQUERQUE, NM Bernalillo County ANAHEIMSANTA ANAGARDEN GROVE, CA Orange County ATLANTA, GA Clayton County Cobb County De Kalb County Fulton County Gwinnett County AUSTIN, TX Travis County BALTIMORE, MD Baltimore City Anne Arundel County Baltimore County Carroll County Harford County Howard County BATON ROUGE, LA East Baton Rouge Parish BIRMINGHAM, AL Jefferson County Shelby County Walker County BOSTON, MA Essex County (part) Beverly City Lynn City Peabody City Danvers Town Hamilton Town Lynnfield Town Manchester Town Marblehead Town Middleton Town Nahant Town Saugus Town Swampscott Town Topsfield Town Wenham Town Middlesex County (part) Cambridge City Everett City Malden City Medford City Melrose City Newton City Somerville City Waltham City Woburn City Arlington Town Ashland Town Bedford Town Belmont Town Burlington Town Concord Town Framingham Town Lexington Town Lincoln Town Natick Town North Reading Town Reading Town Sherborn Town Stoneharn Town Sudbury Town Wakefield Town Watertown Town Wayland Town Weston Town Wilmington Town Winchester Town Norfolk County (part) Quincy City

Appendix (Continued) AREA COMPONENTS OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS BOSTON, MA (continued) Braintree Town Brookline Town Canton Town Cohasset Town Dedham Town Dover Town Holbrook Town Medfield Town Millis Town Milton Town Needham Town Norfolk Town Norwood Town Randolph Town Sharon Town Walpole Town Wellesley Town Westwood Town Weymouth Town Plymouth County (part) Duxbury Town Hanover Town Hingham Town Hull Town Marshfield Town Norwell Town Pembroke Town Rockland Town Scituate Town Suffolk County Boston City Chelsea City Revere City Winthroo....., Town BRIDGEPORT, CT Fairfield County (part) Bridgeport City Shelton City Easton Town Fairfield Town Monroe Town Stratford Town Trumbull Town New Haven County (part) Milford Town BUFFALO, NY Erie County Niagara County CHARLOTTE, NC Mecklenburg County Union County CHICAGO, IL Cook County Du Page County Kane County Lake County McHenry County Will County CINCINNATI, OHKYIN Clermont County, OH Hamilton County, OH Warren County, OH Boone County, KY Campbell County, KY Kenton County, KY Dearborn County, IN CLEVELAND, OH Cuyahoga County Geauga County Lake County Medina County COLUMBUS, GAAL Chattahoochee County, GA Muscogee County, GA Russell County, AL COLUMBUS, OH Delaware County Franklin County Pickaway County CORPUS CHRISTI, TX Nueces County San Patricio County d

Appendix (Continued) AREA COMPONENTS OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS DALLAS, TX Collin County Dallas County Denton County Ellis County Kaufman County Rockwall County DAYTON, OH Green County Miami County Montgomery County Preble County DENVER, CO Adams County Arapahoe County Boulder County Denver County Jefferson County DES MOINES, IA Polk County DETROIT, MI Macomb County Oakland County Wayne County EL PASO, TX El Paso County FLINT, MI Genesee County Lapeer County FORT WAYNE, IN Allen County FORT WORTH, TX Johnson County Tarrant County FRESNO, CA Fresno County GARYHAMMONDEAST CHICAGO, IN Lake County Porter County GRAND RAPIDS, MI Kent County Ottawa County HARTFORD, CT Hartford County (part) Hartford City Avon Town Bloomfield Town Canton Town East Granby Town East Hartford Town East Windsor Town Enfield Town Farmington Town Glastonbury Town Granby Town Manchester Town Newington Town Rocky Hill Town Simsbury Town South Windsor Town Suffield Town West Hartford Town Wethersfield Town Windsor Town Windsor Locks Town Middlesex County (part) Cromwell Town Tolland County (part) Andover Town Bolton Town Coventry Town Ellington Town Vernon Town HONOLULU, HI Honolulu County HOUSTON, TX Brazoria County Fort Bend County Harris County Liberty County Montgomery County

Appendix (Continued) AREA COMPONENTS OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS INDIANAPOLIS, IN Boone County Hamilton County Hancock County Hendricks County Johnson County Marion County Morgan County Shelby County JACKSON, MS Hinds County Rankin County JACKSONVILLE, FL Duval County JERSEY CITY, NJ Hudson County KANSAS CITY, MOKS Cass County, MO Clay County, MO Jackson County, MO Platte County, MO Johnson County, KS Wyandotte County, KS KNOXVILLE, TN Anderson County Blount County Knox County LOS ANGELESLONG BEACH, CA Los Angeles County LOUISVILLE, KYIN Jefferson County, KY Clark County, IN Floyd County, IN MADISON, WI Dane County MEMPHIS, TNAR Shelby County, TN Crittenden County, AR MIAMI, FL Dade County MILWAUKEE, WI Milwaukee County Ozaukee County Washington County Waukesha County MINNEAPOLISST. PAUL, MN Anoka County Dakota County Hennepin County Ramsey County Washington County MOBILE, AL Baldwin County Mobile County NASHVI LLEDAVI DSON, TN Davidson County Sumner County Wilson County NEW ORLEANS, LA Jefferson Parish Orleans Parish St. Bernard Parish St. Tammany Parish NEW YORK, NY New York City Bronx County Kings County New York County Queens County Richmond County Nassau County Rockland County Suffolk County Westchester County NEWARK, NJ Essex County Morris County Union County

Appendix (Continued) AREA COMPONENTS OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS NORFOLKPORTSMIT 'H, VA Chesapeake City Norfolk City Portsmouth Citv Virginia Beach city OKLAHOMA CITY, OK Canadian County Cleveland County Oklahoma County OMAHA, NEIA Douglas County, NE Sarpy County, NE Pottawattamie County, IA PATERSONCLIFTONPASSAIC, NJ Bergen County Passaic County PHILADELPHIA, PANJ Bucks County, PA Chester County, PA Delaware County, PA Montgomery County, PA Philadelphia County, PA Burlington County, NJ Camden County, NJ Gloucester Countv. NJ PHOENIX, AZ Maricopa County PITTSBURGH, PA Allegheny County Beaver County Washington County Westmoreland County PORTLAND, ORWA Clackamus County, OR Multnomah County, OR Washington County, OR Clark County, WA PROVIDENCEPAWTUCKETT WARWICK, RIMA Bristol County, RI Barrington Town Bristol Town Warren Town Kent County, RI (part) Warwick City Coventry Town East Greenwich Town West Warwich Town Newport County, RI (part) Jamestown Town Providence County, RI (part) Central Falls City Cranston City Providence City Pawtucket City East Providence City Woonsocket City Burrillville Town Cumberland Town Johnston Town Lincoln Town North Providence Town North Smithfield Town Smithfield Town Washington County, RI (part) Narragansett Town North Kingston Town Bristol County, MA (part) Attleboro City North Attleboro Town Rehoboth Town Seekonk Town Norfolk County, MA (part) Bellingham Town Franklin Town Plainville Town Wrentham Town Worcester County, MA (part) Blackstone Town Millville Town

Appendix (Continued) AREA COMPONENTS OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS RICHMOND, VA Richmond City Chesterfield County Hanover County Henrico County ROCHESTER, NY Livingston County Monroe County Orleans County Wayne County SACRAMENTO, CA Placer County Sacramento County Yolo County ST. LOUIS, MOIL St. Louis City, MO Franklin County, MO Jefferson County, MO St. Charles County, MO St. Louis County, MO Madison County, IL St. Clair County, IL SALT LAKE CITY, UT Davis County Salt Lake County SAN ANTONIO, TX Bexar County Guadalupe County SAN BERNARDINORIVERSIDE ONTARIO, CA Riverside County San Bernardino County SAN DIEGO, CA San Diego County SAN FRANCISCOOAKLAND, CA Alameda County Contra Costa County Marin County San Francisco County San Mateo County SAN JOSE, CA Santa Clara County SEATTLEEVERETT, WA King County Snohomish County SHREVEPORT, LA Bossier Parish Caddo Parish SPOKANE, WA Spokane County SPRINGFIELDCHICOPEEHOLYOKE, MACT Hampden County, MA (part) Chicopee City Holyoke City Springfield City Westfield City Agawam Town East Longmeadow Town Hampden Town Longmeadow Town Ludlow Town Monson Town Palmer Town Southwick Town West Springfield Town Wilbraham Town Hampshire County, MA (part) Northampton City Easthampton Town Granby Town Hadley Town South Hadley Town Worcester County, MA (part) Warren Town Tolland County, CT (part) Somers Town SYRACUSE, NY Madison County Onondaga County Oswego County

Appendix (Continued) AREA COMPONENTS OF STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS TACOMA, WA Pierce County TAMPAST. PETERSBURG, FL Hillsborough County Pinellas County TOLEDO, OHMI Lucas County, OH Wood County, OH Monroe County, MI TUCSON, AZ Pima County JLSA, OK Creek County Osage County Tulsa County kshington, DCMDVA District of Columbia Montgomery County, MD Prince Georges County, MD Alexandria City, VA Fairfax City, VA Falls Church City, VA Arlington County, VA Fairfax County, VA Loudoun County, VA Prince William County, VA WICHITA, KS Butler County Sedgwick County WORCESTER, MA Worcester County (part) Worcester City Auburn Town Berlin Town Boylston Town Brookfield Town East Brookfield Town Grafton Town Holden Town Leicester Town Millbury Town Northborough Town Northbridge Town North Brookfield Town Oxford Town Paxton Town Shrewsbury Town Spencer Town Sterling Town Sutton Town Upton Town Westborough Town West Boylston Town YOUNGTOWNWARREN, OH Mahoning County Trumbull County Source: County and City Data Book, 972 * U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 97 723334/360