x \uL LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 2/05 a/aTRC/DateDmJndd-pjs N 30" m' A CASE STUDY FOR SOLON TOWNSHIP, LEELANAU COUNTY INSTRUCTOR: DR. JUNE MANNING THOMAS Associate Professor Urban Planning/Urban Affairs Programs, Michigan State University Bangnan Liu (A11426105) Nov. 18, 1994 Submitted to Urban and Regional Program Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan. FOR THE BEAUTIFUL CAMPUS AND FRIENDLY PEOPLE TABLE OF CONTENTS A Raised Question ................................ 1 A Small Community ................................ 3 Survey Before Plan ............................... 11 Historic Review .................................. 23 Information Exchange ............................. 33 Search the Opportunities ......................... 41 Establish a Headquarter .......................... 50 Lighting the Downtown ............................ 53 Conclusions ...................................... 56 Bibliography ..................................... 58 Appendix (results of tabulation) attached. A Raised Question The public polls showed that from fifty percent to eighty percent Americans prefer to live in small towns over cities (Lingman 1980). Though there is no uniform definition of a small town, it is generally a center surrounded by a rural community. The center could be the downtown, or a commercial center of the rural community, where the most major land use is farming or forestry and agriculture forms a large portion of the local economy. The reasons that so many people like to live there may be that the small towns have a better environment, less crime, and lower living expenses. This in spite of the fact that most small towns have fewer job opportunities and fewer public service facilities such as schools, shopping centers, hospitals and emergency services. It may be the reason that today the majority of people still live in city areas, because jobs and better public services are the most important issues for most families. Urban areas still attract lots of peOple to move in, but the poll does show that small town development has huge potential for growth. The differences between a large urban area and a small town are not only in physical size but in living quality and standards. Of course, people at different ages have their distinct life styles as well as their basic standard. Elderly or retired people prefer to live in small towns or rural communities. They have less income than they used to, most of them do not seek employment, and they have little concerns about their children's schooling. Many of them expect to leave cities and move to rural communities to enjoy the countryside life style in their affordable housing. Many young farmers are tired of their farming business. With a decrease of farming income, some of the farmers wish to change their future by opening new ventures in city areas, where they may have better jobs and better lives for themselves and their families. Those farmers hope to make a change and to have more economic opportunity in their rural community. These two movements that are against each other generate lots of conflict in small towns. One side wants "zero" increase to keep everything as it is. The other side wants more land use development to create jobs. Both sides, however, have some common concerns such as poor public services, especially the emergency service, losing farm land, and, the most important, they are worried about increasing the cost of living. In the north, around Lake Michigan, there are many small towns that have similar problems. If their problems are well treated, the controversy will be minimized, and it can generate a positive economic growth in the region. This paper will concentrate on one case study. The purpose of the study is to try to find a possible solution for the small community. '1'! H b.-. --.. ‘ »—~.. my ’y. -.,._ M-.‘. ‘-‘. All" "A- _ (I, n: "‘f .A Small Community Solon Township, Leelanau County (see the location maps next page) contains roughly twenty—nine square miles of territory, and in 1990 the Census Bureau counted 1268 souls in the township. This population is virtually fifty percent male and fifty percent female and is predominantly middle-aged. There are 441 households. Approximately twenty-five percent of households are part time residents: they stay in the township less than six months every year. Most of them own their homes, which contain roughly three individuals. Compared to the county, the township's population is considerably younger with a greater proportion of children under 18 years of age and a lesser number of people over 65. A large portion of the population had college degrees. The township's population increased twenty-nine percent in the last decade, versus eighteen percent for Leelanau County and about 0.4 percent for the state of Michigan. In the 1960's Solon Township's population increased about fourteen percent. In the 1970's it increased about twenty—four percent. The trend appears clear. Cedar, the downtown and the political center of the township, was an old Polish community. It still has strong Polish traditions. Every year, there is a grand Polish Festival attracting thousands of Polish-Americans from all over the country. They usually spend a long weekend there to celebrate their holiday with a variety of activities. This tradition started in the last century. The small town of Cedar has obvious location advantages Fig-1 -- Coonly Iouodon ‘ --... 1....qu Bound." Leelana u C 0 U n ty @ Ill. Nan-bond "unify mn- cnyIVlluo Cocoon“ LII-m Mlchlgln _ -° I. Unlococpoutod Vlluo Chm ® Illohloon 3“" ""M'" @ Husband County Rood mum 3 Uohlhoou Point COIN-d roan: ”mo" .01 l. 0‘ o “I.“ £0.04 I Humour Lalo Noun uonuu o" Inland , ' ‘lt' ' ’0‘“ Nonhpofl . Dodo! h. .; Nonnpon You-n35, 12 '00" lilo“ Ian 0 Into own. 9’ . Ilenflou '0‘ no lot-no -\O * Now Illuloo a .- --- - —- POM! ‘5' u Loloml '- o lolond Pooho b m *0 J tonne, " ° "' y. Cup Mn: Sana» PoInI . N 5 lo, ‘91» bunk-p Ouch Sutton: Lu. 9 . Sutlon n . ..' '0'!“ r "mu F . ' 91m “‘53,, Sutton: 5 ° (L I Boy . N'ddon i in. a.“ ”who! ’.1 4 m . Snug 3 Lalo I cum: Was! a u Unto Trovono / ‘0'.“ E us to /s 3" LOa' K1 1 ‘t t u —' L A t h Sloopln' ! . . ll . g ....oon W ”a. 0'! Arm loot . School _ Olon "7 ‘nu—l t“. -Ioduo Novon s1 FIJI"! l Clovol , Grand ' ‘ Olon t... . Township onlocvilo or. K A! 0' I I Um mum, A: m, I! 0 loan _ m I *1 Indoc- Travorso ' i an . . o,” L 1" u ' u. m-uuoo- say u I. .. ’2 , .90 .0 0| ‘0‘. - 2c“, / |||Ifl‘ I 7:," dektvlflo Into 12 Scam In lupin "cum to“ low-MB, .‘m ' 4 - t to cum: “to 0 Empire 0'..." All” a “I". U 0§$°6f “" sum» ”1’ nu ' : "fl" 3::0“ mu J. "a I t... k_‘...-‘ 0 I . ‘ 0!“! Onion. 0.", ' Cool 3 ll -' \ T hound Bonzlo E 1.... County Lm / Grand .Tnvoru' County \7 L4...” . n' : l m 04 !:711‘.T.V;'t'? ”3%..” 0 nu- Iluo woo uopuod by Timothy J. Dolononiy, Colloonuu, tool-nu Com-l1 "Inning Dopulmonl. Lolond, manna. F' . 44355011 fiwnshr I Fig—2 SolonTownship Coun’rq 24‘- WA gamma 6601’ 6 - 5H '/4 -6ukb-’EVLC%SBM+ 6a#7"6mzofbk4h WB' NM] '14 and N '12 of éu‘ll, . \uan m. we. ‘ . . bummed «ownsm? bong (’59:. Towns?“ F ‘l"’|lll’||nllll F (‘3‘. $-_ .oooooooooll 7.. N loonooo I u ..... - (e no Gus III .‘II‘.. C... // E3 -Connncu [El I] E z "37:77:33 (IAQIII'! ‘! mcwoes Noam n or soumwesr as secnon a ’ Existin andJJSe Ma CedaLi—Eea p Wugomy. Mkhlgon compared to the other areas of the township. Drive 20 to 25 minutes southeast, you reach Traverse City, where most residents do their weekly shopping; drive west and you reach Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore to enjoy the view of Lake Michigan. Within a five minute drive from Cedar there are many recreation places like Lake of Leelanau, Long Lake, and Sugar Loaf Ski Resort, a famous resort that attracts many people during the golfing and skiing seasons (see the map Fig-1 "I") Cedar is also the largest residential and commercial area in the township. Many newcomers are still moving to this area. From 1991 to 1992 fifteen families moved to the township. Eight of them resided in Cedar. Because most people moved in downtown Cedar area recently, its development has become a focus of all discussions. Solon Township is famous for cherries, apples, grapes, and for its natural beauty. It is surrounded by mountains, forest, wetland, lakes, and streams, all with abundant wildlife. The main geographic feature of the township is the Cedar Swamp, a vast drainage basin that covers much of the northern part of the township. The swamp draws from both Grand Traverse County and Leelanau County. It goes into Lake Leelanau at the northwest corner of the township. The major water carriers are the Cedar Run and Victoria Creeks. A large piece of wetland is located by the basin, which covers one third of the township land. The wetland provides undevelopable open space for the residents. Farms and forests take advantage of soil conditions and the climatic conditions created by the Great Lakes on all sides of the Leelanau peninsula. These conditions allow for various types of agriculture, especially orchards and vineyards. Land outside of the swamp and its watershed is largely forested with northern hardwoods. Oak and red pine are precious species which exist in few places of the world. Forestry covers about another one third of total land use. The residents call all of these "rural character" . They believe that these elements are the most important features for them. Unfortunately, rural character has its problems. In the same community, some children have difficulty getting to schools, because of the poor schooling conditions (transportation system and schools). Some parents have to teach their children at 'their homes. Some local stores are closed, or only open seasonally. Water supply and municipal sewage systems do not exist. To provide those systems in a low density residential area like the township would cost too much. Because ground water there tvas found contaminated in early 1980's, the township tried to install a water supply and drainage system in downtown Cedar, but ‘the cost at that time was over three million dollars.1 Today, inater pollution problems still exist. Many families buy grocery twater for drinking and the well water is only for other purposes. Shopping at local grocery stores, the residents pay much 1 Department of Natural Resource, Michigan State University INaS involved in this project at that time. The township had funds from the state government. Unfortunately, the project was not put into practice. a- a! r~ .-‘ us.- more than they pay in the shopping centers at Traverse city. The choices and services for goods are very limited in the community. A.1ack of emergency services, such as hospitals and fire fighting services, causes many residents to feel that they have less security. People have difficulty finding jobs because there are so few economic activities. Cherries, apples, and grapes are the unique products that are produced in Leelanau County. Selling those products is the Inajor income for most farmers, but these fruits are seasonal products. They have to be sold in a short time when they are fresh, though the prices are the cheapest at that time. Farmers know that they are very hard to keep fresh for a longer time due to lack of equipment and technology. Sometimes, these products are sold below costz. The County statistics showed that the average personal income earned in agriculture was $5218 per year in 1990,3 which was far below the state average level of $8751 per year. The property tax received every year can only maintain the basic operation of the township. Solon Township planned to hire a full time planner for a long time, but it did not have an adequate budget. The economic status of the township does not allow it to do a basic public facility improvements even if the 2 Most fruit trees are controlled by the large fruit cooperations. These cooperations guaranteeetijurchase those fruits every year, but the prices are decided.by international markets and the profit of the cooperations. 3 "Michigan Rural Development Strategy Data Book," Michigan Department of Commerce, 1991. residents may want it. Due to a shortage of capital, the township could not afford to update its buildings, even in the downtown commercial area. The sidewalks, the walls of the buildings and the streets were not well maintained. In some places, weeds were growing in the streets and cracks in the walls. Trees, signs and lighting systems disappears in many places where they should be. In short, the downtown Cedar does not look compatible with its nice natural environment. Thousands of cars pass through downtown Cedar during weekends, especially in the winter and summer time. Few of them stop there. Their destination is Sugar Loaf. All those disadvantages worry the residents. On April 14, 1991,4 Sunday, a community meeting was held in downtown Cedar. About 30 people participated. Most of them were local small business owners, a few were farmers and other individuals. Business owners worried about their businesses. They all were concerned about the increase of closed businesses in the downtown area, which had a serious negative impact on their own business. The other concern addressed was lack of customers. A grocery owner said that though the goods in her store were priced higher, she just barely could afford the operation. If all the 4 For this project, I have been Cedar, Solon township three times. Every time I participated in their community meetings and talked to the business groups as well as residents. April 1991 was my first time visiting the community. neighbors were shopping at Traverse City, she might have to close the store. Even the restaurant owner, there is only one restaurant in downtown Cedar, said that he thought his site had a great location, but few new comers patronized there. The farmers were concerned about the property tax increase. They said that if the township encouraged more economic development, the property value would be raised, which would not Ibe good news for them, because they would have to pay more. And 'they did not have any plans to move to other places to make money CH1 their real estate. Additionally, they wished that the <:ommunity could provide more jobs for their children. The retired residents thought that life in this community tvas cheap, because most of them were from big cities such as (Hiicago and Detroit. Many of them were willing to pay more to get loasic home services and emergency services. In the meeting most participants thought that this community tvas an agricultural community. It has a large number of senior :residents. It needs more basic service businesses to meet the loasic needs. They believed that Solon has excellent natural :resource to make it a better place. It was said that if their .location advantage had been taken by another community such as Idaple City, Solon would be the loser. The residents indicated that there were many chances to .improve their community economic conditions. For instance, they <:ould hold cross country skiing activities to draw tourists in 'Ehe winter time; introduce all kinds of tradition events in the Polish Festival such as original food, clothing, farmer tools, and art works; have sport activities such as a mountain bike competition. Most the residents hoped to improve their living conditions. They also realized that making the change was a long term and difficult process, because they mainly depended on themselves, and they were not economically powerful. Some of the business owners even thought that they needed fast growth. They pointed out that it was frustrating to see that thousands of cars pass by each.day at the weekends,5 but few of them stop and go shopping in their stores. They did care about changing the "rural character" resulting from any economic development, too. "Rural" is the base of their loeing in this community. They worried that more people moving in this area would bring "traffic" and "crowds." Because of this concern some individuals stated that no growth should be the goal of the community. "Rural character" is a relative concept- To have some additional economic activities would change some existing <:onditions as many of the residents mentioned. This change may liave some negative impact to a certain area or to certain (zitizens. This group of people might feel that their countryside 5 The Home Port Real Estate Co. organized this research. The xxesearch counted traffic volumes on the road segment between Cedar arui Sugar Loaf twenty four hours a day for several weeks. It was :fiound that between Friday and Sunday, there were more than six tfluousands vehicles passing through. The rush hours were Friday late eafternoon and Sunday late afternoon hours. life styles had changed, but they might also realize that the change would have positive impacts on their living conditions. Compared to suburban areas, or the surrounding communities, this ‘township may still be a rural community, because they are changing every day. Additionally, it is almost impossible to keep the community at "zero" growth unless the rest of areas were to Inave no growth. It is impossible to have ideal achievement INithOUt the compensation. Furthermore, to have a certain amount <3f manageable growth is much better than decline. 10 Survey Before Plan Community meetings, though they are useful to get first inqxressions, do not provide enough information to obtain a conqolete picture of the township. For example, it is hard to know the: differences between different groups. This information will lielID the community set up its priorities. Starting with a survey before drawing up the plan is a trenditional method introduced in 1915 by Mr. Patrick Geddes, who thcnaght that a survey "gave understanding of an active erqoerienced environment." This environment "was a motor force of htunan.development." He explained further that a survey "provides true basis for the total reconstruction of social and political ligfe." In fact, survey information has the function of eouzhanging the concepts. It may reduce some differences in the (Sonnnunity, because the majority opinions might become accepted by jpenrsons who previously had different ideas. On the other hand, true minority suggestions might impact the majority opinions, too. To get the whole picture of the township, a full coverage srrrvey'was done in the Solon township in January 1992 (the survey :foznn was designed by the township). The survey had two purposes. (Dnfie was to get the general idea of the community from the cid:izens. The other was to get the individual bias. Four hundred forty—four forms were mailed using addresses frxzm.property address records. Two hundred ninety four survey fkaruns were received within one month. The return rate is about sigrty-six percent. Because many households lived in this area 11 only seasonally, or some of them owned only vacant lots, the return rate was lower than expected. The survey consisted of two parts, one is multiple choice questions. The other is the written questions. Both parts have been tabulated. The tabulations of the survey have applied several statistical methods. First was frequency. It calculated every item listed on the form. Through this process general ideas of the community have been derived. Because the survey form has many choices per subject, only using regular frequency calculation would not give reliable results. For example, question number 1 on the survey form "what do you feel are the four most important problems facing Cedar" has fourteen subjects. Using regular frequency calculation, the results would be based on 293 forms and every individual choice. If only 12 forms responded that the most important problem was traffic (question number 1 item 12), then the tabulation form would show that the valid percentage of the frequency for this answer is 27.9 percent (it was a high percentage), which ignored that at this item there was 250 missing values (see Tab 1 & Appendix pl). 12 Tab-1 Frequency Calculation Example I PROBLMlZ TRAFFIC A I Valid Cum I \Jalue Label Value Frequency % % % IlST IMPORTANT PROBLE 1 12 4 1 27.9 27.9 2ND IMPORTANT PROBLE 2 13 4.4 30.2 58.1 1312.1) IMPORTANT PROBLE 3 10 3.4 23.3 81.4 14TH IMPORTANT PROBLE 4 8 2 7 18.6 100.0 I 250 85 3 MISSING I TOTAL 293 100.0 100.0 .XAalid Cases 43 Missing Cases 250 To protect this misunderstanding from happening again, a nuiltiple response frequency calculation was introduced in cpnestion number 4 "What type of community do you think Cedar is" (ruimber 5, too). Tab-2 Multi-response Frequency Calculation Example r_r CEDAR TYPE OF COMM. YOU THINK CEDAR IS % of % of Category label Code Count Responses Cases *AGRI COMMUNITY 1 199 29.7 69.8 *RESIDENTIAL 2 172 25.6 60.4 COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY 3 2 .3 .7 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 4 24 3.6 8.4. *RECREATION/TOURIST 5 170 25.3 59.6 *RETIREMENT 6 89 13.3 31.2 OTHERS 8 15 2.2 5.3 Total responses 671 100.0 235.4 L_98 missing cases; 285 valid cases 13 Multiple response frequency calculation method takes whole responses as total sample size, then it computes the frequency according to the new total sample size (see Tab 2 & Appendix question number 3 and 4), then it counts the percentage of the frequency based upon the new sample size and the original sample size. In order to know the difference between different age groups, Chi-Square and Lambda statistics methods (the cross- tabulation) were applied. The age groups were divided by five levels. They were the eighteen to twenty five group,twenty six to thirty' five group, thirty six to forty five group, forty six to fifty five group and over fifty five groups. According to the cross-tabulation table, the different opinions among the different age groups are not significant. Also, a frequency less than 5 in a cell takes 48 percent (See next page). This means the sample size is still relatively small. Had the calculation not taken the age group from eighteen to twenty five into account, however, it only had one sample, the result would not have changed. Lambda value shows that the differences among the age groups are not significant. 14 Tab-3 The Growth rate comparisons by Age groups6 Crorstabulation: GROWTH HOW MUCH GROWTH YOU LIKE TO IN CEDAR By AGE AGE GROUP Count Exp Val Row Pct 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 ~\ER 55 AGE—> C01 Pct YRS YRS YRS YRS [YRS ROW Residual 1 2 3 4 5 Total GROWTH ' ————————“ 0 0 4 10 2 22 38 NONE .1 5.7 10.9 5.0 16.3 13.6% 0% 10.5% 26.3% 5.3% 57.9% .0% 9.5% 12.5% 5.4% 18.3% - 1 -1.7 -.9 -3.0 5.7 1 0 18 29 9 29 5 A LITTLE .3 12.8 24.3 11.2 36.4 30.4% .08 21.2% 34.1% 10.6% 34.1% .08 42.9% 36.3% 24.3% 24.2% -.3 5.3 4.7 -2.2 -7.4 2 1 16 36 23 57 133 MODERATE 5 20.0 38.0 17.6 57.0 47.5% , .8% 12.0% 27.1% 17.3% 42.9% 100.0% 38.1% 45 0% 62.2% 47.5% .5 —3.9 -2 0 5.4 .0 3 0 2 3 3 7 15 A LOT .1 2.3 4.3 2.0 6 4 5.4% .0% 13.3% 20 0% 20.0% 46 7% .08 4.8% 3 8% 8.1% 5.8% —.1 -.3 -1.3 1.0 .6 4 O 2 2 0 5 9 UNLIMITED .0 .4 2.6 1.2 3.9 3.2% .0% 22.2% 22.2% .0% 55.6% 0% 4.8% 2.5% .O% 4.2% - 0 .6 -.6 -1.2 1.1 Column 1 42 80 37 120 280 Total .4% 15.0% 28.6% 13.2% 42.9% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E.F. Cells with E.F.< 5 16.05504 16 .4491 032 12 OF 25 ( 48.0%) With GROWTH With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda .00651 .01361 .00000 lIIiNumber of Missing Observations = 13 J] 6Tab-1, Tab-2 and Tab—3 are imported from SPSS result text file. 15 'Thca survey showed that the residents of Solon Township strongly Stqqport improvement of the community. They see their community as a snnall, peaceful, and enjoyable rural place in beautiful, Iiatniral, and agricultural surroundings. Most citizens want the <:onununity to grow and change to provide more jobs, services, and ecxynomic opportunities while preserving its natural resources. kJut: to do so without increasing taxes where true and specific beniefits are not realized. Several questions have higher answer rates. Forty-five pmarcent of the respondents thought that "shortage of shopping opuoortunity" was a problem; forty-six percent thought that a hjxgher property tax was a problem; forty—two percent thought that a Slack of job opportunities in the community was a problem; and tvnanty-seven percent thought that a lack of medical service was a problem. For the questions of "job opportunity" and "medical serrvice" the response rates were impacted by two things. First vuas that this community has a large potion of retired persons (tflieir population in terms of the sample size was more than 31%). Truey might not feel that employment was a problem there. The seasond, on the other hand, was that many people would not have true same needs of medical treatment as the senior citizens in true township. They might not think that the medical services sruyuld be an important issue either, because they could get the 7 The percentage is counted the total frequency from first janortant problem to fourth important problem. 16 services from other places, unlike an elderly person who might jhave difficulty reaching a medical facility. Many residents did not like to have more multi-family jhousing and low cost housing projects. Forty-six percent of the Imdpulation voted against multi-family housing projects, while thirty-three percent favored them. Forty—five percent voted against and thirty-five percent favored low cost housing Ixrojects. This suggests that many residents do not think the ihousing stock is priced so high that people could not afford a ihouse; however, according to the Northwest Michigan Data Center, the median value of owner occupied housing in that area (as estinmted by owners vs. actual selling price) was $66,700. Ckxnpared with ten years ago, this value has increased $15,274 (in 1980 the value was $51,428). The reason was that during the last ten.years much small farm land has been converted to industrial arui commercial land use. This change is driving up the value of residential properties often occupied by lower income permanent Ixesidents. Even the Leelanau County Planning Commission agreed that.this was creating a rising property tax burden on existing residents, making them less able to afford it. On the other hand, Imost seasonal residents thought that they are using public service for only a portion of the year and paying for them year around. Also, they are providing a steady flow of construction activity with its attendant job and income benefits. Though some residents did not want to have any population growth, the majority still thought that growth was necessary. The 17 survey showed that about twenty—nine percent agreed a little growth was needed, forty-six percent agreed a moderate growth and eight percent wanted a lot of growth. In other word, eighty—four percent of the responses thought that growth was necessary in this community (Appendix pp5) . Agriculture was the original source of development in the community. Forty-five percent of the forms indicated that their community should be an agricultural community. Fifty-nine percent of them said that it should be a residential area. Fifty—three percent said that it could be a recreation and tourist area. Forty two percent thought that this community should have some light industries. Five of the responses marked that even heavy industries could be located in the area. Most residents did their shopping out of the community. Downtown Cedar, a commercial and residential center, provided very limited shopping opportunity for the residents. Taking groceries as an example, seventy—nine percent of the residents bought their groceries outside of Cedar, but they do want to have some services in the community. Three items that had higher percentage rates marked by the residents were groceries (26%), auto services (22.8%) and medical services (10.4%). Those percentages are based on the total of five hundred and eight response records (multi—response frequency). If taking the responded households as a total sample size, the results would be fifty-eight percent of the residents hoped to get groceries; fifty-one percent hoped to have auto services and thirty-two 18 percent wished to get medical services in this community ( see Appendix pp6-8, the item "others" responded to things not listed in the question). Forty—three forms stated that they did not need anything there. Twenty two activities were chosen by the residents in the previous community meeting. These activities covered recreation, small business opportunities, industrial development, basic public services, and housing. They were listed on the form (see appendix pp8) . Some important results are: (1) Most people agreed that the tradition festivals like the Polka Festival, summer farmer market (arrange from 64.2% to 87.3%) shall be kept or be developed. (2) Seventy percent of the citizens thought that the small businesses should be developed in this community. Those businesses included restaurants, drug stores, motels, grocery stores, and gas stations. (3) Fifty—seven percent of the residents supported having light industries there (28.3% of the population disagreed). Sixty- eight percent of the people were against any heavy industries. Only ten percent favored heavy industries. (4) Seventy-five percent thought that agricultural development was important. The community should keep it. (5) Almost sixty percent of the answers hoped to have health service there. Compared to question number seven, it showed an obvious difference. In question number seven only twenty—three percent peOple thought that they needed medical services. The 19 reason was that in this question (Appendix p8), the survey form only provided three choices for all the activities. Many residents thought that "grocery," "gas" and other specific needs ‘were more important. It seemed that most retired persons stated that medical services were important, because their portion (about 29.7%) fitted the responding rate of the question. (6) Recreation activities, historical activities, reservation parks were treated as the key events by most residents. (7) Over sixty to seventy percent of the residents did not want to work as volunteers to organize those activities. At least twenty percent of the respondents, however, were willing to work for the public for free. (8) When asked if they were willing to pay for realizing those activities, fifty-five percent had no response. Eighteen percent of them clearly stated that they would not pay, while twenty—seven percent stated that they would. (9) This community has a long history. The longest residents had lived there for 84 years. From 1988 to 1992, twenty—four percent of the households moved to the community. Forty percent of the households had lived there for 10 years. Fourteen percent of the residents had just moved in 1991. Twenty nine percent of house household lived there less than six months a year. Eight percent them did not live in the community, they only own property. (10) Only one percent of the household were tenants. 20 Seventy-two percent of the respondents worked outside of the township. Among them, forty~one percent worked in Traverse City area. The unemployment rate in the township was 8.6 percent in 1990, which was higher than the average level for the State of Michigan (7.5%) and Leelanau County (6.9%). It was the third highest unemployment rate in the eleven townships in all of Leelanau County.8 (11) The survey data showed that in this community, average persons per household was 2.553. Almost one third of them (29.7%) were retired residents. The largest portion of the population was the age group over fifty five years. This population accounts for forty-two percent. In reality, the average household size should smaller than the survey data. It should be about 2.349, because a certain portion of the property owners (8%) did not live there, but they were still counted as a "household". Though the full coverage survey provided satisfactory data, there were some obvious weaknesses . First of all, the survey has many repeated questions. Second, one question has too many choices. This indicates the survey did not concentrate on the most important issues that were discussed in the community meetings. The third is that some important information is not included such as income9 and education. 8 "Economic Development, The Leelanau General Plan", May 1992 Tab 2-4, pp2-8 9 There was a survey covered the income of the residents. Since the survey only included the downtown Cedar area, it cannot represented the whole township. According to the survey, the average income per family was about 20,000-25,000 yearly. 21 The written questions were tabulated according to the subjects. These subjects were grouped into 99 categories. The top three problems written by residents were "no gas station" (54 respondents), "lack of shopping/grocery (44 respondents) and "high tax" (33 respondents). On the other hand, the three things that were most liked by the residents were "friendliness" (58 respondents), "small" (52 respondents) and "peace" (50 respondents). Very few forms mentioned the things like lack of fire station, sewage and water supply systems, because the residents knew that to solve these large problems would be a long term goal and would need resources from federal or state government. This is a growth community, and most residents have chosen to continue the growth. The growth is not, however, because of the job location or economic opportunity there. It results from, in recent years, many retired citizens, and temporary residents who moved there. The community is facing two challenges. One is that the community asks for further economic development so that there were more jobs, more basic services, as well as more conveniences. The other is that the residents want to keep the "rural character." To meet these two requirements is the target that the community defined for itself. Achieving the goal is rather difficult work, because in practice, it is not only a land use and economic development issue, but also a policy issue. It is not only a goal to satisfy the majority, but also should be accepted by all residents. 22 Historic Review Reviewing the history will provide some perspective to help ' the community solve these problems. Few planners or economists paid much attention to the problems of rural small towns until the late 1970's (Cohen, 1979) . Cohen also addressed the differences between the small towns and the small "cities." Because of differences in the size (population), small towns have very limited demand and limited economic power. These make the quality of services and facilities rather poor. Cohen indicated two things. The first was that it had to be treated differently from a city. The second was that it had to be treated individually in terms of its own situations. Lingemam (1980) said that small towns changed too fast to be managed. This is another difficulty beyond planners' control. A very small economic opportunity could become a significant input to stimulate its development. A small negative impact could cause its decay, because to a small town this impact could be a large influence. A small town is neither like small communities in the city nor like small communities in the suburbs. A community in the city or in a suburb has more connections with the city. Its growth or decline relates to the city's going up or down. A rural small town, however usually has little connection with cities. It is a relatively independent community both geographically and economically. This means that a small town's survival or development has to count mainly on itself. 23 Many early studies concluded that a small town’s development depended on its physical location and external impacts. Those included: the following, (1) transportation system change. This basically means the changes in location character, and changes in accessibility of small towns. For instance, a railway center (New York Jefferson County), Denhoff, was down to about fifty people in 1970. Most of them were old or retired, because the railroad had been replaced by a new highway system, which was not passing by the town. At the same time a lot of towns which had transportation linkages became cities or large towns. (2) basic economic change. A shift of a prevailing industry will raise or demote a small town's economic status. With declining agriculture, many small towns, which had often been the central places of agricultural products, became worse. Cupertino, a farm land 20 years ago, now has more population than E. Lansing because the computer industry become a prevailing industry world wide, and because of its location near the center of Silicon Valley in California. (3) access to capital. Typically, capital plays a key role for community development. With a large capital investment, it would be difficult for a small town to start a business, to construct community facilities, to improve the infrastructure and attract other investments. Without a large initial capital input, however, community development is a long and difficult process. 24 Maple City, several miles away from downtown Cedar, which had the same condition as Cedar had 25 years ago, benefitted from one company's investment. Today it has much better infrastructure conditions and more taxable companies. (4) population age structure change. Population getting older, means the young laborers are moving out. Therefore there is less attraction for new industry. A stable young population structure in the community would generate more new business opportunities. In the United States, labor cost is the second largest cost for enterprises. It consumes more than thirty-four percent of total business cost (Hoover and Giarratani 1984, p267) . For small businesses, the labor cost will be over forty percent. Lack of labor force (young population) means that labor cost may be much higher. Businesses may not be willing to be located there. Those elements have influenced economic growth for many years. Though they are very important, they only emphasize the physical conditions. These statements seem to have ignored the role played by the residents, which cannot be fully replaced by physical location and external impacts, because today the planning issue is part of political issue. Cooperation with neighborhood, building coalitions, and gathering information to support or oppose a plan becomes more and more important (Krumholz and Forester 1990, p232) . For many years, experts believed that the physical environment was the key point to control towns and communities, 25 and so a rational model was often used in small town development. The rational model was very fashionable in the U.S. This theory "consists in instrumental problem solving made rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique" (Schon 1983) . It stresses the need to use professional knowledge and scientific technique to solve problems and to reach a certain end. It tries to transfer all problems, both scientific and institutional, to its rigorously instrumental framework. It then uses a "general principle" such as mathematics to solve them. One of the serious problems with applying the model was that it overlooked community opinions and the basic needs of the community. It believed that experts were always right. Different professionals, however, had their own points of view. Those different points fought against each other all the time. Many people thought that using the rational model would create much more trouble than the ones it could solve. The rational model, though criticized since the 1960's, did provide information for describing community development. One of the good examples is Central Place Theory, developed by Water Christaller (1933) . Central Place Theory attempts to explain the spatial patterns of trade and service centers. In ideal situations10 the 10There are only two activities in this model: one rural and one irban. The rural activity is an extensive land user, such as agriculture, having no significant economics of agglomeration. The irban activity is subject to substantial agglomeration economies with intensive land use operation. All land is of uniform quality and transfer costs are operational and have linear function with distance in any direction. The rural activities, and the consequent demand for the output of the urban activity, is well distributed.(Hoover & Siarratani 1984, p205). 26 market areas would be hexagons and have a uniform size determined by transfer costs on the output, density of demand per unit area, and scale economies in the production and/or marketing of the output. Because of external economies of agglomeration and the economies of channeling transfer along high—volume routes, many different kinds of trade are conducted in a single central place; there has evolved a rough hierarchy of central places from large cities to small towns. Central Place Theory has many limitations in practice; however, it reveals spatial and economic internal relationships between the center and its region. It is still a good reference in land use and regional economic development. Incremental planning model believes a dialogue with communities to develop a goal of general public interests can be set up, because it thinks that "policy decisions are better understood, and better arrived at in terms of the push and tug of established institutions that are adept at getting things done through decentralized bargaining processes best suited for free market and a democratic political economy”." The major criticism was that the method had "its insensitivity to existing instrumental performance capabilities" (Sternlieb 1978) . It was criticized for its bias towards central control —- in definition of problems and solutions, too (Hudson 1979) . ,— 11 Barclay M. Hudson, "Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions" Journal of American Planning Association, 45, 4: Oct 1979, p389. 27 In the 1970's, planning theories tried to change from a pfliysical dimension to a human dimension, from centralized process tr) decentralized process. Transactive planning, advocacy Iilanning, and radical planning theories were introduced at this time. Transactive planning "focuses on the intact experience of pmaople's lives revealing policy issues to be addressed" (Friedmann 1973). There is no certain objective of the community, jiistead there is a face-to-face talk with the people to make the f Management Budget, to the year 2000, Leelanau County's total gxdpulation may reach to 18,653. This represents an increase of 2200 persons in the county every year. Compared to the historic gyrowth record of the county, this is fast growth, but it would ruot become a significant change to the county, because the {mopulation increase is only about 1.5 square miles per person jyearly. Most of these new comers are residing in Elmwood and IBingham townships. Number three is the growth rate. The speed of an economic 1 then it is assumed that the i business is a export gindustry; if LQ <= 1 then it assumed that the i business is a jimport industry in the region. 36 :fact, a large portion of service businesses, construction jobs, 51nd.especially retail stores are located in the Traverse City earea. The rest of the townships only had a small portion, because tflae Traverse City is still a growth city. It has much better ilocation advantages compared to other townships, which allows (Traverse City to continue to draw more and higher income Exisinesses first. Thus, the township areas of the County are not (economically fast growth areas. The average per-capita income in ];eelanau County has been below the state average for more than 40 years (see Tab—5)”. Tab-5 Per Capita Personal Income Comparison Michigan Leelanau 1959 $2,269 $1,604 1968 $3,681 $3,131 1978 $8,738 $8,369 1989 $17,535 $16,732 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Solon Township is not the township that has the best location advantages in the County. Many townships in the county Ihave been considered bedroom communities of Traverse City, ibecause in the current decade, the city "has experienced a ” From 1958 to 1989, the average income increase speed of the Leelanau County is about 2.3% yearly. According to the trend, to reach the average income of the state (2.2% increase) needs a long time. 37 sicnaificant amount of growth both in population and employment." (Leelanau General Plan, May 1992, pp1—2). The Solon Township is tune of the bedroom townships. However, it is not the first (mandidate. The Elmwood and Bingham townships are closer to the Irraverse City and they have longer lake frontages. More peOple nuyved to these towns during the last two decades (see Tab-6 the gmopulation change table below). Tab—6 Population Change for Tri—Township Changes % Change Township 1970 1980 1990 70-80 80—90 70-80 80—90 Bingham 916 1546 2051 630 505 68.8% 32.7% Elmwood 2240 3004 3427 764 423 43.1% 14.1% Solon 798 987 1268 189 281 23.7% 28.5% Leelanau . County 10872 14007 16572 3135 2520 28.8% 18.0% Source: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce 1990 The regional growth will impact the development of Solon fflownship. Although the township had a higher growth rate (28.5%) :Erom.1980 to 1990, the number of persons increased in the ten )naars was not large. It was approximately one family per year. IXt the same time, the number of jobs increased did not meet the In 1990, the Solon Township had a labor rueed of the community. fkarce of 600, and unemployed persons numbered 52. This distress 1188 agitated the township for more than 40 years. Without a coertain economic growth it would not be able to solve the 38 problem. It is reasonable to believe that this township should have a cxartain economic growth that will not affect the rural cfliaracters. The development, in term of the needs, should ccuicentrate on providing more basic services and creating more jcflas for the community. But a basic service needs community support, which is the denuand. If there were not enough demand, the businesses would not suirvive. To increase the demand, the community has several ealternatives. One is to attract new residents and the other is to aattract the visitors, or both. Solon Township does have rich tourist resources and efldundant space both for the newcomers and visitors. Most people tinderstand that the tourist related businesses are suitable for tfliem. Additionally, Solon Township is part of the Leelanau Ioeninsula, a destination area. People come there for visiting or :recreation. But many residents do not agree that the new :residents should continue to move in. In fact, the retired new :residents also have positive impact. Many small and remote towns in the state of Illinois have loenefited from retired people. Those senior citizens moving from <3ities to the small rural communities bring the money as well as 116W service jobs in the community. In 1992, State of Illinois had 21 project to provide census information with geographic jJIformation for the public. The purpose was to give guidance 39 both for the retired people and the small communities”. Solon Township has experienced similar events. According to the statistics, in the last twenty years, the Leelanau County social security recipients increased over eight times from less than 200,000 in 1971 to a about 1,600,000 in 1990. To attract part of this money in this community is one of the great opportunities to create jobs. Since Cedar has the largest portion of retired persons with the best facilities and the most commercial activities in the community, how to put its growth first became an agenda. In theory, development of downtown prior to its region is a model which evolved from Central Place Theory. This model takes the current advantages of downtown and makes the development more efficient. With the tremendous information exchange, many concerns and questions have been given answers. The community has been recognized as much better by all the people. This process has been repeated in the community several times. ” "Application of Arc/Info in Demographic Information System" Geo/Info System, March 1992. / 40 Search the Opportunities The model to establish the Downtown as a development center and to drive the rest of area requires certain conditions. For example, it has to be known whether there is an existing market, and whether there is a potential market. Downtown Cedar has both these advantages. Several studies have documented that the great majority of shopping trips by automobiles take no more than 7 minutes travel time (one way) for convenience goods, which includes food and small hardware items, and no more than 15 minutes for shopping goods, which includes hardware items, small electronic items, and auto parts. Fig -4 Bureau of labor Delivery Price Comparison For Item A Statistics showed that, nationally, approximately 50 percent of consumer expenditures for convenience goods are for t axable goods; approximately 90 percent of consumer expenditures for shopping T.City :5 Cedar drive distance , ** the original price in T.C ixtenns.” AccOrdlng t0 * the original price in Cedar goods are for taxable central Place Theory, any 13 Burchell, Listokin and Dolphin, "The New Practitioner's Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis", 1989, pp. 45. 41 central place should have its market boundary though this market place is covered by the higher level central place. Any individual shopping in a central place will consider the delivery price and the original price of a product. This means that if one item purchased in Cedar is cheaper than it is purchased in Traverse city plus the transportation cost and time spent, then there should be a market. Figure 4 demonstrates the relationship between delivery price and distance from Cedar to Traverse City. For instance, the price of item A in Cedar is higher than in Traverse City. But if a person considers that to drive to Traverse City will cost more than to drive to Cedar to get item A, the person may buy the item in downtown Cedar. Therefore, shopping goods with prices located at right side of the dotted line may be considered to be suitable in Cedar.19 During 1992, total Disposable Income (the amount of money people have left after taxes to spend on goods and services) for residents of Leelanau County was estimated to be $248 millon. An estimated $220 million of this total was spent on consumer items. What was purchased is shown in the table on the next page: ” Hoover and Giarratani, "An introduction to Regional Economics", Third Edition, 1984, pp45. 42 Tab—7 What Was Purchased Category Millions ($) I Food(at home) ........................... 18.9 Food(outside home) ...................... 12.0 Housing ................................. 66.2 Apparel ................................. 8.5 Entertainment ........................... 11.1 Transportation .......................... 38.2 Heath Care .............................. 10.7 personal Care Products and Service ...... 3.0 i Tobacco/Smoking Supplies ................ 1.9 Education ............................... 3.0 Reading ................................. 1.2 Personal Insurance and Pensions ......... 24.0 Housekeeping Supplies.... ............... 3.2 Subtotal: .............................. 201.9 Others .................................. 18.1 Total: ................................. 220.0 Source: See next page. Of this $220 million, $84.3 million was spent in 128 retail 13uu3inesses in Leelanau County. Where this money was spent is shown in the following table on the next page: 43 Tab-8 Where Money Was Spent N0. of Millions $ Type of Store Stores in Sales Foods Stores Total ................... 17 ........... 28.2 Supermarket Only ..................... 14 ........... 27.1 Eating and Drinking .................. 37 ........... 16.8 General Merchandise .................. 2 ........... 0.2 Apparel and Accessories .............. 18 ........... 5.9 Furniture and Home Furnishing ........ 2 ........... 1.2 Auto Dealers ......................... 4 ........... 0.6 Gasoline ............................. 9 ........... 5.8 Building Material & Hardware ......... 8 ........... 16.0 Drug Stores .......................... 2 ........... 1.7 Subtotal: ....................... 99 ........... 76.4 “Others20 ............................... 29 ............ 7.9 H TOTAL: .............................. 128 ........... 84.3 Source: 1990 Census and reports from two national private market research firms: CACI, Inc. and SBP Demographics USA. The difference between the estimated $220 million total exrxanded and the $84.3 million expended at identified local btuainesses may indicate that for Leelanau County economic leaks ccnild be total at least $136 million per year. Even one percent off this spending would be located in Cedar, it is a large support 20In 1992 there were 27 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate firxns in Leelanau County as well as 126 other service businesses. 44 for the small town and it is possible, because in the entire county, there are only 11 commercial centers and Cedar is one of the large centers. Potential demand will depend on the visitors and the newcomers. Visitors should be considered as the major source. Sugar Loaf, as mentioned before, is a potential market. It has a multi-million dollar business. If ten percent or fifteen percent of it could be attracted to the Solon township, that will be very good and very possible result. (of course this market analysis is not accurate enough. But it does provide a confident information to the residents) The downtown development should concentrate on making up the economic leaks. The opportunities for the hinterland, the township rural areas, also, are positive. Agriculture and tourism industries are still the advantage. As noted previously, agricultural business is declining in significance compared with other sectors. Decline is not always a failure. In the township, since more new businesses are setting up, the percentage of agricultural income has decreased. On the other hand, that lack of new technology and equipment makes the products overdependent on seasonal demand is the real issue that should be considered. Since orchards, maple and oak are the unique output in the whole United States, therefore, the agricultural develOpment program should target economic activities that add value to locally produced commodities for export, as well as identifying and promoting target agricultural light industries to improve the old 45 txachnologies for the products. In addition to being among the most unique and prime angricultural land in the nation, agricultural operations are a crxitical part of the township's rural character. Large portions of farm land, forest, wetland, and lakes prxyvide a great opportunity for the tourism business, the fastest grtnuing business in the county. National Park Service and the road traffic count stations haLIIa report. It said that in the Leelanau County from 1984 to 11990 the total visitors increased from 853,186 times/per person 'to 21,216,870 times/per person. (see Tab-9). Tab-9 National parks Annual Public Use Year Total Visitor Year Total Visitor 1984 853,186 1988 1,317,530 1985 897,512 1989 1,250,416 1986 634,435 1990 1,216,870 1987 1,222,811 Source: National Park Service, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Traffic Counts . Tourism generates many jobs in the area. According to the scnirce from Michigan State University, Travel Tourism & Rexzreation Resource Center (TTRRC), in Leelanau County the annual avmarage number of jobs that can be attributed to tourism related 46 jobsu-have generally increased from 347 in 1974 to 539 in 1986 (see Tab—10). Tab—10 Annual Number of Jobs in Tourism—Related Business Leelanau County 1974 ........... 437 1976 ........... 319 1978 ........... 600 1980 ........... 517 1982 ........... 618 1984 ........... 433 1986 ........... 539 Source: TTRC,.MSU, 1986, 1990 Since service and retail sectors are closely tied to tourism, between 1977 and 1987 the county experienced a nearly 108 percent increase in total retail sales from $26,693,000 to $55,435,000. The three fastest growth businesses are Hotel Dining, Family Restaurant and Hotel & Motel (see Tab-11). “ The related.jobs are defined bylfiichigan.employment Security Commission (MESC). They are jobs in service incidental to water 'transportation, gasoline service station, boat dealers, eating and drinking places, hotel, motel and tourist counts, parks... 47 Tab-ll Sales Tax Collections Leelanau County I Traver. Hotel Family Fast Food Sporting Hotel I & Clubs Dining Rest. Rest. goods Motel 1983 $128,249 $5,881 $69,640 $12,704 $9,418 $95,587 . 1985 64,582 22,004 16,9956 29,009 10,584 117,702 I 1987 118,817 31,027 206,872 19,308 15,064 130,728 I 1989 149,168 39,387 297,564 31,787 16,732 135,794 Source: MSU Travel And Tburism Research Center 1986 5 1991 There is a successful example about the hotel development near the township. K.C Log Home a private company did a subdivision in the Long Lake area 30 minutes from Cedar in 1990, where they put log houses on the ground. The original purpose of the company was to sell these houses, but it failed. Now the log houses have become the hotel rooms, because there are so many visitors year around. Instead of paying the same amount of money to stay at a formal inn, many travellers prefer to stay in a log house. Since the log home hotel has provided some unique services which many families Inay not have the opportunity to enjoy in their own home, K.C Log Home company has a good business all year. Even in the spring the slow time, time , they only have less than twenty days to maintain the facilities. In the Spring of 1991, many log houses had been rented, though some ground work had not been finished. This community has a better condition than Long Lake, mountain, and the town, because except hotels, there is lake, 48 which does not exit in Long Lake?2 In addition, hundreds of tourists stay in the regular inns in Sugar Loaf for skiing, golfing, and boating. Obviously, there is a demand for lodge. For those water, mountain, and snow related out—door recreation activities, the Solon Township has all these natural advantages. Specifically, if winter time could be well managed, it will generate more opportunities for the community. Having these advantages does not mean that they have been utilized. How to draw visitors and investment in the community is_ an essential issue. To reach this target, a management plan and a physical improvement of the downtown are important steps. “ There is only one four—bed "Bed & Breakfast" inn in Cedar. 49 Establish a Headquarter Construction of Cedar downtown economy needs an institute to transfer the information, connect political powers, gather resources, and guaranty the operations. The township and all other government agencies are part of them. In reality, the Solon Township, though it is one of the most important leadership in this community, is not powerful enough economically and politically to implement the wishes that the residents have presented. It has to have a "headquarter" directly from the residents. One form which the headquarter can adopt is Downtown Development Authority (DDA).23 Downtown Development Authority of Cedar was established in August 1991. Three factors caused the Solon Township Board to initiate the action: 1. The deterioration of the downtown area of Cedar, including ‘vacant businesses, inadequate physical infrastructure and a general lack of vitality, have prevented local businesses from sharing in the increased levels of commercial activity seen in surrounding communities. 2. The Township Board realized that to remedy those distresses, the solutions, to be successful, must originate and be directed iby the businesses and citizens in the community. 3. A.substantial number of low and moderate income families in “ The formal procedure to build a DDA has to follow the law. For the further information, please see State of Michigan 78th Legislature Regular Session of 1975. 50 the downtown area asked for improving their situations. The DDA of Cedar has three major functions: It has legislative and administrative authority in certain area. In this area the DDA has the superiority to regulate the activities, boundaries and quality of the development. It is a major assistant of the township. The Authority has .initiated a number of new activities and has been analyzing the ineeds for rejuvenating the community such as to help the Township cmdmpile the Comprehensive Development Plan and the Community ZRecreation Plan. Besides, the Authority has established its ruetwork and coalition to the public as well as to the state and federal political organizations. It is one of the capital accesses for the downtown (development, one of most important activities in this township eaoonomic development. The Authority has successfully got the smipport for their activities from the Michigan Department of Cknnmerce through the Community Development Block Grant Program. Ekasides, it is able to issue bonds for the downtown water and .sewer system or for other capital improvements.24 Notably, there are 105 downtown development authorities in liichigan, none of which is in the Leelanau County except for the IN1A.of Cedar. Many of those 105 DDAs, do not function snoecifically in rural communities, because the level of economic ckavelopment opportunities was insufficient to warrant their “ The DDA of Cedar was planning to have Potential for a Tax Zanrement Financing Plan. In this Plan, The DDA would borrow and jJTVGSt about $100,000 for the downtown development. 51 continued activity at the local level. Even in some big cities, economic development efforts have slowed due to reductions in funding of state and federal programs. To prevent the DDA from becoming inactive, the DDA of Cedar must.consistently look for opportunities to promote prosperity, to engage in cooperative coordinated activities with like minded organizations, both in and outside the community, and to develop ongoing sources of financial support. An inactive DDA is a huge cost for a community. Since in a certain area, the DDA is a exclusive management, if this management loses its functions, the other economic activities :might not be able to locate there. And to restore the function is a long time and costly process, because to set up a coalition for the community is difficult work. 52 Lighting the Downtown Nice places bring businesses; messy places take them away. This is the American custom. In reality, most economic developments start at a physical improvement of the downtowns. This first step provides a good environment for stimulating the economic vitality. There are many examples followed by this custom from "White City Movement" to the "Community Development Block Grant" program. For a small town like Cedar, its improvement may, at least, prevent existing businesses from moving out as well as encourage new businesses and visitors. The physical problems identified in the downtown were two classes: functional and visual. The functional problems were the traffic, traffic circulation in and around the downtown businesses; parking, both on and off-street parking; sidewalk, guide signs and mixed land use problems. This number of functional problems in the village downtown has produced visual confusion as well. Vehicles scattered everywhere. Broken sidewalks started and stopped in various spots. Building deterioration, due to a lack of repairs, gave a very disagreeable impression. Street trees, landscaping, effective lighting, benches and guide signs were missing. All this is not a pleasant sign for both local residents and for passing visitors. These visitors may even not know that there is a village town or may not want to stop and shop there, because Cedar does not even look safe. 53 Fixing all these functional problems are a relatively long ‘term task which would be influenced by the financial stages. But improvement of the visual problems is the urgent work that the residents should implement immediately, because it is not a large :money spending project. It is a job that can be accomplished by both.the residents in the downtown area and the township, and it Inay have quick positive effects for the community. For instance, a simple, effective sign at the entrance point of the downtown could make passing visitors notice the town and chose to stop and visit. Appropriate landscaping may help attract people to downtown Cedar. A good first impression may become a long term benefit from the travellers. The other important factor is the lighting system, which Inainly indicate street lighting. In 1991 a group of business ;people in the Cedar area did a study of the lighting system. One of the results was that because the poor existing lighting situation in the downtown, many visitors ignored the existence of the small town. The study found that many visitors headed for Sugar Loaf arrived there in late afternoon. The darkness of the downtown was a locked door to close them from the community. iLighting is an important part of the streetscape and ambience for the town during the evenings. For many months of the year, much <3f day is spent in darkness. Consequently a well-lit downtown could.add greatly to the attractiveness of Cedar for shopping and other activities, and for local residents, too. Winter weather lasts 6 months in the area. In the winter, 54 day time is relatively shorter than the rest of seasons. A dark landscape will decay all positive factors that the small town has. Also, the dark place will make people reluctant to visit from their bright hotel rooms. A simple concept is that in the gloom of winter times lights symbolize warmth and prosperity. Financial supports are always a critical factor both for fixing the functional and visual problems. With diminishing funds available from both federal and state governments, the cxnmmunity must be as creative and resourceful in gathering money :needed from all the sources to implement some of the large jprojects such as parking, street lighting, storm water drainage and.other development. But much of this work should be done by the individuals and business owners. Fixing, lighting, .landscaping and cleaning their own sites are much more significant work for the community. 55 Conclusions The Solon township, though facing many problems, has good ‘conditions and the ability to improve itself. In this community, almost every citizen is in one way or another, concerned about the local economy. Many of them who are specialized in economic development issues, provided technical and financial assistance to try to maximize economic opportunities. After analyzing existing trends and conditions some "critical issues" are identified: 1.) the services provided are too limited to meet the residents' needs; 2.) the job opportunities are too small to solve the higher unemployment rate distress; 3.) the property tax burden is located on certain people such as farmers and retired permanent residents and 4.) the deterioration of downtown area (Cedar) is considered a signal of decline. With efficient communications among the community and the State, the residents have reached agreement on these issues. This (agreement provides a platform to base future "worthwhile" chances. To modify the situation and improve the quality of life the cxxmnunity must start at fixing downtown to keep the existing lNisinesses active and stable. Of course, maintaining a successful thisiness requires an adequate market demand. This demand can be smipported by the local residents and the visitors who will be 56 attracted to the friendly community and its rich natural enrvironment. Those resources should be converted to a wealth shared by the community. Development of local business ought to increase job opmxartunity; however, it may not avoid increasing the property tax as well. To minimize the problem, the township should separate the property tax rate between the business district and <3ther areas, especially it should keep farm land, forests and senior citizen residential areas at a low tax rate. On the other hand, increasing property taxation is not ealways a negative issue. It really depends on how to spend this t£n<:money. If this increase will help the parents get rid of the Ixrivation of unemployment for their sons and daughters, it will anyvide the convenience for the residents, especially the senior inesidents, to get their basic needs in the town without traveling lrnag distance. If they can accomplish this, the higher tax rate Vflfilld be worthwhile. There are some other issues that still need further Col Pct S S S S Row Residual 1 2 3 4 5 Total GROWTH 0 0 4 10 2 22 38 NONE .1 5.7 10.9 5.0 16.3 13.6% .0% 10.5% 26.3% 5.3% 57.9% .0% 9.5% 12.5% 5.4% 18.3% -.1 -l.7 -.9 -3.0 5.7 1 0 18 29 9 29 85 A LITTLE .3 12.8 24.3 11.2 36.4 30.4% .0% 21.2% 34.1% 10.6% 34.1% .0% 42.9% 36.3% 24.3% 24.2% -.3 5.3 4.7 -2.2 -7.4 2 l 16 36 23 57 133 MODERATE .5 20.0 38.0 17.6 57.0 47.5% .8% 12.0% 27.1% 17.3% 42.9% 100.0% 38.1% 45.0% 62.2% 47.5% .5 -3.9 -2.0 5.4 .0 3 0 2 3 3 7 15 A LOT .1 2.3 4.3 2.0 6.4 5.4% .O% 13.3% 20.0% 20.0% 46.7% .0% 4.8% 3.8% 8.1% 5.8% -.1 -.3 -1.3 1.0 .6 4 0 2 2 0 5 9 UNLIMITED .0 1.4 2.6 1.2 3.9 3.2% .0% 22.2% 22.2% .0% 55.6% .0% 4.8% 2.5% .O% 4.2% -.0 .6 -.6 -1.2 1.1 Column 1 42 80 37 120 280 Total .4% 15.0% 28.6% 13.2% 42.9% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 16.05504 16 4491 .032 12 OF 25 ( 48.0%) With GROWTH With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 00651 01361 00000 Number of Missing Observations = 13 - - - - Page Cells with E.F.< 5 Row Total .4% 62 24.8% 89 35.6% 57 22.8% 41 16.4% 250 100.0% 25 ( 36.0%) With AGE Dependent Crosstabulation: ACTl MORE FESTIVALS LIKE THE POLKA FESTIVAL By AGE AGE GROUP Count Exp Val Row Pct 18-25 YR'26-35 YR 36-45 YR'46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S 5 Residual 1 2 3 4 5 .ACTl O 0 O 0 0 1 .0 .2 .3 .1 .4 .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .O% .0% .0% 1.0% -.O - 2 -.3 -.1 .6 1 1 6 19 12 24 NO FESTIVALS 2 9.7 19.3 8.7 24.1 1.6% 9 7% 30.6% 19.4% 38.7% 100.0% 15.4% 24.4% 34.3% 24.7% .8 -3.7 -.3 3.3 -.1 2 0 14 24 11 40 A LITTIL FESTIVA .4 13.9 27.8 12.5 34.5 .0% 15.7% 27.0% 12.4% 44.9% .0% 35.9% 30.8% 31.4% 41.2% -.4 l -3.8 -1.5 5.5 3 O 11 22 5 19 SOME FESTIVALS .2 8.9 17.8 8.0 22.1 .0% 19.3% 38.6% 8.8% 33.3% .0% 28.2% 28.2% 14.3% 19.6% -.2 2.1 4.2 —3.0 -3.1 4 0 8 l3 7 13 A LOT FESTIVALS .2 6.4 12.8 5.7 15.9 .0% 19.5% 31.7% 17.1% 31.7% .0% 20.5% 16.7% 20.0% 13.4% -.2 1.6 .2 1.3 -2.9 Column 1 39 78 35 97 Total .4% 15.6% 31.2% 14.0% 38.8% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F 13.08983 16 6662 .004 9 OF With ACTl Statistic Symmetric Dependent Lambda 01592 01242 Number of Missing Observations = 43 l of 5 21 Crosstabulation: ACT2 DOWN TOWN REVITALIZATION By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 18-25 YR 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S Row Residual 1 2 3 4 5 Total .ACTZ 1 O 1 3 3 17 24 NO DOWN TOWN .1 4.0 7.5 3.5 8.9 9.7% REVITALIZATION .0% 4.2% 12.5% 12.5% 70.8% .0% 2.4% 3.8% 8.3% 18.5% -.1 -3.0 -4.5 -.5 8.1 2 O 4 14 3 18 39 A LITTLE .2 6.4 12.3 5.7 14.5 15.7% .0% 10.3% 35.9% 7.7% 46.2% .0% 9.8% 17.9% 8.3% 19.6% -.2 -2.4 1.7 -2.7 3.5 3 1 8 19 9 14 51 SOME .2 8.4 16.0 7.4 18.9 20.6% 2.0% 15.7% 37.3% 17 6% 27.5% 100.0% 19.5% 24.4% 25 0% 15.2% .8 -.4 3.0 1.6 -4.9 4 0 28 42 21 43 134 .A LOT .5 22.2 42.1 19.5 49.7 54.0% .0% 20.9% 31.3% 15.7% 32.1% .0% 68.3% 53.8% 58.3% 46.7% -.5 5.8 -.1 1.5 -6.7 Column 1 41 78 36 92 248 Total .4% 16.5% 31.5% 14.5% 37.1% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 24.30565 12 0185 .097 6 OF 20 ( 30.0%) With ACT2 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 02222 00877 03205 Number of Missing Observations = 45 Crosstabulation: ACT3 SUMMER FARMER MARKET By AGE AGE GROUP Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT3 1 O 0 1 8 9 NO SUMMER FARMER 1.4 2.8 1.3 3.5 3.4% MARKET .O% .O% 11.1% 88.9% .0% .O% 2.7% 7.7% -1.4 —2.8 -.3 4.5 2 4 7 6 15 32 A LITTLE 5.1 9.8 4.5 12.6 12.1% 12.5% 21.9% 18 8% 46.9% 9.5% 8.6% 16.2% 14.4% -1.1 -2.8 1.5 2.4 3 10 18 7 33 68 SOME 10.8 20.9 9.5 26.8 25.8% 14.7% 26.5% 10.3% 48.5% 23.8% 22.2% 18.9% 31.7% -.8 -2.9 -2.5 6.2 4 28 56 23 48 155 A LOT 24.7 47.6 21.7 61.1 58.7% 18.1% 36.1% 14.8% 31.0% 66.7% 69.1% 62.2% 46.2% 3.3 8.4 1.3 ~13.1 Column 42 81 37 104 264 Total 15.9% 30.7% 14.0% 39.4% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F 19.24083 9 0232 1.261 5 OF With ACT3 Statistic Symmetric Dependent Lambda 02974 00000 Number of Missing Observations = 29 - - - - Page 22 1 of 4 Cells with E.F.< 5 16 ( 31.3%) With AGE Dependent 23 Crosstabulation: ACT4 CITIZEN PARTICIPATIONS By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE-> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT4 1 4 2 3 10 19 NO CITIZEN 3.3 6.1 2.5 7.0 8.2% PARTICIPATION 21.1% 10.5% 15.8% 52.6% 10.0% 2.7% 9.7% 11.6% .7 -4.1 .5 3.0 2 5 17 6 27 55 A LITTLE 9.5 17.8 7.3 20.4 23.7% 9.1% 30.9% 10.9% 49.1% 12.5% 22.7% 19.4% 31.4% -4.5 -.8 -1.3 6.6 3 15 31 12 22 8O SOME 13.8 25.9 10.7 29.7 34.5% 18.8% 38.8% 15.0% 27.5% 37.5% 41.3% 38.7% 25.6% 1.2 5.1 1.3 -7.7 4 16 25 10 27 78 .A LOT 13.4 25.2 10.4 28.9 33.6% 20.5% 32.1% 12.8% 34.6% 40.0% 33.3% 32.3% 31.4% 2.6 -.2 -.4 -1.9 Column 40 75 31 86 232 Total 17.2% 32.3% 13.4% 37.1% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 12.71700 9 1758 2.539 2 OF 16 ( 12.5%) With ACT4 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 05034 03947 06164 Number of Missing Observations = 61 24 Crosstabulation: ACT5 RESORTS/TOURIST RELATED ACTIVITIES By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total .ACTS 1 8 14 12 31 65 NO RESORTS 10.5 20.8 9.2 24.5 26.3% ACTIVITIES 12.3% 21.5% 18.5% 47.7% 20.0% 17.7% 34.3% 33.3% —2.5 -6.8 2.8 6.5 2 19 28 11 23 81 A LITTLE 13.1 25.9 11.5 30.5 32.8% 23.5% 34.6% 13.6% 28.4% 47.5% 35.4% 31.4% 24.7% 5.9 2.1 -.5 —7.5 3 7 21 6 22 56 SOME 9.1 17.9 7.9 21.1 22.7% 12.5% 37.5% 10.7% 39.3% 17.5% 26.6% 17.1% 23.7% —2.1 3.1 -1.9 .9 4 6 16 6 17 45 A LOT 7.3 14.4 6.4 16.9 18.2% 13.3% 35.6% 13.3% 37.8% 15.0% 20.3% 17.1% 18.3% -1.3 1.6 -.4 .1 Column 40 79 35 93 247 Total 16.2% 32.0% 14.2% 37.7% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 12.02502 9 2119 6.377 None With ACTS With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 04375 05422 03247 Number of Missing Observations = 46 25 Crosstabulation: ACT6 AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE~> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT6 1 3 7 4 15 29 NO AGRICULTURAL 4.7 9.4 3.9 11.0 11.7% DEVELOPMENT 10.3% 24.1% 13.8% 51.7% 7.5% 8.8% 12.1% 16.0% -1.7 -2.4 .1 4.0 2 15 21 10 18 64 A LITTLE 10.4 20.7 8.6 24.4 25.9% 23.4% 32.8% 15.6% 28.1% 37.5% 26.3% 30.3% 19.1% 4.6 .3 1.4 -6.4 3 13 27 11 41 92 SOME 14.9 29.8 12.3 35.0 37.2% 14.1% 29.3% 12.0% 44.6% 32.5% 33.8% 33.3% 43.6% —1.9 -2.8 -1.3 6.0 4 9 25 8 20 62 A LOT 10.0 20.1 8.3 23.6 25.1% 14.5% 40.3% 12.9% 32.3% 22.5% 31.3% 24.2% 21.3% -1.0 4.9 -.3 -3.6 Column 40 80 33 94 247 Total 16.2% 32.4% 13.4% 38.1% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 10.16584 9 3372 3.874 2 OF 16 ( 12.5%) With ACT6 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 03247 01290 05229 Number of Missing Observations = 46 26 Crosstabulation: ACT7 LIGH INDUSTRIES By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S 3 Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT7 l 12 32 8 31 83 NO LIGH 13.3 26.2 11.6 31.9 33.2% INDUSTRIES 14.5% 38.6% 9.6% 37.3% 30.0% 40.5% 22.9% 32.3% -1.3 5.8 -3.6 -.9 2 9 22 13 22 66 A LITTLE 10.6 20.9 9.2 25.3 26.4% 13.6% 33.3% 19.7% 33.3% 22.5% 27.8% 37.1% 22.9% -1.6 1.1 3.8 -3.3 3 9 11 4 18 42 SOME 6.7 13.3 5.9 16.1 16.8% 21.4% 26.2% 9.5% 42.9% 22.5% 13.9% 11.4% 18.8% 2.3 -2.3 -1.9 1.9 4 10 14 10 25 59 A LOT 9.4 18.6 8.3 22.7 23.6% 16.9% 23.7% 16.9% 42.4% 25.0% 17.7% 28.6% 26.0% .6 -4.6 1.7 2.3 Column 40 79 35 96 250 Total 16.0% 31.6% 14.0% 38.4% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 8.58961 9 4760 5.880 None With ACT7 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 01869 02994 00649 Number of Missing Observations = 43 Crosstabulation: ACT8 HEAVY INDUSTRIES By AGE AGE GROUP Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total .ACT8 1 31 68 28 71 198 NO HEAVY 33.0 66.0 27.9 71.1 84.6% INDUSTRIES 15.7% 34.3% 14.1% 35.9% 79.5% 87.2% 84.8% 84.5% -2.0 2.0 .1 -.1 2 4 4 3 8 19 A LITTLE 3.2 6.3 2.7 6.8 8.1% 21.1% 21.1% 15.8% 42.1% 10.3% 5.1% 9.1% 9.5% .8 -2.3 .3 1.2 3 3 1 2 2 8 SOME 1.3 2.7 1.1 2.9 3.4% 37.5% 12.5% 25.0% 25.0% 7.7% 1.3% 6.1% 2.4% 1.7 -1.7 .9 -.9 4 1 5 0 3 9 A LOT 1.5 3.0 1.3 3.2 3.8% 11.1% 55.6% .0% 33.3% 2.6% 6.4% .O% 3.6% -.5 2.0 -1.3 -.2 Column 39 78 33 84 234 Total 16.7% 33.3% 14.1% 35.9% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells 8.35240 9 4991 1.128 10 OF With ACT8 Statistic Symmetric Dependent Lambda 01613 00000 Number Of Missing Observations = 59 27 - Page 1 of 4 with E.F.< 5 16 ( 62.5%) With AGE Dependent - 28 Crosstabulation: ACT9 OPPORTUNITY FOR SMALL BUSINESS By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT9 1 1 5 3 10 19 NO SMALL 3.0 6.2 2.7 7.1 7.9% BESINESSES 5.3% 26.3% 15.8% 52.6% 2.6% 6.4% 8.8% 11.2% -2.0 -1.2 .3 2.9 2 6 13 8 15 42 A LITTLE 6.7 13.7 6.0 15.6 17.6% 14.3% 31.0% 19.0% 35.7% 15.8% 16.7% 23.5% 16.9% -.7 -.7 2.0 -.6 3 11 21 8 26 66 SOME 10.5 21.5 9.4 24.6 27.6% 16.7% 31.8% 12.1% 39.4% 28.9% 26.9% 23.5% 29.2% .5 -.5 -l.4 1.4 4 20 39 15 38 112 A.LOT 17.8 36.6 15.9 41.7 46.9% 17.9% 34.8% 13.4% 33.9% 52.6% 50.0% 44.1% 42.7% 2.2 2.4 -.9 -3.7 Column 38 78 34 89 239 Total 15.9% 32.6% 14.2% 37.2% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 4.78778 9 8524 2.703 2 OF 16 ( 12.5%) With ACT9 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 00361 00000 00667 Number of Missing Observations 29 Crosstabulation: ACT10 SHOPPING By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 .AGE—> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT10 1 1 12 4 17 34 NO SHOPPING 5.5 11.0 4.9 12.6 14.1% a 2.9% 35.3% 11.8% 50.0% - 2.6% 15.4% 11.4% 19.1% ‘ -4.5 1.0 -.9 4.4 u 2 11 18 7 12 48 '“ A LITTLE 7.8 15.5 7.0 17.7 19.9% 22.9% 37.5% 14.6% 25.0% 28.2% 23.1% 20.0% 13.5% 3.2 2.5 .0 -5.7 3 16 19 3 18 56 SOME SHOPPING 9.1 18.1 8.1 20.7 23.2% 28.6% 33.9% 5.4% 32.1% 41.0% 24.4% 8.6% 20.2% 6.9 .9 -5.1 -2.7 4 11 29 21 42 103 A LOT SHOPPING 16.7 33.3 15.0 38.0 42.7% 10.7% 28.2% 20.4% 40.8% 28.2% 37.2% 60.0% 47.2% -5.7 -4.3 6.0 4.0 Column 39 78 35 89 241 Total 16.2% 32.4% 14.5% 36.9% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 23.39570 9 0054 4.938 1 OF 16 ( 6.3%) With ACT10 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda .04138 03623 04605 Number Of Missing Observations = 52 3O Crosstabulation: ACT11 RESTAURATS By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT11 1 0 10 4 20 34 NO RESTAURATS 5.5 11.1 5.1 12.2 14.2% .0% 29.4% 11.8% 58.8% .0% 12.8% 11.1% 23.3% -5.5 -1.1 -1.1 7.8 2 12 19 5 13 49 A.LITTLE 8.0 16.0 7.4 17.6 20.5% 24.5% 38.8% 10.2% 26.5% 30.8% 24.4% 13.9% 15.1% 4.0 3.0 -2.4 -4.6 3 15 23 11 19 68 SOME RESTAURATS 11.1 22.2 10.2 24.5 28.5% 22.1% 33.8% 16.2% 27.9% 38.5% 29.5% 30.6% 22.1% 3.9 .8 .8 -5.5 4 12 26 16 34 88 A LOT RESTAURATS 14.4 28.7 13.3 31.7 36.8% 13.6% 29.5% 18.2% 38.6% 30.8% 33.3% 44.4% 39.5% -2.4 -2.7 2.7 2.3 Column 39 78 36 86 239 Total 16.3% 32.6% 15.1% 36.0% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 19.45388 9 0216 5.121 None With ACT11 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 04276 01987 06536 Number of Missing Observations = 54 31 Crosstabulation: ACT12 MOTEL By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT12 1 13 24 14 28 79 NO MOTEL 13.4 26.8 11.7 27.1 34.3% h 16.5% 30.4% 17.7% 35.4% ! 33.3% 30.8% 41.2% 35.4% " -.4 -2.8 2.3 .9 1 2 16 21 13 21 71 “- A LITTLE MOTEL 12.0 24.1 10.5 24.4 30.9% 22.5% 29.6% 18.3% 29.6% 41.0% 26.9% 38.2% 26.6% 4.0 -3.1 2.5 -3.4 3 5 18 3 13 39 SOME MOTEL 6.6 13.2 5.8 13.4 17.0% 12.8% 46.2% 7.7% 33.3% 12.8% 23.1% 8.8% 16.5% -1.6 4.8 -2.8 -.4 4 5 15 4 17 41 A LOT MOTEL 7.0 13.9 6.1 14.1 17.8% 12.2% 36.6% 9.8% 41.5% 12.8% 19.2% 11.8% 21.5% -2.0 1.1 -2.1 2.9 Column 39 78 34 79 230 Total 17.0% 33.9% 14.8% 34.3% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 8.95049 9 4419 5.765 None With ACT12 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 02649 01987 03311 Number of Missing Observations = 63 32 Crosstabulation: ACT13 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT13 1 6 12 4 19 41 4 NO RESIDENTIAL 6.9 13.6 5.8 14.7 17.7% DEVELOPMENT 14.6% 29.3% 9.8% 46.3% 15.4% 15.6% 12.1% 22.9% -.9 -1.6 -1.8 4.3 2 22 29 12 26 89 A LITTLE 15.0 29.5 12.7 31.8 38.4% 24.7% 32.6% 13.5% 29.2% 56.4% 37.7% 36.4% 31.3% 7.0 -.5 -.7 -5.8 3 6 24 8 18 56 SOME 9.4 18.6 8.0 20.0 24.1% 10.7% 42.9% 14.3% 32.1% 15.4% 31.2% 24.2% 21.7% -3.4 5.4 .0 -2.0 4 5 12 9 20 46 A LOT 7.7 15.3 6.5 16.5 19.8% 10.9% 26.1% 19.6% 43.5% 12.8% 15.6% 27.3% 24.1% -2.7 -3.3 2.5 3.5 Column 39 77 33 83 232 Total 16.8% 33.2% 14.2% 35.8% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 12.95924 9 1645 5.832 None With ACT13 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 03082 00000 06040 Number of Missing Observations = 61 33 Crosstabulation: ACT14 WATER ACCESS IMPROVEMENT By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT14 l 6 7 6 21 40 NO WATER ACCESS 6.7 13.3 5.8 14.2 17.1% IMPROVEMENT 15.0% 17.5% 15.0% 52.5% 15.4% 9.0% 17.6% 25.3% -.7 -6.3 .2 6.8 2 8 20 8 25 61 .A LITTLE 10.2 20.3 8.9 21.6 26.1% 13.1% 32.8% 13.1% 41.0% 20.5% 25.6% 23.5% 30.1% -2.2 -.3 -.9 3.4 3 11 21 7 20 59 SOME 9.8 19.7 8.6 20.9 25.2% 18.6% 35.6% 11.9% 33.9% 28.2% 26.9% 20.6% 24.1% 1.2 1.3 -1.6 -.9 4 14 30 13 17 74 .A LOT 12.3 24.7 10.8 26.2 31.6% 18.9% 40.5% 17.6% 23.0% 35.9% 38.5% 38.2% 20.5% 1.7 5.3 2.2 -9.2 Column 39 78 34 83 234 Total 16.7% 33.3% 14.5% 35.5% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 13.09074 9 1585 5 812 None With ACT14 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 07074 05000 09272 Number of Missing Observations = 59 34 Crosstabulation: ACT15 PARK/RECREATION By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT15 1 3 8 6 15 32 NO PARK/RECREA— 5.3 10.8 4.7 11.2 13.9% TION ACTIVITIES 9.4% 25.0% 18.8% 46.9% 7.9% 10.3% 17.6% 18.5% -2.3 -2.8 1.3 3.8 2 11 22 12 27 72 A LITTLE 11.8 24.3 10.6 25.2 31.2% 15.3% 30.6% 16.7% 37.5% 28.9% 28.2% 35.3% 33.3% -.8 -2.3 1.4 1.8 3 8 24 7 32 71 SOME 11.7 24.0 10.5 24.9 30.7% 11.3% 33.8% 9.9% 45.1% 21.1% 30.8% 20.6% 39.5% -3.7 .0 -3.5 7.1 4 16 24 9 7 56 A LOT 9.2 18.9 8.2 19.6 24.2% 28.6% 42.9% 16.1% 12.5% 42.1% 30.8% 26.5% 8.6% 6.8 5.1 .8 -12.6 Column 38 78 34 81 231 Total 16.5% 33.8% 14.7% 35.1% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 22.81465 9 0066 4.710 1 OF 16 ( 6.3%) With ACT15 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 09385 07547 11333 Number of Missing Observations = 62 35 Crosstabulation: ACT16 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S 3 Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT16 1 19 48 14 38 119 NO SUBSIDIZED HO 19.7 40.0 16.6 42.6 52.0% HOUSES 16.0% 40.3% 11.8% 31.9% 50.0% 62.3% 43.8% 46.3% -.7 8.0 -2.6 -4.6 2 12 15 1o 20 57 L .A LITTLE 9.5 19.2 8.0 20.4 24.9% 21.1% 26.3% 17.5% 35.1% 31.6% 19.5% 31.3% 24.4% 2.5 -4.2 2.0 -.4 3 6 8 5 15 34 SOME 5.6 11.4 4.8 12.2 14.8% 17.6% 23.5% 14.7% 44.1% 15.8% 10.4% 15.6% 18.3% .4 -3.4 .2 2.8 4 1 6 3 9 19 .A LOT 3.2 6.4 2.7 6.8 8.3% 5.3% 31.6% 15.8% 47.4% 2.6% 7.8% 9.4% 11.0% -2.2 -.4 .3 2.2 Column 38 77 32 82 229 Total 16.6% 33.6% 14.0% 35.8% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 8.62319 9 4728 2.655 3 OF 16 ( 18.8%) With ACT16 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 03891 00000 06803 Number of Missing Observations = 64 36 Crosstabulation: ACT17 SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total .ACT17 1 7 14 8 20 49 NO SENIOR CENTER 8.2 16.2 6.9 17.7 21.0% 14.3% 28.6% 16.3% 40.8% 17.9% 18.2% 24 2% 23.8% -1.2 -2.2 1.1 2.3 2 13 30 8 21 72 A LITTLE ’ 12.1 23.8 10.2 26.0 30.9% . 18.1% 41.7% 11.1% 29.2% i 33.3% 39.0% 24.2% 25.0% ; .9 6.2 -2.2 -5.0 3 17 17 14 21 69 SOME , 11.5 22.8 9.8 24.9 29.6% 24.6% 24.6% 20.3% 30.4% | 43.6% 22.1% 42.4% 25.0% i 5.5 -5.8 4.2 —3.9 1 4 | 2 16 3 22 43 A LOT 1 7.2 14.2 6.1 15.5 18.5% 1 4.7% 37.2% 7.0% 51.2% I 5.1% 20.8% , 9.1% 26.2% i -5.2 1.8 -3.1 6.5 + Column 39 77 33 84 233 Total 16.7% 33.0% 14.2% 36.1% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 18.80878 9 0269 6.090 None With ACT17 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 06452 06832 06040 Number of Missing Observations = 60 37 Crosstabulation: ACT18 YOUTH ACTIVITY CENTER By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT18 1 6 5 6 20 37 NO YOUTH CENTERT 6.3 12.4 5.3 12.9 16.2% 16.2% 13.5% 16.2% 54.1% 15.4% 6.5% 18.2% 25.0% -.3 -7.4 .7 7.1 2 11 22 9 16 58 A LITTLE 9.9 19.5 8.4 20.3 25.3% 19.0% 37.9% 15.5% 27.6% 28.2% 28.6% 27.3% 20.0% 1.1 2.5 .6 -4.3 3 12 29 14 22 77 SOME 13.1 25.9 11.1 26.9 33.6% 15.6% 37.7% 18.2% 28.6% 30.8% 37.7% 42.4% 27.5% -1.1 3.1 2.9 -4.9 4 10 21 4 22 57 A LOT 9.7 19.2 8.2 19.9 24.9% 17.5% 36.8% 7.0% 38.6% 25.6% 27.3% 12.1% 27.5% .3 1.8 -4.2 2.1 Column 39 77 33 80 229 Total 17.0% 33.6% 14.4% 34.9% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 14.49892 9 1057 5.332 None With ACT18 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 04319 00000 08725 Number of Missing Observations = 38 Crosstabulation: ACT19 HISTORIC ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total .ACT19 1 12 10 10 17 49 NO HISTORIC 8.3 16.3 7.1 17.3 21.4% #- ACTIVITIES 24.5% 20.4% 20.4% 34.7% ' 30.8% 13.2% 30.3% 21.0% 3.7 -6.3 2.9 -.3 . I I. 2 15 24 13 23 75 "‘"" A LITTLE 12.8 24.9 10.8 26.5 32.8% 20.0% 32.0% 17.3% 30.7% 38.5% 31.6% 39.4% 28.4% 2.2 -.9 2.2 -3.5 3 7 24 4 20 55 SOME 9.4 18.3 7.9 19.5 24.0% 12 7% 43.6% 7.3% 36.4% 17.9% 31.6% 12.1% 24.7% —2.4 5.7 -3.9 .5 4 5 18 6 21 50 .A LOT 8.5 16.6 7.2 17.7 21.8% 10.0% 36.0% 12.0% 42.0% 12.8% 23.7% 18.2% 25.9% -3.5 1.4 -1.2 3.3 Column 39 76 33 81 229 Total 17.0% 33.2% 14.4% 35.4% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 13.33600 9 .1480 7.061 None With ACT19 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda .01656 .00000 .03378 Number of Missing Observations = 64 39 Crosstabulation: ACT20 NATURAL & SCENIC AREA By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT20 1 3 5 5 12 25 NO NATURAL & 4.2 8.2 3.5 9.1 10.5% M" SCENIC AREA 12.0% 20.0% 20.0% 48.0% g; 7.5% 6.4% 15.2% 14.0% I -1.2 -3.2 1.5 2.9 i 2 8 7 4 15 34 4-'-' A LITTLE 5.7 11.2 4.7 12.3 14.3% 23.5% 20.6% 11.8% 44.1% 20.0% 9.0% 12.1% 17.4% 2.3 -4.2 -.7 2.7 3 13 27 11 26 77 SOME 13.0 25.3 10.7 27.9 32.5% 16.9% 35.1% 14.3% 33.8% 32.5% 34.6% 33.3% 30.2% .0 1.7 .3 -1.9 4 16 39 13 33 101 A LOT 17.0 33.2 14.1 36.6 42.6% 15.8% 38.6% 12.9% 32.7% 40.0% 50.0% 39.4% 38.4% -l.O 5.8 -1.1 -3.6 Column 40 78 33 86 237 Total 16.9% 32.9% 13.9% 36.3% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 8.13195 9 5209 3.481 3 OF 16 ( 18.8%) With ACT20 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 02439 00000 04636 Number of Missing Observations = 56 40 Crosstabulation: ACT21 HEALTH SERVICE By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT21 1 5 11 4 9 29 NO HEALTH SER- 4.9 9.5 4.2 10.5 12.6% VICE 17.2% 37.9% 13.8% 31.0% 12.8% 14.7% 12.1% 10.8% .1 1.5 -.2 -1.5 2 13 19 7 ll 50 A LITTLE 8.5 16.3 7.2 18.0 21.7% 26.0% 38.0% 14.0% 22.0% 33.3% 25.3% 21.2% 13.3% 4.5 2.7 -.2 -7.0 3 8 27 9 25 69 SOME 11.7 22.5 9.9 24.9 30.0% 11.6% 39.1% 13.0% 36.2% 20.5% 36.0% 27 3% 30.1% -3.7 4.5 -.9 .1 4 13 18 13 38 82 A LOT 13.9 26.7 11.8 29.6 35.7% 15.9% 22.0% 15.9% 46.3% 33.3% 24.0% 39.4% 45.8% -.9 -8.7 1.2 8.4 Column 39 75 33 83 230 Total 17.0% 32.6% 14.3% 36.1% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 13.66201 9 1349 4.161 2 OF 16 ( 12.5%) With ACT21 With AGE Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 07119 06081 08163 Number of Missing Observations = 63 41 Crosstabulation: ACT22 OTHERS By AGE AGE GROUP - - - - Page 1 of 4 Count Exp Val Row Pct 26-35 YR 36-45 YR 46-55 YR OVER 55 AGE—> Col Pct S S S Row Residual 2 3 4 5 Total ACT22 1 0 2 0 1 3 NO OTHERS .5 1.1 .3 1.1 13.6% .0% 66.7% .0% 33.3% .0% 25.0% .0% 12.5% -.5 .9 -.3 -.1 2 0 1 O 0 1 .A LITTLE .2 .4 .1 .4 4.5% .0% 100.0% .0% .O% .0% 12.5% .0% .0% -.2 .6 -.1 -.4 3 0 O 1 0 1 SOME .2 .4 .1 .4 4.5% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0% .O% 50.0% .0% -.2 -.4 .9 -.4 4 4 5 1 7 17 .A LOT 3.1 6.2 1.5 6.2 77.3% 23.5% 29.4% 5.9% 41.2% 100.0% 62.5% 50.0% 87.5% .9 -1.2 -.5 .8 Column 4 8 2 8 22 Total 18.2% 36.4% 9.1% 36.4% 100.0% Chi-Square D.F. Significance Min E F Cells with E.F.< 5 14.12745 9 1179 .091 14 OF 16 ( 87.5%) Statistic Symmetric Dependent Dependent Lambda 15789 .00000 .21429 N With ACT22 With AGE umber of Missing Observations = 271 This procedure was completed at 5:55:19 CEDAR COMMUNITY §URVEY 1. What do you feel are the four most important problems facing Cedar? (Please rank the following responses from 1 to 4. For example: 1=mostlmportant problem, 4=leastimportant problem). not enough affordable housing availability of job opportunities lack of parks and recreational facilities lack of public services no vitality too few senior citizen activities _not enough youth activities quality of education available 3 lack of shopping opportunities too few community-wide activities taxes traffic 3 lack of medical services , t,“ , , f , __other - please specify: 15% m g by (l. {mu Q mu 139w ,_, , pr ”(11);:33. tag. 0 2. Do you think that Cedar should have any multiple-family housing (such as apartment buildings or duplexes)? _yes 423m __not sure 3. Do you think Cedar should have low cost housing? yes xrno _not sure 4. What type of community do you think Cedar is? (check up to three responses) . . r ' . . . agricultural community é recreational/tourist community f"- residential community [ retirement community commercially-based community light industry community heavy industry community other - please specify: 5. What type of community would you like Cedar to be? (check up to three responses) _ agricultural community __ commercially-based community __ community with some light-based industry __ community surrounded by heavy industry A recreational/tourist community _2_ residential community _[_ retirement community __ I would like Cedar to stay the way it is _ other - please specify: 10. 11. How much growth would you like to see in Cedar in the next 10 years? none a lot _ a little unlimited growth A a moderate amount Please list the three things you like most about living in Cedar: WW.“ 3 ( \ 1 (/ ,s/l .. 14:77 :2 /_q 1" ! - f 1‘ f'w, . ,- _. A "I f ‘ I ’ ’1 It/ I, ,‘ ' I/ 7 /"- J r} I“. --/ (1 !‘,’/ [-1 y: 2. 4’ I ' “a... "I! I‘ It '4 5.: (I I l L ;’ - k I n I ~ 1 I" ‘u-{. -+ V 3 I l,. \J \T a . 5’!/("l/"_1.’” In what area (Cedar, Traverse City, etc.) do you most often shop for the following things? ITEM rm Groceries / (.7 Auto Services Entertainment "7 Financial Services 1 Household Items , Improvement materials 7 Gifts '/ ‘ Medical Services 1' ‘ Which items/services that you usually buy from other areas do you most wish were available in Cedafl (Please list the top three.) How much would you like to see the following things in Cedar? Please rate how much you would like to see each by using the following scale: 1 = notat all 2 = a little 3 = somewhat 4: a lot ACTIVITY RATIN More festivals like the Polka Festival Downtown revitalization A summer farmers market/craft market More citizen participation More resorts and tourist—related activities Agricultural development Light-based industry (III- l~l-= I» Heavy industry More opportunities for small business ownership Commercial development Shopping Restaurants Motels More residential development Water access improvements Park improvements/recreation opportunities Subsidized housing Senior citizen center Youth activity center Historic activities/developments Natural and scenic areas More health services Other - please specify: illilil» ll ,- \ l Isialrlri 12. Would you be willing to volunteer for the following: YES NO if“: To be a committee member responsible for the above plans? X . ' K To be on a work crew for park improvements? I/ To help with fund raising? ’5‘)? 13. If additional activities or facilities were available would you be willing to pay for them? A yes _no _not sure 14. How long have you lived in the Cedar area? 1"": years 15. How many months each year do you live in Cedar? / ’7- months iE'E' _ ‘ 16. Do you own or rent your home? (check one) _..‘_.'_own _rent 17. In which area do you work? (check one) ,, .. _ Cedar area _2’; Solon Tougnship / Iii” _ Traverse City _ Other: Lifiir. I- 18. How far do you drive to work each day? miles 19. How many people live in your household? 7 people 20. In what age group are you? 18-25 years 26-35 years 36-45 years 4,2 46-55 years 1 over 55 21. What is your sex? / male .7 female 22. In what occupational field do you work? (check one) __ Agriculture _5 Retired __ Construction _ Education _ Finance, Insurance, Real Estate __ Retail _ Government _ Transportation __ Manufacturing _ Tourism Other - please specify: ****tiitfiitiiifiiiiiiii*‘kit************************ Additional comments or suggestions Thank you! Please complete, fold, staple or tape, and mail. ’1" _. 1&1. SOLON TOWNSHIP Cedar, Michigan 49621 LlBRARlES Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll| I III 31293 02638 2600 ..... ...... o . .