THE ORANGE COllNTY ANNUAL SIIRVEY 1984 Final Report

Mark Baldassare, Study Director

John Dombrink, CO-Investigator

James Meeker, Co-Investigator

Henry Pontell, Co-Investigator

Sarah Rosenfield, Research Associate

University of California, Irvine

December 1984

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank the faculty participants~ the research advisory commit

tee, and the steering committee for their contributions. The faculty who

analyzed special topiCS are listed in the Table of Contents. I thank Social

Data Analysts, Inc. for their technical advice and timely field work.

Several PPRO staff members and UCI students offered valuable assistance.

Dr. Sarah Rosenfield was centrally involved in the writing, editing, and sta

tistical analysis for the final report. Connie Keenan and Lauri McFadden

provided research assistance. Many students stimulated ideas about the survey

questions and analysis. Kathy Bracy, Sherry Merryman, and others on the PPRO

staff helped to smoothly administer the study and produce the final report.

I also thank Diane Wilson for contributing her advice to the project.

Most of the funding was provided through a three-year grant from the

Division of Graduate Studies and Research. Supplemental monies were received

in the form of subscription fees from the contributors listed on the following

page. Their support is gratefully acknowledged.

For further information:

Professor Mark Baldassare Orange County Annual Survey University of California Irvine, California 92717 (714) 856-5449

LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS

Baker International Birtcher Pacific Rutterfield The Carma-Sandling GroupCounty of OrangeThe Daily Pilot Deloitte Haskins &Sells Fluor Corporation The Irvine Company Carl Karcher Enterprises J.A. King and Associates The Koll Company The Los Angeles Times Mercury SavingsMission Viejo CompanyNorthrop Corporation Orange County Transit District Orange County Transportation Commission Pacific Bell Pacific Mutual Rancho Mission Viejo The Register C.J. Segerstrom &Sons Snith International Southern California Edison CompanyState Farm Insurance Stein-Brief Group Swift/Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. UCIMC Walt Disney Productions Arthur Young and Company

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 1984 Orange County Annual Survey represents the thi rd survey in an

ongoing analysis of the demographic characteristics and the political and com

munity issues which uniquely define Orange County. A representative sample

of 1,003 adu1t residents was interviewed by telephone in September. This

year's survey concentrates on the political issues raised for Orange County

residents by the local, state and national elections and by the important

ballot measures considered in those elections. In addition to the focus on

politics, we continue to monitor crucial trends and developments in mohility,

housing, transportation, and growth in Orange County. Finally, we look

toward the future in our analysis of public policies toward problems affecting

the present and the future of Orange County.

Analyses of demographics continue to characterize Orange County residents

as a highly affluent and highly educated population. In addition, the socio

economic status of the county has dramatically increased over time. For

example, while 36 percent earned over $36,000 in the 1982 survey, 50 percent

earned above this "income level in 1984. While two-thirds reported having

some college education in 1982, three-fourths of the population currently has

had at least some college. On employment characteristics, this year for the

first time there are more two-worker households in the county than one-worker

households. On other household characteristics, the county is predominantly

middle-aged. The majority are long-term residents, having lived in the

county for more than ten years.

In describing the political character of Orange County, residents

have moved toward Republicanism and greater conservatism since 1982. The

number of residents describing the1'1selves as liberals has decreased from 21

percent in 1982 to 17 percent in 1984 with both moderates (44% in 1984) and

2

conservatives (39% in 1984) rising in numbers. Similarly, Democrats declined

from 37 percent in 1982 to 31 percent in 1984, while Republicans increased

from 51 percent to 57 percent in this two-year period. This trend reflects

the voting preferences of Orange County residents for the 1984 presidential

election. Seventy-one percent, including both registered Republicans and a

number of registered Democrats, reported they planned to vote for the Reagan

Bush ticket, as opposed to 18 percent for Mondale-Ferraro. This well pre

dicted the actual vote in Orange County, which was 75 percent for Reagan-Bush

and 25 percent for Mondale-Ferraro.

This year, ratings of local government were ontained, as in the earlier

surveys, along with new questions on ratings of the state and federal govern

ments. Of these levels, local governments were rated most favorably by

residents, followed by the federal government, with the state receiving the

lowest evaluations.

Several issues which were central in the national election were polled

in this year's survey. Results show that 70 percent of Orange County resi

dents favor ERA ratification, 70 percent support abortion on demand, 41 per

cent support increased mi nority hi ri ng, and only 35 percent want to reduce

federal social programs. On the other hand, a majority oppose gun control

and support prayers in school, the death penalty, and sending military troops

to Central America to prevent countri es from becoming pro-Soviet. These

results and their comparison with national averages reveal Orange County to

be more complex politically than the IIRepublican-conservative ll label it has

been given. The county is more conservative on defense spending and the law

and order issues of gun control and the death penalty than the national

average. The county is similar to the nation on attitudes toward Central

America intervention and spending for social programs. However, Orange

3

county is considerably more liberal than the nation on the social issues of

school prayers~ abortion~ minority hiring~ and women's rights.

Orange County residents are fiscal conservatives in in terms of positions

on taxes and governMent spending. The 1982 Orange County survey asked resi

dents to rate certain public services. Specifically, public schools, streets

and roads, and police protection received low evaluations. In 1983, a ma

jority of residents said they wanted more spending for those public services

that were rated poorly, that is, public schools, streets and roads, and police

protection. This year we asked residents whether they would be willing to

increase taxes as well as government spending for specific public services.

The result shows an underlying approach to taxes that may crosscut a range of

diverse issues and which was evident in the voting for Proposition A in June,

1984. Although streets. schools, and police protection were rated poorly and

residents want more spending to improve them, they do not want more taxes to

provide that increased spending. On the other hand, residents do not want

taxes to be decreased. The approach to taxes ; n Orange County seeMS to be

that residents want tax levels to remain constant.

On transportation issues specifically, residents' satisfaction with the

transportation system has declined even from the low levels reported in 1982

and 1983. While only a third were satisfied in 1982, only a fourth are satis

satisfied now. Traffic congestion has become a great problem for 25 percent

of commuting residents currently. as opposed to 13 percent in 1982. Given

choices for improvement by building new freeways. widening existing freeways,

improving local streets, or improving publ;c transportation, the greatest

percentage pick widening freeways as a high priority. Improving public trans

portation is listed next as a solution of high priority. The least favored

change is building new freeways. Compared to earlier surveys, widening

4

existing freeways is gaining increasing support. Further. support for public

transportation remains strong and consistent over time.

Analyses on housing show that 68 percent of Orange County residents own

their own home. a figure that has remained stable over the last three years.

The longer residents have lived in Orange County, the more likely they are

to own a home. This may be due to the disparity in mortgage payments between

long term and short term residents. Housing costs have increased substan

tially over the last year. In comparisons with 1983, average mortgage costs

have risen by 15 percent and the median rent is higher by 17 percent. The

vast majority of renters (78%) want to buy a home. However, when asked the

hi ghest mortgage payment they coul d afford, most cite payments under the

current cost for recent homebuyers. In fact, only one in three could afford

mortgages in the range that is required presently for home ownership.

On mobility, the same numher of residents in 1984 as in the previous two

years said they wanted to move from their current residence. The location of

greatest choice for all movers is South Orange County (37%) of those desiring

to move, as opposed to the North County, the Riverside-San Bernardino area, or

other areas outside the county. Higher income people and those who want to

move for location are most interested in moving to the South County. Finally,

it appears that the attraction of the Inland Empire has been overstated, as a

low percentage (11%) of out-of-county movers would choose this location.

The 1982 and 1983 surveys revealed that Orange County residents strongly

favor limits on population growth and development in their communities. This

year we asked what specifically should be limited or further developed and to

what extent. The vast majority (78%) want some limitations on new housing.

Relatively few take the more extreme positions of no limitations on growth

or no growth in new housing. Those residents who do want unrestricted growth

5

are the young and renters, perhaps because unlimited growth may bring lower

costs and greater opportunities for homeownershi p. Most residents favor no

change in residential growth. The largest minorities want consumer-related

growth. for exafTlpl e, more restaurants and theaters. and stores and shopp; ng

malls, while fewer want more industrial parks and office buildings in their

cOMmunities.

Finally. turning to public policy issues and the future of Orange County,

only two comMunity problems are recognized as serious by a majority of

Orange County residents. Those issues are an adequate water supply and air

pollution. Hazardous waste accidents are also cited as a serious concern,

but for a somewhat smaller number. Residents are relatively unconcerned,

however. about ea rthquakes and the avail abil ity of ai r transportat i on for

the future of Orange County_

The 1q84 Orange County Survey, 1ike the annual surveys before it, has

expanded our knowledge, data base, and understanding of the characteristics,

opinions, and desires of Orange County citizens for themselves and their

comMunities. With this continuing survey. we gain a unique and rich source

of inforfTlation about the county to gauge the distance from our past in a

decade of rapid change and to project for the benefit of our future.

THE ORANGE COUNTY ANNUAL SURVEY

19R4 Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION.......................................................... 1

METHons. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4

Sampl@........................................................... 4

Data Collection and Survey Instrument............................ 5

FINn! NGS................... ................................... ........................................ 7

Demographic Characteristics...................................... 7

Politics in Perspective.......................................... 12

local Spending and Taxes......................................... 19

Transportation Priorities........................................ 25

Housing .......... 31

Moving............................................................................................................... 37

hrowth Preferences............................................... 41

The Future and Public Policies................................... 46

Special Topics

1 Prisons and White-Collar Crime {Henry Pontell) 52

2. Lawyers and the legal System (James Meeker and

John Oombrink) 56

CONCLUSIONS........................................................... 59

FOOTNOTES............................................................. 63

APPENlnCES

A. Faculty Participants 19R2-1984

R. Steering Committee, 1984

C. Research Advisory Committee, 19A4

O. Survey Instrument, 1984

E. Marginals and Cross-tahulations (CoMputer Output)

INTRODU eTI ON

The Orange County Annual Survey has been in progress for three years.

Since 1982, in three consecutive surveys, the goal has been to understand the

nature of community life in Orange County. A related purpose is to examine

trends in demographics and opinions over time as the county grows, matures,

and i nevi tab ly changes. The three surveys together offer a uni que oppor

tunity for decision P1akers and academics to analyze the social, economic,

and political evolution of a major metropolitan area. Other regions of the

United States today must rely on the 1980 Census which, for geographic areas

which are changing and growing, represents outdated information. The findings

froP1 the 1984 survey which are presented in this report underscore the impor

tance of having large, detailed, representative, and ongoing surveys of the

Orange County population.

One topic receives considerable attention this year. It is the poli

tical attitudes of Orange County residents. There is confusion about the

current nature of Orange County. This is especially relevant in a year in

which the presidential vote, the legislative elections, and residents' re

sponses to this year's state and county ballot initiatives were the focus of

great attention. This year's survey places Orange County's political atti

tudes in perspective in several ways. It contrasts local opinions with

national opinions on key issues. It also compares residents' attitudes

towards local governP1ent with ratings of higher levels of governP1ent. Lastly,

important internal political issues are examined in questions regarding local

spending and taxes and transportation priorities. The 1984 survey seeks to

understand the political values which underlie citizens' voting and public

policy preferences. It serves not only as a retrospective on the year's

2

political events but also as a benchmark for future political studies and

as a source for crucial political projections.

The 1984 survey also builds on the earlier efforts. Areas of emphasis

continue to be demographics, housing, moving, transportation, growth prefer

ences, and public policies. We track several important attitudes and facts

to analyze changes since the 1q82 survey. These include income, household

composition, moving trends, housing characteristics, transportation attitudes,

and political affiliations. As important, we elaborate upon earlier informa

tion in the questions asked on each topic. The 1983 survey provided awareness

of Orange County residents mixed evaluation of the area1s future. This

years survey explores the public policy issues which are of greatest concern,

including the water supply, air pollution, hazardous wastes, earthquakes, and

air transportation. The 1983 survey indicated continuing deterioration of

residents transportation experiences and support for transportation improv

ements. The current study considers further attitude shifts. Housing and

moving plans indicated in past years that Orange County had a potentially

mobile popul ation and young adult and rental groups which were frustrated

with the barriers to hOrleownership. In the most recent survey we examine

both where and why Orange County res; dents want to move and the renters

interest in and ability to pay the costs of homeownership. The past surveys

have found support for 1imi t i ng growth and preferences towa rds rest ri ct i ng

urban development. In the 1984 survey we consider support for no housing

growth versus controlled growth or unrestricted growth and the acceptability

of various types of non-residential growth.

There are several special topics which are also pursued in the 1984

survey. This is consistent with the approach of previous years in matching

faculty interests with important policy questions in Orange County. We

3

continued to select these topics with the overall theme of special popula

tions and critical social institutions in mind. This year the issues are

all within the fields of law and criminal justice. Specifically, the in

creasingly controversial issues of white collar crime and prison conditions

were addressed in the survey. In addition, attitudes towards the court

system, legal assistance, and lawyers in particular are considered. We are

not only interested in the overall opinions of the population but, as well,

in the attitudes and experiences of significant subgroups.

The report is divided into the following sections. First the methods

of the survey are described including the sample, the data collection pro

cedures and the content of the survey instrument. Then the fi ndi ngs are

presented in nine separate sections. These include the demographic charac

teristics, politics in perspective, spending and taxes, transportation,

housing, moving, growth preferences, and the future and public policies. The

final results section includes a discussion of the special topics involving

law and criminal justice. A conclusions section summarizes the findings from

this year's survey, integrates the results with past knowledge, discusses the

policy implications, and looks towards topics to be pursued in the 1985

survey.

4

METHODS

SaMple

The sample for the lQB4 Orange County Survey consists of 1,003 randomly

selected residents who were interviewed by telephone. The sample is strati

fied geographically, with half of the sample selected from north of the Santa

Ana River and half from the south. For data analyses, the sample ;s statis

tically weighted to represent the actual distribution of the Orange County

popul ation.1

The sample in each area was chosen using a computer program which ran

domly generates telephone numbers from among working blocks of telephone

exchanges. A working block is one that contains numbers in use. The total

of telephone numbers generated within an exchange was in proportion to the

number of residential phones represented by that exchange in the northern

part of the county or the southern part of the county. Using this procedure,

approximately 2,~OO telephone nUMbers from the south and approximately 2,200

telephone numbers from the north were drawn. This procedure of random digit

dialing ensures that unlisted as well as listed numbers are included in the

sample. Also, since over 95 percent of the households in Orange County have

telephones, randoM dialing yields a sample representative of the population

of Orange County.

The Troldahl-Carter Method was used in randoMly selecting which adult

member of the household was to be interviewed. 2 This method consists of enum

erating the total number of adults in the household and the total number of

men in the household. Then, using a prearranged grid, the interviewer selects

the individual in the household for interviewing.

5

As further evidence of the representativeness of the sample chosen by the

above methods, characteristics of the sample were compared to characteristics

of the total Orange County population using the 1980 census. On the basis of

age, income, sex, marital status, household size, and home ownership, the

sample is representative of the population of Orange County. Characteristics

of the 1982 and 1983 Orange County Survey samples were also contrasted with

the characteristics of the 1984 Orange County Survey sample. Marital status,

ethnicity, age, sex, and education were closely comparable in the three

surveys.

The sampl; ng error for thi s survey is plus or mi nus three percentage

points. This means that if this survey were to be repeated 100 times, in 95

out the 100 times the answers obtained for a particular question would match

those we obtained in this survey within three points. The sampling error for

any part i cul ar sub-group woul d be greater. These cal cul at ions assume that

the data were collected under ideal circumstances. Since there are a large

number of practical problems in conducting social surveys, the actual sampling

error for any particular result might be slightly higher.

nata Collection and Survey Instrument

As noted above, the interviewing for the Orange County Survey was done

by telephone. Cost considerations and methodological improvements have led

to telephone surveys' increased adoption in the social sciences. In addition,

several studies show similar quality in telephone and face-to-face interviews.

Interviewers were closely supervised during the data collection. Inter

viewers participated in a two-hour training session on the Orange County Sur

vey instrument. Supervisors were available during the telephone interviewing

to answer questions of interviewers or respondents. The telephone system

6

used also allowed supervisors to monitor interviews to correct for errors in

administering the questionnaire.

The interviewing was done between September 5th and September 22nd,

1984. On weekdays, interviewing occurred between the hours of 5:30 and 10:00

p.m., and on Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. For each number in the

sample, at least four call back attempts were made. The resulting sample of

1,003 represents 25 percent of the numbers dialed (4,021 in all). For 13

percent, a refusal to cooperate was received. The majority of calls not

completed (56%) was due either to nonworking residential phone numbers or to

no answers, which may indicate nonresidential phone numbers. The refusal

rate for the survey was 34 percent, that is, 25 percent completions plus 13

percent refusals divided into 13 percent. This is consistent with the general

refusal rate in surveys, which varies between 25 percent and 40 percent.3

The Orange County Survey, as shown in Appendix 0, includes 86 questions.

There were also a few open-ended quest ions. Indi vi dual s were asked to name

their residential zip code. In addition, there is a question on the respon

dent's occupation. Categories for coding were developed prior to interview

ing, and reliabilty tests indicated that the coding of open-ended questions

was conducted accurately.

7

FINDINGS

Qemographic Characteristics

Each year we gather extensive information on the characteristics of our

respondents and their households. This is used later to analyze the per

ceptions and attitudes of different Orange County groups. In this section

we consider the demographic characteristics in order to develop a profile of

Orange County residents in 1984. Also~ the findings from previous years are

contrasted with the recent survey to examine trends over time.

Table 1 summarizes the basic charactersitics of Orange County residents.

The age breakdown suggests a mostly middle aged adult population with 49 per

cent between the ages of 35 and 64. Fifteen percent is in the 18 to 24 group

and 28 percent is in the 25 to 34 age bracket. Only eight percent of the

population is elderly. The annual income statistics point to the predomi

nance of affluent households. The median household income is $36,000. Only

eight percent are in the under $15,000 category and 17 percent are in the

$15,000 to $25,999 category. Half the population has incomes between $26,000

and $49,999. Twenty-five percent have incomes over $50,000 with ten percent

having household incomes over $75,000. Educational attainment also points to

a high status population. Only three percent have not graduated high school

and 23 percent are high school graduates. Nearly three-fourths of the adult

population has thus had at least some college training with 37 percent being

college graduates. Finally, the statistics on the number of adult full-time

workers in the household point to some interesting social trends. There are

now more two-worker households than there are one-worker households in Orange

County. There is only one in ten households with no adults at work, which

is accounted for by the low unemployment rate and the small number of elderly

8

residents. With the other findings this suggests a productive, affluent,

and high status population.

There are dramatic demographic trends which are evident when contrasting

the 1982 Orange County Annual Survey with this year's study. These are sum

marized in Table 2. IncoMe has risen sharply in the two year period. Today,

50 percent are in the $36,000 or more bracket whil e in 1982 there were 36

percent at this income level. The proportion of residents reporting house

hold incomes of $50,000 or more has increased 50 percent frOM one in six

households to one in four households. At the same time the number of house

holds in the lowest income category, under $15,000, has declined from 17

percent to eight percent. A similar shift towards higher status is evident

in educational levels. Whereas two-thirds had some college education or more

in 1982, there are three-fourths with this degree of educational training in

1984. The proportion of adults who are full-time employed has also increased

from 61 percent to 66 percent. This is a result of declines in part-time

employment and labor force nonparticipation. There is an increase in white

collar employed residents in Orange County. While there has been little

change in the proportions of professional and managerial workers there has

been an eight percent gain, from 23 percent to 31 percent, in the number of

sales and clerical workers. This is undoubtedly due to the shift from econo

mic recession to recovery in the two years. One last trend is the continuing

increase in household size. There were 16 percent one-person households in

1982 and 14 percent in 1984, while the proportion of four or more person

households increased from 29 percent to 33 percent. Housing costs may be

discouraging one person occupancy and thus single persons may be more commonly

doubling up with unrelated individuals or leaving the county.

9

Table 1

CHARACTERISTICS OF 1,003 ORANGE COUNTY SURVEY RESPONDENTS AGE 18 to 24 15% 25 to 34 28 35 to 44 25 45 to 64 24 65 or more 8

ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Under $15,000 8% $15,000 to $25,999 17 $26,000 to $35,999 25 $36,000 to $49,999 25 $50,000 to $75,000 15 Over $75,000 10

EDUCATION Some High School or Less 3% High School Graduate 23 Some College 37 College Graduate 37

FULL-TIME WORKERS. None 10% One 44 Two or More 46

10

Table 2

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN ORANGE COUNTY

Family Income

Under $15 toao

$15,000 to $35 t 999

$36,000 to $49 t 999

$50,000 or more

Educational Status

High School Graduate or less Some College or More

Work Status

Full-Time Employed

Part-Time Employed

Not in the labor Force

Occupational Status

Professional and Managerial Sales and Clerical Other Categories

Household Size

One Person

Two or Three Persons

Four or More Persons

1982 Survey

17% 47 20 16

37 63

61 10 29

46 23 31

16 55 29

1984 Survey

8% 42 25 25

26 74

66 9

25

44 31 25

14 53 33

11

Other typical household characteristics in 1984 are worthy of considera

tion. Fifty-nine percent of all the respondents were married and of these,

32 percent were married with chil dren at home and 27 percent were married

without chil dren at home. The marri ed respondents I work statuses for them

selves and their spouses are as follows: 45 percent both full-time, 34 per

cent only one full-time, 13 percent one full-time and one part time, and

eight percent neither working. Seven percent of the households had one adult

with children present. We asked all those adults with children 13 or under

at home whether they paid for day care on a regular basis. Thirty-seven

percent of those households used day care services. Of the 14 percent of

households with adults living alone, five percent were never married and nine

percent were previously married. Thirteen percent of the households were

comprised of unrelated individuals living together, with nine percent adults

who were never married and four percent adults who were previously married.

Finally, seven percent of the residents surveyed were young adults living in

their parents' homes.

It is interesting to analyze household income by different household

types. There are differences between single person households and multiple

person households. Only 11 percent of the single person households have

incomes of $50,000 or more while 31 percent of the married couple households

have incomes of $50,000 or more. Additionally, 58 percent of the single

person households, yet only 15 percent of the married couple households have

incomes under $26,000. Thus the family households and married couple house

holds in Orange County are even more affluent than the total household income

figures portrayed earlier.

12

This year we asked how long people had lived in Orange County as well as

how long they had lived in their current residence. Twelve percent had lived

in Orange County two years or less, 12 percent for three to five years. 19

percent for six to ten years, 31 percent for 11 to 20 years, and 20 percent

for 20 years or more. Of those who have lived in Orange County two years or

less, 27 percent previously lived in Los Angeles, 23 percent in other states,

20 percent in other California counties, five percent from outside the United

States, and 25 percent had moved within Orange County during that time period.

There continues to he much residential mobility within Orange County as evi

denced by the fact that 33 percent lived in their current residence for two

years or less, 20 percent for three to five years, 23 percent for six to ten

years, and 25 percent for more than 10 years. Thi sis al so confi rmed by the

fact that 60 percent of all the residents claimed that their last residence

was in Orange County.

Politics in Perspective

This year we expanded on our coverage of politics and government in the

Orange County Su rvey. There ; s hei ghtened interest among academi cs, pub1i c

and private leaders, and the public in these issues during a general election

year. We also believe that election years are ideal times to analyze resi

dents' preferences since much more thought and articulation are given to

political issues during preSidential, legislative, and local elections. A

major effort in this year's survey was thus to define the political prefer

ences of Orange County residents and to relate their preferences to national

attitudes. We al so seek to understand what di sti ngui shes Republ i cans and

Democrats as well as liberals, moderates, and conservatives in Orange County.

13

A question was asked about presidential preferences and the results were

released just prior to this report. 4 The findings indicated overwhelming

support among regi stered voters for the Reagan-Rush cand; dacy. Seventy-one

percent gave support to Reagan-Bush while 1R percent favored Mondale-Ferraro.

This support for the Republican ticket was strong in all age, sex, and income

categories. A large proportion of Orange County's Democrats favored Reagan

Bush. The November election confirmed the 1984 survey findings since 75 per

cent voted for Reagan-Bush and 25 percent for Mondale-Ferraro.

The 1984 survey indicated that there has been a tilt away from self

described liberalism and Democratic registration since the 19R2 survey. Lib

erals numbered 21 percent in 1982 and only 17 percent in 1984. The four per

cent decline in liberals resulted in a two percent increase in moderates (44%)

and two percent for conservatives (39%). Those stating that they are regis

tered Democrats declined from 37 percent to 31 percent while the Republicans

increased from 51 percent to 57 percent in the two year period. The actual

registration figures for Orange County show somewhat more Democrats and fewer

Republicans than the survey results. The important finding, nonetheless, is

that the trend is towards Republicanism and away from the liberal label.

For the last two years, we have asked residents to rate their local

governments as excellent, good, fair, or poor. The question was repeated

this year with little change in attitude since the 1982 survey. Two questions

were added in 1984, using the same rating scheme, which asked residents to

evaluate state government and federal government. The findings indicated

that local government was rated substantially more favorably than either state

or federal government. Fifty-two percent rated the local government as

excellent or good, while 40 percent gave the federal government these evalua

tions and only 38 percent gave the state government these ratings. Twenty-one

14

percent said the federal government was "poor" compared with 13 percent for

the state government and only eight percent for the local government. The

major reason for these differences is that party affiliation and political

orientation do not affect attitudes towards local government but do affect

the ratings of the state and federal government. 5 Democrats and Republicans

are equally positive towards the local arena but Democrats more than Republi

cans are negative towards the high levels of government. The same trends

hold true for liberals versus moderates and conservatives. This could change

if, as some political observers in the county have commented, local elections

became more partisan in nature.

Nine questions concerning political issues which had been debated in the

national election campaigns were asked in this year's survey. They dealt with

social, fiscal, and defense issues. All the questions had been recently used

in national surveys of the general public and, thus, statistics could be com

pared with the Orange County results. 6 Table 3 presents the percentages of

local and national residents holding certain attitudes. It is obvious that

Orange County is more complex politically than the "Republican conservative"

label it has been given, especially when viewed on an issue by issue basis.

Two-thirds favor ERA ratification, 70 percent support abortion on demand, 41

percent support increased minority hiring, and only 35 percent favor reducing

federal social programs. Opposition to gun control and support for prayers

in public schools, the death penalty, and sending military troops to Central

America to prevent countries from becoming pro-Soviet are the positions of

a majority of residents. A substantial proportion is also in favor of in

creased defense spending.

It is possible to contrast Orange County with the national average on an

issue by issue basis. The county is substantially more conservative on

15

defense spending, gun control, and the death penalty, but, on the other hand,

is considerably more liberal than the nation on school prayers, abortion,

minority hiring, and women's rights. Attitudes towards Central American

intervention and social programs are almost identical. In all, the percent

age differences indicate five issues for which Orange County is more "liberal"

and four issues for which it is more "conservative" than the nation as a

whole on the issues examined. Of course, the choice of any particular politi

cal issue influences the outcor'1e. But the individual results still support

the conclusion that, in the least, Orange County is not so unique politically

from the current national mood.

We next considered the extent to which there was consensus on the

national issues among different political groups in Orange County. Abortion,

the ERA, school prayers, and troops to Central America were chosen because a

majority of Orange County residents favored each proposal. Political party,

political orientation, and presidential preference led to significantly

different attitudes as reported in Table 4. However, interestingly, there

tend to be differences in degree of support rather than schisms dividing

different groups. A majority of Republican as well as Democrats favor abor

tion and the ERA. So do a majority of conservatives and those who favored

Reagan for the presidency. Equally i nteresti ng are the facts that approxi

mately half of Democrats in Orange County as well as Republicans favor school

prayers and Central American interventionism. So do most non-conservatives

and over one-third of the Mondale supporters. Orange County residents ob

viously do not rigidly adhere to the stands on the issues of their party,

political orientation, or presidential choice.

POLITICAL ATTITUDES

ON NATIONAL ISSUES

Prayers in Public Schools Abortion on Demand Increase Minority Hiring Ratify the ERA Send Troops to C. America Cut Social Programs Favor Death Penalty Favor Gun Control More Defense Spending

+ = more conservative than US - = more liberal than US

OC

61%

70

41

66

55

35

76

33

29

US

73%

63

36

62

56

34

74

37

12

Total Difference

Difference -12%

- 7

- 5

- 4 ....... O'l - 1

+ 1

+ 2

+ 4

+17

~ 5%

17

Table 4

INTERNAL CONSENSIIS ON POLITI CAL ISSUES:

ORANGE COUNTY AND ITS SUBGROUPS*

Abort ion ERA School Prayers Send Troops

Total O.C. 70% 66% 61% 55%

Political Party

Republ i can 71 58 72 70 Democrat 78 86 51 48

Political Orientation

Conservat i ve 62 55 74 74

Moderate 81 76 63 59

Liberal 84 86 46 42

Presidential Preference

Reagan 70 60 73 71 Mondale 86 90 37 36

* All Chi square relationships in this table are s i gnifi cant at .001 except for political party by abortion attitude which is not significant.

18

We also considered whether different age, sex, and income categories

indicated distinctive political views. There was actually very little

variation in attitudes. Abortion was equally supported by men and women and

by adults in all age categories. There were income differences suggesting

that the more affl uent favored abortion more than others. Women were only

somewhat more in favor of the ERA than men. There were no income differences

and a majority in all age categories supported the ERA. There were no sig

nificant differences in attitudes towards Central American intervention by

age, sex, or income. There was a slight trend for women to favor school

prayer more than men, and for older adults in contrast to those 18 to 24 years

of age, but there were no differences in support for school prayer across

income categories.

It is true that the Republicans and the Democrats, as well as the lib

erals and the conservatives, are not as far from each other on major national

issues as might have been imagined. But there are attitudinal differences,

and it would be important to know which attitudes best distinguish party mem

bership and political orientation in Orange County. A multivariate analysis

was used which included all the national issues. There was, of no surprise,

a high correlation hetween being a conservative and being a Republican. The

two factors which best predicted political attitude and party affiliation

were support for the fqual Rights Amendment and support for increased defense

spending) Democrats and liberals were most distinctly in favor of the ERA

and Republicans and conservatives were different in their strong feelings

about increasing defense spending. Other attitude differences did not matter

as much when these two factors were considered. When all is said, then,

these factors matter greatly in Orange County residents decisions about

their party and politics.

19

In closing, Orange County residents overwhelmingly support Ronald Reagan

and are increasingly self described as non-liberal and Republican. Yet they

rate the state and federal government, whi ch both currently have Repub1i can

chief executives, in more negative terms than their local government. They

also hold views which are decidedly different frOM their presidential choice,

party platform, and political orientation in regard to abortion and the ERA.

COMpared with the nation as a whole they are much more in favor of defense

spending and much less in favor of school prayer. The profile of the Orange

County political style is, first and foremost, strongly in support of civil

liberties and freedom of choice followed by a pro-defense attitude and a

tough stance on law and order issues. Attitudes towards social issues are in

line with current national preferences. Labels such as "Eastern" liberalism

and "Bible belt" conservatism do not seem to describe the average political

preferences of the county, its party members, or its major political philoso

phies. One would have to assume that affluence, education, occupation, and

dual career households moderate the attitudes of both the Democrats and

Republ icans. The military presence and defense industries in Orange County

perhaps partly explain the attitudes towards defense, but in all likelihood,

it is an outgrowth of the feeling that civil liberties must be protected with

whatever effort is necessary.

Local Spending and Taxes

Since the 1982 Survey we have monitored residents' attitudes towards

public services. We examined perceptions of service quality in 1982 and found

that public schools, streets and roads, and police protection received low

ratings and parks and recreation and hospitals and clinics received more

favorable evaluations. In 1983 the desire to increase spending for public

20

services was considered. A majority wanted increased spending for police

protection and puhlic schools, while nearly 50 percent wanted more funds for

local streets. Less support for spending increases was evident for parks and

recreation, and hospitals and clinics. There seemed to be a correlation

between low service quality evaluations and the desire to spend more money for

services. It is evident in scholarly research as well as in viewing the

defeat of Proposition A that the public's desire to spend money to improve

poorly regarded services may not necessarily translate into support for tax

increases to fund more and better services.8

This year's survey probed support for tax increases and service improve

ments, tax decreases and service reduction, and no change in taxes or ser

vices. These choices were put forward for five specific services including

public schools, police protection, hospitals and clinics, parks and recrea

tion, and streets and roads. Table 5 summarizes the results regarding those

who want increased spending and taxes in 1984. For no public service was a

majority interested in increased spending and taxes. Over 40 percent were

interested in increases for police and increases for schools. One-third were

wi 11 i ng to pay more taxes for improvement in streets and parks and recrea

tion. Only one in four was willing to pay more taxes to improve hospitals

and clinics. It is evident from the comparisons with the 1983 questions

that many individuals who favor increased spending and who presumahly see the

need for servi ce improvements wi 11 not support increased taxes to fund the

spending increases. This is most obvious with regard to police and schools

but also evident in relation to streets and hospitals.

There are, however, very few residents who favor tax decreases and

service decreases for any particular public service. The range is five per

cent for schools, two percent for police, two percent for hospitals, two

'QU'~ ;.J

SPENDING AND TAKES

FOR PUBLIC SERYIClES

44% Police Protection t" v " v Iv V

66%

v V "V V v' IPublic Schools r 74%

N ........

'V V I ILocal Streets r 47v v

Parks and Recreation I' v v v v I

33%

Hospitals and Clinics i >< v I 40%V'

1984 INCREASE SPENDING AND TAXES r>oo

22

percent for streets, and one percent for parks. Most people simply favor the

status quo for any given spending and tax issue. Seventy-one percent want the

same amount to continue for hospitals~ 65 percent for parks~ 64 percent for

streets, 53 percent for schools, and 53 percent for police. Aseparate analy

sis determined how many respondents wanted tax increases in all service cate

gories, tax decreases in all service categories, and no change in all service

categories. Five percent wanted all service spending and taxes to increase~

17 percent wanted all to remain the same~ and less than one percent wanted

all to decrease. Even among the most popular spending and taxes categories,

schools and police, only 24 percent wanted increased spending and taxes for

both whi 1e 45 percent wanted no change in both categori es. And among the

least popular categories, that is parks and hospitals, less than one percent

wanted decreases in both while 52 percent wanted no change in both. On a

service by service accounting, then, Orange County residents seem most inter

ested in holding the current level of spending and taxes constant.

There are several factors which account for differences in attitudes to

wards spending and tax increases. The most important are summarized in Table

6. In terms of geographic area, throughout this report, Central County refers

to Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove cities, North County to other places north

of the Santa Ana River and South County to other places south of the Santa

Ana River. Central county residents are the most favorable towards spending

increases in police and hospitals. Homeowners in Orange County are less

supportive of tax increases for any services than renters. Women are more

favorable towards increases for schools and police while men are more support

ive of increases for streets, parks, and hospitals. Republicans are less

favorahle towards increases in schools, parks, and hospitals than Democrats,

although party affiliation does not distinguish attitudes towards taxes for

police and streets. An identical trend is found when comparing conserva

tives, whose views are sirrtilar to Republicans, to moderates and liberals,

whose views are similar to Democrats. There is evidently a difference in

attitudes towards police and streets, as general public services, and schools,

parks, and hospitals as more specialized public services, which is accounted

for by political party and orientation.

Age and income were also considered as factors which may help account

for attitudes towards spending and tax increases for various public services.

Younger adults tended to be more supportive of increases for schools, parks,

and hospitals than older adults. Persons 65 or older were especially unfavor

able towards spending and tax increases, although age did not distinguish

attitudes towards what are described above as the more general public services

of police and schools. Income differences were not found for any public

service spending and tax questions.

There are several findings which are particularly instructive about

Orange County public service attitudes. They are even more salient in light

of recent attempts to expl ain the defeat of Proposition A. There is not a

majority of residents who would support a tax increase for any public service

regardless of spending prp.ferences and service evaluations. The Proposition

A vote was not a statement about transportation taxes per se but was a reflec

tion of a general underlying attitude towards taxes and spending. Most

residents want to maintain the status quo in taxes and spending when reminded

of the tax consequences of spending increases. Support for tax increases is

politicized and age-specific with regard to schools, parks, and hospitals but

not for police and streets. Proposition A thus would have political advant

ages over tax measures for the other public services. It is not because of a

desire to decrease taxes, partisan politics, a specific political philosophy,

24

Table 6

SUPPORT FOR TAX INCREASES IN DIFFERENT GROUPS

Schools Police Streets Parks HosEitals

Total 41% 44% 34% 33% 26%

QeograEhic Area

North 45 46 34 34 21 Central 43 53 41 33 33 South 36 37 30 33 27 (Si gn ifi cance) (NS) (.001) (NS) (NS) (.002)

Homeownershi~

Own 37 43 32 29 21 Rent 49 47 39 41 37 (Significance) ( .001 ) (NS) (.05 ) (.OOI) (.001)

Political Part~

Republican Democrat

34 56

43 44

32 37

27 36

20 28

(Significance) (.001) (NS) (NS) (.01) ( .07)

Sex

Male 37 41 37 37 30 Female 45 47 33 31 23 (Significance) ( .07) (.02) (NS) ( .01 ) (.07)

25

or service quality evaluations~ but largely because so many residents are

opposed to tax increases and favor the status quo in taxes that Proposition A

and similar tax measures do not enjoy public support. The desire for uno

change" is an attitude which characterizes the average Orange County resident

with respect to public service spending and taxes.

Transportation

An issue of immediate significance to the public continues to be trans

portation. In 1984 Orange County residents not only continued to experience

transportation problems but they examined over the first six months a compre

hensive plan which was aimed towards developing new revenues to fund transpor

tation improvements. The voters in the June primary overwhelmingly rejected

Proposition A which would have increased the sales tax for transportation

programs. In the wake of the proposition's defeat, the purpose of the survey

questions was twofold. First, the aim was to analyze current perceptions of

transportation problems in light of earlier survey results. Second, the

objective was to examine transportation priorities of the public in what will

be an era of local resource limitations.

The changes in transportation attitudes between 1982 and 1984 are sum

marized in Table 7. There has been a seven-point decline among all residents

in those saying that lithe current freeway system is satisfactor/' between

1982 and 1984. One-third of the residents was satisfied in 1982 and one

fourth ;s satisfied in 1984. The proportion of commuters saying that traffic

congestion is "a great problem" has doubled between 1982 and 1984. The in

crease has been froM 13 percent to 25 percent. One in four commuters in

Orange County is thus very dissatisfied with the trip to work. Travel to

work by Orange County residents~ as in previous surveys, is predominantly to

2fi

an Orange County work location. Seventy-nine percent reported an Orange

county workplace, 15 percent work in Los Angeles, and the remaining six

percent are scattered throughout other locations.

Satisfaction with the freeways continues to be lowest among the South

County residents, of whom only 22 percent is satisfied in contrast to 24

percent in the Central County and 27 percent in the North County. Complaints

ahout traffic congestion among commuters, however, is not related to the

location of residence. Length of residence does not affect freeway or com

muting perceptions. The social and economic factors which are correlated

with labor force participation tend to best explain traffic and freeway per

ceptions. Middle aged adults and men are less satisfied with the freeways

and have more cOl'llll1uting problems. Full-time workers are more likely to

mention tlgreat problems" in commuting than part-time workers.

The key transportation questions this year asked people to consider

which projects were of low priority, medium priority, or high priority given

that there are not enough funds for all the proposed transportation improve

ments. The projects included building new freeways, widening existing free

ways, improving local streets, and improving public transportation. Fifty

percent of the residents considered widening freeways a high priority. The

next most important project, accordi ng the survey responses, is i mprovi ng

public transportation. Local streets was a high priority of only 25 percent

of the residents. The least favored transportation project was building new

freeways.

Orange County residents appear to be very selective in their choices of

transportation projects when confronted with the current spending limitations

which are forced by the defeat of Proposition A. Only two percent of the

population rated all four transportation projects as "high priority." Yet,

Table 7

TRANSPO~TATION

RESIDENT PRIORITIES High Medium Low

Widen Freeways 50% 31% 19% rv '-JPublic Transportation 41 27 32

Local Streets 25 39 36

Build New Freeways 21 35 44

ATTITUDE CHANGES

1982 1984

Freeway Satisfaction 32% 25%

Commute A Great Problem 13 25

28

only three percent of the total population viewed all the projects as IIl ow

priority,1I indicating that problem recognition is still very strong. The

most significant association was between building freeways and widening free

ways and, even here, there were only 14 percent who cited both as high pri

ority, 12 percent who said both were medium priority, and 13 percent stating

low priority for both questions. There was thus very little relationship

between different projects' priorities.

There is evidence froM another survey question that support for widening

freeways is growing and that support for building new freeways is diminishing.

This can be ohserved in the freeway satisfaction question which has been

asked of all residents since 1982. The proportion of people wanting to widen

existing freeways was 42 percent in 1982 and 52 percent in 1984 while the

proportion favoring new freeways declined from 25 percent to 23 percent

between 1982 and 1984. The results this year regarding support for publ ic

transportation are in agreement with the 1983 survey which found a majority

in favor of expanding the bus system and building a local rail system.

The support for transportation projects in different groups ;s pre

sented in Table 8. We examine the proportions who state that a project ;s

a high priority in various geographic, age, and political groups. South

County residents are most in favor of bui 1 di ng new freeways and expandi ng

public transportation. There is also a trend for South County residents to

want freeways widened more than other groups. Central County residents,

on the other hand, are the most interested in havi ng thei r local streets

improved. Age differences are evident for all the transportation questions

except for street improvements. Middle aged and presumably working age

residents are most in favor of building freeways, widening freeways, and

improving public transportation. This is confirmed by the fact that 55

29

percent of the full-time workers consider widening freeways a high priority

compared with only 37 percent of part-time workers and 35 percent of those

keeping house. Political orientation is not a factor in attitudes towards

freeway projects, either for building them or widening them. However, con

servatives appear to be most opposed to public transportation projects and

liberals most supportive of street improvements.

Other factors considered as determinants of transportation priorities

were not included in Table 8. These were income, length of residence, and

sex. Length of residence in Orange County and sex of the respondent had no

effects on the transportation priorities. Income had no significance for

attitudes towards building new freeways, improving local streets, and im

proving public transportation. However, there was a tendency for upper income

residents to be the most interested in widening freeways.

Res; dents' preferences conti nue to rai se seri ous questi ons for trans

portation planners and service providers in Orange County. There continues

to be lessening satisfaction with the freeways and commutes. Widening free

ways is the preferred solution and this attitude ;s increaSing in popularity

over time. It is possible that the response, "widening freeways," is one

which occurs to residents on freeways as they experience longer and longer

delays -in traveling. The Orange County Annual Survey will probe the reasons

for transportation priorities in future years. These current project priori

ties of the public are particularly noteworthy. If the public's preferences,

when carried out, would not halt the growing transportation dissatisfaction

in Orange County, then public agencies should begin informing the public of

what is realistically needed.

30

Table 8

HIGH PRIORITY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN OIFFERENT GROUPS

Build Freewa,ts

Widen Freewa,ts

Improve Streets

Public Trans~ortat; on

Total 21% 50% 25% 41%

...eogra~hic Area

North 18 46 22 40 Central 18 50 30 38 South 25 53 23 45 (Significance) (.05) (NS) (.001 ) (NS)

Age

18 to 24 13 43 30 36 25 to 34 19 52 24 46 35 to 44 26 59 20 38 45 to 54 24 51 26 48 55 to 64 25 34 28 37 65 or older 18 44 24 34 (Significance) (.03) (.001) (NS) (.001)

Political Orientation

Liberal 19 51 31 42 Moderate 21 52 24 45 Conservative 21 48 22 36 (Si gn ifi cance) (NS) (NS) (.04) ( .02)

31

Housing-

r

The Orange County Annual Survey has been monitoring homeownership rates,

housing costs, and housing expectations for the last three years. This year

new information was gathered about homeownership attitudes and acceptable

mortgage costs and trend data were collected on actual housing costs and

hOMeownership rates.9 The findings are summarized in Table 9.

The homeownership rate in the 1984 survey was 6~ percent. This percent

age ;s basically unchanged since the 1982 survey. Eighty-three percent of

the homeowners live in detached dwellings, 13 percent in attached dwellings,

and four percent in other housing types. Forty-eight percent of the renters

live in apartments, 35 percent in detached homes, 16 percent in attached

houses, and one percent in other housi ng types. Thus rental housi ng con

tinues to be rather diverse in form, indicating a shortage of apartment units.

Length of residence in Orange County tells us Much about the likelihood of

owning a home. 10 The proportions of homeowners in length of residence cate

gories are: 28 percent for less than a year, 33 percent for one to two

years, 55 percent for 3 to 5 years, 68 percent for 6 to 10 years, 72 percent

for 11 to 20 years, and 78 percent for more than 20 years. Household income

is also a predictor of homeownership, with 39 percent of the under $15,000

income level being homeowners, 48 percent of the $15,000 to $25,999 category,

56 percent of the $26,000 to $35,999 category, 77 percent of the $36,000 to

$75,000 category, and 92 percent of the over $75,000 category.

We asked all respondents this year if they believed that buying a home

today is generally a good investment. Eighty-seven percent agreed that is

was. Thus, whatever the real appreciation of home property, Orange County

residents probably bel ieve that the tax benefits and opportunities for long

term capital gains make homeownership financially appealing. The view that

r

32

buying a home is a good investment varied little by age, sex, income, length

of residence, or geographic area. It;s a widely held social value in Orange

county.

Renters only were asked if they would be interested in purchasing a home

if they coul d afford the monthly payments. Seventy-ei ght percent sa; d they

were interested, which is a proportion virtually unchanged since the question

was asked in the 1983 survey. Interest in buying a home among renters does

not vary by length of residence, income, sex, or geographic area. Only in

the instances in which the respondents are 65 or older or the households have

no full-time workers present is there a majority of Orange County respondents

who do not wi sh to purchase a home. The desi re to become homeowners among

renters, then, continues to be strong.

The 1984 survey al so gathered ; nformat i on about current mortgage costs

and current rental costs. These figures are summarized in Table 9. Forty

seven percent of the mortgages are under $500, 33 percent are $500 to $1,000,

and 20 percent are more than $1,000. There has been a substantial increase

in mortgage costs between the 1983 survey and the 1984 survey. In 1983,

there were 55 percent under $500, 33 percent in the $500 to $1,000 bracket,

and 12 percent in the more than $1,000 bracket. Thi s means that there are

eight percent fewer in the lowest mortgage category, the same proportion in

the middle group and eight percent more in the highest category. Together,

there is a 15 percent increase in the mean mortage cost between 1983 and 1984.

Rental costs per month in 1984 are 40 percent in the $500 or under group, 57

percent in the $501 to $1,000 group, and three percent in the $1,001 or more

group. In contrast, in the 1983 survey, 62 percent were $500 or under, 32

percent were $501 to $1,000, and six percent were more than $1,000. Between

1983 and 1984 there was a 22 percent decline in the $500 or under category, a

33

25 percent increase in the $501 to $1,000 category, and a three percent

decline in the more than $1,000 category. In total, there is a 17 percent

mean ; ncrease in monthly rental costs betwen 1983 and 1984. The 1984 survey

indicates that this last year saw not only a substantial increase in income

levels but an equally impressive increase in housing costs.

Length of residence and household income continue to account for most of

the differences in housing payments. Length of residence, in the county and

at the current residence, is the best predictor of mortgage costs and house

hold income is the best predictor of rental costs. II Only 12 percent of those

1i vi n9 in Orange County for 11 years or more have monthly mortgages over

$1,000, while 65 percent of those less than a year, 53 percent of those one

to two years, 32 percent of those three to five years, and 15 percent of those

six to ten years have these payments. Only 24 percent of those with incomes

under $15,000 pay more than $500 per month in rental costs, while 55 percent

in the $15,000 to $25,999 category, 64 percent in the $26,000 to $35,999

category, and over 78 percent in the $36,000 or more category pay the higher

rental costs.

All renters who were interested in purchas; ng a house were asked what

was the maximum amount of money they coul d afford to pay per month for a

mortgage. A "cascade" response method was used in which the highest cost was

mentioned first and, only if a no response was given, the next highest cost

category was mentioned until al1 the possible answers had been exhausted.

Over half the potential first time buyers mentioned $500 to $999, while one

in four noted $1,000 to $2,000. One in six mentioned under $500 and three

percent noted more than $2,000. Renters I mortgage ceil; ngs differ substan

tially from the distribution of actual mortgages and actual rentals. From

what ; s known about the housi ng costs of recent homebuyers, one woul d have

http:costs.II

Table 9

HOUSING FACTS AND ATTITUDES ABOUT HOMEOWNERSHIP Homeownership Rate: 66%

Buying A Home Is A Good Investment: 87%

Renters Interested in Home Purchase: 78%

ACTUAL AND ACCEPTABLE COSTS w .j::>.

Actual Actual Renters' Rental Mortgage Mortgage Ceiling

under $500 40% 47% 16%

$500 to $999 57 33 55

$1,000 to $2,000 3 17 26

more than $2,000 3 3

35

to assume that 29 percent of the renters are willing to pay prices that will

probably allow themselves to purchase homes in Orange County. This is because

50 percent of the 1984 survey respondents who purchased a home in the last two

years have a monthly mortgage payment of over $1 ~OOO and 30 percent have a

monthly payment between $751 and $1,000. The odds are strongly against a pur

chase under $500 since only eight percent of those living at their residence

for two years or less have such payments. Similarly, a purchase in the range

of $501 to $750 is unlikely since only 12 percent of those with two years or

less of residence have these payments. There are many interested homebuyers,

then, whose mortgage maximums are mismatched with the present mortgage reali

ties. Under current conditions, only approximately one in three has a reason

ahle chance of homeownership.

Tahle 10 explores some of the characteristics which explain the renters'

mortgage ceilings. It is obvious that income has a major role in determining

the ability to pay a realistic mortgage cost. Over half the respondents in

income categories of $36,000 or more can pay more than $1,000 per month for

mortgages. This income level is held by 29 percent of all renters. Simi

larly, those who are currently paying more than $750 per month in rental

costs are the most likely to pay $1,000 or more in mortgage costs. This

rental payment bracket ;s held up for 15 percent of all those who rent. More

than one thi rd of all those with two or more full time workers can afford

existing mortgage rates. This worker status is 49 percent of all those who

rent. It is obvious that, as we have learned from the 1982 and 1983 surveys,

a SMa 11 proport i on of Orange County renters can real i st i cally purchase a

home.

In closing, homeownership in Orange County has remained constant in the

last two years. So has the interest in homeownership in the general public

,

36

Table 10

RENTERS' MORTAGE CEILINGS IN DIFFERENT GROUPS

Under $500 $500 to $999 $1000 to $2000 Over $2000

Total 16% 55% 26% 3%

Familx Income

Under $15,000 50 38 8 4 $15,000 to $25,999 17 72 11 0 $26,000 to $35,999 6 66 28 0 $36,000 to $49,999 10 38 42 10 $50,000 to $75,000 32 64 4 Over $75,000 14 41 27 18 (Significance) (.001)

Current Monthlx Rent

Under $250 29 18 41 12 $250 to $500 27 61 11 1 $501 to $750 9 63 27 1 $751 to $1,000 6 27 57 10 More than $1,000 0 16 67 17 (Significance) (.001)

Number of Full-Time Workers

None 52 48 0 One 14 63 21 2 Two or More 14 49 32 5 (Significance) ( .01 )

37

and among current renters. There has been a dramatic increase in housing

costs of all types since the 1983 survey. Consistent with earlier studies,

homeownership and housing costs are functions of length of residence and

income. Few renters who would like to purchase homes seem capable of paying

the necessary monthly mortgage costs.

Moving

The Orange County Annual Survey continues to monitor residents' interest

in moving and preferred moving destinations. This year we have achieved

better resolution on where people want to move to and their reasons for

wanting to move.

Table 11 indicates that one-third of the residents want to move froM

their current residence. This is virtually unchanged froM the 1982 and 1983

statistics. Nineteen percent were sOMewhat interested in moving and 13 per

cent were very interested in moving. Younger persons and renters are much

more interested in moving than other social, housing, or economic groups.

This year the destination of move question was asked somewhat differ

ently than in previ ous years I surveys. All those interested in movi ng were

asked if they wanted to move to either the North County, the South County,

Riverside-San Bernardino Counties, Los Angeles County, San Diego County, or

other locations. Fifty-nine percent gave destinations inside the county and

41 percent gave destinations outside the county. Of all those who wanted to

move ins i de the county, 62 percent wanted a South County res i dence and 38

percent wanted a North County residence. Of all those wanting to move outside

the county, 11 percent mentioned the Inland Empire, 20 percent said San

niego, six percent said Los Angeles, and 63 percent said other locations.

Other locations include Northern California, out of the state, and generally

38

long distance moves away from Southern California. It is important to note

that one percent of all residents and four percent of all movers prefer to

move to the Inland Empire and 11 percent of all residents and 37 percent of

all movers prefer to move to the South County. The Inland Empire appears to

have very limited appeal to Orange County residents. The South County is

currently the most attractive destination point for would-be movers.

We asked those who wanted to move why they were interested ; n mov; ng.

Twenty-nine percent said for housing reasons, 24 percent said for location,

ten percent mentioned job opportunities, six percent mentioned commuting

time, ann the reMainder gave other reasons. This is fairly typical of

reasons given for moving from one location to another in studies of mobility.

In Orange County, younger persons interested in moving tended to mention job

reasons more often while middle aged persons gave housing reasons more fre

quently than others. There were no differences in reasons given by income,

area of current residence, or sex.

Next, the moving destinations of different groups were analyzed. These

are presented in Table 12. The in-county movers were separated from the out

county movers in examining the effects of place of residence, reasons for

moving, and family income. The majority of the potential in-movers in the

Central County and the South County wanted to move to the South County. Most

of the potential in-movers who gave location, job, and commute as reasons to

move chose the South County over the North County. Those who gave house and

family as reasons to move were split evenly between favoring the North County

and the South County. Finally, approximately three-fourths of those who have

incomes over $36,000 per year and want to move within Orange County want to

move to the South County. Only in the lowest income brackets does a substan

t i a 1 proport i on of potent; ali n-county movers des ire a North County move.

Table 11

MOYDh'nG INTEREST

DESTINATIONIN MOVING TYPE OF MOVEI .North = 38%IIn County = 59% .. South = 62%

Interested

= 32%

Inland Empire = 11%

WlOut County = 41% I ... San Diego = 20% '-0

Los Angeles = 6% Other = 63%

Not Interested

= 68%

40

out of county movers are more difficult to describe because many residents

want to move to other locations. However, a profile of Inland Empire and San

Diego movers emerges from the data. Inland Empire moves have the greatest

appeal to Central County residents, those who move for housing reasons, and

those with incomes in the $26,000 to $35,999 range. San Diego moves are most

attractive to those in the $36,000 to $49,999 income bracket and those moving

for housing and commuting reasons.

It is important to mention that three-fourths of all homeowners who want

in-county moves want to move to the South County. Twi ce as many ; n-county

movers in the 25 to 44 age group want to move to the South County as want to

move to the North County. Twice as many two full-time worker households who

want i ncounty moves want to move to the South County rather than the North

County. Finally, three out of four of the married couples with children who

want to move in-county want South County locations as opposed to North County

locations.

In sum, the Orange County population is as interested in residential

mobility as always with the predominant reasons being jobs, housing, and

location. There is a strong interest among the potential movers in achiev

ing a South County location. This is especially so among Orange County1s

most affluent residents. It is possible that the appeal of the Inland Empire

has been overstated, since twice as many out-of-county movers preferred a San

Oiego location to an Inland Empire location. The Inland Empire's attractive

ness is limited to a narrow economic group primarily for housing reasons. A

large majority of residents who want to leave Orange County prefer destina

tions outside the Southern California region. Many were found to be under

35 years of age and 65 or older. These particular potential out-movers are

.q

probably responding to Southern California rather than Orange County in par

ticular.

Growth Preferences

In the 1982 and 1983 surveys it has been very evident that Orange County

residents support limits on population growth and community development.12

This year we asked questions which would fill in our knowledge about growth

preferences. Specifically, we were interested in the degree to which resi

dents held different housing growth policies and the extent to which they

supported different types of nonresidential growth in their communities.

The fi rst growth preference quest i on asked, IIWhat type of growth pol icy

do you favor for your city?" Three choices were available. Five percent

said they supported one in which no new housing was to be built. Seventeen

percent said they supported a policy of no restrictions on the amount and

type of housing built each year. The overwhelming majority, that is 78

percent, said that they wanted a growth policy which controls the amount and

type of housing built each year.

The results suggest that Orange County residents largely favor the

building of new housing but most feel that planning and controls are an impor

tant ingredient to continued growth. There are some interesting differences

in housing growth attitudes among various subpopulations. South County resi

dents favor II control1 ed growth ll by a 1arger margi n than either North County

or Central County residents. Ei ghty-ei ght percent of the women favor con

trolled growth while a smaller proporiton of the men support this policy,

suggesting, as in previous surveys, that there is a gender gap in growth

preferences. There are no income differences in the housing policy attitude.

There are some interesting findings which point to those in less opportune

http:development.12

42

Table 12

MOVING DESTINATIONS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS

r

In-County Out of County

North South Total L.A. S.D. Inland Other Total

Total 38% 62% 100% 6% 20% 11% 63% 100%

Place of Residence

North 57 43 4 20 6 70

Centra1 41 59 6 17 20 57

South 15 85 7 21 7 65

Reason for Moving

Job 36 64 16 11 5 68

Location 21 79 7 13 14 66

House 51 49 0 44 31 25

Family 53 47 0 23 8 69

COfl1!lute 0 100 13 37 12 38

Other 29 71 3 13 2 82

Familx Income

Under $15,000 70 30 0 22 0 78

$15,000 to $25,999 54 46 3 21 13 63

$26,000 to $35,999 40 60 5 18 23 54

$36,000 to $49,999 23 77 5 30 5 60

$50,000 to $75,000 22 78 14 14 a 72

Over $75,000 28 72 14 14 72

43

housing circumstance favoring no restrictions on housing growth. Twenty-two

percent of the renters cOMpared with 14 percent of the homeowners favor no

restrictions. One in four of the under 25 age group favors no restrictions

on housing growth while one in six of the entire population favors a lenient

growth policy.

The four questions regarding nonresidential growth are summarized in

Table 13. Residents were asked if they wanted more, the same, or less of

different forms of growth in their cities. Thirty-eight percent wanted more

restaurants and theaters, which was the most favored of the growth options.

Stores and shopping mall s were supported by 23 percent and industrial parks

were favored by 20 percent. The least favored growth was in office buildings,

which was supported by 18 percent of the residents. Those wishing the "same"

level of growth varied between 52 and 60 percent, suggesting that many resi

dents favored the status quo in their cities. Only ten percent wanted fewer

restaurants and theaters and 17 percent less stores and shopping malls.

Substantially more individuals, though still proportionately small percent

ages, wanted fewer industrial parks and office buildings.

In order to 1earn the proportion of Orange County resi dents with con

sistent pro-growth or anti-growth preferences the pattern of responses to all

the growth policy questions was analyzed. Four percent of the population

want less growth in all the four nonresidential growth categories, while

five percent want more growth in all the categories, and 19 percent want the

same growth ina11 the categori es. Compari ng the responses to the hous i ng

growth question with the answers given individually to each nonresidential

growth question provides a similar view of growth preferences. Less than

three percent want no new housing and less of each type of nonresidential

growth. Less than five percent are in favor of unrestri cted housing growth

Table 13

~ROW""M ~OkLnlf'''-I1U' 'U lja"O r . tJ~ iii PREFE~ENCES

HOUSING POLICY

No Housing Growth: 5%

Control Housing Growth: 78%

No Housing Growth Restrictions: 17 %

AMOUNT OF

NONRESID~NTIAL GROWTH

More Restaurants and Theatres 38% Stores and Shopping Malls 23 Industrial Parks 20 Office Buildings 18

Same 52% 60 53 52

.j:::.

.j:::.

Less 10%

17

27

30

45

and more of each type of nonresidential growth. Most residents, in the 40

to 50 percent range, tend to favor control s on housi ng growth and no change

; n restaurants and theaters, stores and shoppi ng centers, i ndustri a 1 parks,

or office huildings.

We al so considered support for various combinations of nonresidential

growth. The greatest interest was in having both more shopping and more

restaurants and theaters, which was favored by one in six residents. One in

nine residents favored both more restaurants and offices, one in ten favored

both more offices and industrial parks, and the same proportion more indus

trial parks and restaurants. The other possible combinations of more non

residential growth were favored by even fewer residents. The survey responses

indicated that the least favored combination was office buildings and indus

trial parks, since one in six residents wanted less of both growth options.

In all, though, a large proportion of residents tended to say they wanted no

change in the amounts of nonresidential development. For instance, 38 percent

wanted the same in both offices and industries and 42 percent wanted the same

for restaurants and shopping.

Preferences for nonresi dent; al growth vary withi n different groups. We

consider in Table 14 the differences in attitudes towards stores and shopping

centers and restaurants and theaters since these are the most popular forms

of nonresidential growth. Increases in the amount of stores and shopping

centers are most favored by Central County residents. Older residents are the

least inclined towards more stores and shopping and younger residents are the

most favorable. There are no income differences, nor were there differences

due to sex or homeownership. Restaurants and theaters need to increase

accord; ng to those in hi gher income brackets and those in the younger age

groups. There are no variations in this attitude by geographic area. Nor

46

were there. in other analyses, any differences accounted for by sex or home

ownershi p.

The information collected in this year's survey in combination with prior

results helps to provide a clearer profile of growth preferences. Orange

County residents want controlled growth rather than no growth or unrestricted

growth. This would appear to be consistent with the strong des; re among

res i dents to move to the grow; ng and yet planned communiti es of the South

county. A no housing growth policy is not supported even in the fastest

growing areas. Those favoring unrestricted housing growth are the youth and

renters who are probably hoping that an increase in housing supply may reduce

housing costs and thus improve opportunities for homeownership.

Residents also appear to favor the status quo in nonresidential growth

though they tend to favor growth that is more consumer-rel ated rather than

employment-related. There is some indication from the young and more affluent

groups that more entertainfTlent facilities are needed while the residents of

Orange County's core cities are not as satisfied with stores and shopping

as are those in the North or South. As pressures for nonresidential use of

land in Orange County continues, and as consumers call for more diverse and

traditionally "urhan" facilities, it will be important to monitor nonresi

dential growth attitudes.

The Future and Public Policies .

In 1983 we asked the respondents whether in the future they thought

Orange County would be a better place to live. a worse place to live, or

would not change. The question was repeated in 19~4 and residents are equal

ly divided about the future this year. Thirty-six percent thought it would

be a better place to live, 36 percent thought it would be a worse place, and

47

Tahle 14

PREFERENCES FOR NONRESIDENTIAL hROWTH IN DIFFERENT GROUPS

Stores and Shopping Centers Restaurants and Theaters

More Same Less More Same Less

Total 23% 60r, 17% 38% 52% 10%

Geographic Area

North lq 63 18 36 55 9 Central 30 56 14 38 49 13 South 21 62 17 39 53 8 (Significance) ( .03) (NS)

Family Income

Under $15,000 $15,000 to $25,999

16 19

71 60

13 21

29 28

65 60

6 12

$26,000 to $35,999 $36,000 to $4Q,999

20 28

62 52

18 20

39 43

51 46

10 11

$50,000 to $75,000 Over $75,000

23 25

62 64

15 11

45 43

48 52

7 5

(Significance) (NS) (.02)

Age

18 to