• Not surprisingly, younger and wealthier respondents tended to be more positive about the direction of both City and neighborhood, with 64.3% of those making $80,000 or more a year agreeing that things were moving in the right direction, as opposed to just 41.1% in the under $20,000 bracket. (For the survey overall, fully 59.3% earned less than $40,000 annually.)

• Within specific neighborhoods, residents of the Near Southeast area were least happy with both the direction of the City (25.0% agreeing the City was on track) and their own area (32.1%). Residents of the Northwest area, the West Central Corridor, the East Central Corridor, the Southwest area and the South Central area remained optimistic (above 50.0%) for both City and neighborhood.

• Respondents with higher levels of education tended to be more optimistic. More than six in ten (64.7%) of college graduates believed their neighborhood was much or somewhat better than five years ago. For those whose education exceeded a college degree, 67.6% felt similarly optimistic.

• African Americans generally felt more positively about the future of their neighborhood than did white respondents. Three in five (62.0%) of African Americans expected that the future would be much or somewhat better; only 48.2% of white respondents agreed.

• More than four in five (83.0%) found this phrase to be either "very" or "somewhat descriptive."

• Only 27.9% felt this to be accurate, with those who rent rather than own their residence agreeing somewhat more often (35.3%). Neighborhood breakdowns suggest that East Central Corridor residents (41.7%), South Central area residents (43.7%), and Near Southeast side area residents (39.3%) also perceive more racial tensions than do those in other areas. As expected, those who felt the City to be moving in the wrong direction also tended to find racial tensions to be somewhat more prevalent (39.6%).

• Over half (57.0%) felt that this statement accurately described the area where they live. Renters felt less positively (only 50.0% agreeing) as did younger people with only 44.8% of those between the ages of 18 and 24 agreeing. Those residing in the Northeast area felt significantly less comfortable with their local leadership; only 34.1% agreed that the phrase spoke to their neighborhood situation.

• While 62.0% of the total sample agreed that this phrase was either "very" or "somewhat descriptive" of their area, regional results differed widely (see chart, below).

• Over half (57.5%) felt that "poor city services" did indeed reflect the situation in their neighborhood, with younger people (79.3%) and African American respondents (65.1%) in particular agreement. However, presented with the nearly opposite phrase, "efficient and responsive city services," 72.3% also agreed with this statement. Clearly, respondents are ambivalent about their city services.

• Again, two somewhat oppositional statements revealed conflicted feelings. Three in four (75.3%) agreed that the statement "building owners that invest in their property" described their neighborhood, although renters were somewhat less likely to concur (66.4%). However, confronted with the complementary statement of "not enough money invested in upkeep of residential property," almost two-thirds (62.5%) felt that this, too, described their situation. It may be that while residents do feel that landlords and owners invest, they would like to see still more done. (Those in the Near Southeast area felt particularly strongly, with fully 85.7% agreeing that not enough money had been invested locally.)

• Just over half (57.3%) perceived this to be an accurate description, with younger people and those who have occupied their current residence for from 3-5 years in particular agreement (72.4% and 71.0%, respectively). This question elicited very little variation across geographical categories, although the Near Southeast area once again placed at the high end of the spectrum with 67.9% in agreement.

• While most (43.0%) did not find absentee owners to be a problem, those from the Northeast area (61.0%), the South Central area (62.5%) and the Near Southeast area (60.7%) did perceive a greater problem.

• Most agreed (61.1%), although not overwhelmingly. Again, those on the Northeast area seemed most unimpressed with local leadership; only 36.6% concurred with the statement.

• Fully 76.5% felt that there are indeed "more things to do," a very high result. Younger respondents (86.2%) and those immediately past retirement (86.6%) expressed overwhelming support for this statement. Even those unhappy with the value they receive on taxes paid weighed in with 74.4% in agreement. On a slightly more pessimistic note, 41.5% nonetheless felt that "there are fewer reasons to visit the City" now than in the past.

• This statement also drew a very high level of response (75.3% agreed overall). The Central region seemed less concerned (66.1%) than its neighbors to the North or South, but, within these regions, certain neighborhoods did express near-uniform agreement with the statement. The Near Southeast area (96.4%), the Northwest area (84.2%) and the North Central area (90.2%) stand out and clearly have strong feelings regarding this topic.

• More than half (58.8%) agreed that there are more job opportunities now than five years ago, with those in the under-$20,000 income bracket in especial accordance (69.6%). However, three neighborhoods fell below the fifty-percent level in their responses: North Central, West Central Corridor and Near Southeast (see chart, below).

• Only 47.7% felt that available jobs are "higher-paying than five years ago." This question generated relatively little variance in response, although those in the Northeast area and the Near Southeast area felt the opposite might be more true: 39.0% of Northeast siders said this statement was "not very" or "not at all descriptive," and Near Southeast area residents offered a nearly identical response (39.3%).

• As usual, respondents found it easy to agree with this sentiment, and nearly two-thirds (65.7%) did so here. Tellingly, those of an age likely to have elementary school children (25-34) were less pessimistic (only 54.4% in agreement). On the other hand, those who feel their taxes are not put to good use were exceptionally likely to agree (73.1%); since they already feel their taxes represent a poor value, it seems likely they would also be unwilling to rectify the perceived school problem with any sort of public monetary infusion: why throw good money after bad? (Note: this survey was conducted before recent publication of the decision to decertify the St. Louis Public Schools. It is to be expected that such a major news event would alter perceptions of the schools.)

• Almost half of participants (47.4%) concur that "City government is more efficient now," although residents in the Upper North area are a good deal less confident (33.3%). A somewhat higher percentage (53.8%) agreed that "there is more integrity in City government," although older residents consistently evinced more suspicion than did younger ones. Also, those in the West Central Corridor exhibited outright distrust, with only 40.9% agreeing with the statement on integrity.

• Most (72.6%) felt confident that business investors have shown "a renewed interest in the City." Those with middle-income levels of $40,000-59,000 were in especial agreement (80.3%), together with those dwelling in the East Central Corridor vicinity (50.% said the statement was "very descriptive," as opposed to just 28.9% of respondents overall). Again, Near Southeast area residents showed their general pessimism: only 10.7% felt the statement to be "very descriptive," and fully 32.1% disagreed entirely. Responding to the similar statement of "there is less confidence in the City as a place to do business," 53.3% agreed; participants evidently feel uncertain in this area: of those same middle-income respondents who earlier agreed so prominently with business investors' interest, 30.3% now state that "less confidence" is "very descriptive" of the City.

• Three quarters (75.3%) believe this to be true, headed up by the youngest and oldest respondents (86.2% and 86.0%). Those who work in the city and the county expressed nearly identical responses (76.6% and 75.0%). (This trend toward similar if not identical attitudes within these two groups appears virtually throughout the sample.) Those who work outside the home agreed exactly with both those who do and the sample at large: 75.3% agreed with the statement. Finally, those residing in the Central region (particularly East Central Corridor) found crime to be less of a concern, as only 60.7% felt the statement reflected their experience.

• While 63.5% thought that "assistance" rated a priority of "5" or higher, only a quarter (25.4%) gave it a "7." Renters (72.4%) and those who have only been in their current residence for from 0-2 years (77.9%) felt stronger than most that this might be a general priority ("5" or higher). Curiously, respondents located in the Near Southeast area displayed by far the most variance within the seven point scale, with an especially high proportion (17.9%) rating this issue as a "1."

• An almost equal number (63.0%) believed that landscaping and beautification ought to be a general (five through seven) priority. The African American community tended to feel more strongly about this issue (70.5% as opposed to just 56.6% for Caucasians), with 30.1% rating this a "7." East Central Corridor residents felt even more strongly that landscaping, etc., is important, with 58.3% giving it a "7" and 83.3% assigning it a "5" or higher. Meanwhile, the middle-class voting block (earning between $40,000 and $59,000 annually) had significantly less interest in City spending on this issue: only 48.5% assigned it a "5" or higher.

• A sizable 80.5% gave a "5" or higher here. Most enthusiastic of all were those who gave the City only mixed reviews in terms of its overall direction: 95.2% of this group gave a "5" or above. And, not surprisingly, younger respondents (aged 18-24) also gave a strong "thumb's up" to this proposal, with 96.6% agreeing to a "5" or higher.

• The possibility of revamping major streets drew a "5" or higher from four out of five (80.5%) respondents, with a notable holdout from the middle-class. Of those making between $40,000 and $59,000, only 65.2%––still a firm majority, but well below the average––agreed to a rating of "5" or more. East Central Corridor residents were similarly ambivalent: 50.0% assigned major City streets a "7," but only 16.7% assigned it a "5" or "6." Presented with the possibility of "improving side streets and alleys," popularity remained high but definitely dropped off as 71.9% assigned the matter a "5" or greater. Attitudes toward taxation (and, presumably, public works like street paving) did not vary much from the sample norm; 71.1% of those who felt their taxes returned a good value assigned a "5" or higher, while 73.1% of those who felt their taxes returned a poor value did the same.

• Respondents were overwhelmingly consistent (as above), and 62.0% assigned this issue a "7." A general, if imprecise, upward trend for increased support can be seen as the participant's education level rises, such that those who held only a high school degree or lower gave schools a "7" 57.1% of the time, while 73.0% of college graduates assigned it that same score. Relative wealth also proved a delineating factor, such that those in the two upper income brackets ($60,000-$79,000 and $80,000 and up) also gave the issue a "7" with greater frequency (75.0% and 78.6% respectively). In fact, fully 97.2% of those in the $60,000-79,000 bracket gave the schools a "5" or higher. Geographically, the Northeast area gave special credence to school support, where 95.1% assigned the issue a "5" or higher. (The Near Southeast placed second with 92.9%.)

• The parks received wide support, but substantially fewer allowed themselves a rating of "7" than in other statements within this series (30.9% being the response rate for making this a "very" high priority). Overall, 77.0% assigned the issue a "5" or greater, although those in the 25-34 age group were noticeably less enthusiastic, as 68.4% of them gave the parks a "5" or higher. The Southwest area also gave less support to parks funding; only 60.0% of these residents assigned this topic a "5" or higher––and only 18.3% thought it merited a "7," a very low score indeed.

• When asked to assign a priority to help for "low-to-moderate income affordable housing," several trends became apparent. In general, 72.3% gave the issue a "5" or higher, which is not radically different from the support given the parks. However, certain subgroups exhibited differing and divergent opinions of their own. First, renters were far more likely (81.9%) than owners (68.2%) to assign such housing a "5" or greater. Next, those with two or more children were much more supportive than those with one or none. More than eight in ten (85.1%) of those with two children agreed that more of such housing support deserved a "5" or greater on the priority scale, and 80.6% of those with three or more children felt the same way. Younger respondents (82.8%) tended to give more weight to this issue than older respondents. Also, African Americans (82.5%) felt more strongly (giving a "5" or higher) about affordable housing than did white respondents (64.0%). Neighborhoods also exhibited substantially differing views (see chart, below).

• Adding funds to such programs was moderately more popular than funds for low or middle income housing, with 80.0% rating it a priority of "5" or higher. Residents of the Southwest area tended to be less supportive, with only two-thirds (65.0%) assigning those same scores.

• The prospect of demolishing vacant buildings also drew widespread support: 53.1% gave the matter a "7," and 77.5% assigned it a "5" or higher (No one group deviated from this overall response by more than 13.2 percentage points, demonstrating a relative consensus on the issue). East Central Corridor area residents assigned this issue the greatest weight, as 75.0% of these respondents rated building demolition as a "7" on the priority scale.

• Transit improvements drew an enthusiastic response, but notably fewer respondents (36.0%) were willing to assign this issue a "7." Still, three out of four (75.6%) gave the matter a "5" or higher. Clearly, many people consider this to be an important issue, but not as immediate as building demolition. Not surprisingly, upper-income respondents ($60,000-$79,000 and $80,000 and up) attached far less importance to transit issues, with only 66.7% and 64.3%, respectively, giving a "5" or above. Also unsurprising: those with lower incomes found transit to be more important than the average respondent. More than four in five (83.9%) of those with incomes of below $20,000 assigned a "5" or higher. More than four in five in the following four neighborhoods gave this issue a "5" or higher: the North Central area (80.5%), the Northeast area (85.4%), East Central Corridor (83.3%) and the South Central area (87.5%).

• The possibility of giving neighborhood groups increased attention or finances drew a more ambivalent response. Only 25.9% gave this a high priority of "7," and just 69.9% rating it a "5" or higher. African Americans gave more weight to this issue, with 35.5% giving it a "7," and 53.0% giving it a "6" or "7." Caucasian respondents, meanwhile, showed little enthusiasm with only 18.0% assigning a "7" and 38.6% a "6" or a "7." Certain neighborhoods showed somewhat more interest in this issue, with 81.8% of those in the Upper North area gave the statement a "5" or higher; 82.1% of those in the Near Southeast area did the same.

• The citizens of St. Louis are clearly not prepared to divert funds for a new baseball venue. Three out of four (75.6%) assigned this issue a priority of "3" or lower, with only 5.9% suggesting that replacing Busch Stadium ought to be a high ("7") priority.

• More than seven in ten (73.6%) agreed that the size of a home relative to its cost is "very important." Those with three or more children were more likely to agree (83.3%) that this would be a "very important" consideration.

• Younger respondents tended to be more investment-conscious and supported this statement more than the average respondent. While 73.1% of participants overall felt this to be a "very important" consideration, 86.2% of those in the age group of 18-24 assigned it the same importance. Perhaps more tellingly, the next age bracket (25-34), comprised of recent or potential home buyers, also felt strongly: 87.7% felt home investment to be a "very important" issue. Similarly, 83.3% of those who are new to their current residences (living there for from 0-2 years) believed home investment performance to "very important," together with 84.5% of renters (presumably speaking only as prospective buyers).

• Respondents obviously felt this to be a much lesser priority. Only 42.5% agreed that proximity to work was a "very important" factor in choosing a home. Still, while it was not likely to be a deciding factor for many, it remained a popular determinant of where to live, with a combined 85.9% believing this to be either "very" or "somewhat important."

• Only a single respondent (0.2%) felt that safety was "not at all important." Everyone else, fully 99.8%, decreed that safety is at least "somewhat important", and most––90.4%––cast their vote for safety being "very important". Such unanimity is virtually unheard of in survey research. Clearly, a strong sense of security is an overwhelming factor in choosing a home.

• Aesthetics do matter. More than four out of five (86.4%) agreed that architectural "charm" would be either "very" (42.7%) or "somewhat important" (43.7%) in choosing a home. Those who have been at their current address for between 11-20 years were especially apt to agree: 51.7% claimed that architectural charm was "very important" to them. African Americans also, as a group, responded more positively on balance, with 56.6% agreeing that architectural charm merited a "very important" rating. (Compare to just 32.9% for white respondents.)

• Slightly less than half (47.4%) felt this determinant to be "very important" in choosing a home, with 87.4% in agreeing at least "somewhat." Those currently in or past college were clearly less concerned with amenities (only 29.4% and 37.8%, respectively, thought the matter to be "very important"), as were younger people in general. In fact, all age groups below fifty tended to give amenities less weight (see below).

• St. Louis citizens remain consistent in the importance they assign to the schools and education. More than three out of four (78.3%) agreed that this statement was "very important" in choosing a home. Certain groups agreed to an even greater extent, notably those in the youngest (93.1%) and oldest (90.0%) age brackets. Education level was not a determining factor, with all levels staying within five percentage points of the norm; responses within income levels were also generally unvaried. Respondents with three or more children tended to be more concerned (88.9% believed this to be "very important"), as were African Americans (87.3%).

• Again, the overwhelming majority of respondents (just under three in four, or 72.6%) felt this issue to be "very important" in choosing a home. Those with nothing beyond a high school education (83.9%), those not working (84.7%) and those without computer access (87.3%) were even more apt to agree. Again, African Americans felt more strongly on this issue than did Caucasians: 84.9% of African Americans gave low maintenance a "very important" rating, compared to a still-strong but notably smaller number of Caucasians (64.0%). (When combining "very" and "somewhat important" responses, these variations tend to bottom out, with 96.4% of Caucasians agreeing overall with the statement and 95.3% of African Americans doing the same.) Only three neighborhoods (West Central Corridor (56.8%), Southwest (60.0%) and South Central (56.2%)) demonstrated substantially less support for this issue.

• A majority (63.2%) still found this to be a "very important" factor in home selection, but it did not receive the kind of support found in most of the other choices given. Still, 95.3% agreed at least to some extent that this was a viable determinant, with relatively little variation throughout.

• Still a popular factor, but not nearly so important to the vast majority of respondents. Only 35.8% were willing to describe cultural life as being "very important" in selecting a house. Residents of Near Southeast were especially uninterested, with only 25% agreeing with the majority. Those in the Upper North area (27.3%) and Southeast (26.7%) were also unenthusiastic.

• Two-thirds (66.7%) felt this to be "very important", with overall agreement ranging into the nineties in every demographic and geographic category (except for East Central Corridor residents, where "only" 83.3% felt this deserved to be either "very" or "somewhat important").

• Less than half (45.9%) agreed that this could be a "very important" factor in making a decision on a house. However, those in the lowest income bracket ($20,000 and below) felt more strongly: 64.3% felt that a big yard deserved to be a "very important" factor. Renters also leaned toward a yard's importance, with just over half (54.3%) believing this to be a "very important" issue. Those with internet access generally cared less about the world outside, with 34.4% agreeing that a yard would be "very important" for them. Caucasian respondents were significantly less likely (36.0%) than African Americans (59.0%) to worry about the yard.

• Nearly three quarters of respondents (74.3%) found this to be a crucial issue in selecting a home and described it as being "very important." Not surprisingly, increased wealth meant a decrease in dependence on neighbors, and those in the lowest income bracket ($20,000 or less) were most enthusiastic about the prospect of good neighbors (80.4% felt them to be "very important"). In general, any variations across category lines were blurred when "very" and "somewhat important" descriptions were combined, with many groups agreeing quite literally 100% with the general importance of helpful, friendly neighbors.

• Only a third (36.8%) believed this to be "very important," probably reflecting the general mobility of our age (cars, bicycles, public transport, etc.). This is born out be the greater support shown from those with lower incomes: half (50.0%) of those making less than $20,000 a year described the proximity to recreational areas as being "very important" in selecting a home. Residents of the South Central area were less interested in this issue, and only 16.7% found the matter "very important."

• While no more crucial overall to most than the previous statement (85.9% felt this was at least "somewhat important", compared to 83.0% for the issue of recreational activities), it did generate a great deal more enthusiasm, with just over half (50.4%) believing this to be a "very important" matter. Those who work in the County, perhaps already used to commuting longer distances, found this to be substantially less pressing (only 31.6% found this to be "very important"). Again, those on limited incomes ($20,000 and below) were significantly more vocal about how crucial shopping can be: 70.5% found shopping proximity to be "very important". (Those with greater wealth showed a very consistent downward trend in the weight they assigned this issue.) Also, those who do not work found shopping to be a major determinant, with 66.3% agreeing that this was of great importance. Two neighborhoods also stick out, these being the Northeast area and East Central Corridor, with 70.7% of the former and 75.0% of the latter agreeing that convenient shopping is "very important" in the home selection process.