FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT H
`EXHIBIT
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`5
`H O U S E H O L D S A N D F A M I L I E S
`
`LIVING CITIES: THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE • NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20003
`
`H O U S E H O L D S A N D FA M I L I E S
`Population change is a good first indicator of city health. But data on the types of
`households that are contributing to change can provide far more nuanced clues about
`whether a city is attractive to all kinds of people—or just some kinds.
`
`For instance, a city may have lost population overall during the 1990s
`but gained households, hinting that the city may have lost families with
`children even as it attracted singles. In this fashion, the household compo-
`sition of a city can provide leaders critical intelligence as to the kinds
`of housing and services they need to provide. Such data may also prove
`invaluable in helping cities frame strategies to lure wider mixes of families
`through proactive housing and amenities strategies.
`
`Along the way, household data from Census 2000 tell a fascinating story.
`Census 2000 called into question popular notions of who constitutes the
`“typical” U.S. household.
`
`One of the more widely announced findings was that the traditional
`“nuclear” family—married parents with children under 18—comprised
`less than a quarter of all households in the U.S. (23.5 percent) in 2000.
`While the nuclear family has been on the decline for several decades, it
`was notable that in 2000, people living alone represented a larger share
`of households (26 percent) than “married with children” families. The
`changing makeup of U.S. households reflects a confluence of trends,
`including the aging of Baby Boomers into their “empty-nest” years, and
`
`an increase in the typical age of first marriage (now 27 for men, 25 for
`women). U.S. households remain highly mobile, though, with almost half
`changing residences between 1995 and 2000.
`
`In both cities and suburbs, “nonfamilies”—people living alone or with
`non-relatives—were the dominant household type in 2000. This aggregate
`statistic, however, belies interesting trends in large metro areas that
`counter assumptions about who lives in cities and suburbs. In cities
`throughout the Southwest and West, “married with children” families
`were on the upswing in the 1990s. In contrast, suburbs in the slower-
`growing Northeast and Midwest experienced the bulk of their household
`growth in nonfamilies and single-parent families. Still, across all metro
`areas, all types of households were more likely to be located in suburbs
`than in cities.
`
`In this section we compare the types of households that live in New York
`to those living in other large cities, and look at changes in households in
`the city and its suburbs over the 1990s. We also probe whether New York’s
`households are more or less mobile than those in other cities.
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`6
`H O U S E H O L D S A N D F A M I L I E S
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`Households in New York are roughly the same size on average as those across the 100 largest cities
`Average household size, 1990–2000: Living Cities and 100 largest cities
`
`Peer Cities
`Miami, FL
`San Diego, CA
`Yonkers, NY
`Oakland, CA
`Aurora, CO
`New York, NY
`Dallas, TX
`Sacramento, CA
`Honolulu, HI
`Grand Rapids, MI
`Augusta-Richmond County, GA
`100-City Average
`
`Rank
`32
`33
`34
`35
`36
`37
`38
`39
`40
`41
`42
`
`2000
`2.61
`2.61
`2.61
`2.60
`2.60
`2.59
`2.58
`2.57
`2.57
`2.57
`2.55
`2.56
`
`Rank Living Cities
`1
`Newark, NJ
`2
`Los Angeles, CA
`3
`Phoenix, AZ
`4
`San Antonio, TX
`5
`Detroit, MI
`6
`Chicago, IL
`7
`Miami, FL
`8
`Oakland, CA
`9
`New York, NY
`10
`Dallas, TX
`11
`Philadelphia, PA
`12
`Cleveland, OH
`13
`Baltimore, MD
`14
`Indianapolis, IN
`15
`Kansas City, MO
`16
`Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
`17
`Boston, MA
`18
`Atlanta, GA
`19
`Columbus, OH
`20
`Portland, OR
`21
`Denver, CO
`22 Washington, DC
`23
`Seattle, WA
`All Living Cities
`Nation
`
`1990
`2.91
`2.80
`2.62
`2.80
`2.71
`2.67
`2.70
`2.52
`2.54
`2.46
`2.56
`2.48
`2.59
`2.46
`2.40
`2.26
`2.37
`2.40
`2.38
`2.27
`2.17
`2.26
`2.09
`2.50
`2.63
`
`2000
`2.85
`2.83
`2.79
`2.77
`2.77
`2.67
`2.61
`2.60
`2.59
`2.58
`2.48
`2.44
`2.43
`2.39
`2.35
`2.33
`2.31
`2.30
`2.30
`2.29
`2.26
`2.16
`2.08
`2.49
`2.59
`
`BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY •NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20003
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`7
`H O U S E H O L D S A N D F A M I L I E S
`
`LIVING CITIES: THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE • NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20003
`
`The mix of households in New York is very similar to that in the average Living City
`Share of households by type*, 2000: Living Cities
`
`Rank Living Cities
`1
`Phoenix, AZ
`2
`San Antonio, TX
`3
`Los Angeles, CA
`4
`Dallas, TX
`5
`Indianapolis, IN
`6
`New York, NY
`7
`Chicago, IL
`8
`Columbus, OH
`9
`Oakland, CA
`10
`Kansas City, MO
`11
`Portland, OR
`12
`Newark, NJ
`13
`Denver, CO
`14
`Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
`15
`Miami, FL
`16
`Philadelphia, PA
`17
`Seattle, WA
`18
`Detroit, MI
`19
`Cleveland, OH
`20
`Boston, MA
`21
`Baltimore, MD
`22
`Atlanta, GA
`23 Washington, DC
`All Living Cities
`Nation
`
`Other Family
`Married Couple Married Couple Other Family
`with Children without Children with Children without Children
`24.3%
`22.6%
`11.4%
`7.6%
`24.1%
`24.0%
`11.8%
`9.4%
`22.6%
`19.3%
`10.9%
`9.8%
`19.4%
`19.4%
`10.9%
`9.4%
`18.0%
`22.6%
`11.9%
`7.8%
`17.6%
`19.6%
`12.1%
`12.0%
`16.9%
`18.2%
`12.0%
`12.5%
`16.5%
`19.5%
`11.5%
`7.3%
`16.5%
`17.6%
`12.1%
`11.1%
`16.2%
`21.8%
`11.9%
`8.4%
`16.2%
`21.9%
`8.3%
`6.5%
`15.1%
`15.9%
`20.1%
`16.7%
`15.0%
`19.7%
`8.2%
`6.9%
`14.9%
`17.0%
`10.4%
`6.9%
`14.7%
`21.9%
`11.6%
`13.9%
`13.5%
`18.5%
`14.1%
`13.6%
`12.5%
`20.2%
`5.4%
`5.7%
`12.5%
`14.1%
`21.4%
`16.9%
`12.2%
`16.3%
`17.8%
`12.5%
`11.8%
`15.7%
`10.9%
`9.7%
`10.0%
`16.7%
`15.5%
`14.9%
`9.2%
`15.3%
`13.2%
`11.7%
`8.4%
`14.5%
`11.4%
`11.7%
`17.2%
`19.2%
`12.1%
`10.9%
`24.3%
`28.2%
`9.1%
`6.9%
`
`Individual
`Living Alone
`25.4%
`25.1%
`28.5%
`32.9%
`32.0%
`31.9%
`32.6%
`34.1%
`32.5%
`34.1%
`34.6%
`26.6%
`39.3%
`38.5%
`30.4%
`33.8%
`40.8%
`29.7%
`35.2%
`37.1%
`34.9%
`38.5%
`43.8%
`32.4%
`25.8%
`
`Nonfamily
`8.6%
`5.7%
`8.9%
`8.0%
`7.8%
`6.8%
`7.9%
`11.0%
`10.3%
`7.6%
`12.5%
`5.5%
`10.8%
`12.3%
`7.5%
`6.5%
`15.3%
`5.4%
`6.0%
`14.8%
`8.0%
`12.1%
`10.2%
`8.3%
`5.8%
`
`* Children include sons and daughters of householders under 18 years of age. Other families include two or more related individuals who are not married and living together. Other nonfamilies include house-
`holders living with nonrelatives.
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`8
`H O U S E H O L D S A N D F A M I L I E S
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`New York and its suburbs lost childless married couples during the 1990s, but the city gained
`households of all other types, including married couples with children and single-parent families
`Change in households by household type, 1990–2000: New York metro area
`
`80,000
`
`60,000
`
`40,000
`
`20,000
`
`0
`
`-20,000
`
`-40,000
`
`38,621
`
`29,780
`
` Central City
` Suburbs
`
`61,847
`
`58,896
`
`44,964
`
`45,962
`
`7,670
`
`11,670
`
`-2,313
`
`-12,325
`
`-11,993
`
`Married Couple
`with Children
`
`-36,135
`Married Couple
`without Children
`
`Other Family
`with Children
`
`Other Family
`without Children
`
`Individual
`Living Alone
`
`Other
`Nonfamily
`
`Household Type
`
`BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY •NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20003
`
`■
`■
`

`

`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`9
`H O U S E H O L D S A N D F A M I L I E S
`
`LIVING CITIES: THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE • NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20003
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`
`New York has more long-term residents than other cities, as only one in eight New Yorkers arrived
`within the last five years
`Share of population residing in a different city five years ago, 2000: Living Cities
`
`Rank Living Cities
`1
`Denver, CO
`2
`Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
`3
`Seattle, WA
`4
`Columbus, OH
`5
`Phoenix, AZ
`6
`Boston, MA
`7
`Atlanta, GA
`8
`Dallas, TX
`9
`Portland, OR
`10
`Oakland, CA
`11 Washington, DC
`12
`Kansas City, MO
`13
`Newark, NJ
`14
`Miami, FL
`15
`Los Angeles, CA
`16
`Indianapolis, IN
`17
`San Antonio, TX
`18
`Cleveland, OH
`19
`Chicago, IL
`20
`Baltimore, MD
`21
`New York, NY
`22
`Philadelphia, PA
`23
`Detroit, MI
`All Living Cities
`Nation
`
`Population 5 Years Old
`or Greater
`517,349
`623,413
`537,538
`659,006
`1,207,309
`557,376
`389,992
`1,089,650
`497,056
`371,551
`539,658
`409,894
`252,719
`341,205
`3,412,889
`724,716
`1,052,750
`439,641
`2,678,981
`609,345
`7,475,602
`1,419,977
`875,384
`26,683,001
`262,375,152
`
`Living in Different
`City in 1995
`170,753
`203,604
`166,743
`200,450
`365,635
`168,765
`117,748
`306,880
`136,752
`100,095
`143,428
`104,347
`59,851
`73,087
`719,906
`142,493
`197,515
`70,789
`426,002
`89,707
`970,613
`181,443
`90,504
`5,207,110
`88,601,277
`
`Percent
`33.0%
`32.7%
`31.0%
`30.4%
`30.3%
`30.3%
`30.2%
`28.2%
`27.5%
`26.9%
`26.6%
`25.5%
`23.7%
`21.4%
`21.1%
`19.7%
`18.8%
`16.1%
`15.9%
`14.7%
`13.0%
`12.8%
`10.3%
`19.5%
`33.8%
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`0
`H O U S E H O L D S A N D F A M I L I E S
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`Household turnover was high in Battery Park and Midtown, but moderate throughout
`the rest of the city
`Share of individuals living in a different house five years ago, 2000: New York metro area
`
`Passaic
`County, NJ
`
`Bergen
`County, NJ
`
`Westchester
`County, NY
`
`Bronx
`County, NY
`
`Essex
`County, NJ
`
`Union
`County, NJ
`
`New York
`County, NY
`
`Hudson
`County, NJ
`
`Queens
`County, NY
`
`New York City
`
`Kings
`County, NY
`
`Richmond
`County, NY
`
`0
`
`1
`
`2
`
`4
`
`6
`
`8
`Miles
`
`Nassau
`County, NY
`
`New York City
`Boundary
`Different House in 1995
`< 20%
`
`20 to 40%
`
`40 to 60%
`
`60 to 80%
`
`> 80%
`
`New York Metro Counties
`
`BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY •NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20004
`
`

`

`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`1
`E D U C A T I O N
`
`LIVING CITIES: THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE • NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20004
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`
`E D U C AT I O N
`Education data are also critical, because it is well understood that education levels
`strongly influence individuals’, regions’, and the nation’s economic success.
`
`For cities, our nation’s long-run transition from a manufacturing-domi-
`nated economy to a service-oriented “knowledge” economy means that
`centers with a critical mass of educated workers gain competitive advan-
`tage. In this sense, cities whose populations have high levels of educational
`attainment are well-positioned to attract jobs, grow their tax bases, and
`provide a high-quality environment for their residents. By the same token,
`cities that lack educated workers may need to consider how they can pro-
`vide a more attractive environment for such workers, as well as how they
`can boost their current residents’ educational attainment.
`
`As the economic returns to education increased over the last several
`decades, the educational attainment of the overall U.S. population also
`increased. In 2000, roughly 84 percent of all persons aged 25-and-over
`held a high school diploma, and 24 percent held at least a bachelor’s
`degree. In 1970, by comparison, only 55 percent of adults had finished
`high school, and only 11 percent had a four-year college degree. Overall,
`the percentage of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree increased in 94 of
`the 100 largest cities over the 1990s.
`
`At the same time, though, there remain large disparities by place, and by
`race/ethnicity, in educational attainment. Among the 100 largest cities,
`the percentage of the adult population with at least a bachelor’s degree
`ranged from a high of 53 percent in Plano, TX (in the Dallas-Ft. Worth
`metro area), all the way down to 9 percent in Newark, NJ. Some cities like
`Charlotte and San Diego have rates of higher education that exceed those
`in their suburbs. Other cities like Hartford, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee
`lag far behind their own suburbs, and may have difficulty competing for
`jobs and workers even within their own regions. Race-based differences are
`also embedded within these place-based differences: Forty-four percent of
`Asian adults and 27 percent for non-Hispanic white adults have college
`degrees, but only 14 percent and 10 percent of black and Latino adults do,
`respectively.
`
`The following indicators provide a snapshot of educational attainment and
`enrollment among New York’s working-age population, highlighting differ-
`ences by race, ethnicity, and age.
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`2
`E D U C A T I O N
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`Both college degree and high school diploma attainment rose in New York during the 1990s
`Share of population age 25 and over by educational attainment*, 2000: Living Cities and 100 largest cities
`
`Peer Cities
`Omaha, NE
`Tulsa, OK
`Virginia Beach, VA
`Dallas, TX
`Jersey City, NJ
`New York, NY
`Houston, TX
`Cincinnati, OH
`Lubbock, TX
`Pittsburgh, PA
`New Orleans, LA
`100-City Average
`
`Rank
`35
`36
`37
`38
`39
`40
`41
`42
`43
`44
`45
`
`Bachelor’s
`Degree 2000
`28.7%
`28.3%
`28.1%
`27.7%
`27.5%
`27.4%
`27.0%
`26.6%
`26.6%
`26.2%
`25.8%
`26.3%
`
`Bachelor’s
`Degree
`
`High School
`Diploma
`
`Rank Living Cities
`1
`Seattle, WA
`2 Washington, DC
`3
`Boston, MA
`4
`Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
`5
`Atlanta, GA
`6
`Denver, CO
`7
`Portland, OR
`8
`Oakland, CA
`9
`Columbus, OH
`10
`Dallas, TX
`11
`New York, NY
`12
`Kansas City, MO
`13
`Los Angeles, CA
`14
`Chicago, IL
`15
`Indianapolis, IN
`16
`Phoenix, AZ
`17
`San Antonio, TX
`18
`Baltimore, MD
`19
`Philadelphia, PA
`20
`Miami, FL
`21
`Cleveland, OH
`22
`Detroit, MI
`23
`Newark, NJ
`All Living Cities
`Nation
`
`1990
`37.9%
`33.3%
`30.0%
`28.7%
`26.6%
`29.0%
`25.9%
`27.2%
`24.6%
`27.1%
`23.0%
`22.0%
`23.0%
`19.5%
`21.7%
`19.9%
`17.8%
`15.5%
`15.2%
`12.8%
`8.1%
`9.6%
`8.5%
`21.9%
`20.3%
`
`2000
`47.2%
`39.1%
`35.6%
`35.2%
`34.6%
`34.5%
`32.6%
`30.9%
`29.0%
`27.7%
`27.4%
`25.7%
`25.5%
`25.5%
`25.4%
`22.7%
`21.6%
`19.1%
`17.9%
`16.2%
`11.4%
`11.0%
`9.0%
`26.2%
`24.4%
`
`1990
`86.4%
`73.1%
`75.7%
`82.0%
`69.9%
`79.2%
`82.9%
`74.4%
`78.7%
`73.5%
`68.3%
`78.8%
`67.0%
`66.0%
`76.4%
`78.7%
`69.1%
`60.7%
`64.3%
`47.6%
`58.8%
`62.1%
`51.2%
`69.4%
`75.2%
`
`2000
`89.5%
`77.8%
`78.9%
`84.5%
`76.9%
`78.9%
`85.7%
`73.9%
`83.8%
`70.4%
`72.3%
`82.5%
`66.6%
`71.8%
`81.3%
`76.6%
`75.1%
`68.4%
`71.2%
`52.7%
`69.0%
`69.6%
`57.9%
`73.2%
`80.4%
`
`* Figures reflect share of population with at least named level of attainment.
`
`BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY •NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20004
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`3
`E D U C A T I O N
`
`LIVING CITIES: THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE • NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20004
`
`The proportion of New York adults enrolled in higher education is comparable to that in the
`average Living City
`Share of population age 15 and over enrolled in a college/university, 2000: Living Cities
`
`Rank Living Cities
`1
`Boston, MA
`2
`Columbus, OH
`3
`Seattle, WA
`4
`Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
`5 Washington, DC
`6
`Atlanta, GA
`7
`Los Angeles, CA
`8
`Oakland, CA
`9
`Philadelphia, PA
`10
`Portland, OR
`11
`Baltimore, MD
`12
`New York, NY
`13
`Chicago, IL
`14
`San Antonio, TX
`15
`Denver, CO
`16
`Kansas City, MO
`17
`Phoenix, AZ
`18
`Newark, NJ
`19
`Detroit, MI
`20
`Miami, FL
`21
`Indianapolis, IN
`22
`Cleveland, OH
`23
`Dallas, TX
`All Living Cities
`Nation
`
`Population 15
`or Older
`490,749
`563,755
`489,677
`532,038
`474,417
`337,572
`2,853,991
`314,479
`1,194,967
`435,445
`515,550
`6,376,852
`2,253,912
`870,155
`451,498
`346,961
`994,728
`209,388
`698,253
`297,081
`612,692
`361,237
`919,625
`22,595,022
`221,148,671
`
`Population 15 or
`Older Enrolled at University
`85,847
`76,580
`65,399
`69,101
`107,190
`35,436
`287,532
`31,244
`115,671
`41,429
`48,736
`593,664
`209,810
`74,407
`38,309
`26,433
`73,315
`15,312
`48,926
`20,704
`42,498
`23,468
`56,366
`2,187,377
`17,483,243
`
`Percent
`17.5%
`13.6%
`13.4%
`13.0%
`12.5%
`10.5%
`10.1%
`9.9%
`9.7%
`9.5%
`9.5%
`9.3%
`9.3%
`8.6%
`8.5%
`7.6%
`7.4%
`7.3%
`7.0%
`7.0%
`6.9%
`6.5%
`6.1%
`9.7%
`7.9%
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`4
`E D U C A T I O N
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`A significant gap in college degree attainment separates New York’s black and Hispanic residents
`from its white and Asian populations
`Share of population age 25 and over with at least a bachelor’s degree by race/ethnicity, 2000: New York
`
`45%
`
`40%
`
`35%
`
`30%
`
`25%
`
`20%
`
`15%
`
`10%
`
`5%
`
`0%
`
`42%
`
`36%
`
`16%
`
`19%
`
`9%
`
`11%
`
`White
`
`Black/African
`American
`
`Asian/Pacific
`Islander
`
`Other Race
`
`Two or More
`Races
`
`Hispanic or
`Latino
`
`BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY •NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20004
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`5
`W O R K
`
`LIVING CITIES: THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE • NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20004
`
`WO R K
`A city’s social and economic fortunes turn, in large part, on the ability of its resi-
`dents to succeed in the labor force.
`
`If residents are not able to find work, or have no connection to the labor
`market at all, a city may need to promote better access to job networks
`and job opportunities—wherever they exist—for groups or neighborhoods
`left behind. Understanding more about the employed population is
`equally crucial. For that reason, understanding the kinds of jobs in which
`its residents work can help a city tailor education, economic develop-
`ment, and career development strategies that enhance economic security
`for working families.
`
`The latter half of the 1990s featured exceptionally strong job creation and
`economic growth in the U.S. At the time of Census 2000, the nation’s
`unemployment rate stood at a near-record low 3.9 percent, and over 67
`percent of the adult population was in the labor force. Between January
`1995 and April 2000, the economy generated nearly 16 million new jobs,
`or 246,000 per month. Historically disadvantaged groups particularly
`benefited from this growth—the unemployment rate for black females in
`April 2000 was just 7 percent.
`
`With the 2001 recession and its aftereffects, however, the employment
`situation today is much bleaker than in April 2000. The annual unem-
`ployment rate in 2003 is likely to top 6 percent. In some parts of the
`
`nation, particularly the West Coast, it may well exceed 7 percent.
`Overall, the economy has shed nearly 1 million jobs since Census 2000
`was conducted.
`
`Amidst the recent downturn, cities and metro areas have fared quite
`differently from one another. Those places with job markets that rely
`heavily on highly affected sectors like technology have suffered. The
`unemployment rate in Oakland shot up from 4.5 percent in April 2000
`to 10 percent in November 2002. Employment in cities with stronger
`retail sectors, such as Phoenix and Indianapolis, has not dipped as much.
`Over the longer-term, though, nearly every large city has been part of a
`broader trend away from manufacturing employment towards business
`and personal services. Overall, almost half of the residents in the 100
`largest cities in 2000 worked in services-related industries.
`
`This section examines the employment and labor force situation in
`New York compared to other cities, including the mix of industries in
`which its residents are employed.1
`
`1 Unemployment data presented here are derived from Bureau of Labor Statistics data for December 2002; other data are derived from the Census 2000 long form.
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`6
`W O R K
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`New York ranks near the bottom among the 100 largest cities in the proportion of adults participating
`in the labor force
`Labor force participation rate, 2000: Living Cities and 100 largest cities
`
`Peer Cities
`Mobile, AL
`Stockton, CA
`Pittsburgh, PA
`Buffalo, NY
`New Orleans, LA
`New York, NY
`Cleveland, OH
`El Paso, TX
`Baltimore, MD
`Detroit, MI
`Philadelphia, PA
`100-City Average
`
`Rank
`87
`88
`89
`90
`91
`92
`93
`94
`95
`96
`97
`
`Labor Force
`Participation
`Rate
`58.7%
`58.6%
`58.5%
`58.4%
`57.8%
`57.8%
`57.4%
`57.1%
`56.6%
`56.3%
`55.9%
`63.0%
`
`Rank Living Cities
`1
`Columbus, OH
`2
`Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
`3
`Seattle, WA
`4
`Indianapolis, IN
`5
`Portland, OR
`6
`Denver, CO
`7
`Kansas City, MO
`8
`Phoenix, AZ
`9
`Dallas, TX
`10
`Atlanta, GA
`11
`Boston, MA
`12 Washington, DC
`13
`San Antonio, TX
`14
`Oakland, CA
`15
`Chicago, IL
`16
`Los Angeles, CA
`17
`New York, NY
`18
`Cleveland, OH
`19
`Baltimore, MD
`20
`Detroit, MI
`21
`Philadelphia, PA
`22
`Newark, NJ
`23
`Miami, FL
`All Living Cities
`Nation
`
`Population
`16 and
`Over
`555,471
`523,787
`485,170
`602,600
`429,528
`445,977
`340,707
`976,578
`904,860
`333,209
`484,995
`469,041
`852,647
`309,498
`2,215,574
`2,809,852
`6,279,431
`354,854
`507,534
`683,613
`1,174,798
`205,511
`292,822
`22,238,057
`217,168,077
`
`In Labor
`Force
`394,564
`371,018
`339,956
`415,761
`295,601
`301,714
`226,579
`648,496
`588,623
`213,257
`308,395
`298,225
`534,558
`190,725
`1,358,054
`1,690,316
`3,626,865
`203,545
`287,159
`384,897
`656,935
`108,275
`147,356
`13,590,874
`138,820,935
`
`Labor Force
`Participation
`Rate
`71.0%
`70.8%
`70.1%
`69.0%
`68.8%
`67.7%
`66.5%
`66.4%
`65.1%
`64.0%
`63.6%
`63.6%
`62.7%
`61.6%
`61.3%
`60.2%
`57.8%
`57.4%
`56.6%
`56.3%
`55.9%
`52.7%
`50.3%
`61.1%
`63.9%
`
`BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY •NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20004
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`7
`W O R K
`
`LIVING CITIES: THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE • NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20004
`
`The unemployment rate in New York is slightly higher than that in the average Living City
`Unemployment rate*, 2002: Living Cities and 100 largest cities
`
`Peer Cities
`Baltimore, MD
`Toledo, OH
`Atlanta, GA
`Fort Worth, TX
`Hialeah, FL
`New York, NY
`Spokane, WA
`Akron, OH
`Los Angeles, CA
`Philadelphia, PA
`Seattle, WA
`100-City Average
`
`Rank
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`31
`
`Unemployment Rate
`8.0%
`7.9%
`7.8%
`7.8%
`7.7%
`7.7%
`7.6%
`7.6%
`7.5%
`7.5%
`7.4%
`5.4%
`
`Rank Living Cities
`1
`Cleveland, OH
`2
`Newark, NJ
`3
`Detroit, MI
`4
`Miami, FL
`5
`Oakland, CA
`6
`Portland, OR
`7
`Dallas, TX
`8
`Chicago, IL
`9
`Baltimore, MD
`10
`Atlanta, GA
`11
`New York, NY
`12
`Los Angeles, CA
`13
`Philadelphia, PA
`14
`Seattle, WA
`15
`Denver, CO
`16 Washington, DC
`17
`Kansas City, MO
`18
`Phoenix, AZ
`19
`San Antonio, TX
`20
`Boston, MA
`21
`Indianapolis, IN
`22
`Columbus, OH
`23
`Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
`All Living Cities
`Nation
`
`Unemployment Rate
`12.1%
`11.6%
`11.5%
`10.7%
`10.1%
`8.6%
`8.5%
`8.0%
`8.0%
`7.8%
`7.7%
`7.5%
`7.5%
`7.4%
`6.5%
`6.4%
`6.1%
`5.8%
`5.5%
`5.3%
`5.3%
`5.1%
`4.7%
`7.3%
`5.7%
`
`*Annual unemployment for 2002 compiled from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Survey.
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`8
`W O R K
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`Nearly a quarter of New York’s children live in families without working parents, the seventh-highest
`proportion among the 23 Living Cities
`Share of children living in families with no parents in labor force, 2000: Living Cities
`
`Rank Living Cities
`1
`Newark, NJ
`2
`Miami, FL
`3 Washington, DC
`4
`Atlanta, GA
`5
`Detroit, MI
`6
`Oakland, CA
`7
`New York, NY
`8
`Cleveland, OH
`9
`Boston, MA
`10
`Baltimore, MD
`11
`Los Angeles, CA
`12
`Philadelphia, PA
`13
`Chicago, IL
`14
`Dallas, TX
`15
`Denver, CO
`16
`Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
`17
`San Antonio, TX
`18
`Phoenix, AZ
`19
`Kansas City, MO
`20
`Columbus, OH
`21
`Indianapolis, IN
`22
`Portland, OR
`23
`Seattle, WA
`All Living Cities
`Nation
`
`Children Living in
`Families
`66,391
`70,620
`99,374
`81,609
`261,080
`89,842
`1,767,267
`122,939
`106,516
`137,315
`896,816
`343,503
`675,233
`284,869
`110,483
`150,072
`305,519
`350,141
`103,352
`160,779
`186,615
`103,278
`81,322
`6,554,935
`67,882,626
`
`Children Living in
`Families with No Parents
`in Labor Force
`18,588
`19,171
`24,408
`19,922
`63,293
`21,161
`407,401
`28,233
`24,252
`31,259
`200,387
`75,384
`146,055
`54,358
`19,212
`25,699
`47,243
`53,471
`14,581
`19,261
`20,247
`9,723
`7,522
`1,350,831
`7,096,231
`
`Percent
`28.0%
`27.1%
`24.6%
`24.4%
`24.2%
`23.6%
`23.1%
`23.0%
`22.8%
`22.8%
`22.3%
`21.9%
`21.6%
`19.1%
`17.4%
`17.1%
`15.5%
`15.3%
`14.1%
`12.0%
`10.8%
`9.4%
`9.2%
`20.6%
`10.5%
`
`BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY •NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20004
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`9
`W O R K
`
`LIVING CITIES: THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE • NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20004
`
`Education, health, and social services account for a greater share of employment in New York than in
`most other Living Cities
`Share of workers by major industries, 2000: Living Cities
`
`Rank Living Cities
`1
`Boston, MA
`2
`Baltimore, MD
`3
`Philadelphia, PA
`4
`Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
`5
`New York, NY
`6
`Seattle, WA
`7
`Oakland, CA
`8
`San Antonio, TX
`9
`Cleveland, OH
`10
`Detroit, MI
`11
`Newark, NJ
`12
`Portland, OR
`13
`Columbus, OH
`14
`Chicago, IL
`15
`Indianapolis, IN
`16
`Kansas City, MO
`17 Washington, DC
`18
`Los Angeles, CA
`19
`Atlanta, GA
`20
`Denver, CO
`21
`Miami, FL
`22
`Phoenix, AZ
`23
`Dallas, TX
`All Living Cities
`Nation
`
`Educational,
`Health, and
`Social Services
`26.8%
`26.8%
`26.0%
`23.4%
`23.4%
`21.6%
`21.3%
`21.3%
`20.9%
`20.9%
`20.1%
`19.7%
`19.3%
`19.0%
`18.5%
`18.3%
`18.0%
`17.3%
`16.8%
`16.7%
`15.0%
`15.0%
`14.0%
`20.5%
`19.9%
`
`Wholesale
`and Retail
`Trade
`10.5%
`11.6%
`13.4%
`12.9%
`12.1%
`14.3%
`12.7%
`16.0%
`13.1%
`11.9%
`13.4%
`16.1%
`17.1%
`12.0%
`16.3%
`14.6%
`6.9%
`14.3%
`12.7%
`13.3%
`16.4%
`15.2%
`15.3%
`13.3%
`15.3%
`
`Professional,
`Scientific, and
`Manufacturing Management Services
`6.1%
`14.9%
`7.8%
`10.2%
`8.8%
`10.5%
`11.6%
`12.9%
`6.6%
`11.9%
`8.3%
`16.1%
`8.9%
`15.0%
`6.9%
`9.9%
`18.2%
`8.5%
`18.8%
`9.0%
`12.9%
`8.9%
`12.5%
`12.0%
`8.9%
`10.8%
`13.1%
`13.6%
`13.5%
`9.5%
`10.1%
`10.8%
`1.5%
`18.8%
`13.2%
`12.9%
`7.7%
`17.2%
`6.5%
`14.3%
`7.4%
`11.8%
`10.5%
`12.5%
`10.5%
`14.5%
`9.7%
`12.4%
`14.1%
`9.3%
`
`Arts, Entertainment,
`Recreation,
`Accommodation,
`and Food Services
`9.2%
`8.3%
`8.1%
`10.0%
`8.3%
`9.9%
`8.1%
`10.2%
`9.0%
`8.7%
`6.9%
`9.4%
`9.1%
`8.5%
`8.6%
`9.4%
`9.1%
`9.6%
`10.4%
`10.0%
`12.0%
`9.6%
`8.8%
`9.0%
`9.2%
`
`Other
`Industries
`32.6%
`35.3%
`33.2%
`29.1%
`37.6%
`29.7%
`33.9%
`35.7%
`30.2%
`30.8%
`37.8%
`30.3%
`34.7%
`33.8%
`33.5%
`36.8%
`45.7%
`32.6%
`35.3%
`39.2%
`37.4%
`37.2%
`36.8%
`35.1%
`32.1%
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`0
`C O M M U T I N G
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`C O M M U T I N G
`Any worker knows commuting patterns determine much of a city’s efficiency, social
`texture, and quality of life. In this sense, where a city’s residents work matters nearly
`as much to a city’s health as what those residents do for a living—hence the data
`provided in the next few pages.
`
`A high proportion of people who both live and work in the city can signal
`an economically strong metropolitan core, an active and vibrant down-
`town, and an accessible job network for inner-city workers. By contrast, a
`metropolitan area in which only a fraction of residents work in the city
`may point to a weakened core, long commutes, low demand for city living
`and retail development, diminished revenues, and a less economically
`competitive region overall.
`
`Over the last several decades, metropolitan economies have undergone sig-
`nificant decentralization. In the 1950s, roughly 70 percent of metropolitan
`jobs were located in central cities. By 1990, only 45 percent were. This
`extensive decentralization of employment accompanied dispersal of the
`population. Census 2000 revealed that only 38 percent of metropolitan
`area residents live inside central cities, down from 57 percent in 1950.
`Indeed, decentralization has occurred to such an extent that more than
`one-third of metro area residents now work more than 10 miles from the
`city center, and almost half of all commutes take place between a suburban
`home and a suburban job.
`
`Among metropolitan areas, however, significant variations in the location
`of jobs set regions apart. Some Northeastern and Western metros, includ-
`ing New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Portland, are still characterized
`by a relatively high quantity of employment in the regional core. In others,
`such as Detroit, St. Louis, and Tampa-St. Petersburg, less than 10 percent
`of regional jobs are located within 3 miles of downtown. The degree of
`population and job dispersal in a metro, not surprisingly, tracks the usage
`of cars for commuting—about 85 percent of Detroit area residents drive
`alone to work, versus 57 percent of San Francisco area residents. In metros
`where inner-city minorities lack access to automobiles and a far-reaching
`transit system, they may be cut off from an increasingly suburbanized
`employment market.
`
`This section provides information on commuting patterns and trends in
`the New York region and—by extension—a look at decentralization in the
`regional labor market, and the economic strength of the urban core.
`
`BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY •NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20005
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`1
`C O M M U T I N G
`
`LIVING CITIES: THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE • NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20005
`
`Over three-quarters of all commutes in the New York metro area begin and end in the city—
`the highest proportion among the 23 Living Cities
`Share of commutes by origin and destination, 2000: Living Cities metro areas
`
`Rank Living Cities
`1
`New York, NY
`2
`San Antonio, TX
`3
`Phoenix, AZ
`4
`Indianapolis, IN
`5
`Columbus, OH
`6
`Los Angeles, CA
`7
`Dallas, TX
`8
`Portland, OR
`9
`Chicago, IL
`10
`Kansas City, MO
`11
`Seattle, WA
`12
`Philadelphia, PA
`13
`Boston, MA
`14
`Denver, CO
`15
`Baltimore, MD
`16
`Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
`17
`Cleveland, OH
`18
`Oakland, CA
`19 Washington, DC
`20
`Detroit, MI
`21
`Miami, FL
`22
`Atlanta, GA
`23
`Newark, NJ
`All Living Cities
`
`Central City to
`Central City
`77.5%
`63.4%
`57.3%
`42.1%
`35.9%
`29.5%
`28.1%
`26.7%
`25.8%
`25.3%
`25.0%
`19.0%
`17.0%
`16.1%
`13.4%
`12.9%
`12.5%
`12.0%
`11.7%
`10.4%
`9.8%
`5.2%
`3.9%
`27.3%
`
`Central City to
`Suburb
`1.4%
`7.3%
`8.4%
`8.5%
`14.8%
`14.3%
`9.7%
`8.2%
`11.1%
`12.1%
`7.8%
`5.9%
`6.3%
`8.3%
`7.4%
`8.4%
`9.1%
`5.4%
`4.1%
`9.0%
`7.6%
`3.4%
`3.2%
`7.8%
`
`Suburb to
`Central City
`4.7%
`15.6%
`18.4%
`22.1%
`23.0%
`16.1%
`21.3%
`20.9%
`13.9%
`22.2%
`23.6%
`9.9%
`20.3%
`20.8%
`15.3%
`16.4%
`18.3%
`8.9%
`20.9%
`12.1%
`20.4%
`15.2%
`5.9%
`15.5%
`
`Suburb to
`Suburb
`8.9%
`9.9%
`14.5%
`23.8%
`22.7%
`32.8%
`34.6%
`41.3%
`47.6%
`37.9%
`40.3%
`57.4%
`47.0%
`49.1%
`51.2%
`60.1%
`55.4%
`48.7%
`59.1%
`63.8%
`53.8%
`73.4%
`56.8%
`43.0%
`
`Outside MSA*
`7.5%
`3.7%
`1.4%
`3.5%
`3.7%
`7.3%
`6.3%
`2.8%
`1.6%
`2.4%
`3.3%
`7.8%
`9.3%
`5.8%
`12.7%
`2.2%
`4.7%
`25.1%
`4.2%
`4.6%
`8.4%
`2.8%
`30.2%
`6.4%
`
`* “Outside MSA” includes workers from anywhere in the metro area traveling to work outside the metro area
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 317
`2
`C O M M U T I N G
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`The overwhelming majority of New York workers are employed at jobs within the city
`Share of workers employed within city, 2000: Living Cities and 100 largest cities
`
`Peer Cities
`Anchorage, AK
`Lubbock, TX
`New York, NY
`Jacksonville, FL
`Montgomery, AL
`Lincoln, NE
`Corpus Christi, TX
`El Paso, TX
`San Antonio, TX
`Austin, TX
`Omaha, NE
`100-City Average
`
`Percent
`Rank Wk in CC
`1
`96.7%
`2
`91.6%
`3
`91.5%
`4
`91.2%
`5
`90.8%
`6
`90.0%
`7
`89.1%
`8
`87.5%
`9
`87.3%
`10
`87.1%
`11
`86.7%
`70.4%
`
`Rank Living Cities
`1
`New York, NY
`2
`San Antonio, TX
`3
`Indianapolis, IN
`4
`Philadelphia, PA
`5
`Portland, OR
`6
`Seattle, WA
`7 Washington, DC
`8
`Chicago, IL
`9
`Phoenix, AZ
`10
`Columbus, OH
`11
`Boston, MA
`12
`Dallas, TX
`13
`Kansas City, MO
`14
`Denver, CO
`15
`Los Angeles, CA
`16
`Baltimore, MD
`17
`Atlanta, GA
`18
`Cleveland, OH
`19
`Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
`20
`Detroit, MI
`21
`Miami, FL
`22
`Newark, NJ
`23
`Oakland, CA
`All Living Cities
`
`Total Working
`Population
`3,192,070
`491,435
`385,208
`569,761
`270,996
`316,493
`260,884
`1,192,139
`599,592
`367,387
`278,463
`537,006
`208,554
`278,715
`1,494,895
`249,373
`178,970
`175,727
`343,018
`319,449
`126,539
`87,720
`170,503
`12,094,897
`
`Working
`Within City
`2,922,206
`428,926
`315,658
`429,608
`200,158
`233,600
`190,566
`841,329
`415,384
`254,193
`184,954
`350,745
`132,666
`176,750
`943,489
`154,463
`106,145
`98,292
`170,803
`154,933
`57,408
`36,319
`67,089
`8,865,684
`
`Percent
`91.5%
`87.3%
`81.9%
`75.4%
`73.9%
`73.8%
`73.0%
`70.6%
`69.3%
`69.2%
`66.4%
`65.3%
`63.6%
`63.4%
`63.1%
`61.9%
`59.3%
`55.9%
`49.8%
`48.5%
`45.4%
`41.4%
`39.3%
`73.3%
`
`BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY •NEW YORK INFOCUS:A PROFILE FROM CENSUS 20005
`
`

`

`IN