Escambia County, FL v. McMillan Joint Appendix Vol. IV
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1982
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Escambia County, FL v. McMillan Joint Appendix Vol. IV, 1982. 30fe57ff-b09a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/f6c7e523-b010-406a-9b55-53f5d1805858/escambia-county-fl-v-mcmillan-joint-appendix-vol-iv. Accessed June 13, 2025.
Copied!
No. 82-1295
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1982
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al.,
Appellants,
v.
HENRY T. McMILLAN, et al.,
A ppellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
JOINT APPENDIX
VOL. IV — Pages 919-1154
CHARLES S. RHYNE
Counsel o f Record
J. LEE RANKIN
THOMAS D. SILVERSTEIN
Rhyne & Rankin
1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 466-5420
THOMAS R. SANTURRI
Escambia County Attorney
28 West Government Street
Pensacola, Florida 32501
(904) 436-5450
Attorneys fo r Appellants
EDWARD STILL
Counsel o f Record
Reeves and Still
Suite 400
Commerce Center
2027 1st Avenue North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
JAMES U. BLACKSHER
LARRY T. MENEFEE
Blacksher, Menefee & Stein,
P.A.
4051 Van Antwerp Bldg.
P. O. Box 1051
Mobile, Alabama
JACK GREENBERG
NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS
Legal Defense Fund
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
KENT SPRIGGS
Spriggs & Henderson
117 South Martin Luther
King, Jr. Bldg.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Attorneys fo r Appellees
Appeal Docketed February 2, 1983
Probable Jurisdiction Noted April 18, 1983
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
Page
Docket E ntries...................................................................................... 1
District C ourt.....................................................................................1
Court of Appeals............................................................................ 30
Complaint ................. 45
Answer and Affirmative Defenses — Escambia County................. 52
Consolidation O rd e r.............................. 59
Arnow, C. J. Letter to Counsel of Record ............................. . 61
Pretrial Stipulation ...................................... 64
Pretrial O rder.......................................................................... 77
Notice of Proposed County Charter ................................................82
Excerpts of Trial Transcript............................................................. 146
Testimony of Dr. Jerrell H. Shofner...................................... 146
Testimony of Dr. Glenn David C u rry .................................... 229
Testimony of Charlie L. Take ...............................................255
Testimony of Otha Leverette ............................................ 271
Testimony of Dr. Donald Spence ................. 280
Testimony of Billy Tennant .......................... 310
VOLUME II
Testimony of Julian Banfell ...................................................... 325
Testimony of Orellia Benjamin Marshall ................................ 334
Testimony of F. L. Henderson ........................... ....................338
Testimony of Elmer Jenkins .............. 341
Testimony of Nathaniel Dedmond............................................ 348
Testimony of James L. Brewer ................................................357
Testimony of Cleveland McWilliams .......................................361
Testimony of Earl J. Crosswright ............................................363
(i)
Testimony of William H. Marshall ........................................ 374
Testimony of Dr. Charles L. Cottrell .............................• • ■ • 398
Testimony of James J. Reeves ................................................ 436
Testimony of HolliceT. Williams .........................................438
Testimony of Governor Reubin Askew...................................452
Testimony of Marvin G. Beck ................................................470
Testimony of Kenneth J. Kelson ............................................ 495
Testimony of Charles Deese, Jr................................................507
Testimony of Jack Keeney ....................................................... 532
Testimony of A. J. Boland......................................................549
Testimony of Laurence Green ..................................................560
Testimony of Dr. Manning J. D auer...................................... 578
Colloquy Between the Court and Counsel .............................598
VOLUME III
Plaintiffs’ Exhibits.......................................................................... 603
Exhibit 6 Demographic Tables — Pensacola Florida............603
Exhibit 8 Voter Registration, City of Pensacola..................731
Exhibit 14 Excerpts — Computer Printouts Analyzing
Voting Patterns for Selected Elections................. 733
Exhibit 16 Statistical Analysis of Racial Element in
Escambia County, Pensacola City Elections . . . . 771
Exhibit 17 Neighborhood Analysis, Pensacola SMSA ........799
VOLUME IV
Exhibit 21 United Way of Escambia County, Inc. —
Community Planning Division Composite
Socio-Economic Index for the 40 Census
Tracts ...................................................................... 919
Exhibit 23 Excerpt — Statistical Profile of Pensacola
and the SMSA............... 1006
Exhibit 25 Escambia County and Pensacola SMSA —
Population Trends; Racial Composition;
Population by Tract; Age Distribution.................1016
(ii)
Exhibit 32 Selected Deeds Conveying Property Located
in Escambia County ........................................... 1036
Exhibit 33 Votes Cast for all Candidates in Selected
Precincts — September 1976 Primary ............... 1047
Exhibit 55 Materials Relating to the City of Pensacola:
Adoption of At-large Election System in 1959 .. 1052
Exhibit 66 County Boards and Committees ........................1106
Exhibit 70 Excerpt — 1976-77 Annual Budget of
Escambia.................................................................1108
Exhibit 71 Summary Analysis (County Recreation) ------ - 1111
Exhibit 73 Transcript of Proceedings of Escambia Coun
ty Board of County Commission at August
31,1977 Public Hearing ................... H31
Exhibit 80 1973-77 Escambia County, City of Pensacola
EEO-4 Summary Job Classification and
Salary Analysis ................................................. 1142-
Exhibit 92 Letter Appearing in the Pensacola News Jour
nal, August 23, 1959 ......................... 1152
Exhibit 95 Editorial Appearing in the Pensacola Journal,
August 13, 1959 ................................... 1153
VOLUME V
Exhibit 98 Proposal of Charter Commission Appointed
in 1975 ................................................................ 1155
Exhibit 99 Recommendations by Minority of Charter
Commission Appointed in 1975 ....................... 1225
Exhibit 100 Proposal of Charter Commission Appointed
in 1977 .................................... 1228
(iii)
(iv)
District Court Order Denying Stay of December 3, 1979
Remedial Order ....................................................................................1261
Excerpts of Trial of Testimony of Dr. Glenn David
Curry................................................................................. 1267
Excerpts of Trial Testimony of Dr. Manning F.
Dauer ....................................................................................................1284
NOTE
The following opinions, decisions, judgments, and orders have been
omitted in printing the Joint Appendix because they appear in the
Appendices to the Jurisdictional Statement as follows:
Page
Decision on Rehearing of the Fifth Circuit in
McMillan v. Escambia County, Florida, 688
F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1982) ...............................................................A-la
Decision of the Fifth Circuit in McMillan v.
Escambia County, Florida, 638 F.2d 1239
(5th Cir. 1981) ......................................... ....................................B-30a
Decision of the Fifth Circuit in McMillan v.
Escambia County, Florida, 638 F.2d 1249
(5th Cir. 1981) ..............................................................................B-52a
Memorandum Decision and Order of the United
States District Court for the Northern District
of Florida in McMillan v. Escambia County,
Florida, PCA No. 77-0432 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 1979).............. B-54a
Memorandum Decision of the United States District
Court of the Northern District of Florida in
McMillan v. Escambia County, Florida
PCA No. 77-0432 (N.D. Fla., Sept. 24, 1979) .........................B-66a
Memorandum Decision and Judgment of the United
States District Court of the Northern District
of Florida in McMillan v. Escambia County,
Florida, PCA No. 77-0432 (N.D. Fla. July 10, 1978) ............ B-71a
(V)
Judgment in McMillan v. Escambia County,
Florida, 688 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1 9 8 2 ) ....... C-l 16a
919
EXHIBIT 21
UNITED WA Y OF ESCAMBIA COUNTY, INC.
COMMUNITY PLANNING DIVISION
COMPOSITE SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDEX FOR THE
40 CENSUS TRACTS
COMPRISING ESCAMBIA COUNTY
(PHASE I OF YOUTH AGENCY STUDY PROJECT)
In an effort to determine the areas of greatest social and
economic need in Escambia County, each of the 40 census
tracts making up the County were ranked in accordance
with the following 13 indices:
a. Total Population
b. Non-White Population
c. School Age Population
d. Percent of Homes Overcrowded (!)
e. Percent of Homes Dilapidated (‘)
f. School Year Completed
g. Rate of Children Determined by the Juvenile
Court to be in Need of Supervision (2)
h. Rate of Juvenile Delinquency (2)
i. Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (3)
j . Percent of Homes Owner Occupied
k. Median Rent
l. Median value of Dwelling
n. Median Income
(') Based upon total dwellings within census tract.
(2) Based upon rate per 100 school age population
in each census tract.
(3) Based upon percent of each census tract popula
tion.
Each of the 40 census tracts were ranked in order of
ascendency for indices “a” through “i”. Thus, the census
tract having the highest rate of juvenile delinquency was
assigned the rank of “40” for that category of measure
ment. Similarly, the census tract having the fifth highest
percent of cases on “Aid to Families with Dependent
Children” was assigned the rank of “36” for that index.
For indices “j” through “n” census tracts were ranked in
descending order. For example, the census tract having the
highest median income was ranked “I” and the one having
lowest median income was ranked “40”. Fikewise, the cen
sus tract reflecting the 16th highest median value of a
dwelling was given the rank of “16”. The composite socio
economic index, shown on page 2, reflects the average of
the 13 individual rankings for each census tract. It will be
noted that Census Tract “6”, which has a composite index
of 33.85, has the highest degree of socio-economic need.
Census Tract “25”, which has a composite index of 6.04,
has the lowest incidence of social and economic need.
Table I, page 3, shows how each census tract ranked in
reference to the 13 indices used in arriving at a composite
index. In viewing this data, keep in mind a high individual
index ranking reflects an unfavorable situation.
Following Table I, are profile sheets for each of the 40
census tracts in Escambia County. These sheets show
specific data for each census tract as compared to the me
dian average for the County.
920
921
COMPOSITE SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDEX OF
CENSUS TRACTS IN ESCAMBIA COUNTY,
FLORIDA
(Ranked in descending order by degree of
social-economic need)
RANK CENSUS TRACT NO. COMPOSITE INDEX
1 ---------------- ---- -........ 6 - - -------------- -........ 33.85
2 ----- .......--------- --------- 4 — ---- ------------------ 33.30
3 ------— .......—---- ------ 7-—--------------- ---- 32.26
4 ----- ----- ...---------------- 15—-- ...........-......-...... 31.50
5 ----------------- ----- ----- 2-—■.................. .......... 29.00
6 ....... —----- ------ ---- — 16—■---------------------- 27.85
7 ----- ----------------------- 17—--------------------- - 27.85
8 ----- ------------------ 40—- ---------------------- 27.15
9 ....... ---- --------- - ........ 20—-------------- -------- 26.30
10 ----- ------------- --------- 32 —------------- —....... 25.77
11 ----- ----------------------- 18— - ------ ------------ 25.54
12 ....... ---------- ------ -...... 14— ------------------ ---- 25.00
13 ----- —- ---- ------- ----- 3 9 -- ............-— ........ - 22.88
14 ...... ------------------------ 3 —---------------------- 22.57
15 ....... ---------------------- 2 2 - - ...... —------ ------- 22.50
16 ...... ------------- ----- — l —.......... .........—....... 21.76
17 -----— ................—....... 8 —............... ............. 21.65
18 ....... ---------------------- 21 —-..... — ........... ....... 20.77
19 ----- ---------------------- 27 —---------------- - — 20.35
20 ......----------- ------------ 3 5 -- ---------------------- 20.11
21 ----- ........—- ---- ------ 38 ——-................. -...... 20.00
22 ----- ............ ...............- 33 —............——------- 19.96
23 ----- ---------- ---------- - 37 ——...............-.......... 19.50
24 ----- ---------- ---------- - 19 —-------------- - ....... 19.03
25 —- ------------------------ 5 - - .............. ............... 18.92
26 ....... ---- ------------------ 36 —------------------ - 18.80
27 ....... --------- ------- ----- 2 3 -- ..........................— 17.80
922
RANK CENSUS TRACT NO. COMPOSITE INDEX
28 ....... -------- ----- -------- 34-—---- ------ ---- ----- 17.30
29 ----- ------------------ ---- 30— -— ......-....... ....... 16.50
30 ----- ......... .......... ......— 29 — --------- ------------ 15.80
31 ....... ---------------------- 13 — ------- -------- ----- 15.11
32 ----- — ........ -........... — 28 — -------------------- - 13.73
33 ----- —----- ------- ------ 31 — --------- ---- -......... 12.80
34 ----- — ......................... 12 — --------- ------- — 12.35
35 ----- — ......— ....... — 24 — ----- ------ ------ — 11.85
36 ....... ...............-....... — 11 — --------- ------- ---- 11.23
37 ----- — ----- ------------- 26— -.......— ----- ------ 9.54
38 ----- -------------- ------ 10.......... •..................... ......... 9.30
39 ............ ............ .............. 9..... ■......— ----- -------- 6.35
40 ----- -......... ....... .........- 25— ---------------- ------ 6.04
INCIDENCE OF NEED
High - 33.85 Very Low 0.00 to 9.90
Median - 20.55 Low 10.00 to 16.90
Low — 6.04 Average 17.00 to 24.90
High 25.00 to 29.90
Very High 30.00 to 40.00
TABLE I COMPOSITE AND INDIVIDUAL RANKING OF CENSUS TRACTS IN
ESCAMBIA COUNTY BY VARIOUS INDICES OF SOCIAL-ECONOMIC NEED
C
E
N
SU
S
T
R
A
C
T
N
O
.
R
A
N
K
I
N
O
R
D
E
R
O
F
N
E
E
D
C
O
M
PO
SI
T
E
R
A
N
K
PO
PU
L
A
T
IO
N
N
O
N
-W
H
IT
E
PO
PU
L
A
T
IO
N
SC
H
O
O
L
A
G
E
PO
PU
L
A
T
IO
N
PC
T
.
O
F
H
O
M
E
S
O
V
E
R
C
R
O
W
D
E
D
PC
T
.
O
F
H
O
M
E
S
D
IL
A
PI
D
A
T
E
D
PC
T
.
O
F
H
O
M
E
S
O
W
N
E
R
O
C
C
U
P1
I
M
E
D
IA
N
R
E
N
T
M
E
D
IA
N
V
A
L
U
E
O
F
D
W
E
L
L
IN
G
M
E
D
IA
N
I
N
C
O
M
I
SC
H
O
O
L
Y
E
A
R
C
O
M
PL
E
T
E
D
R
A
T
E
O
F
C
H
IL
D
R
E
N
I
N
N
E
E
D
O
F
SU
PE
R
V
IS
IO
N
!1
)
R
A
T
E
O
F
JU
V
E
N
I
D
E
L
1N
Q
U
E
N
C
E
(
;
6 1 33.85 23 39 24 36 39 34 35 32.5 38 33.5 33 35
4 2 33.30 27 40 31 39 32 35 37 35 37 30 21 33
7 3 32.26 7 33 10 34 31 37 39 32.5 39 39 39 39
15 4 31.50 9 37 15 38 37 29 33 29.5 35 40 38 30
2 5 29.00 13 35 9 33 35 36 30 34 36 30 16 37
16 6 27.85 11 36 18 40 40 32 36 36 33 36 18 25
17 7 27.85 19 34 25 31 27 28 30 28 32 32 6 36
40 8 27.15 16 30 20 32 38 16 40 39 34 36 11 11
20 9 26.30 10 28 11 27 30 23 24.5 25 28 33.5 37 38
32 10 25.77 35 38 38 35 29 5 11 16.5 40 19 14 23
18 11 25.54 21 20 17 22 23 20 . 27 31 30 36 32 28
14 12 25.00 32 31 35 25 21 18 19 16.5 18.5 17.5 27 34
C
E
N
SU
S
T
R
A
C
T
N
O
.
R
A
N
K
I
N
O
R
D
E
R
O
F
N
E
E
D
C
O
M
PO
SI
T
E
R
A
N
K
P
O
PU
L
A
T
IO
N
N
O
N
-W
H
IT
E
PO
PU
L
A
T
IO
N
SC
H
O
O
L
A
G
E
PO
PU
L
A
T
IO
N
P
C
T
.
O
F
H
O
M
E
S
O
V
E
R
C
R
O
W
D
E
D
P
C
T
.
O
F
H
O
M
E
S
D
IL
A
P
ID
A
T
E
D
PC
T
.
O
F
H
O
M
E
S
O
W
N
E
R
O
C
C
U
PI
I
M
E
D
IA
N
R
E
N
T
M
E
D
IA
N
V
A
L
U
E
O
F
D
W
E
L
L
IN
G
M
E
D
IA
N
I
N
C
O
M
I
SC
H
O
O
L
Y
E
A
R
C
O
M
PL
E
T
E
D
R
A
T
E
O
F
C
H
IL
D
R
E
N
I
N
N
E
E
D
O
F
SU
PE
R
V
IS
IO
N
!')
R
A
T
E
O
F
JU
V
E
N
D
E
L
IN
Q
U
E
N
C
E
(
3 9 13 2 2 .8 8 12 21 16 3 0 3 6 9 3 8 38 2 6 30 1 4 .5 8
3 14 2 2 .5 7 18 2 4 12 19 19 2 5 2 4 .5 2 3 2 5 2 7 2 4 31
2 2 15 2 2 .5 0 2 8 17 2 9 2 4 10 33 3 0 2 0 2 7 1 3 .5 23 2 4
1 16 2 1 .7 6 1 13 1 2 6 2 8 3 9 9 2 4 31 2 4 4 0 4 0
8 17 2 1 .6 5 25 2 9 13 14 14 2 4 2 3 15 21 1 7 .5 35 2 7
21 18 2 0 .7 7 2 9 8 2 6 9 13 3 0 16 2 2 2 2 2 0 3 6 19
27 19 2 0 .3 5 15 2 6 14 2 0 2 6 21 8 2 9 .5 2 9 2 6 13 2 6
35 2 0 2 0 .1 1 4 0 2 7 3 9 21 2 4 7 2 0 10 2 0 1 5 .5 9 9
38 21 2 0 .0 0 5 19 8 2 9 3 4 2 9 3 2 3 7 2 4 38 2 5 2
33 2 2 1 9 .9 6 3 6 7 3 6 15 2 0 6 2 6 18 14 2 1 .5 3 0 12
3 7 2 3 1 9 .5 0 14 3 2 19 3 6 33 11 3 4 2 6 17 25 2 .5 2
19 2 4 1 9 .0 3 6 1 5 17 16 2 6 2 1 .5 2 7 2 3 18 3 4 2 2
5 2 5 1 8 .9 2 3 25 3 2 8 25 2 7 2 8 5 6 7 2 8 3 2
3 6 2 6 1 8 .8 0 3 9 18 4 0 16 2 2 4 2 0 12 11 2 1 .5 7 6
924
C
E
N
SU
S
T
R
A
C
T
N
O
.
R
A
N
K
I
N
O
R
D
E
R
O
F
N
E
E
D
C
O
M
PO
SI
T
E
R
A
N
K
PO
PU
L
A
T
IO
N
N
O
N
-W
H
IT
E
PO
PU
L
A
T
IO
N
SC
H
O
O
L
A
G
E
PO
PU
L
A
T
IO
N
PC
T
.
O
F
H
O
M
ES
O
V
ER
C
R
O
W
D
ED
PC
T
.
O
F
H
O
M
ES
D
IL
A
PI
D
A
T
E
D
PC
T
.
O
F
H
O
M
ES
O
W
N
E
R
O
C
C
U
PI
ED
M
E
D
IA
N
R
EN
T
M
E
D
IA
N
V
A
L
U
E
O
F
D
W
E
L
L
IN
G
M
E
D
IA
N
I
N
C
O
M
E
SC
H
O
O
L
Y
EA
R
C
O
M
PL
E
T
E
D
R
A
T
E
O
F
C
H
IL
D
R
E
N
I
N
N
E
E
D
O
F
SU
PE
R
V
IS
IO
N
!1)
R
A
T
E
O
F
JU
V
EN
IL
D
E
L
IN
Q
U
E
N
C
E
(
9
2 3 2 7 1 7 .8 0 33 16 2 2 10 9 31 1 4 .5 14 13 7 31 16
3 4 2 8 1 7 .3 0 17 23 21 23 18 10 13 21 16 23 2 0 8
3 0 2 9 1 6 .5 0 3 0 12 3 4 13 15 14 3 11 10 1 1 .5 2 9 17
2 9 3 0 1 5 .8 0 2 4 5 2 8 12 2 15 8 19 15 1 5 .5 25 2 0
13 31 1 5 .1 1 2 6 2 2 3 0 7 7 3 6 .5 6 5 7 2 2 2 9
28 32 1 3 .7 3 3 8 10 32 8 5 8 3 8 7 9 .5 2 6 18
31 33 1 2 .8 0 2 2 9 2 7 5 12 1 18 13 9 9 .5 17 15
12 3 4 1 2 .3 5 31 11 23 1 11 2 2 4 7 8 1 1 .5 12 11
2 4 35 1 1 .8 5 2 0 15 7 18 1 - 2 1 .5 4 0 1 8 .5 2 .5 5 4
11 36 1 1 .2 3 37 4 37 3 8 2 1 2 3 4 19 21
2 6 37 9 .5 4 4 6 6 11 17 19 12 9 12 1 3 .5 2 .5 5
10 38 9 .3 0 3 4 2 .5 33 6 3 17 2 1 1 2 .5 10 14
9 39 6 .3 5 8 14 4 4 4 13 10 4 4 5 15 13
25 4 0 6 .0 4 2 2 .5 2 2 6 3 8 6 .5 3 2 i 2 .5 2
(') Based upon school age population of Census Tract.
(2) Based on individual Census Tract population.
\
927
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Wright________________________________
South Main_______________________________ _
East Tarragona ___________ _________
West Spring; Barcelona____________________ __
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 1
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 260 Non-White Population 107 School Age population 30 Composite In
dex of Social Need 21.76 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts by
Highest Incidence of Social Need 16
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population o f Census Tract
(N u m b e r o f C IN S C ases)
Census Tract
No. 1
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
200.00 17.88
6 xxxxxxxx
33.3 6.34
1 xxxxxxxx
928
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
4.61 % 1.05%
12 xxxxxxxx
2.5% 2.15%
3 xxxxxxxx
10.1% 3.5%
12 xxxxxxxx SO
22.7 % 63.8% ND
27 xxxxxxxx
$125 $114.50
$8800 $11,300
$5000 $7,723
11.5 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 2
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Cervantes___________
South Pensacola Bay
East “A” Street
West Bayou Chico
Other identification:
Total Population 3820 Non-White Population 1959 School Age population 893 Com- '-o
posite Index of Social Need 29.00 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census ©
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 5
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 2
48.15 17,88
. 43 xxxxxxxx
5.60 6.34
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need o f Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population of Census Tract
(N u m b e r o f C IN S C ases) X X X X X X X X
Selected Social <& Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
3.76% 1.05%
144 xxxxxxxx
4.7% 2.15%
312 xxxxxxxx
18.5% 3.5%
312 .............. SO
XXXXXXXX £
35.8% 63.8%
605 xxxxxxxx
$70 $114.50
$7300 $11,300
$4811 $7,723
9.7 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Gadsden; Wright ________________
South Pensacola Bay_________________________
East “A” Street_____________ _______________
West Bayou Chico__________ ____________ _
Other identification:
Total Population 4659 Non-White Population 583 School Age population 1038 Com
posite Index of Social Need 22.57 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 14
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 3
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 3
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract 27.94 17.88
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases) 29 xxxxxxxx
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population of Census Tract 7.71 6.34
(N um ber o f C1NS Cases) 8 X X X X X X X X
932
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
1.22% 1.05%
56 xxxxxxxx
2.1% 2.15%
37 xxxxxxxx
2.9% 3.5%
52 xxxxxxxx
60.3% 63.8%
1061 xxxxxxxx
$90 $114.50
$9100 $11,300
$7221 $7,723
10.5 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
933
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 4
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Avery; Moreno
South Wright
East “A” and “F” Sts.
West “P” Street
Other identification:
Total Population 5932 Non-White Population 5508 School Age Population 1980 Composite
Index of Social Need 33.30 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 2
Selected Social (6 Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population o f Census Tract
(N u m b e r o f C 1N S C ases)
Census Tract
No. 4
Median A verage for
All Census Tracts
31.31
62
17.88
xxxxxxxx
6.57
13
6.34
xxxxxxxx
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median A verage for
All Census Tracts
4.53% 1.05%
269 xxxxxxxx
10.6% 2.15%
190 xxxxxxxx
16.5% 3.5% sou>
KJ\297 xxxxxxxx
41.3% 63.8%
743 xxxxxxxx
$58 $114.50
$7200 $11,300
$4388 $7,723
9.7 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Maxwell________________
South Cervantes__________ __ ______________
East Palafox_______________
West “A” Street; “F” Street
Other identification:
Total Population 2203 Non-White Population 778 School Age population 512 Composite
Index of Social Need 18.92 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 25
Selected Social & Economic Indices
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 5
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need o f Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population o f Census Tract
(Number of CINS Cases)
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 5
31.25 17,88
16 xxxxxxxx
11.72 6.34
6 X X X X X X X X
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
2.63% 1.05%
58 xxxxxxxx
3.0% 2.15%
28 xxxxxxxx
7.2%
68
3.5%
XXXXXXXX
59.8% 63.8%
563 XXXXXXXX
$77 $ 1 1 4 .5 0
$16,700 $11,300
$10,349 $7,723
12.5 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Bobe Street____________________________
South Wright; Barcelona______________________
East 8th Avenue____________________________
West Palafox Street__________________________
Other identification:
Total Population 5116 Non-White Population 4896 School Age Population 1980 Composite
Index of Social Need 33.85 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 1
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 6
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract 37.67 17.88
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases) 55 xxxxxxxx
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 6
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population o f Census Tract 13.70 6.34
(N u m b e r o f C 1N S C ases) 20 xxxxxxxx
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
4.73% 1.05%
242 xxxxxxxx
8.7% 2.15%
163 xxxxxxxx
32.6% 3.5%
610 xxxxxxxx
43.7% 63.8%
818 xxxxxxxx
$63 $114.50
$7400 $11,300
$4248 $7,723
9.2 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
939
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Gadsden; Belmont_______________________
South Pensacola Bay________________ _________
East L & N RR_____________________________
West Tarragona_____________________________
Other identification:
Total Population 3232 Non-White Population 1717 School Age population 961 Composite \c
Index of Social Need 32.26 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts o
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 3
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 7
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Selected Social <& Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population of Census Tract
(N u m b e r o f C IN S C ases)
Census Tract
No. 7
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
59.31 17.88
57 xxxxxxxx
20.81 6.34
20 xxxxxxxx
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract,
Census Tract Median A verage for
All Census Tracts
5.29% 1.05%
171 xxxxxxxx
5.0% 2.15%
59 xxxxxxxx
13.7% 3.5% SO
160 xxxxxxxx 4̂*
31.8% 63.8%
372 xxxxxxxx
$49 $114.50
$7400 $11,300
$4117 $7,723
8.8 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Baars________________ _________________
South Belmont_______________________________
East 17th Avenue___________________________
West 8th Avenue; 9th Avenue_________________
Other identification:
Total Population 5601 Non-White Population 1295 School Age population 1048 Composite
Index of Social Need 21.65 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 17
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 8
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract 25.76 17.88
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases) 27 xxxxxxxx
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 8
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population o f Census Tract 16.22 6.34
(Number of CINIS Cases) 17 xxxxxxxx
942
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract-
Census Tract
1.30%
73
1.2070
30
1.707o
42
61.2%
1475
$91
$12,400
$7,389
12.0 yrs.
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
1.05%
xxxxxxxx
2.150/0
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx 6
63.8%
xxxxxxxx
$114.50
$11,300
$7,723
11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Summit Blvd.__________________________
South Escambia Bay__________________________
East Escambia Bay______________________ _____
West Bayou T e x a r _________________________
Other identification:
Total Population 7029 Non-White Population 1 School Age population 2011 Composite
Index of Social Need 9.30 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts by
Highest Incidence of Social Need 38
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 10
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract 11.44 17.88
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases) 23 xxxxxxxx
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 10
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population o f Census Tract 3.98 6.34
(Number of CINS Cases) 8 xxxxxxxx
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
0.09% 1.05%
6 xxxxxxxx
0.6% 2.15%
15 xxxxxxxx
0.2% 3.5% t—--------- c/»
5 xxxxxxxx
69.5% 63.8%
1624 xxxxxxxx
$172 $114.50
$23,200 $11,300
$12,671 $7,723
12.9 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Interstate Hwy. 10________ _____________
South Summit Blvd._______ _______
East Escambia Bay__________________________
West Lanier Dr; 9th Ave.; 17th Ave.___________
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 11
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 8302 Non-White Population 0 School Age population 248 Composite
Index of Social Need 11.23 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 36
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population of Census Tract
(N um ber o f C 1N S C ases)
Census Tract
No. 11
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
11.44 17,88
23 xxxxxxxx
3.98 6.34
8 xxxxxxxx
946
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Flomes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellii _,s in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
AH Census Tracts
0.09 % 1.05%
8 xxxxxxxx
0.3% 2.15%
8 xxxxxxxx
0.8% 3.5%
19 xxxxxxxx
83% 63.8%
2006 xxxxxxxx
$173 $114.50
$19,000 $11,300
$11,709 $7,723
12.8 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
947
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Interstate Hwy. 10______________________
South Royce; Carpenters Creek_________________
East Lanier; College Blvd.; 12th Ave.__________
West Interstate Hwy. 10__________ ___________
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 12
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 6782 Non-White Population 0 School Age population 1395 Composite
Index of Social Need 12.35 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 34
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need o f Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population o f Census Tract
(N um ber o f C 1N S C ases)
Census Tract
No. 12
Median A verage for
All Census Tracts
9.32 17.88
13 xxxxxxxx
430 6.34
6 xxxxxxxx
948
Selected Social <& Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
‘Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
0.23% 1.05%
14 xxxxxxxx
0.3% 2.15%
6 xxxxxxxx
1.0%
21
3.5%
xxxxxxxx
62.5% 63.8%
1289 xxxxxxxx
$157 - $114.50
$15,500 $11,300
$9,597 $7,723
12.3 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Royce_________________________________
South Baars__________________________________
East Carpenters Creek; Texar Dr; 18th Avenue
West Interstate Hwy. 110; State Highway 291; 8th Avenue
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 13
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 5854 Non-White Population 542 School Age population 1657 Com
posite Index of Social Need 15.11 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census 5
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 31
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need o f Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population o f Census Tract
(N um ber o f C 1N S C ases)
Census Tract
No. 13
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
27.16 17.88
45 xxxxxxxx
6.64 6.34
11 xxxxxxxx
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract
1.89%
111
0.7%
___ 12___
0.7%
13
82.5%
1511
$136
$16,000
$11,147
12.5 yrs.
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
1.05%
xxxxxxxx
2.15%
xxxxxxxx
3.5%----------- vO
XXXXXXXX
63.8%
xxxxxxxx
$114,50
$11,300
$7,723
11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Interstate Hwy. #10_____________________
South Michigan Ave; Palafox Highway__________
East Interstate #110_________________________
West S.L. & S.F. Rwy._______________________
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 14
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 6809 Non-White Population 1487 School Age population 2142 Com- ^
posite Index of Social Need 25.00 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census k)
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 12
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need o f Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population of Census Tract
(N um ber o f C1NS C ases)
Census Tract
No. 14
Median Average fo r
All Census Tracts
35.48 17.88
76 xxxxxxxx
9.80 6.34
21 xxxxxxxx
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
‘Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median A verage for
All Census Tracts
3.04% 1.05%
207 xxxxxxxx
2.4% 2.15%
49 xxxxxxxx
3.9% 3.5% VO
82 xxxxxxxx
68.7% 63.8%
1430 xxxxxxxx
$103 $114.50
$12,300 $11,300
$7929 $7,723
12 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Fairfield; State Highway 291_____________
South Bobe_________________________________
East 8th Avenue, 9th Avenue ________________
West L & N R R____________________________
Other identification:
Total Population 3441 Non-White Population 3304 School Age population 1116 Com
posite Index of Social Need 3150 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 4
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 15
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract 27.78 17.88
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases) 31 xxxxxxxx
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 15
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population of Census Tract 17.92 6.34
(N um ber o f C 1N S C ases) 20 xxxxxxxx
954
Selected Social & Economic [ndices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded'
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied'
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
3.04% 1.05%
207 xxxxxxxx
9.5% 2.15%
100 xxxxxxxx
26.4% 3.5% VO
277 xxxxxxxx LnC/i
58.4% 63.8%
613 xxxxxxxx
$66 $114.50
$5000 $11,300
$5055 $7,723
8.6 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Pottery Plant Rd. (Fairfield Drive)________
South Bobe ______________________________
East L & N RR_____________________________
West “P” Street
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 16
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 3540 Non-White Population 2911 School Age population 1191 Com
posite Index of Social Need 2785 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 6
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population o f Census Tract
(N um ber o f C IN S C ases)
Census Tract
No. 16
Median A verage for
AH Census Tracts
24.35 17.88
29 xxxxxxxx
fh88 6.34
7 xxxxxxxx
956
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded'
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated'
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
4.38% 1.05%
155 xxxxxxxx
11.5% 2.15%
108 xxxxxxxx
32.9% 3.5% VOC/j-3310 xxxxxxxx
54.9% 63.8%
517 xxxxxxxx
$62 $114.50
$7000 $11,300
$5263 $7,723
9 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Michigan Avenue ______________ ______
South Fairfield Drive__________________________
East Palafox Highway_______________________
West S.L.S.F. R.R.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 17
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 4738 Non-White Population 1830 School Age population 1484 Com
posite Index of Social Need 27.85 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 7
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of CINS Cases')
No. 17
43.80 17,88
65 xxxxxxxx
2.02 6.34
3 X X X X X X X X
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract
3.90%
185
4.3%
62
9.6%
138
58.9%
847
$70
$8100
$5370
9.5 yrs.
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
I. 05 %
xxxxxxxx
2.15%
xxxxxxxx
3.5% v©----------- C/i
xxxxxxxx
63.8%
xxxxxxxx
$114,50
$11,300
$7,723
II . 8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Fairfield Drive_________________________
South Avery___________________ _____________
East “P” Street_________________________ ____
West “W” Street
Other identification:
Total Population 4820 Non-White Population 484 School Age population 118 Composite ^
Index of Social Need 25.54 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts g
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 11
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
Alt Census Tracts
No. 18
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract 27.07 17.88
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases) 32 xxxxxxxx
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 18
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population o f Census Tract 12.69 6.34
(N um ber o f C 1N S C ases) 1 5 XXXXXXXX
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
1.85% 1.05%
89 xxxxxxxx
2.3% 2.15%
40 xxxxxxxx
6.0% 3.5% so
105 xxxxxxxx ~
63.8% 63.8%
1125 xxxxxxxx
$87 $114.50
$7700 $11,300
$6460 $7,723
9 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Avery_______________________ ______
South Mobile Hwy; Gadsden_____ _____________
East “P” St._________________________________
West Kirk Street
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 19
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 3037 Non-White Population 0 School Age population 661 Composite ^
Index of Social Need 19.03 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts S
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 24
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median A verage for
All Census Tracts
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of C1NS Oases)
No. 19
21.18 17.88
14 xxxxxxxx
15.13 6.34
10 xxx xx x xx
f
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
1.12% 1.05%
34 xxxxxxxx
2.0% 2.15%
24 x x x x x x x x
1.8% 3.5% SO
22 xxxxxxxx Ui
60.0% 63.8%
718 x x x x x x x x
$93 $114.50
$8200 $11,300
$7314 $7,723
10.0 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Fairfield Drive ______________________
South Avery; Kirk
East “W” St reel ~~
West Mobile Highway; State Highway #10_______
Other identification:
Total Population 3471 Non-White Population 1137 School Age population 981 Com
posite Index of Social Need 26.30 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 9
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 20
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 S ch oo l A ge P o p u la tio n o f C ensus Tract
(Number of C1NS Cases)
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 20
50.97 17.88
50 xxxxxxxx
19.37 6 .34
1 9
F
XXXX X X X X
964
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract
2.33%
81
3.7%
44
11. 1%
133
61.9%
738
$90
$8700
$6569
9.2 yrs.
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
1.05%
xxxxxxxx
2.15%
xxxxxxxx
3.5%
xxxxxxxx
63.8%
xxxxxxxx
$114.50
$11,300
$7,723
1F.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Mobile Hwy. (State Hwy. #10A)__________
South Jones Swamp; Bayou Chico______________
East Bayou Chico______________________ _
West Warrington Rd., Corry Road_____________
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 21
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 6720 Non-White Population 49 School Age population 1519 Composite
Index of Social Need 20.77 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 18
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Traci Median Average for
All Census Tracts
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in N eed o f Supervision R ate Per
iOOO School Age Population of Census Tract
No. 21
16.46 17.88
25 xxxxxxxx
17.12 6.34
966
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract
1.20%
81
.8%
21
1.2%
30
57.5%
1465
$109
$10,900
$7,364
11.8 yrs.
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
1 . 05*70
XXXXXXXX
2 . 15*70
XXXXXXXX
3.5<7o vo-------------- On
XXXXXXXX
63.8%
XXXXXXXX
$114.50
$11,300
$7,723
11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Gulf of Mexico__________________________
South Gulf of Mexico_________________________
East State Hwy. #291________________________
West Gulf of Mexico_________________________
Other identification:
Total Population 6684 Non-White Population 326 School Age population 1649 Com
posite Index of Social Need 22.50 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 15
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
AH Census Tracts
No. 22
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract 24.30 17.88
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases) 40 xxxxxxxx
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 22
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Children in Need o f Supervision Rate Per
1000 S ch oo l A ge P o p u la tio n o f C ensus Tract 7 .2 9 6 .3 4
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Flomes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
0.71% 1.05%
72 xxxxxxxx
6.1% 2.15%
117 xxxxxxxx
10.4% 3.5% VO
.99 xxxxxxxx ON
NO
81.7% 63.8%
1566 xxxxxxxx
$70 $114.50
$11,200 $11,300
$6,935 $7,723
12.2 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Pensacola Bay__________________________
South Gulf of Mexico_________________________
East Escambia Bay__________________________
West Barrancas Avenue_______________________
Other identification:
Total Population 6861 Non-White Population 274 School Age population 1389 Com
posite Index of Social Need 17.80 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 27
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 23
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract 13.68 17.88
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases) 19 xxxxxxxx
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 23
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 S ch oo l A ge P o p u la tio n o f C ensus Tract 12 .24 6 .34
xxxx x x x x
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
0.71% 1.05%
49 xxxxxxxx
0.8% 2.15%
25 xxxxxxxx
0.8% 3.5% so
22 xxxxxxxx
55.7% 63.8%
1501 xxxxxxxx
$114 $114.50
$13,000 $11,300
$8,750 $7,723
12.5 yrs. H.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Barrancas Avenue_______________________
South Gulf of Mexico_________________________
East Gulf of Mexico_________________________
West Warrington Road_______________________
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 24
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification: US Naval Air Station
Total Population 4816 Non-White Population 194 School Age population 766 Composite
index of Social Need 11.85 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 35
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 24
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract 1.31 17.88
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases) 1 xxxxxxxx
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population of Census Tract 1.31 6.34
(N um ber o f C IN S Cases) l X X X X X X X X
972
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
‘Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
2 .0%
9
1.05%
xxxxxxxx
2.15%
xxxxxxxx
3.5%-------------- VO
XXXXXXXX
63.8%
$107
$7929
12.9 yrs.
$114.50
j>-
$11,300
$7,723
11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Pensacola Bay_________________________
South Gulf of Mexico_________________________
East Gulf of Mexico________________________ _
West Gulf of Mexico _____
Other identification: Pensacola Beach
Total Population 1005 Non-White Population 1 School Age population 161 Composite
Index of Social Need 6.04 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts by
Highest Incidence of Social Need 40
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 25
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract - 17.88
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases) None xxxxxxxx
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 25
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 S ch oo l Age P o p u la tio n o f C ensus Tract - 6 .3 4
(Number of CINS Cases) None xxxxxxxx
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average fo r
A ll Census Tracts
0.29% 1.05%
3 xxxxxxxx
0.3% 2.15%
2 xxxxxxxx
0.6% 3.5%
4 xxxxxxxx
25.2% 63.8%
160 xxxxxxxx
$147 $114,50
$18,500 $11,300
$11,846 $7,723
13 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
975
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Gulf of Mexico________________________
South Gulf of Mexico________________________
East State Highway 291______________________
West Gulf of Mexico________________________
Other identification:
Total Population 2547 Non-White Population 15 School Age population 68 Composite
Index of Social Need 9.54 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts by
Highest Incidence of Social Need 37
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 26
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract 1-45 17.88
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases) 1 xxxxxxxx
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 26
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 S ch oo l A ge P o p u la tio n o f C ensus Tract 0 6 .3 4
(Number of C1NS Cases') O xxxxxxxx
976
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract
0.75%
19
1.0%
10
2.1%
21
63.9%
633
$114
$14,500
$8,941
12.2 yrs.
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
1.05%
xxxxxxxx
2.15%
xxxxxxxx
3.5% 8̂--------
xxxxxxxx
63.8%
xxxxxxxx
$114.50
$11,300
$7,723
11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Lillian Hwy.___________________________
South Barrancas Ave._________________________
East State Hwy. 298 A_____________________
West State Hwy. 291_________________________
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 27
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 3968 Non-White Population 905 School Age population 110 Composite
Index of Social Need 20.35 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 19
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 S ch oo l A ge P o p u la tio n o f C ensus Tract
CNumber of CINS Oases)
Census Tract
No. 27
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
25.25 17,88
28 xxxxxxxx
4.51 6.34
X X X X X X X X
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
I
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
‘Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
0.35%
14
2. 1%
29
8.9%
121
62.5%
850
$93
$8000
$6542
11.0 yrs.
1.05%
xxxxxxxx
2.15%
xxxxxxxx
3,5%
xxxxxxxx
63.8%
xxxxxxxx
$114.50
$11,300
$7,723
11.8 yrs.
979
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Fairfield; Jackson_____________ _______ __
South Jones Swamp__________________ _______
East 61st Avenue, New Warrington Rd.________
West State Hwy. 298 A_______________________
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 28
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 8413 Non-White Population 60 School Age population 200 Composite
Index of Social Need 13.73 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts
by Elighest Incidence of Social Need 32
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of C1NS Cases')
Census Tract
No. 28
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
15.43 17.88
31 xxxxxxxx
9.46 6.34
19 X X X X X X X X
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
1 Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract
0.18%
15
0.7%
15
0 .6%
13
77.7%
1610
$136
$15,200
$9801
12.4 yrs.
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
1.05%
xxxxxxxx
2.15%
xxxxxxxx
3.5%
xxxxxxxx
63.8%
xxxxxxxx
$114,50
$11,300
$7,723
11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Fairfield Drive_________________________
South Jackson_______________ _______________
East Mobile Hwy; New Warrington Rd.________
West 61st Street
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 29
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 5575 Non-White Population 9 School Age population 160 Composite ^
Index of Social Need 15.80 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts g
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 30
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 S ch oo l A ge P o p u la tio n o f C ensus Tract
C t - A u m t o e r o f C l l s S S C a s e s ' )
Census Tract
No. 29
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
16.85 17.88
27 xxxxxxxx
8.11 6 .3 4
13 XXXX X X X X
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated’
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract
0.84%
47
1.0%
18
0.2%
3
72.8%
1260
$118
$11,400
$8,488
12.1 yrs.
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
1.05%
xxxxxxxx
2.15%
xxxxxxxx
3.5%
xxxxxxxx
63.8%
xxxxxxxx
$114.50
$11,300
$7,723
11.8 yrs.
SO
oo
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Bellshead Brook ______________________
South Fairfield Dr._______________________ _
East Bellshead Brook________________________
West Bayou Marcus_____________________
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 30
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 6753 Non-White Population 2113 School Age population 200 Com- vo
posite Index of Social Need 16.50 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 29
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 30
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract 13.72 17.88
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases) 29 xxxxxxxx
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 S ch o o l A ge P o p u la tio n o f C ensus Tract 11.83 6 .3 4
CNurrvber of CINiS Cases) 25 xxxxxxxx
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
0.69% 1.05%
47 xxxxxxxx
1.1% 2.15%
22 xxxxxxxx
1.7% 3.5% S O
35 xxxxxxxx GO
75.3% 63.8%
1513 xxxxxxxx
$131 $114.50
$15,800 $11,300
$9,402 $7,723
12.3 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Michigan Avenue______________________
South Bellshead Brook ____________________
East S.L. & S.F. R.R._______________________
West Bayou Marcus _____ _______________
Other identification:
Total Population 4886 Non-White Population 54 School Age population 1577 Composite
Index of Social Need 12.80 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 33
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 31
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of GINS Cases')
Census Tract
No. 31
12.68
20
5.71
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
17.88
xxxxxxxx
6 .3 4
X X X X X X X X
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
‘Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract
0.25%
12
0.4%
6
1.0%
14
85.6%
1151
$162
$13,300
$9,405
12.4 yrs.
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
1.05%
xxxxxxxx
2,15%
xxxxxxxx
3.5%
xxxxxxxx
63.8%
xxxxxxxx
$114.50
$11,300
$7,723
11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Detroit Blvd.___________________________
South Ark. Road; Michigan Avenue____________
East S.L.S.F. R.R.________________________
West Pine Forest Road_______________________
Other identification:
Total Population 7340 Non-White Population 3421 School Age Population 2616 Com
posite Index of Social Need 25.77 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 10
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 32
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 S ch oo l A ge P o p u la tio n o f C ensus Tract
(Number of CINS Cases)
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 32
21.79 17.88
57 xxxxxxxx
4 .5 9 6 .3 4
12 X X X X X X X X
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract
3.21 %
_ 236
6 . 1%
117
10.4%
199
81.7%
1566
$104
$12,300
$7,448
11.9 yrs.
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
I. 05 %
xxxxxxxx
2.15%
xxxxxxxx
3.5% eg
xxxxxxxx
63.8%
xxxxxxxx
$114,50
$11,300
$7,723
II . 8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Interstate Hwy. #10_____________________
South Lillian Hwy.___________________________
East Arkansas Creek_________________________
West Pine Forest Road
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 33
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 7841 Non-White Population 30 School Age population 2416 Composite
Index of Social Need 19.96 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 22
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
C hild ren in N eed o f Superv ision R ate P er
1000 School Age P o p u la tio n o f C ensus T rac t
Census Tract
No. 33
Median Average for
Ail Census Tracts
9.52 17.88
23 xxxxxxxx
12.00 6.34
__ 2 9 xxxxxxxx
990
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
0.93% 1.05%
73 xxxxxxxx
1.6% 2.15%
37 xxxxxxxx
3.0% 3.5% so
72 xxxxxxxx
79.2% 63.8%
1880 xxxxxxxx
SI 19 $114.50
$11,900 $11,300
$8,589 $7,723
11.7 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 34
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North State Hwy. #10_________ _______________
South Detroit Blvd.___________________________
East L. & N.RR____________________________
West Interstate Hwy. #10_____________________
Other identification:
Total Population 4489 Non-White Population 554 School Age population 1310 Com
posite Index of Social Need 17.30 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 28
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need o f Supervision Rate Per
VOOO S ch oo l A ge P o p u la tio n o f C ensus Tract
Census Tract
No. 34
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
4.46 17.88
20 xxxxxxxx
6.11 6 .3 4
X X X X X X X X
992
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
‘Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract
0.56%
25
2.3%
32
2.7%
38
76.7%
1069
$89
$ 11,100
$8,165
11.6 yrs.
Median Average for
AH Census Tracts
1.05 Vo
xxxxxxxx
2.15 Vo
xxxxxxxx
3.5Vo
xxxxxxxx
63.8 Vo
xxxxxxxx
$114.50
$11,300
$7,723
11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North State Hwy. #10______ ___________ _
South Detroit Blvd._______ _____ ____ _
East Gulf of Mexico ________
West L & N R R
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 35
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 10,121 Non-White Population 1108 School Age population 2658 Com
posite Index of Social Need 20.11 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census vo
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 20
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per *1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
1000 School A ge P o p u la tio n o f C ensus T rac t
( N u m b e r o f C 1 N S C a s e s ' )
Census Tract
No. 35
Median Average for
AH Census Tracts
4.89 17.88
13 xxxxxxxx
3.39 6 .34
X X X X X X X X
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
1.07% 1.05%
109 xxxxxxxx
2.2 % 2.15%
58 xxxxxxxx
7.1% 3.5% so
188 xxxxxxxx
78.1% 63.8%
2058 xxxxxxxx
$115 $114.50
$14,300 $11,300
$7,924 $7,723
12.1 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North State Highway #196
South Eleven Mile Creek_______________________
East Escambia River________________________
West Perdido River__________________________
Other identification:
Total Population 9466 Non-White Population 419 School Age population 2843 Com
posite Index of Social Need 18.80 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 26
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 36
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
AH Census Tracts
No. 36
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract 2.46 17.88
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases) 7 xxxxxxxx
Children in Need of Supervision Rate Per
lOOO School A.ge P o p u la tio n o f C ensus T rac t
tWv.orvV.ev o f C1NSS
2.81
8
6.34
996
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average fo r
A ll Census Tracts
2.40'% 1.05%
228 xxxxxxxx
1.9% 2.15%
51 xxxxxxxx
4.5% 3.5%
118 xxxxxxxx
81.8% 63.8%
2151 xxxxxxxx
$101 $114.50
$13,600 $11,300
$9,239 $7,723
11.7 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
997
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North De Galvez Rd,__________________________
South Kingsfield Rd._______________________ _
East State Highway 95_______________________
West State Highway 97_______________________
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 37
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 3967 Non-White Population 1419 School Age population 1291 Com
posite Index of Social Need 19.50 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 23
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
Children in N eed o f Supervision R ate Per
lOOQ ScViool Age Population of Census Tract
Census Tract
No. 37
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
0.0 17.88
0.0 xxxxxxxx
0-0 6.34
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average fo r
A ll Census Tracts
0.07% 1.05%
3 xxxxxxxx
7.1% 2.15%
75 xxxxxxxx
17.3% 3.5%
184 xxxxxxxx
76.7% 63.8%
815 xxxxxxxx
$64 $114.50
$8300 $11,300
$8089 $7,723
11.3 yrs. 31.8 yrs.
66
6
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Escambia County (Fla.); Escambia County
(Ala.)___________________
South State Hwy, 196______________________
East State Flwy. 97_______________________
West Escambia County Baldwin County, Ala.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 38
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Other identification:
Total Population 2879 Non-White Population 458 School Age population 861 Composite
Index of Social Need 20.00 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census Tracts
by Highest Incidence of Social Need 21
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
C hildren in N eed o f Supervision R ate Per
lOOO School Age Population of Census Tract
Census Tract
No. 38
Median Average for
All Census Tracts
0.0 17.88
0.0 xxxxxxxx
0 .0 6.34
0-0 xxxxxxxx
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
‘Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average fo r
A ll Census Tracts
3.2°7o
29
18.2%
167
76.5%
702
$67
$6700
$7292
8.9 yrs.
1.05%
xxxxxxxx
2.15%
xxxxxxxx
3.5%
xxxxxxxx
63.8%
xxxxxxxx
$114.50
$11,300
$7,723
11.8 yrs.
1001
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Escambia County (Fla.); Escambia County
(Ala.)_________________________ __
South State Hwy. #184________________________
East Escambia County Line_________________ _
West State Highway #97__________________ _
Other identification:
Total Population 3814 Non-White Population 537 School Age population 1170 Com
posite Index of Social Need 22.88 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 13
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
No. 39___
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract 4.27 17.88
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases) 5____ xxxxxxxx
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 39
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Children in N eed o f Supervision R ate Per
lOOO School Age Population of Census "Tract 4.27 <5.34___
1002
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded1
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
'Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
Census Tract Median Average fo r
A ll Census Tracts
0.96% 1.05%
37 xxxxxxxx
3.4% 2.15%
41 xxxxxxxx
21.4% 3.5% ;
258 xxxxxxxx <
77.1% 63.8%
931 xxxxxxxx
$55 $114.50
$6100 $11,300
$7167 $7,723
9.7 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
1003
Boundary Description: (Key streets listed below)
North Escambia County (Fla.); Escambia County
(Ala.) ___________________________________
South Canoe Creek__________________________
East Escambia County Line___________________
West Canoe Creek_____________________ _
Other identification:
Total Population 4201 Non-White Population 1484 School Age population 1300 Com
posite Index of Social Need 27.15 Median Average for County 20.55 Rank among 40 Census
Tracts by Highest Incidence of Social Need 8
Selected Social & Economic Indices Census Tract Median Average for
All Census Tracts
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA FOR CENSUS TRACT 40
(ESCAMBIA COUNTY)
Juvenile Delinquency Rates per 1000
School Age Population of Census Tract
(Number of Juvenile Delinquency Cases)
CViiVdren in Need of Supervision Rate Per
lOOO School Age P o p u la tio n o f C ensus T rac t 3 -08 €>_ 3-4-
No. 40
8.46 17.88
11 xxxxxxxx
1004
Selected Social & Economic Indices
Percent of Cases on Aid to Families with
Dependent Children by Census
Tract Population
(Number of AFDC Cases)
Percent of Homes Overcrowded'
(Number of Homes Overcrowded)
Percent of Homes Dilapidated1
(Number of Homes Dilapidated)
Percent of Homes Owner Occupied1
(Number of Homes Owner Occupied)
Median Monthly Rent
Median Value of Dwelling
Median Annual Income
Median School Year Completed
‘Percent based on total dwellings in Census Tract.
C ensus Tract M edian A verage fo r
A l l C ensus Tracts
2.66% 1.05%
112 xxxxxxxx
4.4% 2.15%
59 xxxxxxxx
31.9% 3.5%
A ll xxxxxxxx
70.1% 63.8%
939
$45
$114.50
$58
$5000 $11,300
$5091 $7,723
9 yrs. 11.8 yrs.
1005
1006
EXHIBIT 23 Excerpt
STATISTICAL PROFILE OF
PENSACOLA AND THE SMSA
JULY, 1974
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
I. GENERAL
Pensacola is the central city of the Pensacola Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area. An SMSA, in general, is a
county or a set of contiguous counties with one or more
“central” cities of 50,000 or more inhabitants. The City of
Pensacola includes 24.1 square miles within its corporate
limits.
II. POPULATION
In April, 1970, there were 59,571 persons living in
Pensacola. This number reflects the population enumer
ated during the 1970 census of population and housing.
The City’s population represented 24.5 percent of the total
population of 243,075 in the SMSA.
1007
Appendix A
Age Distribution
of the Population for the City and SMSA (as of 4-1-1970)
The City The SMSA
Number Percent Number Percent
All Races
Total ............. .................... . 59,571 100.0 243,075 100.0
Under 18 Y ears................ 20,649 34.7 88,117 36.3
Under 6 Years ............ 5,839 9.8 26,153 10.8
6 to 13 Years .............. 9,882 16.6 42,038 17.3
14 to 17 Years ............ 4,928 8.3 19,926 8.2
18 Years and Over .......... 38,922 65.3 154,958 63.7
18 to 20 Years ............ 3,094 5.2 15,932 6.6
21 Years and Over . . . . 35,828 60.1 139,026 57.2
21 to 24 Years ........ 3,891 6.5 21,850 9.0
25 to 34 Years ........ 6,860 11.5 31,343 12.9
35 to 44 Years ........ 6,594 11.1 27,408 11.3
45 to 54 Years ........ 7,019 11.8 25,056 10.3
55 to 64 Years ........ 5,747 9.6 18,004 7.4
65 Years and Over .. 5,717 9.6 15,365 6.3
Median A g e ......................... 28.1 — 24.2 —
The City The SMSA
Number Percent Number Percent
White
Total........... 39,648 100.0 198,425 100.0
Under 18 Y ears................ 12,271 30.9 67,726 34.1
Under 6 Years .......... 3,616 9.1 20.435 10.3
6 to 13 Years .............. 5,597 14.1 31,937 16.1
14 to 17 Years ............ 3,058 7.7 15,354 7.7
18 Years and Over .......... 27,377 69.1 130,699 65.9
18 to 20 Years ............ 2,022 5.1 13,343 6.7
21 Years and Over . . . . 25,355 64.0 117,356 59.1
21 to 24 Years . . . . . 2,947 7.4 19,553 9.9
25 to 34 Years ........ 4,819 12.2 26,589 13.4
35 to 44 Years ........ 4,505 11.4 22,605 11.4
45 to 54 Years ........ 4,940 12.5 21,040 10.6
55 to 64 Years ........ 4,009 10.1 14,917 7.5
65 Years and Over .. 4,135 10.4 12,652 6.4
Median Age 30.4 — 24.7 -
1008
The City
Number Percent
The SMSA
Number Percent
Negro
T o ta l..................................... 19,674 100.0 42,309 100.0
Under 18 Y ears................ 8,272 42.0 19,506 4 6 .1
Under 6 Years ............ 2,195 11.2 5,308 12.5
6 to 13 Years .............. 4,239 21.5 9,747 23.0
14 to 17 Years ............ 1,838 9.3 4,451 10.5
18 Years and Over .......... 11,402 58.0 22,803 53.9
18 to 20 Years ............ 1,057 5.4 2,472 5,8
21 Years and Over .. .. 10,345 52.6 20,331 4 8 .1
21 to 24 Years ........ 911 4.6 2,031 ' 4.8
25 to 34 Years ........ 2,030 10.3 4,224 10.0
35 to 44 Years ........ 2,047 10.4 4,464 10.6
45 to 54 Years ........ 2,056 10.5 3,915 9.3
55 to 64 Years ........ 1,733 8.8 3,048 7 .2
65 Years and Over .. 1,568 8.0 2,649 6.3
Median A g e ......................... 23.3 - 20.0 -
III. HOUSING
Type of Structure
In Pensacola, 83.0 percent of the 19,326 occupied hous
ing units were single unit structures, compared to 83.2 per
cent for the SMSA as a whole.
Another, 8.7 percent of the occupied housing units were
in 2-unit, 3-unit, or 4-unit structures, while 7.8 percent
were in apartment buildings with five or more units. Mo
bile homes and trailers accounted for 0.5 percent of the oc
cupied housing units in the City.
Of the 1,721 vacant year-round housing units in Pen
sacola, 59.3 percent were single unit structures, 18.3 per
cent were in 2-unit, 3-unit, or 4-unit structures, and 22.4
percent were in apartment buildings with five units or
more.
1009
Year Structure Built
Structures built in 1960 or later number 4,588, or 23.7
percent of the City’s occupied housing units. The com
parable SMSA figure was 34.78 percent. Housing units
built before 1940 represented 36.1 percent of the City’s oc
cupied units. The comparable figure for the SMSA was
18.67 percent.
Year Structure Built for Occupied Units
For the City and SMSA
City SMSA
Number Percent Number Percent
Occupied U nits.................. . . . . . 19,326 100.0 71,233 100.0
1965 to March 1970.......... ........ 2,330 12.1 13,240 18.6
1960 to 1964............. . . . . . 2,258 11.7 11,494 16.1
1950 to 1959....................... . . . . . 4,210 21.8 20,806 29.2
1940 to 1 9 4 9 ............... . . . . . 3,549 18.4 12,442 17.5
1939 or Earlier . . . . . ___ . . . . . 6,979 36.1 13,251 18.6
Value of Owner Occupied Units
The median value of specific owner occupied housing
units in the City was $4,451, as compared to $12,393 for
the SMSA.
1010
Value of Specified Owner Occupied Units
for the City and the SMSA
Specified Owner Occupied ..
Less than $5,000 ........
$5,000 to $7,499 ..................
$7,500 to $9,999 ..................
$10,000 to $14,999 ..............
$15,000 to 19,999 ..............
$20,000 to $24,999 ..............
$25,000 to $34,999 ..............
$35,000 to $49,999 ..............
$50,000 or m o r e ............ .....
Median Value .......................
City SMSA
Number Percent Number Percem
11,836 100.0 42,981 100,0
929 7.8 4,442 10.3
1,277 10.8 5,481 12.8
1,234 10.4 5,741 13.4
2,784 23.5 12,171 28.3
2,282 19.3 7,118 16.8
1,419 12.0 3,532 ■ 8.2
1,183 10.0 2,887 6,2
531 4.5 1,161 2,7
197 1.7 448 1.0
14,451 — 12,393 -
Gross Rent of Renter Occupied Units
The median gross rent of specified renter o ccu p ied
housing units in the city was $ 7 7 . Gross rent is the m on th ly
rent plus the average cost of utilities and fuel. F o r the
SMSA as a whole, the median gross rent was $94.
Gross Rent of Specified Renter Occupied
Units, City and SMSA
Number Percent Number Percent
Specified Renter Occupied . .
Less than $ 6 0 .......................
$60 to $79 .............................
$80 to $99 .............................
100 to $149...........................
$150 to $199.........................
$200 to $299 .........................
$300 or M o re .......................
Median Gross R e n t..............
6,147 100.0 17,978
1,817 29.6 3,631
1,446 23.5 3,280
847 13.8 3,036
875 14.2 4,571
908 14.8 2,721
242 3.9 706
12 0.2 33
77 — 94
100.0
20,2
18.2
16.9
25,4
15.1
3.9
0.2
1011
Tenure & Vacancy Status of Housing Units,
City & SMSA
All Housing U nits.........................
All Year-Round Housing Units ..
All Occupied U n its .......................
Owner-Occupied...........................
Percent of All Occupied................
Renter Occupied...........................
Vacant - For Sale or Rent ............
Other Vacant.................................
C ity-21,055 SMSA - 77,292
21,047 77,164
19,326 71,233
12,642 50,457
65.4 70.8
6,684 20,776
1,192 3,720
529 2,211
Negroes occupied 5,660 of the housing units in the City,
about 50.9 percent of the housing units in which negroes
lived were owner-occupied and 49.1 percent were renter-
occupied.
NUMBER OF BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED BY MONTH AND YEAR
Year January February March April May June July August Sept. October Nov. Dec.Totals Yr.
1974 129 120 146 100 169 - - - - - - - 664
1973 64 106 162 137 188 124 146 112 78 115 99 64 1,395
1972 126 124 160 104 120 105 92 100 108 116 87 78 1,320
1971 88 91 153 138 107 149 162 116 93 109 91 75 1,372
1970 87 87 116 103 95 85 79 70 102 102 56 97 1,079
1969 75 101 98 127 119 107 78 93 83 112 67 66 1,126
1968 59 86 95 93 118 91 110 89 85 73 64 57 1,020
1967 40 54 86 79 73 84 74 91 105 108 87 64 945
1966 33 24 39 18 43 58 62 72 60 55 49 37 550
1965 32 34 49 37 51 62 44 24 34 24 34 28 453
1964 31 51 50 40 31 32 56 21 47 22 21 50 452
1963 _ 44 35 38 53 18 60 40 32 48 27 37 432
T o t .
12 Yrs, *7 64 922 1,189 1 .014 1,167 915 963 828 827 884 682 653 10.808
1012
1013
IV. INCOME
Of the 15,109 families in Pensacola, 2,581, or 17.1 per
cent, had 1969 incomes which were below the low-income
(poverty) level. For the SMSA, 15.5 percent of all families
were below the low-income level. Families with a woman
as head comprised 51.1 percent of the low-income families
in Pensacola.
There was a total of 12,981 persons below the low-
income level in the City in 1969. Of these, 8,919 or 68.7
percent were negroes. Persons below the low-income level
represented 21.9 percent of all persons in the City, com
pared to 18.7 percent for the SMSA. In the City, 82.0 per
cent of these persons were members of families, while the
remainder were unrelated individuals. Children under 18
years of age represented 43.7 percent of all persons below
the low-income level, while persons 65 years and over
comprised 14.7 percent of the City’s low-income popula
tion. For the SMSA, the comparable figures were 44.4 per
cent and 12.7 percent, respectively.
Persons Below the Low-Income Level in 1969,
by Family Status
For the City and the SMSA
City SMSA
Number Percent Number Percent
Below Below Below Below
Low-Inc. Low-Inc. Low-Inc. Low-Inc.
Level Level Level Level
All Persons......................... 12,981 21.9 43,543 18.7
65 Years & Over ................ 1,906 34.0 5,530 36.9
In Families............ 10,640 19.7 37,530 17.1
Family Heads ................ 2,581 17.1 9,409 15.5
Male . . . . 1,261 10.2 5,841 11.0
Female....................... 1,320 47.3 3,568 46.3
Related Chn. Under 18 . 5,671 27.7 19,339 22.2
Other Family Members . 2,388 13.0 8,782 12.3
Unrelated Individuals . . . . 2,341 44.6 6,013 43.9
1014
The median income in 1969 of families in Pensacola was
$8,305. This means that one-half of the families in the City
had incomes below this value and one-half had incomes
above this value. The comparable figure for the SMSA
was $7,971. The median income for negro families in the
City was $4,508.
Families with income less than $5,000 were 28.6 percent
of all families in the City, while families with income of
$15,000 or more constituted 1.7 percent of the families.
Thus, 54.7 percent of the families had incomes between
$5,000 and $15,000. The table below shows comparable
data for Pensacola and the SMSA as a whole.
Distribution of Family Income in 1969
City SMSA
Number Percent Number Percent
All Families ......................... 15,109 100.0 60,658 100,0
Less than $3,000 .................. 2,349 15.5 8,368 13.8
$3,000to $4,999 ............. 1,970 13.0 7,855 12.8
$5,000 to $6,999 .................. 1,963 13.0 9,551 15 '
$7,000to $9,999 .................. 2,866 19.0 13,762 22.7
$10,000 to $14,999 .............. 3,439 22.8 13,776 22,7
$15,000 to $24,999 .............. 1,957 13.0 6,010 9.9
$25,000 or More .................. 565 3.7 1,336 2,2
Median Income ................ 8,305 — 7,971
The median income for unrelated individuals in the City
was $2,113 as compared to $2,048 for all unrelated indivi
duals in the SMSA.
On a per capita income basis, every man, woman and
child in the City averaged $2,759. The per capita income
throughout the SMSA was $2,525.
1015
V. MAJOR INDUSTRIES
In Pensacola there were more persons employed in pro
fessional and related services that in any other industrial
category. The second and third largest industries were
wholesale and retail trade and manufacturing, respective
ly. The complete list of major industrial groups is shown
below.
Industry of the Employed, for City and SMSA
City SMSA
Number Percent Number Percent
Total Employed ...............
Agriculture, Forestry &
20,810 100.0 75,319 100.0
Fishing ............... 243 1.2 1,438 1.9
Mining ............................. 27 0.1 124 0.2
Construction ..................... 1,440 6.9 6,395 8.5
Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . 2,417 11.6 13,626 18.1
Durable Goods . . . . . . . . 689 3.3 3,119 4.1
Nondurable G oods........ 1,728 8.3 10,507 13.9
1016
EXHIBIT 25
Population
Population Trends
Racial Composition
Population by Tract
Age Distribution^
1017
POPULATION
The 1970 population of Northwest Florida represented
5.1 percent of the total population of Florida. From 1960
to 1970, regional population grew more rapidly than that
of the United States or the Southeast in general. However,
the population growth rate has had its advantages in that
many communities in South Florida have experienced
serious problems because of the rapid growth rate. North
west Florida has experienced a gradual, but consistant
growth rate, which allows for proper planning.
The greatest population of this region, which includes
Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Walton counties, is
concentrated in Escambia County. Of the five regional
communities with a population of 10,000 or more, four
are located in Escambia County.
Unlike other parts of the State that have, or are becom
ing increasingly hesitant in regard to residential and in
dustrial development both because of population density
problems and soil limitations, the Pensacola Metropolitan
Area has few density constraints, and even fewer soil
limitations.
If past trends show a population mix that is not
characteristic of mature economic and social growth, pro
jected trends indicate a more positive growth pattern. Pro
jections based strictly upon past trends (which may be ap
propriate in some cases) indicate a conservative trend or
growth at a relatively low rate during the sixties. However,
there are a number of barometers and indications that the
Pensacola Metro Area will experience a more rapid growth
rate during the next decade. The addition of several
1018
million square feet of retail shopping space is indicative, at
least, of changes in population dispersion patterns. A
number of large residential developments are appearing
throughout the Pensacola area, and represent substantial
investments. The Jay oil field phenomenon has con
tributed both population and disposable income to the
Pensacola economy. Tourism, once only present in South
Florida, is fast becoming one our largest industries. The
gulf beaches along Northwest Florida are attracting
tourists at an ever increasing rate.
The Pensacola Metro Area is characterized by youth.
The medium age is 24.3 years, as compared to 32.3 years
for the State of Florida. On one hand the Region is ex
pected to increase its share of retirees and, on the other,
decrease the proportions of its population under five
years. There is no single reason for this virtually universal
phenomenon (except maybe “zero population growth”).
However, the fact that the mature labor force will remain
within the Region in response to employment and residen
tial opportunities is an indication of a healthy labor
market. The fact that the percentage of our population
over age sixty-five in increasing reflects the region’s in
creasing attraction for retirees, and its diminished pattern
of out-migration.
Approximately 25 percent of the Pensacola Metro Area
population was classified Rural according to the 1970 cen
sus. The population of Rural areas has fallen steadily since
1960. Between 1960 and 1970 the area has experienced a 40
percent increase in Urban residents.
Although the City of Pensacola has a population of ap
proximately 60,000 within the city limits, there is a popula
tion of over 175,000 residents within a 10-mile radius.
1019
POPULATION TRENDS
Following are actual population figures for
1930, 1940, 1950, 1960 and 1970, estimates for
1975; and projections for 1980 and 1985.
Population estimates and projections may vary
slightly according to the agency making the
estimate or projection. Although figures may
vary, all planners foresee a healthy population
growth rate for the Pensacola Metropolitan
Area.
City of Escambia
Year Pensacola County
1930 31,305 53,594
1940 37,449 74,594
1950 43,479 112,706
1960 56,752 173,829
1970 59,507 205,334
1975* 61,008 241,734
1980** 62,547 269,508
1985** 64,124 320,088
♦Estimate **Projection
SOURCE: United States and Florida Departments of Commerce
City of Escambia
Population Composition: Pensacola County
Total Population 59,707 205,334
Non-White Population 19,968 42,320
Percent of Non-Whites 33.6% 20.6%
S O U R C E : 1970 U .S . C ensus
Santa Rosa
County Pensacola SMSA
17,083
16,085
18,554
29,547
37,741
52,438
57,895
65,814
70,677
90,752
131,260
203,376
243,075
294,172
327,403
385,902
Santa Rosa
County Pensacola SMSA
37,741
2,249
6.0%
243,075
44,569
18.4%
1020
Population by Age Group: 1970
Escambia County
Santa Rosa County
PENSACOLA SMSA
State of Florida
(Source: Florida Dept, of Commerce)
Population by Sex: 1970
Escambia County
Santa Rosa County
PENSACOLA SMSA
State of Florida
Under 18
74,104
13,859
87,963
,112,275
MALE
102,348
19,362
121,710
3,274,895
(Source: Florida Dept, o f Commerce)
18-44
81,119
15,566
96,685
2,224,662
% of Total
Population
49.8%
51.3%
50.0%
48.2%
45-64
36,911
6,030
42,941
1,466,816
FEMALE
102,986
18,379
121,365
3,514,548
Over 65
13,200
2,286
15,486
985,690
% of Total
Population
50.2%
48.7%
50.0%
51.8%
1021
Population by Race: 1970
White % White Negro % Negro Other % Other
Escambia County 162,993 79.4% 40,384 19.7% 1,957 0.9%
Santa Rosa County 35,317 93.6% 2,157 5.7% 267 0.7%
PENSACOLA SMSA 198,310 81.5% 42,541 17.5% 2,224 0.9%
State of Florida 5,711,411 84.1% 1,049,578 15.5% 28,454 0.4%
(Source: Florida Dept.
Population Density:
of Commerce)
1970 Population
Land Area in
Square Miles
Population Per
Square Mile
Escambia County 205,334 657 325.7
Santa Rosa County 37,741 1,024 38.5
Pensacola SMSA 243,075 1,681 182.1
(Source: Florida Dept, o f Commerce)
1022
This chart shows the population and percentages of changes for the Pensacola Metro Area, the
Southeast, the State of Florida, and the United States, between the 1960 and 1970 census:
Pensacola Metro Area
State of F lorida........
Southeast ..................
United S tates............
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census — 1970
1960 1970 Percent of
Change
203,379 243,075 19.5%
4,951,560 6,789,443 37.1%
24,845,395 28,636,357 15.3%
179,32-
203,16-
5,369 5,699 13.3%
1023
Escambia County is the most populous of the regional counties which include Escambia, Santa
Rosa, Okaloosa and Walton. The following chart shows population increases, and percentages of in
creases between 1960 and 1970:
Escambia C ounty ....................................
Santa Rosa C ounty .................... ...........
Okaloosa C ounty ....................................
Walton C ounty ........................................
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census — 1970
1960 1970 Percent of
Change
173,829 205,334 18.1%
29,547 37,741 27.7%
61,175 88,187 44.2%
15,576 16,078 3.3%
1024
Population by Sex and Race Pensacola SMSA Florida South United States
M ale......................................... 50.2%
Fem ale.................................................... 49.8%
W hite ...................................................... 81.6%
Nonwhite................................................ 18.4%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census — 1970
Population Change and Net
Year and Escambia
Population Change County
Population: 1960 173,829
Population: 1970 205,334
Change: 1960 to 1970 31,505
Percent of Change 18.1%
Births: 1960 to 1970 46,813
Deaths: 1960 to 1970 13,589
Net Migration -1,719
48.2% 48.4% 48.7%
51.8% 51.6% 51.3%
84.1% 76.6% 87.4%
15.9% 23.4% 12.6%
Migration: 1960 to 1970
Santa Rosa
County Pensacola SMSA
29,547 203,376
37,741 243,075
8,194 39,699
27.7% 19.5%
9,548 56,361
2,308 15,897
954 -765
(Source: U.S. Dept, of Commerce)
1025
Population of Principal Cities in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties:
1960 1970 1975
ESCAMBIA COUNTY 173,829 205,334 214,017
Cantonment NA 3,241 NA
Century NA 2,479 NA
Myrtle Grove NA 16,186 NA
Pensacola 56,752 59,507 63,138
South Flomation 462 329 472
Warrington NA 15,825 NA
West Pensacola NA 20,924 NA
SANTA ROSA COUNTY
Gulf Breeze NA 4,190 5,186
Jay 672 646 779
Milton 4,108 5,360 5,677
Pace NA 1,776 NA
Whiting Field NA 3,439 NA
NA: Not Available
(S ource: F lo rid a D ep t, o f C om m erce)
1026
1027
Natality and Mortality:
Generally speaking, birth rates in the Pensacola area
continue to be higher, and death rates lower than those
evidenced in the State of Florida and the United States.
Total number of births are decreasing while the relative
death rate has remained more stable. However, in com
parison, the rate and number of births remain high.
In 1960, Escambia County had a birth rate of 30.9 and
Santa Rosa County a birth rate of 33.4 births per 1,000
population, as compared to 23.1 for Florida and 23.7 for
the Nation . The birth rate has declined considerably since
then. In 1957, the birth rate for Escambia County was
16.9, and for Santa Rosa County 17.1, while the birth rate
for the state was 13.8. The birth rate, though declining, is
likely to remain above average because of the relatively
young population in the area. It is interesting to note that
the non-white birth rate has not decreased as much as the
total birth rate and, in fact, is increasing in Santa Rosa
County.
Birth Rates per 1,000 Persons
1960 1965 1975
Escambia County 30.9 23.5 21.7
Santa Rosa County 33.4 25.1 22.4
State of Florida 23.1 18.4 13.4
United States 23.3 19.4 15.0
(Source: Florida Dept. of Vital Statistics)
The crude death rates for the Pensacola are in 1960 were
7.1 for Escambia County and 7.2 for Santa Rosa County,
as compared with 9.6 for Florida and 9.5 for the Nation.
1028
(Based on number of deaths per 1,000 population). Once
again, the youth of the area’s population is a factor. By
1975 the death rate for Escambia County was 7.3 and for
Santa Rosa County 6.7. Non-white death rates were higher
than white death rates in both Escambia and Santa Rosa
Counties.
Principal causes for death for the Pensacola area do not
vary appreciably from those for the entire State or for the
Nation. Heart diseases, cancer, cerebrovascular diseases
and accidents continue to take a high toll of the popula
tion. More than 70 per cent of all deaths in the area are at
tributed to one of these four killers.
Death Rates per 1,000 Persons
1950 1965 1975
Escambia County 7.1 7.3 7.3
Santa Rosa County 6.3 5 .2 6.7
State of Florida 9 .9 10.5 11.6
United States 9.5 9 .4 9.8
(Source: Florida Dept, of Vital Statistics)
RACIAL COMPOSITION:
The 1970 U.S. Census showed that Escambia County
accounted for approximately 9 4% of all non-white
families in the Pensacola metro-area. A little over 50% of
the non-white families resided within the city limits of
Pensacola. A little over 50% of the non-white families
resided within the city limits of Pensacola. Although the
non-white population accounts for 20.6% of the areas
total population, they account for approximately 44 per
cent of all people with incomes below the poverty level.
1029
Distribution of Non-White Population:
CITY OF PENSACOLA 1960
Total Population 56,752
Non-White Population 18,672
Percentage of Non-Whites 32.9%
ESCAMBIA COUNTY
Total Population 173,829
Non-White Population 36,404
Percentage of Non-Whites 20.9%
SANTA ROSA COUNTY
Total Population 29,547
Non-White Population 2,163
Percentage of Non-Whites 7.3%
PENSACOLA SMSA
Total Population 203,547
Non-White Population 38,567
Percentage of Non-Whites 19.0%
59,707
19,968
33.6%
1970
205,334
42,320
20.6%
37,741
2,249
6 .0 %
243,075
44,569
18.4%
General Characteristics of the Negro Population:
Pensacola
POPULATION SMSA
T otal-a ll ages 42,309
Male —all ages 19,979
Fem ale-all ages 22,330
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Persons 16 Years old and over 5,163
Not attending school 2,627
Not HS Grads 1,259
YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED
Persons 25 years and over 18,300
No School completed 917
Elementary: 1 to 4 yrs. 2,675
5 to 7 yrs. 3,453
8 y e a r s 1 , 7 7 4
Escambia Santa Rosa City of
County County Pensacola
40,344 1,965 19,674
19,095 884 8,952
21,249 1,081 10,722
4,880 283 2,159
2,480 147 1,116
1,208 51 560
17,516 784 9,434
907 10 362
2,552 123 1,330
3,299 154 1,764
1 , 7 1 9 5 5 9 9 9
1030
Years o f School Completed (con’t)
Pensacola
SMSA
Escambia
County
Santa Rosa
County
City of
Pensacola
High School: 1-3 yrs. 4,410 4,168 242 2,192
4 yrs. 3,495 3,374 121 1,897
College: 1-3 years 942 902 40 474
4 yrs. or more 634 595 39 416
Median School years
Completed 9.2 9.2 9.6 9.4
Percent HS Grads 27.7% 27.5% 25.5% 29.5%
(Source: U.S. Census — 1970)
missing pages 961 to 969
photo page 970 Census T racts....
1031
Census Tracts
1032
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
POPULATION BY TRACT
Percent
Total Negro Number of
Population Population Houses
Tract No. 1 260 41% 119
Tract No. 2 3,820 51% 1,689
Tract No. 3 4,659 13% 1,759
Tract No. 4 5,932 93% 1,799
Tract No. 5 2,203 35% 941
Tract No. 6 5,116 96% 1,871
Tract No. 7 3,232 53% 1,169
Tract No. 8 5,601 23% 2,411
Tract No. 9 3,372 4% 1,377
Tract No. 10 7,029 — 2,335
Tract No. 11 8,302 — 2,414
Tract No. 12 6,182 1% 2,063
Tract No. 13 5,854 9% 1,830
Percent Percent Percent
Avg. Value Population Population Population
of Houses Under 18 19 to 61 Over 62
$15,700 15% 61% 24%
$ 8,600 30% 50% 20%
$10,100 30% 56% 14%
$ 8,700 43% 47% 10%
$19,000 29% 52% 19%
$ 8,400 37% 49% 14%
$ 8,700 39% 56% 15%
$13,500 24% 54% 22%
$20,800 24% 57% 19%
$25,200 35% 57% 8%
$20,300 41% 56% 3%
$16,400 30% 62% 8%
$18,700 36% 57% 7%
1033
Percent
Total
Population
Negro
Population
Number of
Houses
TOTALS - City
of Pensacola 61,562 32% 21,777
Tract No. 14 6,809 22% 2,080
Tract No. 15 3,441 96% 1,050
Tract No. 16 3,540 82% 942
Tract No. 17 4,738 39% 1,437
Tract No. 18 4,820 10% 1,762
Tract No. 19 3,037 — 1,195
Tract No. 20 3,471 33% 1,190
Tract No. 21 6,720 1% 2,544
Tract No. 22 6,684 5% 2,385
Tract No. 23 6,861 4% 2,144
Tract No. 24 4,816 4% 448
Tract No. 27 2,828 29% 980
Tract No. 28 8,413 1% 2,071
T ra c t N o . 29 5,575 — 1,730
T ra c t N o . 30 6 ,753 2°7o 2,008
Percent Percent Percent
Avg. Value Population Population Populatio
of Houses Under 18 19 to 61 Over 62
$14,930* 37.7% 48.3% 14.0%
$14,200 41% 53% 6%
$11,200 34% 61% 5%
$ 8,200 43% 46% 11%
$ 9,100 44% 48% 8%
$ 8,700 33% 54% 13%
$ 9,000 30% 55% 15%
$ 9,400 38% 54% 8%
$11,400 32% 60% 8%
$11,500 37% 55% 8%
$17,000 28% 60% 12%
** 22% 78% - %
$ 9,100 39% 54% 7%
$17,500 31% 65% 4%
$11,900 39% 55% 6 %
$14,700 41 °7o 55 °7o 4 °7 o
1034
Percent
Total Negro Number of
Population Population Houses
Tract No. 31 4,886 l°7o 1,345
Tract No. 32 7,340 47% 1,916
Tract No. 33 6,612 — 2,000
Tract No. 34 4,273 13% 1,329
Tract No. 35 9,933 11% 2,568
Tract No. 36 4,497 1% 1,239
TOTALS:
Tracts 14-36 116,048 19.0% 34,363
TOTALS:
Tracts 1-13 61,562 32.2% 21,777
GRAND TOTALS:
Tracts 1-36 177,610 24.1% 56,140
* Average
** Not Available
Source: (U.S. Census — 1970)
Percent Percen t Percent
A vg. V alue P o p u la tio n P o p u la tio n P o p u la tio n
of Houses Under 18
$13,800 45%
$12,400 47%
$13,000 40%
$11,900 40%
$15,700 36%
$20,400 35%
$11,909* 39.9%
$14,930* 37.7%
$13,460* 34.9%
19 to 61 Over 62
53% 2%
49% 4%
56% 4%
53% 7%
59% 5%
60% 5%
56.3% 7.0%
48.3% 14.0%
55.4% 9.7%
1035
1036
EXHIBIT 32
Selected Deeds Conveying Property
Located in Escambia County
DULLAS TRACT
Inre: Traders Brokerage Co., et al., (Restrictions), filed
April 16, 1940. 3 p.m.
State of Florida:
County of Escambia:
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
WHEREAS, we the undersigned are owners of the prop
erty in the City of Pensacola, Florida, and more par
ticularly described as follows: Lots 19 to 28, both in
clusive, in Block 20; owners, A. C. Blount and Mary S.
Blount, husband and wife. Lots 9 to 11, both inclusive, in
Block 19; owner, Traders Brokerage Company, a cor
poration.
Said property being in North Hill Highlands, being the
Dallas Land Company’s resubdivision of part of the
Dallas Tract, as shown by map of same recorded in Deed
Book 62 at Page 244 and Deed Book 64 at Page 572 of the
public records of Escambia County, State of Florida.
WHEREAS, we the owners of the above described
properties are desirous of placing restrictions on the use of
the said property for residential purposes:
THEREFORE, THESE PRESENTS WITNESSETH:
That the parties to this agreement, for and in considera
tion of the mutual covenants herein contained and the fur
ther consideration of one ($1.00) Dollar in hand paid by
each of the parties to the other, the receipt whereof is
hereby acknowledged, and for other good and valuable
consideration, do herein and hereby covenant and agree
1037
one with the other, for ourselves, our heirs, successors,
assigns and legal representatives, that as to said property
above described, the following restrictions placed upon
our respective holdings as come within the boundaries
above described:
(a) All lots in the tract shall be known and described as
residential lots, and no structures shall be erected on any
residential building plot other than one detached single
family dwelling not to exceed two stories in height and a
one or two car garage.
(b) No building shall be erected on any residential
building plot nearer than 20 feet to the front lot line, nor
nearer than five (5) feet to any side lot line. The side-line
restriction shall not apply to garage located on the rear
one-quarter of lot, except that on corner lots no structure
shall be permitted nearer than eight (8) feet to the side
street line.
(c) No race or nationality other than Caucasian shall use
or occupy any building or lot, except that this covenant
shall not prevent occupancy by domestic servants or a dif
ferent race or nationality employed by an owner or tenant.
(d) No building shall be erected on any residential
building plot having an area of less than eighty-four hun
dred (8400) square feet or a frontage of less than sixty (60)
feet.
(e) No noxirous or offensive trade shall be carried on
upon any lot nor shall anything be done thereon which
may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the
neighborhood.
(f) No structure shall be moved onto any lot unless it
meets with the approval of the committee hereunafter
1038
referred to, or if there is no committee, it shall conform to
and be in harmony with existing structures in the tract.
(g) No building shall be erected on any lot until the
design and location thereof have been approved in writing
by a committee appointed by the suddivider or elected by a
majority of the owners of lots in said subdivision.
However, in the event that such committee is not in ex
istence or fails to approve or disapprove such design or
location within fifteen (15) days, then such approval will
not be required provided the design and location on the lot
conform to and are in harmony with existing structures in
the tract. In any case either with or without the approval
of the committee, no dwelling costing less than Thirty-five
Hundred ($3500) Dollars shall be permitted on any lot in
the tract, and the ground floor square foot area thereof
shall not be less than nine hundred (900) square feet in the
case of a one-story structure nor less than seven hundred
(700) square feet in the case of a one-and-one-half or two-
story structure.
(h) No trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn, or
other cut buildings erected in the tract shall at any time be
used as a residence temporarily or permanently, nor shall
any residence of a temporary character be permitted.
(i) These covenants and restructions are to run with
the land and shall be binding on all of the parties and all
persons claiming under them until January 1, 1970, at
which time said covenants and restrictions shall terminate.
(j) If the parties hereto, or any of them or their heirs
or assigns, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the
covenants or restrictions herein before January 1, 1970, it
shall be lawful for any other person or persons owning any
other lots in said development or subdivision to prosecute
1039
any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or
persons violating or attempting to violate any such cove
nant or restriction and either to prevent him or them from
so doing or to recover damages or other dues for such
violation.
(k) Invalidation of any one of these covenants by judg
ment or court order shall in no wise effect any of the other
provisions which shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We hereunto set our hands
and seals this 11 day of April, 1940.
WITNESSES: Traders Brokerage Co. (Seal)
LeeDaniell By O. I. Semmes, (Seal)
C. C. Wehmeier, (Corporate Seal) Pres.
As to O. J. Semmes.
Malcolm Yonge, A.C. Blount, (Seal)
Carroll Watson
As to A. C. Blount and Mary S. Blount, (Seal)
Mary S. Blount.
#474
Inre: Terry Richardson, et al., Restrictions, filed July 31,
1940. 11 A.M.
State of Florida:
County of Escambia:
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That:
WHEREAS, we the undersigned owners of property inthe
City of Pensacola, Florida, and more particularly de
scribed as follows; To-wit:
Terry Richardson and Virginia L. Richardson, owners
°f Lots 5 and 6; Harry E. Fowler and Nellie R. Fowler,
1040
owners of Lots 7 and 8; J. E. Driskell and Beatrice N.
Driskell, owners of lots 9 and 10; Crawford Rainwater and
Betty G. Rainwater, owners of lots 11 and 12; all being in
Block 176 of the Salter Tract;
Terry Richardson and Virginia L. Richardson, owners
of lots 16 to 19 both inclusive in Block 177 of the Salter
Tract;
All Block 178, Salter Tract, B. A. Murphy as agent for
Mary E. Murphy.
Lots 1 to 4, inclusive in Block 1 North Highlands, B. A.
Murphy as agent for Mary E. Murphy.
WHEREAS, we the owners of the above described
property are desirous of placing restrictions on the use of
the said property for residential purposes:
Therefore, These Presents Witnesseth: That the parties
to this agreement, for and in consideration of the mutual
covenants herein contained and the further consideration
of One ($1.00) Dollar in hand paid by each of the parties
to the other, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,
and for other good and valuable consideration, do herein
and hereby covenant and agree one with the other, for
ourselves, our heirs, successor and legal representatives,
that as to said property above described, the following
restrictions placed upon our respective holdings as come
within the boundaries above described;
(a) All lots in the tract shall be known as residential
lots, and no structure shall be erected on any lot other than
one detached single-family dwelling not exceeding two
stories in height and a one or two car garage.
(b) No building shall be erected on any residential
building plot nearer than 25 feet to the front lot line, nor
1041
nearer than Five (5) feet to any side lot line. The side line
restriction shall not apply to any garage located on the rear
one-quarter of lot, except that on corner lots no structure
shall be permitted nearer than Eight (8) feet to the side
street line.
(c) No race or nationality other than Caucasian shall
use or occupy any building on lot, except that this cove
nant shall not apply to domestic servants of a different
race or nationality employed by the owner or tenant.
(d) No building shall be erected on any residential
building plot having an area of less than 7000 square feet
or a frontage of less than Fifty (50) feet. Block 178 Salter
Tract is hereby expressly excepted from this covenant
because of its shape and size.
(e) No noxious or offensive trade shall be carried on
upon any lot nor shall anything be done thereon which
may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the
neighborhood.
(f) No structure shall be moved on to any lot unless it
meets with the approval of the committee herein after
referred to, or if there is no committee, it shall conform to
and be in harmony with existing structures in the tract.
(g) No building shall be erected on any lot until the
design or location thereof have been approved in writing
by a committee appointed or elected by a majority of the
undersigned owners of the lots herein described. However,
in the event such a committee is not in existence or fails to
approve or disapprove such design or location within fif
teen days, then such approval will not be required pro
vided the design and location on the lot conform to and
are in harmony with the existing structures in the tract. In
any case with or without the approval of the committee,
1042
no dwelling shall be erected costing less than Two Thou
sand Five Hundred ($2500.00) Dollars on any lot in the
tract, and the ground floor area thereof shall not be less
than Nine Hundred (900) square feet in the case of a one-
story structure nor less than Seven Hundred (700) square
feet in the case of one and one-half or two story structure.
(h) No trailer, basement, shack, tent, garage, barn, or
other outbuilding erected in the tract shall at any time be
used as a residence temporarily or permanently, nor shall
any residence of a temporary character be permitted. This
does not apply to quarters to be occupied by domestic
servants.
(i) Any structure erected on Lots 16 to 19, Block 177
Salter Tract, herein above described shall have its main
front entrance facing North or East.
(J) These covenants and restrictions are to run with
the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons
claiming under them until January 1, 1970, at which time
the covenants and restriction shall terminate.
(k) If the parties hereto or any of them, or their heirs
or assigns, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the
covenants or restrictions herein, before January 1,1970, it
shall be lawful for any other person or persons claiming
under them or owning said lots named herein in said sub
division to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity
against the person or persons violating or attempting to
violate any such covenant or restriction and either prevent
him or them from so doing or to recover damages or other
dues for such violation.
(l) Invalidation of any one of these covenants by judg
ment or court order shall in no wise effect of the other pro
visions which shall remain in full force and effect.
1043
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we hereunto set our hands
and seals this 19th day of April, A. D., 1940.
* * *
Inre: R. M. Jernigan, et al., (Restrictions #1005), filed
Aug. 23, 1940. 10 A. M.
State of Florida:
County of Escambia:
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT:
Whereas, we the undersigned are the owners of the proper
ty in the City of Pensacola, Florida, and more particularly
described as follows:
Lots 25, 26, 27 and 28, Block 9, North Highlands -
Owner, Mrs. Mary C. Keyser.
Lots 23 and 24, Block 9, North Highlands — Owner, R.
M. Jernigan. of the North Highlands;
Lots above named are described according to map of
said plan North Highlands being a sub-division of Section
eighteen (18), Township Two (2) South, Range Thirty (30)
West, Pensacola, Florida, Escambia County, Florida.
WHEREAS, we the owners of the above described pro
perties are desirous of placing restrictions on the use of the
said property for residential purposes;
THEREFORE, THESE PRESENTS WITNESSETH:
That the parties to this agreement, for and in considera
tion of the mutual covenants herein contained and the fur
ther consideration of One ($1.00) Dollar in hand paid by
each of the parties to the other, the receipt whereof is
hereby acknowledged, and for other good and valuable
consideration, do herein and hereby covenant and agree
one with the other, for ourselves, our hairs, successors,
assigns and legal representatives, that as to said property
1044
above described, the following restrictions placed upon
our respective holdings as come within the boundaries
above described:
(a) All lots in the tract shall be known and described as
residential lots, and no structures shall be erected on any
residental building plot other than one detached single
family dwelling not to exceed two stories in height and a
one of two car garage.
(b) No building shall be erected on any residental
building plot nearer than 15 feet to the front lot line, nor
nearer than five (5) feet to any side lot line. The side line
restriction shall not apply to garage located on the near
one-quarter of lot, except that on corner lots no structure
shall be permitted nearer than eight (8) feet to the side
street line.
(c) No race or nationality other than Caucasian shall
use or occupy any building on lot, except that this cove
nant shall not prevent occupancy by domestic servants of a
different race or nationality employed by an owner or te
nant.
(d) No residental lot shall be resubdivided into
building plots having less than six (6,000) thousand square
feet of area, or a width of less than sixty (60) feet each, nor
shall any building be erected on any residental building
plot having an area of less than sixty (60) square feet or a
frontage of less than sixty (60) feet.
(e) No noxious or offensive trade shall be carried on
upon any lot nor shall anything be done thereon which
may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the
neighborhood.
1045
(f) No structure shall be moved onto any lot unless it
meets with the approval of the committee hereinafter
referred to, or if there is no committee, it shall conform to
and be in harmony with existing structures in the tract.
(g) No building shall be erected on any lot until the
design and location thereof have been approved in writing
by a committee appointed by the subdivider or elected by a
majority of the owners of lots in said sub-division.
However, in the event that such a committee is not in ex
istence or fails to approve or disapprove such design or
location within 15 days, then such approval will not be re
quired provided the design and location on the lot con
forms to and are in harmony with existing structures in the
tract. In any case either with or without the approval of
the committee, no dwelling costing less than Three
($3,000.00) Thousand dollars shall be permitted on any lot
in the tract, and the ground floor square foot area thereof
shall not be less than Nine hundred (900) square feet in the
case of a one-story structure nor less than seven hundred
(700) square feet in the case of a one-and one-half or two-
story structure.
(h) No trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn, or
other outbuildings erected in the tract shall at any time be
used as a residence temporarily or permanently, nor shall
any residence of a temporary character be permitted.
(i) These covenants and restrictions are to run with
land and shall be binding on all the parties and all persons
claiming under them until January 1, 1970, at which time
said covenants and restrictions shall terminate.
0) If the parties hereto, or any of them, or their heirs
or assigns, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the
covenants or restrictions herein before January 1, 1970, it
1046
shall be lawful for any other person or persons owning any
other lots in said development or subdivision to prosecute
any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or
persons violating or attempting to violate any such cove
nant or restriction and either to prevent him or them from
so doing or to recover damages or other dues for such
violation.
(k) Invalidation of any one of these covenants by
judgment or court order shall in no wise affect any of the
other provisions which shall remain in full force and ef
fect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our
hands and seals this 20th day of Aug., 1940.
Witnesses:
R.C. Caldwell, Mary C. Keyser, (Seal)
J. Whiting Hyer, R.M. Jerrigan, (Seal)
C.C. Hounstein,
Cleo Jersan.
STATE OF ALABAMA
COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA
Before the subscriber, a Notary Public, personally ap
peared R. M. Jernigan, to me.
E X H IB IT 33
V O TES C A S T F O R A L L C A N D ID A T E S IN S E L E C T E D P R E C IN C T S
September 1976 Primary (including percentage turnout)
Black:
Precinct
County Commission
1 3 5
49 273
36%
257
34%
217
28%
76 198
34%
199
34%
153
27%
90 152
36%
146
34%
121
28%
91 202
32%
193
31%
158
25%
28 479
37%
450
35%
391
30%
School Board
2 4* 6 7*
219
29%
387
52%
230
31%
376
50%
158
27%
292
51%
155
27%
264
46%
105
25%
210
49%
106
25%
206
48%
153
24%
271
43%
136
22%
266
42%
356
28%
611
47%
360
28%
601
47%
Total registered
749
575
425
630
1291
1047
White:
County Commission
Precinct 1 3 5
18 133 131 144
57% 56% 62%
33 189 183 205
53% 52% 58%
55 322 315 317
52% 51% 51%
87 391 391 378
42% 42% 41%
35 702 695 677
50% 50% 49%
46 491 485 476
54% 53% 52%
School Board
2 4* 6
114 106 117
49% 45% 50%
163 147 157
46% 41% 44%
302 293 294
49% 47% 47%
380 365 358
41% 39% 39%
654 655 655
47% 47% 47%
443 458 461
49% 50% 51%
7* Total registered
158
68%
234
135
38%
355
237
38%
619
340
37%
929
587
42%
1394
424
47%
908
1048
1049
White Precincts
18
33
55
87
35
46
96
107
40.9%
33.7%
29.7%
47.9%
46.5%
51.6%
51.6%
49.1%
Average Turnout — 42-67%
May 2, 1976 — Special School Board Referendum
Black Precincts
49
76
90
91
28
14%
14%
14%
9%
9%
18
33
55
87
35
46
96
107
White Precincts
27%
17%
16%
18%
21%
36%
37%
28%
Average Turnout — 20%
School BoardCounty Commission
Precinct 1 3 5 2 4* 6 7* Total registered
96 664
48%
650
47%
637
46%
624
45%
635
46%
626
45%
590
43%
1382
107 729
47%
706
46%
708
46%
692
45%
700
45%
718
47%
667
43%
—
*Black candidates: Spence for Place 4; Jenkins for Place 7. 1050
1051
VOTER TURNOUT SUMMARY
1976 Elections
March 9, 1976 Presidential Preference Primary
49
Black Precincts
58%
76 56%
90 56%
91 51%
28 46%
18
White Precincts
58%
33 49%
55 61%
87 56%
35 59%
46 62%
96 60%
107 59%
Average Turnout — 57%
March 9, 1976 - Constitutional Amendment to limit
taxes for water management districts
Black Precincts
49 22.1%
76 19.1%
90 19.1%
91 14.4%
28 15.2%
1052
E X H IB IT 55
Materials Relating to the City of Pensacola
Adoption of At-large Election System in 1959
ADVICE SLIP
TO: Jay __________________________
SUBJECT:____________________
Date: 12-29-75
_Please note and file
__Please note and return
to me
__Please note and see me
about this
_Please handle this
__For your information
__Your comments, please
__To be typed__copies
__To be xerox’d _copies
__Please answer with copy
me
__Prepare information for
me to reply
__Returning to your files
__To be filed
__To be checked
Additional Remarks:
Keep this for info & reference, if she requests this of
Council.
10-26-76
Mrs. McMillan
rec’d copies of past election res. from 1955 on ward
maps, etc. on & subj.
From:
1053
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Pensacola News
Journal,
Oct.
page 1A
MEMORANDUM
Don J. C aton, City A ttorney
June 17, 1977
Jenkins v. City o f Pensacola
1959 Referendum to change to at-large
elections. Relevant material and News
Journal was supportative in their news
articles and editorials for the change to
at-large elections for City Council. To
quote from an October 6, 1959 News
Journal editorial, “. . .We believe it is
better for all the people to have a say in
the election of all the Councilmen,
rather than being restricted to just six
of them.”
Out of 10,874 people eligible to vote,
only 2,029 voted. One thousand seven
hundred twenty-two were for the
change, 307 against. All precincts voted
for the change except one — Precinct
#90, “. . . a predominately Negro area
around the J. Lee Pickens School, cast
10 votes against the change and 7 for.”
There were 308 qualified black voters in
this precinct and zero (0) white.
There are seven attached News articles
that refer to the election, which seems
to point out that there was adequate
news coverage. As can be seen from the
vote in Precinct 90, (308 qualified black
voters — only 17 voted), interest or
1054
concern was not displayed for the elec
tion in this black precinct, which may
be an indication of other black
precincts.
/s /
Thomas Bell
MPA Intern
TB/dle.
Attachments
22 December 1975
Mrs. Charlene Nimmo
4655 Mariana Avenue
Pensacola, FL 32504
Dear Mrs. Nimmo:
This is in response to the note which you wrote to me a
week or so ago. In your note you requested my advice on
the procedure for changing some of the City Council posi
tions to elections by district rather than at large. You in
dicated in you rnote that your inquiry comes from the
Chamber Minority Involvement Task Force.
The duties of my office involve several areas including the
giving of advice to the City Council on various matters. I
am not allowed to give specific advice or opinions to
private individuals or groups unless specifically instructed
to do so by the City Council. Therefore, I will be unable to
respond to your question directly. If the City Council
becomes interested in this particular subject and wishes to
request my advice on it, then, of course, I would respond
to them.
I might suggest, however, that you contact the City Clerk’s
office or the City Manager’s office on this particular sub
ject. You will find that the current procedure of electing
City Councilmen was changed some years back to the pre
sent system. The City Clerk’s office may have some infor
mation indicating why that change was made.
Sincerely yours
/s / Don J. Caton
City Attorney
1056
Mr. Faison:
Yes, she wanted my advice too. I told her that a Special
Act would be necessary with (I assumed) approval in a
referendum as was the case in 1959 when the present
system was adopted. She asked “how” and I replied
somewhat nebulously suggesting that if the LWV (or
whatever group) was interested, they could propose it to
the Delegation altho I was sure they would want Coun
cil input. This was before she talked to Don Caton. I told
her that he handled our Legislation for the Council and
she seemed to be wondering out loud (or probing) as to
whether there would be much support in Council for her
proposal. I discussed briefly the “Philosophy” behind the
present system and its advantages. She lightly debated it
(hinting about minority dissatisfaction and feelings of be
ing disenfranchised which I could smell coming)
whereupon I told her it was essentially a political question
which I wasn’t in a position to argue. Then she must have
must have moved on to Don Caton.
In case we need it, I’ve dug up an the old info we’ve got
on this from the 1959 referendum.
Signature illegible...
1057
J 10/4/59
NOTICE
MUNICIPAL SPECIAL REFERENDUM ELECTION
THE CITY OF PENSACOLA
OCTOBER 6, 1959
ON THE QUESTION — Do you desire the City of Pen
sacola to change its present system of election for the of
fice of councilman to be elected within the City of Pen
sacola at large?
(Pursuant to the passage of 59-1730, Laws of Florida
1959)
Chas. H. Walker
City Clerk Comptroller
1058
RESOLUTION
No. 26-59
ADOPTED: AUGUST 20, 1959
A RESOLUTION TO BE ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE HOLDING
OF A REFERENDUM ELECTION ON OCTOBER 6,
1959; DESIGNATING THE CLERKS AND INSPEC
TORS OF EACH ELECTION DISTRICT FOR THE
HOLDING OF SAID ELECTION, WITH PROVI
SION FOR SUBSTITUTE OR ADDITIONAL
CLERKS AND INSPECTORS: DESIGNATING THE
PO LLIN G PLACES IN EACH ELECTION
DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION
OF SUCH LIST OF CLERKS, INSPECTORS AND
POLLING PLACES: PROVIDING FOR THE COM
PENSATION OF SAID CLERKS AND INSPEC
TORS: PROVIDING FOR THE COUNTING, CAN
VASSING AND CERTIFICATION OF THE
RESULTS OF THE VOTES CAST IN SAID ELEC
TION.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the passage of 59-1730,
Laws of Florida of 1959, a Special Referendum Election
shall be held on Tuesday - October 6, 1959 to determine
whether or not the composition of the City Council and
the term of the Councilmen of the City of Pensacola shall
be by a vote of all of the qualified electors of the City of
Pensacola at large and to alter and amend the existing
method of election for members of the City Council of the
City of Pensacola. That there shall be one clerk and three
inspectors of election and said clerks and inspectors of
1059
election are hereby named and designated and the follow
ing polling place in each election-district is hereby
designated as follows:
STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE
I.R.A. Gray. Secretary of State of the State of
Florida, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is
a true and correct copy of chapter 59-1730, Laws of
Florida, Regular Session 1959, as filed in this office.
Given under my hand and the Great Seal of
the State of Florida at Tallahassee, the Capital,
this the 6th day of July
A.D. 1959
/s / RW Gray
Secretary of State
1060
SECTION 2. REFERENDUM.
The City of Pensacola, through its designated election
officials, shall cause to be held within the City of Pen
sacola a referendum of all of the qualified voters qualified
in the last general election of the City of Pensacola to
determine whether or not this act shall become effective.
Said referendum shall be held in accordance with the laws
and ordinances of the City of Pensacola relating to general
elections and in the manner provided by law upon publica
tion of notice at least thirty (30) days prior to the holding
of said referendum election.
It shall be the duty of the City Council of the City of
Pensacola, Florida, to call such referendum within six (6)
months from the passage of this act and it becoming law.
That at such referendum the following proposition shall
be proposed to the qualified, registered voters of the City
of Pensacola, in words and figures substantially as
follows:
“Vote Yes or No on the following proposition
by marking X by the appropriate word in answer
to the proposition DO YOU DESIRE THE CITY
OF PENSACOLA TO CHANGE ITS PRE
SENT SYSTEM OF ELECTION FOR THE OF
FICE OF COUNCILMAN OF THE CITY OF
PENSACOLA BY REQUIRING COUNCIL-
MEN TO BE ELECTED WITHIN THE CITY
OF PENSACOLA AT LARGE”?
SECTION 3. All laws or parts of laws in conflict
herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4. This act shall become effective immediate
ly upon it becoming law for the purpose of calling and
holding the election herein provided for in the adoption of
1061
the amendment to the City Charter of the City of Pen
sacola provided for by this act.
If a majority of the qualified voters of the City of Pen
sacola, voting in the special referendum election herein
provided to be called and held for the purpose of approv
ing the amendment to the City Charter, vote in favor of
and for its ratification and approval, the same shall
become effective immediately as a part of the Charter of
Pensacola.
Became a law without the Governor’s approval.
Filed in Office Secretary of State June 20, 1959.
CERTIFICATE OF THE BOARD
OF CANVASSERS
FOR THE SPECIAL REFERENDUM ELECTION
HELD ON TUESDAY - OCTOBER 6, 1959
We, the undersigned Board of Canvassers designated to
canvass the returns of the Special Referendum Election
held in the several Election Districts of The City of Pen
sacola, Florida, on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1959, as re
quired by the provisions of RESOLUTION NO. 26-59,
adopted August 20, 1959, being a resolution “Providing
For The Holding Of The Referendum Election”, on Oc
tober 6, 1959, to determine if all analysis of the City Coun
cil should be elected by the city at large, do hereby certify
that we did on the 8th day of October, 1959, publicly pro
ceed to canvas the votes cast at said Special Referendum
Election for the determination of the method of election
of the Councilmen of the City of Pensacola, Florida, as
1062
shown by the returns certified to by the duly authorized
Clerks and Inspectors of the said Election, and as a result
of the said canvass, we do hereby certify that as a result of
said Special Referendum Election, the following is the
YES and NO vote:
DO YOU DESIRE THE CITY OF PEN
SACOLA TO CHANGE ITS PRESENT
SYSTEM OF ELECTION FOR THE OFFICE
OF COUNCILMAN OF THE CITY OF PEN
SACOLA BY REQUIRING COUNCILMEN
TO BE ELECTED WITHIN THE CITY OF
PENSACOLA AT LARGE?
YES 1722
NO 307
TOTAL VOTES CAST 2029
BOARD OF CANVASSERS
SPECIAL REFERENDUM
ELECTION OCTOBER 6, 1959
/s /__________
Chairman
________/s /
City Attorney
/s /
/%/ / s /
City Clerk-Comptroller Registration and Election
Committee
1063
Office of the
SECRETARY OF STATE
State of Florida
Tallahassee
March 1st, 1960
City of Pensacola
Attn: Mr. Chas. H. Walker
Director of Finance
Pensacola, Florida
Dear Mr. Walker:
I am in receipt of your letter of February 29th enclosing
copy of Certificate of the Board of Canvassers showing
results of the special referendum election held in the City
of Pensacola, Florida, on October 6, 1959, in pursuance
of the provisions of Chapter 59-1730, Laws of Florida,
Acts of 1959.
This is to advise that this certificate has been duly
recorded in this office in Municipal Charters Book IV,
page 329, on March 1st, 1960.
Very truly yours,
/s /
Secretary of State.
/ch
1064
RESOLUTION
No. 26-59
ADOPTED: AUGUST 20, 1959
A RESOLUTION TO BE ENTITLED:
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE HOLDING
OF A REFERENDUM ELECTION ON OCTOBER 6,
1959; DESIGNATING THE CLERKS AND INSPEC
TORS OF EACH ELECTION DISTRICT FOR THE
HOLDING OF SAID ELECTION, WITH PROVI
SION FOR SUBSTITUTE OR ADDITIONAL
CLERKS AND INSPECTORS: DESIGNATING THE
POLLING PLACES IN EACH ELECTION
DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION
OF SUCH LIST OF CLERKS, INSPECTORS AND
POLLING PLACES: PROVIDING FOR THE COM
PENSATION OF SAID CLERKS AND INSPEC
TORS: PROVIDING FOR THE COUNTING, CAN
VASSING AND CERTIFICATION OF THE
RESULTS OF THE VOTES CAST IN SAID ELEC
TION.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to the passage of 59-1730,
Laws of Florida of 1959, a Special Referendum Election
shall be held on Tuesday - October 6, 1959 to determine
whether or not the composition of the City Council and
the term of the Councilmen of the City of Pensacola shall
be by a vote of all of the qualified electors of the City of
Pensacola at large and to alter and amend the existing
method of election for members of the City Council of the
City of Pensacola. That there shall be one clerk and three
inspectors of election and said clerks and inspectors of
election are hereby named and designated and the follow
ing polling place in each election-district is hereby
designated as follows:
PRECINCT
N U M B E R
POLLING
P L A C E C L E R K S A N D IN S P E C T O R S
WARD NO. 1
PRECINCTS NO. 4, 40, 64, 73, 92, 93 and 96
4 Belvedere Park
Subdivision Office
3822 Creighton Road
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Virginia Hoffmaster
Mrs. J.A. Watson
Mrs. R.M. Thompson
Mrs. Jewell Williams
40 Bayview Park CLERK
INSPRS.
J.T. Mackey
Mrs. W.R. Bicker
Mrs. Tessie M. Suggs
Mrs. T.H. Miller
64 Bayview Park CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Annie Sheppard
Mrs. Eva Elardy
Mrs. M.L. Brown
Mrs. Raymond E. Walker
1065
PRECINCT
NUMBER
73
92
93
POLLING
PLACE
Biddle’s Garage
1810 E. Scott Street
B.D. Swain’s Garage
1121 Barcia Drive
W.L. Hall’s Office
4304 N. Davis St.
96 Municipal Airport
CLERKS AND INSPECTORS
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. E.W. Earps
Mrs. J.B. Bates
Mrs. Katherine Miller
Mrs. Annabelle Glagola
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Ann Ellis
Mrs. E.L. Barrineau
Mrs. Mary Richardson
Mrs. A.B. Yniestra
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Warren Williams
Mrs. Irene Eiland
Mrs. C.E. Vallia
Raymond Basly
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Chas. H. Blanchard
Mrs. John Stringfield
M rs. T hos. E . H errin , Sr.
M rs. W .H . A b b o tt
1066
PRECINCT
N U M B E R
27
28
29
POLLING
P L A C E C L E R K S A N D IN S P E C T O R S
WARD NO. 2
PRECINCTS NO. 27, 28, 29, 30, 39, 49, 50, 51, 72 and 90
Carl’s Wee-Washit
Laundry
Strong and 9th Ave.
CLERK Mrs. Carrie Brooks
INSPRS. F.B. Mann
Mrs. M.E. Morey
W.H. Crawford
HarvelPs Service Station CLERK
Cervantes and 7th Ave. INSPRS.
City Public Works Dept. CLERK
Guillemarde and Gonzalez INSPRS.
Streets
Mrs. Katie Borras
Mrs. Stella Sheats
Mrs. Lillie Cary
Mrs. John Brown
Mrs. Agnes Krammer
Mrs. Pearl Carter
Mrs. J.C. Connor
Mrs. Maggie F. Brown
1067
PRECINCT
NUMBER
39
39
49
50
POLLING
PLACE
Sheffield’s Garage
2011 N. Palafox St.
Mrs. Hughey’s Residence
Garage
14th Ave. and Lee St.
Bryan Gilmore’s
Garage
2201 N. 8th Avenue
Mrs. G.M. Henderson’s
G arage
912 E . H a tto n S treet
CLERKS AND INSPECTORS
CLERK
INSPRS.
CLERK
INSPRS.
CLERK
INSPRS.
CLERK
IN SPRS.
Mrs. Guy H. Workman
Mrs. Annie Avant
Mrs. H.C. Haley
Miss May D. Stokes
Mrs. Eunice Hughey
Mrs. Carmen Dove
Mrs. Mary Swift
Mrs. Bessie Eggart
Mrs. Bryan Gilmore
Mrs. Mildred Nicholsen
Mrs. E.T. Hayes
F.B. King
Mrs. Doris L. Jernigan
Mrs. G.M. Henderson
M rs. A nn ie M arie Steveson
M rs. H en ry H olt
1068
PRECINCT
N U M B E R
51
72
90
POLLING
P L A C E
Myer’s Garage
1615 E. Mallory Street
Branchwood Grocery
15th Ave. and Maxwell
Pickens School
2501 N. Hayne St.
C L E R K S A N D IN S P E C T O R S
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. J.D. Myers
Mrs. Margaret Noa
Mrs. Jeanette O’Connell
Mrs. Barton Pepper
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. J.M. Armour
Mrs. Dalmatia Jeudevine
Mrs. W.M. Curtin
Mrs. W.D. Brandon
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Victoria Anderson
Mrs. Etta Mitaite
Mrs. Ethel Smiley
Mrs. Eva Mae Miller
1069
PRECINCT
NUMBER
POLLING
PLACE CLERKS AND INSPECTORS
12
13
26
WARD NO. 3
PRECINCTS NO. 12, 13, 26, 35, 42, 54 and 63
Wehmeir’s Paint
Shop
Intendencia and
Alcaniz Streets
CLERK Alex Bel!
INSPRS. Mrs. Anna Karlson
Mrs. Rosie Lukers
Mrs. Mrs. Dolan Thomley
Lewis’ Radio and
T.V. Service
612 E. Wright St.
CLERK Mrs. Jessie Mefford
INSPRS. Mrs. C.M. Thompson
Mrs. Mike Mitchell
Mrs. Fannie G. Nunez
Wilder’s Garage
1601 E. Belmont St.
CLERK
INSPRS.
J.R. Strawbridge
Mrs. Ethel Oaks
Mrs. Florence Brown
M rs. A .J . Ellis
1070
PRECINCT
N U M B E R
35
42
54
63
Community Club
House
East Pensacola Hts.
POLLING
P L A C E _____________
Montanari’s Service
Station
9th Ave. and Wright
Street
Community Building
Aragon Court
McDaniel’s Barber Shop
200 E. Fourth Street
E. Pensacola Heights
C L E R K S A N D IN S P E C T O R S
CLERK
INSPRS.
CLERK
INSPRS.
CLERK
INSPRS.
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Laureta Woodcock
Mrs. Frances Barberi
Mrs. B.D. Lewis
Mrs. Juanita Bobe
Mrs. Jeanette Gonzalez
Mrs. Daisy Roche
Mrs. Dora Gathleny
Mrs. Gasque Nix
Mrs. Eunice A. Hurd
Mrs. Theresa A. Colley
Mrs. Mattie Oglesby
Mrs. Hubert Statam
Mrs. Blanche Horne
Mrs. Lennie Briggs
Mrs. Daisy B. Richards
Mrs. Nell Thompson
1071
PRECINCT
NUMBER
2
32
38
POLLING
PLACE CLERKS AND INSPECTORS
WARD NO. 4
PRECINCTS NO. 2, 32, 38, 46, 56, 62, 75 and 76
Vince-Whibbs
Pontiac Co.
2716 W. Cervantes St.
Geo. S. Hallmark
School
125 S. “E” Street
Corner Grocery
Jackson and “L” Sts.
CLERK
1NSPRS.
CLERK
INSPRS.
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Lula M. Kelley
J.B. Clarke
John G. Fell
Mrs. Jessie Odom
Mrs. Margaret Solari
Mrs. Viola Thorsen
Mrs. Mollie Clancy
Mrs. Henry J. Bowen
Mrs. E.L. Cobb
Mrs. H.L. Cobb
Mrs. W.H. Frye
M rs. L .M . C halker
1072
PRECINCT
NUMBER
46
56
62
75
POLLING
PLACE
Fireman’s Hall
909 S. “J” Street
L. Johnson’s
Garage
Gregory and “J” Sts.
Mrs. J.D. Feig’s
Garage
529 W. Mallory St.
Kiwanis Park
1821 W. Romana St.
C LE R K S A N D IN S P E C T O R S
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Dora Brady
Mrs. L. Fell
Mrs. Henry Mandel
Mrs. D.E. Bowen
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Clara Johnson
Mrs. R.H. Massey
Mrs. Nellie Wright
Mrs. Pete Engleman
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Margaret Turnipseed
Mrs. Ethel Feig
Mrs. Jean Matroni
Mrs. Elwood Gonzalez
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Vivian Touart
Mrs. Lucy Lane
Mrs. Flora Bell Johnson
Mrs. Norma E. Crooke
1073
PRECINCT POLLING
NUMBER PLACE
76 H.A. Berry’s
Residence
708 North “N” St.
CLERKS AND INSPECTORS
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Elsie Lowery
Mrs. L.C. Morgan
Mrs. Effie H. Berry
Mrs. Mabel Freundschuh
1074
1075
In case any of the above Clerks and Inspectors are
unable to attend on the day of said elections or in case ad
ditional Clerks and Inspectors are needed in any of the
polling places, the City Clerk-Comptroller is hereby
authorized to obtain persons to fill said positions, which
persons will be subject to the same rules and regulations as
the persons herein above appointed. The City Clerk-
Comptroller shall publish said list of Clerks and Inspec
tors and said designation of polling places in a newspaper
published in the City of Pensacola at least once prior to
said election.
SECTION 2. That there shall be submitted to all of the
qualified voters, qualified in the last and for the last
General Election of the City of Pensacola the following
proposition:
DO YOU DESIRE THE CITY OF PEN
SACOLA TO CHANGE ITS PRESENT
SYSTEM OF ELECTION FOR THE OFFICE
OF COUNCILMAN OF THE CITY OF PEN
SACOLA BY REQUIRING COUNCILMEN
TO BE ELECTED WITHIN THE CITY OF
PENSACOLA AT LARGE?
YES _______________
NO ___________ _
SECTION 3. That the compensation of said Clerks and
Inspectors in hereby fixed at $12.00 each, and the City
Clerk-Comptroller be, and he is hereby directed to pay
said compensation from the appropriation hitherto made
for such purpose, and that no additional compensation
shall be paid the Clerks and Inspectors for meals or
transportation, which shall be furnished by the individual
Clerk and Inspector.
1076
SECTION 4. That the rental to be paid to the owner of
each polling place or precinct shall be the sum of Ten
($10.00) Dollars, and the City Clerk-Comptroller, be, and
he is hereby directed to make such payment from the ap
propriation hitherto made for such purpose.
SECTION 5. That said Clerks and Inspectors in each of
said Election Districts shall conduct said election in accor
dance with Ordinance No. 13-53, and shall count the votes
and certify the results thereof in accordance with said Or
dinance. Said certificates shall be made in duplicate, one
copy of which shall be delivered along with the official
envelope by the Clerk and Inspectors to the City Clerk-
Comptroller and the other copy shall be sealed and
delivered to the Chairman or a member of the Canvassing
Board, designated in Ordinance No. 13-53.
SECTION 6. That the Clerks and Inspectors shall main
tain good order at the polling places and said polling
places shall be policed by the Police Division of the City of
Pensacola.
SECTION 7. At 10:00 o’clock A. M. on the day follow
ing the election, the Canvassing Board shall publicly pro
ceed to canvass the votes given for the several offices and
persons as shown by the returns on file with the City
Clerk-Comptroller and the Chairman or Member of said
Board as above provided.
P R E C IN C T
NUMBER
P O L L IN G
PLACE CLERKS AND INSPECTORS
WARD NO. 5
PRECINCTS NO. 12, 13, 26, 35, 42, 54 and 63
14 County Court House
Annex
Palafox and
Government Sts.
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. R.B. Morrison
Mrs. Viola Rainer
Mrs. Annie Roberts
Mrs. Mary Louise Stewart
15 Escambia County
Vocational School
215 W. Garden St.
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Jeannette Nunnari
Mrs. Mary Crooke
Mrs. C.F. Jones
Mrs. Margaret Rowell
31 F.G. Wilson’s
Garage
319 W. DeSoto St.
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Florence W. Zelius
Mrs. Evylin Price
Mrs. Blanche S. Presley
Mrs. F.G. Wilson
1077
PRECINCT
NUMBER
34
41
55
74
POLLING
PLACE
Mandel’s Grocery
Coyle and Chase Sts.
John Grace Sheet
Metal Works
415 W. Government
Street
Mercury Grocery
423 N. DeVilliers St.
W.A. Blount
Jr. High School
113 North “C” Street
CLERKS AND INSPECTORS
CLERK
1NSPRS.
CLERK
INSPRS.
CLERK
INSPRS.
CLERK
INSPRS.
Mrs. Eva Wheat
Mrs. Carrie Jones
Mrs. Mamie Heinberg
Mrs. Olga Carney
Mrs. Rosa Del Buono
Mrs. Annie Burtt
Mrs. Estelle Blanchard
Mrs. Iva Walters
Mrs. G.O.’Reilly
Mrs. G.H. Baggett
Mrs. Bernice P. Febro
A.N. Anagnostou
Mrs. Ethel L. Bennie
Mrs. Cecelia Boyden
Mrs. Abbie Wimberly
Mrs. E .M . Nell
1078
SECTION 8. This Resolution shall be published and shall take effect immediately upon its adop
tion by the City Council.
Adopted: August 20, 1959
Approved:
/s /_______
E.P. McCullough
MAYOR. Pro Tern
Attest:
_________/%/
Chas. H. Walker
CITY CLERK-COMPTROLLER.
Legal in form and valid if adopted:
------------------------------ZsL............
CITY ATTORNEY.
1079
1080
CITY OF PENSACOLA
CITY COUNCIL
RECORD OF ACTION
19
S U B JE C T
MOTION
Y ES NO
FUD THORNTON X
HENRY E. McLAUCHLIN X
T.P. O’GARA, JR. X
AL WOERNER X
e d w a r d McCu l l o u g h X
ROY S. PHILPOT X
JULIAN J. BANFELL X
KENNETH J. KELSON X
CHARLES D. HUMPHREYS X
CLYDE E. MILLER, JR. X
A C T I O N
1081
NOTICE
MUNICIPAL SPECIAL REFERENDUM ELECTION
THE CITY OF PENSACOLA
OCTOBER 6, 1959
ON THE QUESTION - Do you desire the City of Pen
sacola to change its present system of election for the of
fice of councilman of the City of Pensacola by requiring
councilmen to be elected within the City of Pensacola at
large?
(Pursuant to the passage of 59-1730, Laws of Florida
1959)
Chas. H. Walker
City Clerk Comptroller
LIST OF QUALIFIED XXXXX
BY PRECINTS & WARDS
WARD #1
White
#4 91
#40 243
#64 466
#73 476
#92 513
#93 369
#96 495
Colored
0 91
0 243
0 466
0 476
1 514
0 369
0 495
2,653 1 2,654
1082
WARD #2
White Colored
#27 305 0 305
#28 122 223 345
#29 54 183 237
#30 336 12 348
#39 364 0 364
#49 143 244 387
#50 349 26 375
#51 269 0 269
#72 237 34 271
#90 0 308 308
2179 1,030 3,209
67.9 32.1
WARD #3
White Colored
#12 137 19 156
#13 176 91 267
#26 254 0 254
#35 308 0 308
#42 172 39 211
#54 174 31 205
#63 225 0 225
1,446 180
88.9 11.1
1083
WARD #4
White Colored
# 2 45 0 45
#32 178 44 222
#38 119 61 180
#46 164 1 165
#56 362 4 366
#62 198 83 281
#75 217 3 220
#76 35 171 206
1,308 367 1,685
78.1 21.9
WARD #5
White Colored
#14 172 3 175
#15 138 19 157
#31 234 184 418
#34 197 15 212
#41 84 49 133
#55 85 149 234
#74 163 208 371
1,073 627 1,700
63.1 36.9
TOTAL:
8,659 2,205 10,884
79.7 20.3
1084
CITY ELECTION
POLLING PLACES
Here is a list of polling places for Tuesday’s referendum
on whether to change the method of electing City Council
members:
WARD ONE
Precinct 4, Belvedere Park Subdivision Office, 3522
Creighton Rd.
Precinct 40, Bayview Park.
Precinct 64, Bayview Park.
Precinct 73, Biddle’s Garage, 1816 E. Scott St.
Precinct 92, B. D. Swain’s Garage, 1121 Barcia Dr.
Precinct 93, W. L. Hall’s office, 4304 N. Davis St.
Precinct 96, Municipal Airport.
WARD TWO
Precinct 27, Carl’s Wee-Washit Laundry, Strong Street
and 9th Avenue.
Precinct 28, Harvell’s Service Station, Cervantes Street
and 7th Avenue.
Precinct 29, City Public Works Department,
Guillemard and Gonzalez Streets.
Precinct 30, Sheffield’s Garage, 2011 N. Palafox St.
Precinct 39, Mrs. Hughey’s garage, 14th Avenue and
Lee Street.
Precinct 49, Bryan Gilmore’s garage, 2201 N. 8th Ave.
Precinct 50, Mrs. G. M. Henderson’s garage, 212 E.
Halton St.
Precinct 51, Myer’s Garage, 1615 E. Mallory St.
1085
Precinct 72, Branch wood Grocery, 15 th Avenue and
Maxwell Street.
Precinct 90, Pickens School, 2501 N. Hayne St.
WARD THREE
Precinct 12, Wehmeter’s Paint Shop. Intendencia and
Alcaniz Streets.
Precinct 13, Lewis’ Radio and TV Service, 612 E.
Wright St.
Precinct 26, Wilder’s Garage, 1001 E. Belmont St.
Precinct 35, Community Club House, East Pensacola
Heights.
Precinct 42, Montanari’s Service Station, 9th Avenue
and Wright St.
Precinct 54, Community Building Aragon Court.
Precinct 63, McDaniel’s Barber Shop. 200 E. Fourth St.
East Pensacola Heights.
WARD FOUR
Precinct 2, Vince-Whibbs Pontiac Co., 2716 W. Cer
vantes St. (formerly at Crabtree’s Garage, 2101 W. Cer
vantes St.)
Precinct 37, Hallmark School 125 South H St.
Precinct 38, Corner Grocery, Jackson and L Streets.
Precinct 46, Fireman’s Hall, 903 South J Street.
Precinct 56, L. Johnson’s garage, Gregory and J Streets.
Precinct 62, Mrs. J. D. Feig’s garage, 529 W. Mallory
St.
Precinct 75, Kiwanis Park, 1821 W. Romana St.
Precinct 76, H. A. Berry’s residence, 708 North N St.
1086
Precinct 14, County Courthouse Annex, Palafox and
Government Streets.
Precinct 15, Escambia County Vocational School, 215
W. Garden St.
Precinct 31, F. G. Wilson’s garage, 319 W. DeSoto St.
Precinct 34, Mandel’s Grocery, Coyle and Chase
Streets.
Precinct 41, John Grace Sheet Metal Works, 415 W.
Government Street.
Precinct 65, Mercury Grocery, 423 N. DeVilliers St.
Precinct 74, W. A. Blount Junior High School, 112
North C St.
WARD FIVE
1087
Office of the
SECRETARY OF STATE
State of Florida
Tallahassee
March 1st, 1960
City of Pensacola
Attn: Mr. Chas. H. Walker
Director of Finance
Pensacola, Florida
Dear Mr. Walker:
I am in receipt of your letter of February 29th enclosing
copy of Certificate of the Board of Canvassers showing
results of the special referendum election held in the City
of Pensacola, Florida, on October 6, 1959, in pursuance
of the provisions of Chapter 59-1730, Laws of Florida,
Acts of 1959.
This is to advise that this certificate has been duly
recorded in this office in Municipal Charters Book IV,
page 329, on March 1st, 1960.
Very truly yours,
/ch
/s /
Secretary of State.
1088
CERTIFICATE OF THE BOARD
OF CANVASSERS
FOR THE SPECIAL REFERENDUM ELECTION
HELD ON TUESDAY - OCTOBER 6, 1959
We, the undersigned Board of Canvassers designated to
canvass the returns of the Special Referendum Election
held in the several Election Districts of The City of Pen
sacola, Florida, on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1959, as re
quired by the provisions of RESOLUTION NO. 26-59,
adopted August 20, 1959, being a resolution “Providing
For The Holding Of The Referendum Election”, on Oc
tober 6, 1959, to determine if all analysis of the City Coun
cil should be elected by the city at large, do hereby certify
that we did on the 8th day of October, 1959, publicly pro
ceed to canvas the votes cast at said Special Referendum
Election for the determination of the method of election
of the Councilmen of the City of Pensacola, Florida, as
shown by the returns certified to by the duly authorized
Clerks and Inspectors of the said Election, and as a result
of the said canvass, we do hereby certify that as a result of
said Special Referendum Election, the following is the
YES and NO vote:
DO YOU DESIRE THE CITY OF PEN
SACOLA TO CHANGE ITS PRESENT
SYSTEM OF ELECTION FOR THE OFFICE
OF COUNCILMAN OF THE CITY OF PEN
SACOLA BY REQUIRING COUNCILMEN
TO BE ELECTED WITHIN THE CITY OF
PENSACOLA AT LARGE?
YES
NO
1722
307
2029TOTAL VOTES CAST
1089
BOARD OF CANVASSERS
SPECIAL REFERENDUM
ELECTION OCTOBER 6, 1959
/ s/
Chairman
/s / /s /
City Attorney
/s / /s /
City Clerk-Comptroller Registration and Election
Committee
1090
C H A PT E R 59-1730
(House Bill No. 2418)
AN ACT RELATING TO THE CITY OF PEN
SACOLA, PROVIDING FOR THE CREA
TION, COMPOSITION, TERM, VACANCIES
AND QUALIFICATIONS AND METHOD OF
ELECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA;
AND AMENDING CHAPTER 15425, LAWS
OF FLORIDA, SPECIAL ACTS OF 1931; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
UPON THE HOLDING OF A REFERENDUM
OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY
OF PENSACOLA.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. That Section 4 of Chapter 15425, Laws Of
Florida, Special Acts of 1931, be, and the same is hereby
amended to read as follows:
SECTION 4. COUNCIL CREATION; COMPOSI
TION; TERM; VACANCIES; QUALIFICATIONS.
Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, all powers
of the city shall be vested in a council of ten (10) members,
two (2) from each of five (5) wards into which the city is
divided by this act, both of whom shall be resident
qualified voters within the ward, both elected by the
qualififed voters of the city at large in the manner
hereinafter provided in this act or otherwise provided by
amendments to this act or by special act of the legislature.
Within each ward of the City of Pensacola one (1) coun
cilman shall be designated as the representative of Group I
of said ward and the other and remaining councilman shall
be designated as the representative of Group II <?f said
ward, and all candidates offering themselves for election
to the office of Councilman shall designate which group
1091
he or she shall represent and shall be a candidate for said
representative as a member of the City Council of the City
of Pensacola. The term of each member of the council
shall be for two years and shall begin on the second Mon
day of June, except as hereinafter provided for the council
chosen at the first election, next following their election. If
a vacancy occur in the council, it shall be filled for the
unexpired term of such member by a majority of the re
maining councilmen, and such vacancies shall be filled
within ten (10) days after such vancancy occurs. Members
of the council shall be qualified electors of the city and
shall not hold any other office, except that of notary
public or member of the state militia. A member of the
council ceasing to possess any of the qualifications
specified in this section, or convicted of crime, while in of
fice, shall immediately forfeit his office.
1092
30 April 59
COUNCIL ENDORSES PROPOSED CHANGES
Legislation Lifts
Ad Valorem Limits
By Paul Jasper
Pensacola City Council this morning unanimously en
dorsed proposed legislation which would create extensive
changes in the operation of the city government.
One bill would be to abolish the monetary limitation the
city now has on ad valorem taxes.
Under the present set-up, the city can only collect some
$500,000 per year on property taxes but under the new bill
this restriction would be removed.
They also voted to unanimously oppose a change in the
millage limitation from 10 mills to five mills. A Chamber
of Commerce committee has suggested that the five mill
limitations be imposed. The city officials want to keep it at
10 mills.
They also approved a change in the city charter which
would allow all candidates for the City Council to run at-
large instead of from individual districts and to elect two
councilmen from each district.
Councilmen in the districts would run in groups with
one man elected from each group.
The charter amendment would also increase coun-
cilmen’s salaries from $5 a month to $100 a month and the
Mayor’s salary from $100 to $200 a month and the
Mayor’s salary from $100 to $300 a month if he is also a
councilman, on oc-
(Turn to COUNCIL - Page 2A)
1093
TEN CITY WARDS ARE PROPOSED
FOR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Pensacola City Council has approved several suggested
legislative changes in the charter which would affect the
city’s financial affairs and also the membership of that
governing body. One of the more interesting is that which
would require all members of the council to run at large,
replacing the present system whereby one from each ward
is chosen at large and the second by the voters of the ward
involved.
City wide elections we believe, would have a beneficial
effect. We advocated for years the similar county wide
selection of commissioners, thus requiring incumbents to
labor for the welfare of the entire community, rather than
for the restricted district he represented. In Escambia the
results have been praiseworthy. They should be for the city
as well.
Since the council is considering this change in electing its
membership a companion proposal should be worthy of
consideration. The present 10-member council appears to
be the ideal workable size, large enough to include the
varied views of a comprehensive body, yet not so large as
to be unwieldy.
But why should the entire city select two members from
each ward who conceivably may have the same views and
interests and reside in the same block? Would it not be
wiser to re-divide the city into 10 wards, instead of the pre
sent five, thus creating a wider dispersal of the council’s
membership and resulting in a more accurate representa
tion of the various residential, commercial and industrial
sectors of the municipality?
Pensacola is growing and apparently will continue to
grow at an outstanding rate in area, population and the
Editorials Page 4 Wednesday, May 6, 1959
1094
variety of its activities. It was not always so. All of these
factors were quite limited at the time the city was divided
into five wards, roughly comparable, population-wise.
Corrective revisions in the boundaries have been made
from time to time and today the wards are quite large and
the population interests varied.
A further subdivision into 10 wards, each represented
by one councilman who understands its needs and interests
would provide a much more diversified city body. The re
quirement that city-wide approval of each member must
be obtained would nullify any fears that a local popular
but obviously incompetent person would be chosen.
The wider dispersal of council membership probably
would provide a stronger inducement for many of the ex
isting suburban communities to merge with the city since it
would be evident that their chances of getting an ade
quate voice in the city’s direction would be enhanced.
1095
Oct. 6 Question
CITY-WIDE VOTE FOR COUNCILMEN?
By Maurice Harling
Should the city charter be changed so that all 10
members of the Pensacola City Council will be elected by a
citywide vote?
This is the question which the more than 10,500
registered voters in the City of Pensacola are to decide at a
special city election to be held on Oct. 6.
Polls will be open in each of the 39 precincts within the
city. Those who were registered with the city at the time of
the city elections last May are eligible to vote.
The proposal provides the following system:
1 - The city shall be divided into five wards - the same as
at present.
2-T w o members of the council are to be elected from
each ward. They must be residents and qualified voters in
the ward for which they are candidates.
3 —Candidates from each ward will qualify for election
from either Group 1 to Group 2.
4 - Voters from the entire city will vote for candidates in
both groups in each of the five wards. (In other words all
10 councilmen will be elected by a city wide vote with two
being elected from each ward.)
Under the present system the city is divided into five
wards. One candidate from each of the five wards is
elected by a city-wide vote. Then each of the five wards
elects a councilman with only those residing in a ward
voting for the candidate “from within” that ward.
As a result under the present system out of a total of 10
Sept. 10, 1959
1096
councilmen, five are elected by citywide voters and five are
elected from within wards (one from each of the five
wards.)
The present system has been in effect since 1931. That
was the year the legislature passed the law to provide a
charter for a city manager type of government for Pen
sacola. The charter did not become effective, however, un
til approved at a special election.
The legislature during the last session passed the law to
provide for changing the system so all 10 councilmen
would be elected at large. The bill provided, however, that
the new system could not go into effect unless approved by
the voters of the city. The bill also provided the election
must be held within six months after it was approved in the
governor’s office, which was June 30.
The members of the city council last March requested
the three local members of the legislature, Sen. Philip D.
Beall, Rep. George Stone and Rep. Reubin O’D. Askew,
to pass the bill to provide for electing all 10 members of
the council by a citywide vote. The legislators agreed but
said as this changes the basic law of the city, the charter,
that the people should approve any such change before it
becomes effective. That is the reason for the election.
Another organization which endorsed the legislation for
making the change was the Greater Pensacola Chamber of
Commerce.
Up to the time there has been little campaigning concer
ning the election. It is known that a few who oppose it are
quietly contacting personal friends in an effort to get them
to go to the polls and defeat the change.
Proponents of the change say that because all business
conducted by the council affects the entire city, then the 10
councilmen should be elected citywide.
Opponents reply that the present system is more
1097
satisfactory as each ward is now represented by a person
who is elected citywide and therefore considers business
from the standpoint of the entire city, while the coun-
cilmen elected from within the wards can “look out” for
the interests of the people of that ward.
Proponents contend that the system of electing county
commissioners by a countywide vote instead of by districts
has proven a success in that commissioners consider
business on a basis of the entire county instead of in
dividual districts. This eliminates considerable maneuver
ing.
Opponents reply that under the citywide system voters
of an entire city could elect a councilman from a ward
which the voters of that ward do not want to represent
them.
Proponents say that since councilmen now receive a
salary of $100 plus $25 per month expenses that those who
serve and receive their pay from taxes paid from the entire
city should be elected by voters of the city. Opponents
contend the councilmen earn the same salary whether
elected within wards or by voters of the entire city.
Proponents contend a higher class of candidates will
qualify under the citywide system while opponents con
tend that will make no difference.
1098
Councilmen Should Face
City-Wide Voter Choice
PENSACOLA VOTERS face three elections in the next
two months. The first, on Oct. 6, deals with a change in
the city charter to require election of all city councilmen by
ity-wide vote.
The second date is Nov. 3. Then a state-wide election on
the reapportionment amendment will be combined with a
county school millage and trustee election and a referen
dum on whether commercial fishing shall be prohibited in
Davenport Bayou.
The closest in point of time and perhaps greatest in local
interest is the city referendum on the charter change. Since
the charter was adopted in 1931 the ten councilmen have
been elected from five wards, two from each ward. One of
the two is chosen entirely by voters within the ward, the
other by voters from the whole city.
The proposal would change that plan so that all ten
councilmen would be elected by all city voters, though
each ward would still have two representatives. In other
words a councilman now chosen by only those in his ward
would have to win favor throughout the municipality.
This would be an advantageous change for at least two
reasons. One reason is that small groups which might
dominate one ward could not choose a councilman. Thus
one ward might conceivabley elect a Negro councilman,
although the city as a whole would not. This probably is
the prime reason behind the proposed change.
However, the best argument for the change, the one
which we offer, is that all councilmen would be responsi
ble to all city voters, not merely to those in their particular
section. Councilmen should have a city-wide viewpoint,
not a localized outlook.
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1959
1099
We favored such representation in the county, both for
school board members and for county commissioners.
Prior to the Minimum Foundation Law, school board
members were chosen by districts, equivalent to city
wards. This change was helpful as it widened horizons and
banished petty district politics. A vote in Century became
as important as a vote in Pensacola.
Later, the News Journal attempted by legislation to
have county commissioners elected county-wide, instead
of by districts, because the district plan made each com
missioner more concerned with his district while roads and
other problems crossing district lines were neglected.
Legislation failed, but a suit brought by citizens resulted in
the Supreme Court deciding the district election was in
valid. Now commissioners over the state are chosen by
county-wide vote and we think it has resulted in great im
provement.
Therefore, the same principle should apply to city coun-
cilmen. Our ten municipal directors should be persons
who consider the total welfare of the city. The charter
change would insure that quality.
1100
ALL CAN HAVE RIGHT TO VOTE
ON TEN CITY COUNCILMEN
Oct. 6, 1959
Do you want to have a say as to all of the ten coun-
cilmen who direct the affairs of Pensacola?
If so you had better go to the polls today and cast your
ballot for the proposed change in the city charter which
will give you that privilege.
At present you vote on only six of the ten councilmen.
You vote on five of those running at large and one in your
own ward.
If the proposed change is approved by you and others
like you, you will have the opportunity to vote on all ten of
the councilmen.
We believe it is better for all of the people to have a say
in the election of all the councilmen, rather than being
restricted to just six of them. In many instances eight votes
are necessary to enact a measure.
This proposal does not mean that all sections of the city
would not be represented on the council. Each ward, ap
proximately one fifth of the population, still would have
two representatives on the council.
Councilmen would have to qualify from one of the five
wards as they do now. There would be no chance of one
section of the city having more councilmen than another.
But each section would have a vote as to who those
representatives from another section would be.
This is the better way, for each councilman votes on
matters which are of vital importance to all of the city, not
to his own ward only. If councilmen think merely of their
own sections of the city and disregard the needs of other
sections we cannot have a sound, well developed
municipality.
1101
With everyone in the city voting for all councilmen,
neither could some group which represents a minority in
the city but which constitutes a majority in one ward
dominate a ward election.
Every city councilman should have the welfare of all of
the people and all of the city at heart. See that we have
such councilmen by taking the few minutes required to
visit your polling place today and pull the lever for city
wide election of all councilmen.
1102
ELECTION CHANGE SOUGHT Oct. 6, 1959
CITY GOES TO POLLS TODAY
Proposed Plan Would Abolish ‘Within’ Vote
All Ten Councilmen Would be Elected
On City-Wide Basis
(See precincts on page 5A)
Pensacolians will decide Tuesday whether to elect all
members of future City Councils by a city-wide vote or to
continue the present system.
Two councilmen will be elected from each ward as in the
past if the new system is adopted. But all voters in the city
will cast ballots for all candidates. Voters within a ward
elect one of the councilmen from that ward under the pre
sent system. The other runs at large.
If the new system is approved, 10 councilmen will be
elected by all voters. At present, five members are elected
by all voters and five by voters in the five separate wards.
Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday.
About 11,000 persons are eligible to vote.
All taverns and liquor stores in the city will remain
closed during voting hours. No alcoholic beverages will be
sold inside the city until after 7 p.m.
The present Council requested the 1959 Florida
Legislature to change the form of electing city councilmen
in Pensacola. The Escambia County legislative delegation
sponsored the request in the Legislature.
The Legislature approved the move, subject to a p p r o v a l
by the voters of the city.
1103
30 April 1959
Council Endorses Proposed Changes
Legislation Lifts
Ad Valorem Limit
By Paul Jasper
Pensacola City Council this morning unanimously en
dorsed proposed legislation which would create extensive
changes in the operation of the city government.
One bill woudl be to abolish the monetary limitation the
city now has on ad valorem taxes.
Under the present set-up, the city can only collect some
$500,000 per year on property taxes but under the new bill
this restriction would be removed.
They also voted to unanimously oppose a change in the
millage limitation from 10 mills to five mills. A Chamber
of Commerce committee has suggested that the five mill
limitation be imposed. The City officals want to keep it at
10 milss.
They also approved a change in their charter which
would allow all candidates for the City Counicl at-large in
stead of from individual district and to elect two coun-
cilmen from each district.
Councilmen in the districts would run in groups with
one man elected from each group.
The charter amendment would also increase coun-
oilmen’s salaries from $50 a month to $100 a month and
the Mayor’s salary from $100 to $200 a month and the
Mayors’ salary from $100 to $300 a month if he is also a
councilman. On oc- * * * * *
(next p.)
1104
CITY-WIDE ELECTION OF
COUNCIL GIVEN AP
2,029 Voters Decide Issue, 19722 to 307
Votes Wipes Out Present Within, At Large System
Pensacolians decided overwhelmingly Tuesday to elect
all 10 City Council members by city-wide vote.
The margin was 1,722 to 307.
The landslide wiped out the present voting system of
five councilmen being elected by a city-wide vote and five
by voters in each of the separate five wards.
Those who favored the new system hailed it as assuring
a high-caliber Council.
The change was requested by the Council itself last year,
was passed by the state Legislature and put to a referen
dum to become effective.
First use of the new system will be in the 1961 city elec
tion when all 10 City Council posts will be up for grabs.
Tuesday’s total vote of 2,029 surpassed pre-election ex
pectations.
It fell far short of the number that could have turned
out, however, with 10,874 persons eligible.
All except one of the city’s 30 precincts voted in favor of
the change.
Precinct 80, a predominantely Negro area around the J.
Lee Pickens School, cast 10 votes against the change and 7
for.
The issue wasn’t even close in the other precincts.
Even though all councilmen will be elected by a city-
wide vote. There still must be two from each ward, as at
present.
1105
1106
EXHIBIT 66
County Boards & Committees
Name White Black
1. Airport Zoning Ordinance Commision 14 -
2. Housing for Ambulance Service 5 -
3. Board of Adjustments & Appeals for
Sow. Std. Building Code 6 1
4. Board of Adj. & App. for Subd.
Regulations 5 -
5. Boating Improvement Program 15 -
6. Community Schools Concept Committee 5 -
7. Construction Industry Competency
Bd. 12 -
8. Courthouse Renovation Committee 5 -
9. Damage Survey Team 5 -
10. Electrical Examiner Board 3 -
11. Electrical Code Committee 5 -
12. Emergency Medical Services Advisroy
Council 25 1
13. Flood Plain Management 6 -
14. Gas Examiners Board 4 -
15. County Health Facilities Authority 4 1
16. Gulf Islands National Seashore 2 "
17. Juvenile Justice Committee 8 -
18. Comprehensive Land Use Plan 10 "
19. Land Use Regulations Comm. 5 ~
20. Landfill Site Acquisition 5 '
21. Land Use Study Committee 10 -
1107
County Boards & Committees
Name White Black
22. Lot Coverage Board of Review 5 -
23. Manpower Advisory Committee 14 7
24. O.E.D.P. Committee 15 2
25. 911 Committee 16 -
26. PUATS Task Force Committee 13 -
27. Plumbing Code Committee 3 -
28. Plumbing Exam. & Control Board 6 -
29. Santa Rosa Island Authority 5 -
30. Expansion of Sheriffs Authority 9 -
31. Subdivision Regulations Review Board 11 -
32. Tourist Development Council 9 -
33. Youth Advisory Council 30 8
34. Bikeways Coordinating Committee 14 -
35. Charter Government Study Commis
4 1
36.
sion
Budget and Finance Advisory Com
mittee 21 2
37. PUATS Citizens Advisory Committee 23 -
38. PUATS Policy Committee 12 -
39. PUATS Technical Committee 26 -
395 23
1108
EXHIBIT 70 Excerpt
1976-77 Annual Budget of Escambia
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA
MILLAGE RATE BY FUND AND ASSESSED VALUE
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1977
With Comparative Amounts For 1975 and 1976
Millage
1974-75
Millage
1975-76
Millage
1976-77
General Fund 4.72 4.89 6.71
Road Fund 1.64 1.83 1.13
Health Fund .36 .36 .38
Hospital Fund .88 .47 1.76
Total Millage 7.60 7.55 9.98
COUNTY 1975 1976
Real Estate
Personal Property
Railroads and Telegraph
$1,202,447,939
424,495,700
10,801,130
$1,291,097,909
447,125,400
11,847,808
TOTAL (City Included) $1,637,744,769 $1,750,071,117
CITY OF PENSACOLA
Real Estate
Personal Property
Railroads and Telegraph
$ 297,990,741
97,965,950
2,932,338
$ 305,032,368
102,282,810
1,962,199
TOTAL $ 398,889,029 $ 409,277,377
Downtown Improvement Fund
District - Real Estate $ 35,360,230 - $ 35,766,856
CITY OF SOUTH FLOMATON
Real Estate Estate
Personal Property
Railroads and Telegraph
$ 1,009,170
738,300
161,626
$ 1,015,710
758,010
176,115
TOTAL $ 1,909,096 $ 1,949,835
P O P U L A T IO N 1975 1976
Population of County - Outside Cities 173,284 173,284
Population of City of Pensacola 60,705 60,705
Population of City of South Flomaton 465 465
234,454 234,454
E SC A M B IA C O U N T Y , F L O R ID A
ANNUAL BUDGET 1976-77
ANALYSIS OF EXPENDITURES
BY FUNCTION AND PROGRAM
Amount Percent
of Budget
General Government
Legislative & Administrative $ 2,091,301 5.23
Finance & Taxation 1,736,110 4.34
Judicial 8,263,751 20.66
Elections 295,281 .74
Service Departments 809,515 2.02
Building Maintenance 529,768 1.32
Planning & Development 336,274 .84
Other General Government 437,844 1.10
Public Safety
Police Protection $ 4,497,866 11.25
Fire Control 11,847 .03
Corrections 880,132 2.20
Protective Inspection 283,577 .71
Other Protection 544,377 1.36
“ DIVISION OF EXPENDITURES FROM LOCALLY RAISFT)
RECEIPTS BETWEEN INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED
AREAS OF THE COUNTY
Unincorporated
Area of County
$ 1,204,939
1,000,401
4,761,711
170,030
466,708
305,551
193,811
251,944
$ 2,591,420
6,801
507,173
163,334
313,744
City of
Pensacola
$ 422,079
350,433
1,667,985
59,560
163,484
107,033
67,892
88,253
$ 907,751
2,382
177,658
57,215
109,901
City of South
Fiomaton
$ 3,261
2,707
12,885
460
1,261
826
525
682
$ 7,012
19
1,372
442
849
Not
Applicable
$ 461,022
382,569
1,821,170
65,231
178,062
116,358
74,046
96,965
$ 991,683
2,645
193,929
62,586
119,883
1109
ANALYSIS OF EXPENDITURES
BY FUNCTION AND PROGRAM
Amount
Public Works
Road & Construction
Maintenance
Sanitation
Health, Welfare & Social
Services
Health
Welfare
Economic Assistance
Other Health, Welfare &
Social Services
$ 2 ,5 4 6 ,2 6 9
6 7 6 ,8 3 8
$ 4 ,2 2 7 ,1 9 6
1 ,5 2 8 ,1 4 5
1 ,8 9 2 ,7 1 7
1
“ DIVISION OF EXPENDITURES FROM l.<K AI.I.Y RAISED
RECEIPTS BETWEEN INCORPORATE D AND UNINCORPORATED
AREAS OF THE COUNTRY
Percent
of Budget
Unincorporated
Area of C ounty
C ity of
Pensacola
Cily o f Soufti
Homaton
Nol
Applicable
6 .3 7 $
1 .6 9
1 ,4 6 6 ,9 3 3 $
3 9 0 ,1 4 5
5 1 3 ,8 5 3
1 3 6 ,6 6 4
$ 3,970
1,056
$ 561,513
148,973
1 0 .5 7
3 .8 2
4 .7 3
$ 2 ,4 3 5 ,6 7 1
8 8 0 ,5 7 4
1 ,0 9 0 ,7 4 1
$ 8 5 3 ,1 9 3 $
3 0 8 ,4 5 7
3 8 2 ,0 7 6
6 ,5 9 1
2 ,3 8 3
2,952
$ 931,741
336,731
416,948
1 — — -
1110
m i
EXHIBIT 71
SUMMARY ANALYSIS (County Recreation)
ATTACHMENT I. Legends
* Legend:
A — Active — organized recreation program
P — Passive — no organized recreation program
** Legend:
1. Single letters denotes one of specified items.
2. Letter with number, A[2], denotes the number of
A. Baseball Field — youth
B. Baseball Field — adult
C. Baseball Field — practice
D. Softball Field — youth
E. Softball Field — adult
F. Football Field - suitable for competition
G. Football Field - practice
H. Basketball Court — clay
I. Basketball Court - hard surface (asphalt or
concrete)
J. Tennis Court — clay
K. Tennis Court - hard surface (asphalt or
concrete)
L. Merry-Go-Round
M. Swing Set
N. Climber
O. Slide
BLACK
WHITE
MIXED
36.6
363.30
217.14
Acres
Acres
Acres
items.
1112
P. Picnic Table and/or Bench
Q. Picnic Pavillion
R. Bar-B-Q Grill
S. Camp Site — primitive
T. Camp Site — Electricity and water available
U. Sanitary Dumping Station
V. Horse Arena — rodeo or western
W. Horse Arena — English
X. Horse Arena — jumping
Y. Boat Ramp — freshwater
Z. Boat Ramp — salt water
RR — Rest Rooms
RC — Recreation Center
CS — Concession Stand
*** Maintenance Cost
Maintenance cost is not broken down to individual
park. Salaries, supplies, tools, maintenance equip
ment, and all other necessary costs are used for
maintenance of all parks. Listed below is the total
budget for the Escambia County Parks and Recrea
tion Department for the past three years.
County Funds
$138,793.00
$121,835.00
$ 85,796.00
Revenue Sharing
$200,000.00
$ 50,000.00
$ 0.
1974- 75
1975- 1976
1976- 1977
PARKS
SJC
2 t
Z <
•
3.
'■k 5
! —' 5
E £“ w
Z £
■f.
1L
E Z
,0 a
s
at
u «
. k.
IE *■>
5 I
'7.'
2 Z
‘E »•
f.
! «
*W ■*
tj *
| p
.£ 4« r>
5 2
>
Z
— 3%
,3 s
sic
*3 T _ -r
5 —s 2 M
•52 5
Z Z Z
County
Funds
Federal
Funds
Aero Vista Park Picnic Tables
Marine Drive and Milton Road
Warrington
0.7 0 0 p Platted
1946
Slide 0 0 0
Ashton Brosnahatn Recreation Center
Picnic Tables
109.04 0 1 Caretaker
(Contract ual
Agreement)
p
Deeded By
U.S. Gov.
Horse-Rodeo
V ,W ,X ,Q $2,276.(M) $66,200.00 0
0
0
Avondale Park 7.78 0 0 p Leased from
City ($1.00
per Year
1973
Merry Go Rn
L,M (2),N ,P,C
Bsebl pract T B L
Swing Climb
Picnic
$1,402.00 0
Baars Field (Operated by G ulf Beach
Recreation Association) 20.00 0 0 1921
Footbl, Basebl
G ,C(2),A (2),RR,
CS,M (2),N,P
Rest Rm Swing
Concessn Stand
$4,448.00 $ 5,757.00
Bayou Marcus Heights 2.00 0 0 p Platted
1954
Slide
0
0 0 0
1113
PAR KS _ -5
2 t
£ <
y
Z
• —■ s
e E“ uu
y
—■ H C a
w —
3h>U
u «
. w
a . i
S l
7 .5
w ■—
J2 Z
•“ ai.S sat. ,
r.
S- - * *
*
. *
| p
.E "4rs r*
/.
>
— 3*
"S —
:
w
E
5X
l £
£ a £
a — “
= Z %
a 2 |
County
Funds
Federal
Funds
tillin' Springs Public Park 2.00 0 0 P Platted
1904 0 0 0 0
limit Middle School 1.0 0 0 P Owned by
School Board
“Community
School”
1976
K
Tennis Court
0 $ 3,239.00 0
Brcnl Park (1 eased to Brent
Recreation Association) 20.0 0 0 1926
F,A(4),D,C<4)
M ,P(2),CS(2)
RR(4)
0 0 0
Brentwood Park 5.00 0 0 P Platted
1926
K ,M ,N ,C ,H $ 830.00 $11,000.00 0
C ampbell Landing 1.00 0 P Donation
1976
Boat Ramp
Y $ 500.00 0 0
C 'a n to n m e n t/E n s lc y .la y cee P a rk
(S a n ta M a r ia P la z a ) O p e ra te d by
C 'a n to n m e n t / E n s le y .laycecs
5.00
0 1 0
P la t te d
1924
C o n c e ss n S ta n d
R est R m S o ftB I
C S ,R R ,E .
By D o n a tio n 0 0
1114
PARKS sc _ s
i _
“ a
—' 5 = s
; SI
w £
■*:
y
5 H 5 !»
5
ha
SC
*" *
J* ha
5 5
/ ,* ,5 w
W h.
1 2•■E w .
f .
*
7.
*w «
v *
I p
r» r*
>
SI
“ i/v■ _
J3 —
,a s
SC
1 £
*5 T
U S
3 .2 ~
i is. .r
' i l l
County
Funds
Federal
Funds
Carver Middle School 3.00 0 0 p
Owned by
School Board
“Community
School”
1976
C
Basebl practice
$ 150.00 0 0
Carver Park 2.00 0 0 p Platted
1943
Swing Climber
M (2),L,N .O ,P
Slide Picnic T B L
Merry Go Rn
$4,333.00 $ 303.00 0
Century Elementary School 2.00 0 0 p
Owned by
School Board
“Community
School”
1976
K
Tennis Court
0 $11,000.00 0
Charbar Lake Park 2.00 0 0 p
Leased from
City ($1.00
per year)
1976
0
Slide
0 0 0
1115
I* \ RKN
Chimes Way
Civilan Park (leased to Warrington
Civitan Club)
Corrv Park #2
Corrv Park #1
Country Club Estates
5.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.50
Platted
1926
Platted
1933
Plaited
1940
Platted
1940
Basebl Praet
C'<2)
Recreation Cntr
Footbl Pract
R C .G .M .N .O
Swing
0
Merry Go Rnd
Swing Slide
L.M .O .P Picnic
O Slide
2 i
— V.*5 —
County
Funds
By Donation
Federal
Funds
By Donation
$ 100.00
Os
M
ai
nt
en
an
ce
&
P
ro
gr
am
C
os
t-I
ed
cr
ul
I m
ul
in
g
19
74
1
07
7
l> \K K S
[
u
mm 9
2 t
- <
• —' 3 s s
Z U ,C -̂5
5
SJC 5 z
I i3 .
z r~
s
.z *rs r-
*3
w
i
|
| |
*S T. _-rg “ r̂ -
3 —
r Z zf
‘3 Z |
5 C £
County
Funds
Federal
Funds
Don Sutton Recreation Park
(Operated by Molino Recreation
Association)
5 Acres
County
15 Acres
leased from
State DOT
15.000 0 0
0
1972
G ,A ,C S ,R R ,M ,
N ,0 ,P Footbl pr
Basebl Cnees Stn
Rest Rm Swing
Climber Picnic
$4,970.00 0 0
0
Doric Miller Park (Operated by
DF.I’T . of Human Resources 5.00 Platted
1945
E.M .N .O .R C .
C .J .I Rec Cntr
Merry Go Rn
Slide Swing
Bask Bsebl Tenn
$ 75.00 $13,600.00
Elmer Grimsley Park
Harrington Elementary School 7.00 0 0
1________
Owned by
School Board
“Community
School”
1976
Tennis Court
K 0 $11,000.00 I 0
1117
PARKS u „ a
2 t
■1 <
/
it
— a
5 E* w»
• «
/
a.
5 U a
w •
awU
w «
Z t
Is w
a Z
7
■ £ » •
r.
a-- * «
7
•*
| P
.S *ra r»
5 1
3
5
\r.
Zm
• j
'7.
u
u
1 p
T„ _ -T
g 2 £
a — *"
2 -6.
’a - E
County j Federal
Funds | Funds
I nglewood Park (Operated hv
the Dept, of Human Resources 5.00 0
R C\M (2),L, Swing
N .l Cliitiber Basket
Rec Cntr Merry $ 4,309.00 0 0
Pscambia Park 4.00 0 0 p 526,500 ?
1975
O
Slide
0 0 0
Fairfield Park - 1.30 0 0 p Platted
1958
O By Donation 0 0
Forest Park 0.12 0 0 p Platted
1955
O 0 0 0
Forte Estates 2.00 0 0 p Platted
1959
O 0 0 0
Galvez l anding (G ulf Beach
Heights) 2.00 0 0 p Platted
1921
Boat Ramp
7.(2)
(St ate)
$17,700.00 0 0
Harvesters Homes Park 0.6
J _______
0 p Platted
1953
Merry Go Rn
L,M Swing By Donation 0 0
1118
PA R K S
a
— 7*
£ - »
i t 1 1
£ < C a
£ 1
C 75
w a
SC
*
a=£
7
*2 Z•z U ,
**
7
** ̂*
.£ 4n, r-
Z.
£ aJZ Ir,
U
£ r-
a r"
*7
-z 2 £
1 2 5
z z z
County
Funds
Federal
Funds
Heritage Park 3.00 0 0 p
Leased from
Heritage
Church
1976
Basebl youth
A ,M ,N ,L Swing
Climber
Merry Go Rn
$ 690.00 $ 364.00 0
l ake Stone 204.94 0
0
Caretaker
Contractual
Agreement
p 1968
Footbl Pract
Camp Site
T(78)P(15),
G ,M ,N ,0 ,R R ,
K ,Y climb swing
Tennis
Slide
Restm
Boat
$25,087.00 $ 6,370.00 0
Lakewood Park 1.50 0 0 p Platted
1949
O 0 0 0
Laurel Park 3.00 0 0 p Platted
1958
O 0 0 0
Lincoln Park .5.00 0 p 1971 I.M .N .O swing
Basktbl Slide
Merry Go Rn
$ 4,752.00 0 0
Magnolia Park (Leased to
Ensley Lions Club) to 1.00 0 0 p Platted
1905
M(2),0,P(4)N
Merry
By Donation 0
1119
I’ X K K S
9t
_ s*
■1 <
"S.
s _
■ — 3
E E
—
W su
z
5£ n
w a .
sUi
u
u «A
u
a I
■yi .**
W w
5 s*
■“ 3 ,
S ,
Z 7.
*^ *
1* *
Is
.5 - rrt r*
r.
3*
>
u
*5
------------------- “1
7 ,
'7.
3
u.
Z r -
* 4
2 n £5 u. 5s
5 — ""
s ; m
1 2 I
s c i
C o u n t y
F u n d s
F e d e r a l
F u n d s
M a y f a i r P a r k # 2 1 .0 0 0 0 p P l a t t e d
1 9 5 4
o 0 0 0
M a y f a i r P a r k #1 1 0 .0 0 0 0 p 1 9 5 6 C ( 3 ) , M ( 2 ) , N , 0 , l ,
B a s e b l S w in g
S l id e
M e r r y
$ 1 ,2 7 8 ,0 0 0 0
F a l lv ie w B o a t R a m p 0 .2 0 p S t a t e
D O T R / W
Y ( l ) B o a t
R a m p
0 0 0
M c a d o w b r o o k P a r k # 2 0 .9 0 0 p P l a t t e d
1 9 5 5
N C l i m b 0 0 0
M i n n e h a h a P a r k a n d
C o m m u n i t y P l a y g r o u n d 1 .3 0 0 p P l a t t e d
1 9 2 6
O S l id e 0 0 0
M o l i n o T o w n P a r k 2 .0 0 p P l a t t e d
1 9 1 9
Y ( 2 ) ,G B o a t
R a m p
S t a t e
( $ 1 7 ,7 0 0 .0 0 )
$ 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0
0 0
1120
PARKS _ 3
2 t
2 <
/
z
! — 5
E E“ w.
w £»
i
T vl ,c 3
3
sc
Z «
3 I
_C w
w
Z
’Z ® *
/
3- - * *
7.
-w *W ■*
V *
j g
-S ~T3 r»
■y.
>
hi
15
jS
7.
7.
3
SC
E f-~» r»
* 4
3 Ji "": s sc
£ '«*■ .2
3 2 1
s C ' j :
County
Funds
Federal
Funds
Myrtle Grove Jaycee Park
(Formerly Meadowbrook Park #1) 2.0 0 0 p Platted
1955
L,M (2),N Merry
Swing
Clim b
0 0 0
Old Carver Elementary School
(Operated by Dept, of Human
Resources)
3.Of 0
Owned by
School Board
“Community
School”
1976
L,M ,N ,0,P(4),1
merry
Swing
Clim b
Slide
Picnic
T B L
$ 1,361.00 $5,667.00 0
Navy Point 60.00 0 0 p Platted
1945
Z(2) Boat
Ramp
0 0 0
Oak Park 0.6 0 0 p Platted
1955
M,P(2) Picnic
Swing
By Donation 0 0
Oakcrest Park 1.5 0 0 p Platted
1954
C .L ,M Swing
Slide
Climb
Basebi pract
$ 590.00
0 0
1121
PARKS
it 9C __ a
a jj
- <
jf.
15.
| f
w &
/
“a
c T
s a
w £»
a
jjc
C «
Z t
*5 *-
a £
]a Z
•s a . S ,
/
Va
7
^ ■«. «
2 P
.2 «Ta £
s s
>
ua
"a
_a
w
7.
‘7.
awU.
E f" £ EC
l a g
a 5 ~ s 2 u
i it .2
3 2 5
z c z
County
Funds
Federal
Funds
Oakficld Acres #1 2.0 0 0 p
Leased from
City ($1.00
per year)
1976
c Basebl By Donation 0 0
Oak field Acres #2 0.8 0 0 p
Leased from
City ($1.00
per Year)
Slide 0 0 0
Osceola Lodge Reservation
and C ommunity Playground 3.0 0 p Platted
1926
0 0 0 0
Parish Heights 1.4 0 p Platted
1953
0 0 0 0
Perdido Gardens 1.4 0 0 p Platted
1925
0 0 0 0
Phietwater Beach 4.5 0 0 p Z(4) 0 0 0
1122
PARKS
3X
_ S*
2 t
4 <
■T.
“a.
'*■ 3
— 5
s £
z *■,« ij
w
n j
5 "
a
W £m
£5
at
u «
£ £
1 z
"Z £ .
7
w «
U *
f p
.5 4n r-
r.
>
f.
w
3r.
£w
St
£ r~-
*3 T
g - s ?
£ — ""* = 2 st
I c l
County
Funds
Federal
Funds
Raymond Riddle Park (Operated
by West Pensacola Dixie
Youth Association)
11.44 0 0 $150,00
1975
Basebl Softbl
A(2),D ,C.,CS,RR
Footbl Baskt
Concession Stnd
Restr $700.00 0 0
Regency Park 20.00 0 p 1971 0 0 0 0
River Gardens Park 5.00 0 0 p Platted
1964
0 0 0 0
0Shady Terrace 2.00 0 0 p Platted
1962
Basebl
C
By Donation 0
Sherwood Park 01.00 0 0 p Platted
1957
Basketbl Merry
1,M ,C
Rest By Donation 0 0
Wedgewood School 02.00 0 0 p
Community
School
1976
L,M (2),N
Merry Go Rn
Swing Climber
By Donation 0 0
1123
PARKS at «. s*
n £
; ^
- <
f.
*&
E —
dfe £
: — 3
E E2 w.
w —
a
5 * s n
wS-
5
u
i" *
a i :
*5 c
5 |
i
W •—»
1 £ •= 3 .
/
IS *«
i#
7
«w «
*
.S ~rn r»
>
Z
— Cr<
”3 *“
jS -
w
U=X
1 g
*3 T . _^
£ a £
5 —s 2 sc
*5 2 5
s c ;
County
Funds
Federal
Funds
Wentworth Park 07.00 0 0 p
Leased from
Catholic
High ($1.00
per Year)
1973
Baseball
Adult
Swing
B.M
$488.00 $11,736.00 0
1124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1125
Aero Vista Park:
Between Marine Drive and Milton Road
(Warrington)
Ashton Brosnaham Recreation Center:
West of Ten Mile Road — West of Chemstrand
Road
Avondale Park:
East of Muldoon Road, off of Vestavia Lane
Baars Field (Gulf Beach Recreation Assoc.):
Near Intersection of State Highway 295 and 292
Bayou Marcus Heights:
Between Carroll, King, and Lenora Streets
Bluff Springs Public Park:
Block 10 and 37 of Bluff Springs Subdivision
Bratt Middle School (Tennis Court only):
Bratt
Brent Park (Brent Recreation Assoc.):
Beverly Parkway and Allerton
Brentwood Park:
Pensacola Boulevard between Jacquelyn and
Virginia
Campbell Landing:
Escambia River at Highway 4
Cantonment/Ensley Jaycee Park:
Santa Maria Plaza, Center of Cantonment
Carver Park:
Cantonment, at intersection of Washington Street
and Webb Street
1126
13 Century Elementary School (Tennis court only):
Century
14 Century Wayside Park:
Highway 29 at Century
15 Charbar Lake Park:
(Owned by City) corner of Charbar Drive and
Broyhill
16 Chimes Way:
Two blocks South of Beverly Parkway between
Chimes and Concordia
17 Civitan Park (Warrington Civitan Club):
Sunset and Second Street
18 Corry Park 2:
North of Barrancas on Druid Drive and Corry
Place
19 Corry Park 1:
North of Barrancas Avenue between Park Drive
and Manchester Street
20 Don Sutton Recreation Park (Molino Recreation
Assoc.):
Molino, West of Highway 29 at intersection of
Highway S-97 on Sunshine Hill Road
21 Dorie Miller Park:
North of Leonard Street on East and West of
Miller Street
22 Elmer Grimsley Park (Warrington Elementary
School):
Navy Boulevard
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
1127
Englewood Park:
South of Leonard, west of “H” Street
Escambia Park:
East end of Beggs Lane
Fairfield Park:
East of 50th Street on Tulip Drive
Forest Park:
South of Clairmont Drive
Forte Estates:
West of 77th Avenue, South of Barrington Court
Galvez Landing (Gulf Beach Heights):
Between Cruzat and Galvez on Intercoastal
Waterway
Harvesters Homes Park:
East of Lakeview Avenue at Forrest Street
Heritage Park:
Highway 297, South of Kingsfield Road
Lake Stone:
One mile west of Highway 29 on Highway 4,
Century
Lakewood Park:
North of Lakewood Road at intersection of
Mandalay
Laurel Park:
North of Avery Street, between Orleans and Archer
Avenue
Lincon Park:
In Lincoln Subdivision on Fiesta Drive
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1128
Magnolia Park (Ensley Lions Club):
Between Detroit and Montgomery at Alabama
Avenue
Mayfair Park: 2
In South Madison Drive
Mayfair Park: 1
Corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Fenned
Meadowbrook Park 2:
East of Teldor Drive between Colby avenue and
Benton Road
Minnehaha Park and Community Playground:
Between Talladega and Sioux Trail
Molino Town Park:
East of Molino on Escambia River
Murr Heights:
North and South of Elm Street, West of
Warrington Road
Myrtle Grove Jaycee Park:
South of Lillian Highway in Myrtle Grove on
Adkinson Drive
North Mulnorth:
North of Galvez at intersection of Wentworth
Old Carver Elementary School:
(Owned by School Board) Century
Navy Point:
Next to water, North and South of Senset Drive
Oak Park:
North of Hickory East of Spruce Street
1129
47 Oakcrest Park:
North of Fairfield Drive between Opal Avenue and
Topaz Avenue
48 Oakfield Acres 2:
(Owned by City) Intersection of Royal Land and
White Oak Drive
49 Oakfield Acres 1:
(Owned by City) Intersection of Royal Land and
White Oak Drive
50 Osceola Lodge Reservation and Community
Playground:
Corner of Cherokee Trail and West Ccmmanche
Trail
51 Parish Heights:
Between Sandra Drive and Benton Drive
52 Perdido Gardens:
North of Bay Court at intersection of Perdido
Court
53 Perdido Manor:
West of Bay Avenue, South of Live Oak
intersection
54 Raymond Riddle Park (West Pensacola Dixie Youth
Assoc.):
Between “T” and “W” Streets at Blount Street
55 Regency Park:
End of Squire Road, South of Olive Road
56 River Gardens Park:
Intersection of Sugarberry Road and Crabapple
Lane
1130
57 Shady Terrace:
East of Pompano Drive, North of Olive Road
58 Twelve Oaks:
South of Wilkers Drive, Next to L & N Railroad
59 Waters Beach:
Between Second and Third Streets
60 Wentworth Park:
Corner of Scott and Wentworth (next to Catholic
High School)
61 Wildewood:
West of Bristol Avenue, North of Medford
1131
EXHIBIT 73
Transcript of Proceedings of Escambia County Board of
County Commission at August 31, 1977 Public Hearing
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
78-3507
HENRY T. McMILLAN, etal., )
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
)
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, etal., )
Defendants. )
)
)
ELMER JENKINS, etal., )
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
)
CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA, )
etal., '
Defendants. )
)
CIVIL ACTION
No. 77-0432
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 77-0433
NOTICE OF FILING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the filing with the
Clerk of the Court a verbatim transcript of statements
made by and to Defendant Board of County Commis
sioners and their Attorney during a public hearing held
August 31, 1977 regarding the proposed Escambia County
Charter. Although it is not clear that these particular con
versations were covered by the Order of this Court, dated
1132
August 4, 1977 requiring the parties herein to comply with
proposed Local Rule 17, in an abundance of caution, the
verbatim transcript of public hearing as set forth in Ex
hibit A hereof, is filed in accordance with such Order.
/ s / Richard I. Lott
Attorney for Defendant Escambia County
28 West Government Street
Pensacola, Florida
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been
furnished to J. U. Blacksher, Esquire and Larry T. T.
Menefee, Esquire of Crawford, Blacksher, Figures &
Brown, 1407 Davis Avenue, Mobile, Alabama 36603,
Louis F. Ray, Jr., Sixth Floor, Seville Tower, 226 South
Palafox Street, Pensacola, Florida 32501, and Don J.
Caton, Esquire, City Hall, 330 South Jefferson Street,
Pensacola, Florida 32501, by U.S. Mail this 18th day of
October, 1977.
/s / Richard I. Lott
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT FROM PUBLIC HEARING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD AUGUST 31,
1977, HEALTH DEPARTMENT AUDITORIUM REGARDING
THE PROPOSED CHARTER FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY
GOVERNMENT
Mr. E. J. Crosswright, P.O. Box 2365, Pensacola, Florida
Mr. Kelson, I’m E. J. Crosswright, and I live east of 12th
Avenue. Unfortunately, I do not know who my County
Commissioner is, but...
Commissioner Jack Kenney
Right here.
1133
Mr. Crosswright
Thank you. The very first part where it says five members
elected county wide. County wide automatically kills it for
me because eventually I plan on running maybe for one of
your jobs. As long as it is county wide, I can never beat
Jack Kenney out. So, of it is at all possible for this to be
changed, then I can get in my particular precinct... in
cidentally, I am precinct committman. I am going to work
for it or against it, and I am going to work hard for it or
against it. All other parts of this seem to be in keeping with
something I can go along with. Thank you.
Chairman Kelson
Thank you, sir. Mr. Lott, would you like to explain how
we arrived at this county wide vote? Explain why we chose
to go county wide. Would you (Commissioner Deese) like
to do that?
Commissioner Charles Deese
This was decided by the Board of Commissioners that it
would be a county wide vote rather than an individual run
ning in a district only. My personal reason for voting for
this would be that I think I should represent all the people
of the county and I think all the people of the county
should be able to vote for me or against me. I will be hav
ing a part deciding where all the people’s money shall be
spent and so I think all people of the county should vote
on all of the county Commissioners. That’s the reason.
The situation where the Commissioner has to live in the
district is as it has always been.
Mr. Crosswright
Could I speak to that?
Chairman Kelson
Yes sir.
1134
Mr. Crosswright
This is quite true that all the people that are elected should
represent all the people; however, it is very difficult for
you or anyone else to know the county, to know other
than your particular district. This is why I didn’t know
that Kenney was a member of my particular district. This
is why I do not know who my City Councilman is. What
I’m saying simply is this — As long as you have it like this,
you are not going to have people concerned with their par
ticular government. You need to know people first hand.
You need to be able to come into our district, your district.
For instance, Jack Kenney can get elected if nobody in his
district decides to vote for him, and this is wrong. No per
son in Jack Keeney’s district could vote for him and he
could be elected. You are______________On the other
hand, if you were elected and selected by members of your
district, you would have to come to your district to get
elected. You would be more concerned with your district. I
think it is very unfair. It is something that no one can show
me that I should not know who my respective represen
tative is. As I said, I had to go to City Hall meetings to
find out Mr. North... Mr. Northrup, I still don’t know the
name. I saw him on the stage, but other than that I have
never met him, and I am precinct committeeman in my
district. Jack has never come and asked me, “Look here,
let’s get together and get these 600 people.” He doesn’t
need those 600 people in precinct 50. He can get elected
otherwise, and I think this is wrong.
Commissioner Kenney
I think you have a very valid point, and I am not really
very strong on county wide thing myself. I don’t really feel
it is that important. I feel like to a degree, it is kind of a
hang over from the old Road Board that this Commission
used to be where the Commissioner’s only job was to take
1135
care of paving roads in a certain district and that was all he
had to worry about. We have progressed quite a ways
since then, where we deal with municipal problems a great
deal more since 2/3’s of our population lives outside the city
limits and still wants municipal services. That’s one side
of it. The question I would like to ask you and it would
have a direct bearing — this is not — by the way, nobody
has explained that tonight — this is not the final document
that is going to be placed before the voters. We are coming
here tonight to get ideas from the public to incorporate in
to the final document which will be presented in
November and I would be glad to hear more from you in a
personal way on what you think might be the reaction
regarding additional candidates, a lot of people to choose
from, and all political philosophies, liberal and conser
vative, and all races. I would like very much if you
wouldn’t mind contacting me after Labor Day — I am go
ing to be out the first part of next week — and let’s you
and I sit down and talk about it because.... I went along
with this thing and my mind could be changed for very
good reasons and I would like to talk to you more about it.
Would you answer this question for me now? Do you
think more people from District 4, more qualified people
from my district, would be interested in local government;
more interested than they are now, if we were elected on a
district by district basis?
Mr. Crosswright
Sir, I will assure you that they will be because I will see to
it that they will.
Commissioner Kenney
Thank you very much for your thoughts.
Chairman Kelson
Mr. Lott, I think you should explain how we operate
1136
under the present system and why we are county wide, if
you don’t mind,
County Attorney Lott
Under the present Constitution, which was amended in
1969, a charter can’t change the manner of electing county
commissioners. The previous Constitution provided that
commissioners be elected by electors of the County. Up
until 1954, the practice was for commissioners to be
elected by district. In 1954, the Supreme Court of Florida
held that election by district violated the right to vote of
people who were in effect ruled by commissioners, but
didn’t get to vote on all of them. For that reason, every
since 1954 and pursuant to that Court Order, commis
sioners have been elected county wide.
Mrs. Ruby Gainer, Ph.D., 1516 W. Gadsden Street, Pen
sacola, Florida
Who is my County Commissioner?
Chairman Kelson
That would be me.
Dr. Gainer
Well, I have the same complaint also, but I would like to
know if there are any safeguards in here whereas a minori
ty may have a chance to be elected, and may have an op
portunity to represent all the people the same as others. As
I look on the platform tonight, I know I’d certainly feel
better if I would at least see one image of someone — I see
someone running around — you know, just running
around seeing about the mikes or something, but really in
the political government, in the set up, what safeguard
could you give to minorities that they too would have ac
tive participation in this type government? And the second
question, while I’m here I will just ask the other one — in
1137
what relationship would the City Council have? Would it
be completely eliminated? Would it be in a cooperative
measure, or how would it fit in with this type charter?
County Attorney Lott
On your question about the City Council, the Charter only
applies to the County form of government. Section 105 of
the Charter expressly provides that there can be no con
solidation of government with the City unless it is express
ly approved by a vote of the people both within the City
and outside the City. There is also a provision in the
Charter concerning the fact that an ordinance, which is in
conflict with any ordinance the City Council adopts, will
not prevail in the City to the extent of such conflict. So if
the City passed an ordinance saying one thing, and the
County passed an ordinance saying something else, within
the City limits, the City ordinance would be the law.
Dr. Gainer
You didn’t answer my first question.
Chairman Kelson
Let me try to answer Mrs. Gainer. Mrs. Gainer is talking
about different people being elected. I gave up a seat on
the City Council in 1970. Mr. Hollis Williams, the present
City Councilman, was appointed to this job, and I don’t
believe Mr. Williams has had any trouble at all holding the
job of City Councilman. In fact, if my memory serves me
right, his first election - I think he beat three white peo
ple. It wasn’t his own race, but white people. He beat them
in the first primary very outstanding because he proved
that he did a good job. The second time he run, I don’t
remember if he was unopposed. I know this last time he
was unopposed. So, I think we need to get away from that
really if this country is ever to become the greatest thing in
the world.
1138
Dr. Gainer
May I speak to your last point? This country can never get
away from it as long as identification of the two groups,
and some safeguards or measures must be made as long as
we have the type of identities that we have. As much as I,
too, would like to see us get away from it, but there is no
need of us saying that we can get away from reality; that
we can get away from the actual facts. Whereas you want to
ignore it on one hand, you are not willing to ignore it on
other hand. There are some positions in which blacks have
never had an opportunity from Mayor on. I feel that not
only a black could be a mayor in this place, the same as a
woman or man could be. So as long as it suits to your ad
vantage, and you have the advantage at this time because
you have a majority, and it’s very difficult when you have
a minority, and until you bring up the level of all the peo
ple and their type of theories that you propose - every
person in Escambia County be as liberal as you are and
probably as intelligent as you may be. But when we con
tinue to live in the climate with the type of image that we
have, we have to consider the truth of the matter.
Commissioner Deese
Mrs. Gainer, let met respond to some of the remarks that
you made, please.
Dr. Gainer
Yes
Commissioner Deese
In the Democrat society, the majority rules. Those who
vote cast the vote for or against. The person who wins the
most votes in the winner. The person who loses is the one
who gets the lesser number of votes. We can’t dictate that
each person who goes to the polls must vote for any cer
tain person. This would be undemocratic. So therefore, I
1139
think it should be known in a democratic society that
everyone has a chance according to the way be brings it
across to the people. If he wins the people’s interest, then
they will, of course, vote for him. I think everyone has a
chance at the polls. There are no restrictions at the polls
because of race, creed, color, or anything. There are no
restrictions there.
Executive Director Joe Mooney
Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Gainer, uh. I think the point you
made... that it is real important in terms of identification
for people, particularly for younger people, that they have
their own idols to look up to and people that are leaders,
that are identified as such. I think it would be
unfortunate... I didn’t want you to go away with the
understanding that one of the county’s four department
heads, Mr. Wilson, the black gentleman you saw fixing the
mikes and who is in charge of personnel, administration,
planning, community development, is somebody that has
no influence in the system or has a job of a menial nature.
He is one of the four department heads and I just wanted
to clear that up, both for your benefit, and I think in all
fairness to Mr. Wilson. He is a major department head,
and one of four in the county. He has a substantial budget
and has substantial areas. He is the Chief of Administra
tion for this County, and I just wanted to bring that out —
not to debate your other point, because I do think it is
quite important.
Dr. Gainer
Why don’t you bring him up on the stage sometime?
Mr. Mooney
He was on the stage until today, and it was his choice not
to be here. But not to debate that point. But there are four
department heads and Mr. Wilson is one of those four
1140
department heads and currently 3 people serve in positions
as department heads, and Mr. Wilson is one of 3. I think
that that image is quite important and I think that people
should be recognized for the position that they serve in.
Mr. Crosswright
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to what you said con
cerning Mr. Hollis Williams. He is a very dear friend of
mine and has been for the past 20 years. He is a very fine
man. I understand this, but what we are talking about here
in this election of one man-one vote situation is not the
democrat situation as you speak of here because we as
black people did not choose Mr. Hollis Williams. This was
the choice of your people. We want a situation where we
can choose a black person, and this hasn’t been done in
this county... Mr. Hollis is fine. We are glad to have him.
We would like to choose one - We are glad you made a
choice of him, but let us choose one too. This is what we
want. This is the democratic way.
Chairman Kelson
I didn’t choose him myself you know. I wasn’t there.
Mr. Crosswright
Well, the white people made the choice. We didn’t... the
blacks didn’t.
Chairman Kelson
Well, he’s been elected three times in a row, so somebody
elected him.
Mr. Crosswright
When it’s county wide, you can elect anyone who wish.
Chairman Kelson
He doesn’t run in the county. He was elected in the city.
Mr. Crosswright
Well, City wide. What’s the difference?
1141
Chairman Kelson
Well, I could debate a lot of that, but I won’t get into it.
Mr. George Price, 1828 North “B” Street, Pensacola,
Florida (Mr. Price arrived later in the meeting)
Has anyone spoken in opposition to elections being held
county wide?
Chairman Kelson
Yes, sir.
Mr. Price
Good
STATE OF FLORIDA,
COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA.
I, JOE A. FLOWERS, COMPTROLLER, and ex-
officio Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify
that the above and foregoing is a verbatim excerpt from
the Public Hearing of the Board of County Commis
sioners on the 31st day of August, 1977.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and
official seal this 9th day of September, 1977.
JOE A. FLOWERS, COMPTROLLER
AND EX-OFFICIO CLERK TO THE
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
OF ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY /s / Jean Murrer
Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT 80
1973-77 Escambia County, City of Pensacola EEO-4 Summary Job Classification and Salary Analyses
Fi
na
nc
ia
l
A
dm
in
is
tra
tio
n
St
re
et
s
&
H
ig
hw
ay
s
Po
lic
e
(
Pr
ot
ec
tio
n
Pa
rk
&
R
ec
re
at
io
n
H
os
pi
ta
ls
&
Sa
na
to
riu
m
s
H
ou
si
ng
C
om
m
un
ity
D
ev
el
op
m
en
t
C
or
re
ct
io
ns
U
til
iti
es
&
Tr
an
sp
or
ta
tio
n
Sa
ni
ta
tio
n
&
Se
w
ag
e
O
th
er
To
ta
l
j 1
Vo
B
la
ck
W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B
Service
Mainten. 22 4 36* 14 5 9 6 4 1 27 _ _ 2 _ _ 8* 3 4 16 84 77 47
Skilled
Craft 9 59 3 2 2 10 3 _ _ 82 6 7 .
Clerical 201* 7 6 - 55* 2 2 3 2 - - 1 3 1 - 276 7 2
Para-
Profession 1 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ 13* 35 _ _ _ _ - i — — _ _ 26 40 37 48
Protective
Service 2 _ _ 119 8 145 8 5
Technician 43 2 20* 40 1 1 12 8 - 4 - - 8 10 138 11 7
Profesional 43* 10 _ 7 — - 7 3 - 2 - 1 - 63 10 14
Officials
Admin. 8* 1 2 _ _ 2 - 1 - _ _ 1 - _ _ 1 - _ _ _ _ 15 1 6
Total 329 25 123 17 228 16 13 4 36 70 6 7 28 1 2 30 6 41 16 843 157 15.7%
Includes other races
1142
1977 Escambia County City o f Pensacola EEO-4 Summary Salary Analysis
Fi
na
nc
ia
l
A
dm
in
is
tra
tio
n
St
re
et
s
&
H
ig
hw
ay
s
Po
lic
e
Pr
ot
ec
tio
n
H
os
pi
ta
l &
Sa
na
to
riu
m
s
H
ou
si
ng
C
om
m
un
ity
D
ev
el
op
m
en
t
C
or
re
ct
io
ns
U
til
iti
es
&
Tr
an
sp
or
ta
tio
n
Sa
ni
ta
tio
n
&
Se
w
ag
e
Pa
rk
&
R
ec
re
at
io
n
O
th
er
(C
us
to
di
al
S
er
.
Em
er
ge
nc
y
Se
r.
C
EP
A
)
To
ta
l s
#
W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B w B
0.1 - 3.9
4.0 - 3.9 33 3 5 1 9 1 16* 18 1 - - - - - _ 4* 1 1 2 - - 60 26 27
6.0 - 7.9 120* 6 45* 15 23* 9 9 46 | 1 - - - - 7 3 3 13 6 4 215 96 31
8.0 - 9.9 70* 7 50* 1 32 1 3 6 1 1 1 1 15 2 31 - 3 - 208 18 8
10.0 - 12.9 66* 5 16 79 6 7 - 3 - 2 ~ 25 - - - 3 - 6 1 2 209 12 5
13.0 - 15.9 21 1 4 - 78 1 - - - 2 - 2 - - - - - - - - _ 107 2 2
16.0 - 24.9 19 3 2 7 - 1 - | _ - - - - I ~ - - 2 - 33 3 8
25.0 - Plus - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - 2 - -
Total 329 25 123 17 228 18 36 70 6 - 7 - 28 1 2 - 30 6 41 16 13 4 843 157 15.7%
Includes other races
1143
1975 Escambia County EEO-4 Summary Job Classification Analysis
Fi
na
nc
ia
l
A
dm
in
is
tra
tio
n
St
re
et
s
&
H
ig
hw
ay
s
Po
lic
e
Pr
ot
ec
tio
n
N
at
ur
al
Re
so
ur
ce
s
H
os
pi
ta
ls
&
Sa
ni
to
riu
m
s
H
ea
lth
H
ou
si
ng
C
om
m
un
ity
D
ev
el
op
m
en
t
C
or
re
ct
io
ns
U
til
iti
es
&
Tr
an
sp
or
ta
tio
n
Sa
ni
ta
tio
n
&
Se
w
ag
e
Em
er
ge
nc
y
Se
rv
ic
es
To
ta
l
VC35
W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B
Officials
Admin. 12 8 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 _ _ 1 0 2 0 _ — 1 0 _ _ 21 8
Professionals 2 0 1 0 25 0 — - - - 1 0 - 4 1 0 1 - - - - 33 2
Technicians 29 1 46 10 29 0 1 0 7 8 2 0 4 0 1 0 - - - - 3 0 - - 122 19
Protective
Service 8 0 139 12 34 0 _ — _ — - - 181 12
Para-
Pro fesional 1 0 12 36 _ _ 0 1 2 0 _ — — - 36 0 51 37
Office
Clerical 81 0 5 0 34 1 2 0 2 0 3 4 2 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 136 5
Skilled
Craft 3 0 1 0 9 3 _ _ 1 0 — — 11 1 - - 25 4
Service
Maintenance 4 15 8 26 1 2 4 20 3 0 8 4 _ _ 35 2 8 0 1 2 _ _ 72 71
136 24 54 10 239 39 6 2 25 64 8 0 24 11 8 2 77 3 10 0 17 3 37 0 641 158
1144
1975 Escambia County EEO-4 Summary Salary Analysis
Fi
na
nc
ia
l
A
dm
in
is
tra
tio
n
St
re
et
s
&
H
ig
hw
ay
s
Po
lic
e
Pr
ot
ec
tio
n
N
at
ur
al
Re
so
ur
ce
s
H
os
pi
ta
l &
Sa
ni
to
riu
m
s
H
ea
lth
H
ou
sin
g
* I 1 i
I !a s C
or
re
ct
io
ns
U
til
iti
es
&
Tr
an
sp
or
ta
tio
n
Sa
ni
ta
tio
n
&
Se
w
ag
e
Em
er
ge
nc
y
Se
rv
ic
es
To
ta
l
%
B
la
ck
W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B
0 - 5.9 0 6 12 14 6 13 2 0 3 1 1 2 24 36
6.0 - 7.9 5 10 24 13 2 0 17 44 3 0 4 7 l 0 28 1 3 0 18 0 105 75
00 © 1 NO NO 60 5 32 0 2 2 2 7 3 0 8 4 2 1 18 1 7 0 12 1 18 0 164 21
10.0 - 24.9 71 3 171 12 2 0 2 0 10 0 5 1 28 0 4 0 1 0 294 16
Total 136 24 239 39 6 2 25 64 8 0 24 11 7 2 77 3 10 0 17 3 37 0 587 148
1145
1974 Escambia County City EEO-4 Summary Job Classification Analysis
Fi
na
nc
ia
l
A
dm
in
is
tra
tio
n
St
re
et
s
&
H
ig
hw
ay
s
Pu
bl
ic
W
el
fa
re
H
os
pi
ta
l
Sa
ni
to
riu
m
H
os
pi
ta
l
Sa
ni
to
riu
m
H
ea
lth
H
ou
si
ng
C
om
m
un
ity
D
ev
el
op
m
en
t
C
or
re
ct
io
ns
U
til
iti
es
&
Tr
an
sp
or
ta
tio
n
Sa
ni
ta
tio
n
&
Se
w
ag
e
To
ta
l
%
B
la
ck
W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B
Officials
Administrative 20 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 30 0
Professionals 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 19 0
Technicians 9 1 3 0 0 0 13 22 5 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 32 34 0
Protective
Service 1 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 32 1
Para-
Professionals 17 0 1 0 2 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 31 1
Office
Clerical 88 2 4 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 106 2
Skilled
Craft 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 o o 6 0 7 2 47 4
Service
Maintenance 0 0 27 1 0 0 50 20 13 62 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 3 95 0 199 87
Total 143 3 99 1 6 1 77 43 30 74 7 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 24 3 108 3 496 129
1146
1974 Escambia County EEO-4 Summary Salary Analysis
Fi
na
nc
ia
l
A
dm
in
is
tra
tio
n
St
re
et
s
&
H
ig
hw
ay
s
Pu
bl
ic
W
el
fa
re
H
os
pi
ta
l
Sa
ni
to
riu
m
H
os
pi
ta
l
Sa
ni
to
riu
m
H
ea
lth
H
ou
sin
g
C
om
m
un
ity
D
ev
el
op
m
en
t
C
or
re
ct
io
ns
U
til
iti
es
&
Tr
an
sp
or
ta
tio
n
Sa
ni
ta
tio
n
&
Se
w
ag
e
To
ta
l
tj
s
W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B
0 - 5.9 36 1 24 1 2 0 49 21 16 63 1 0 128 86
6.0 - 7.9 54 1 29 0 2 0 23 22 9 11 3 1 10 3 95 0 225 38
8.0 - 9.9 29 1 39 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 11 2 92 3
10.0 - 24.9 24 0 7 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 10 0 2 1 50 2
Total 143 3 99 1 6 1 77 43 30 74 7 1 1 0 24 3 108 3 495 129
1147
1973
Escambia County
EEO-4 Summary
JOB CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS
F
IN
A
N
C
IA
L
A
D
M
IN
IS
T
R
A
T
IO
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
&
H
IG
H
W
A
Y
S
z
o
W io
y £
C oc
Cl Cl
1
---
---
---
---
---
N
A
I
U
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
H
E
A
L
T
H
C
O
M
M
U
N
IT
Y
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
IO
N
S
S
A
N
IT
A
T
IO
N
&
S
E
W
A
G
E
U
N
C
L
A
S
S
IF
IE
D
N
O
T
U
N
D
E
R
C
IV
IL
S
E
R
V
IC
E
T
O
T
A
L
%
B
L
A
C
K
W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B
( tff icials
A dm in is t ra t io n 2 0 1 0 23 0 1 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 13 0 47 3
Profess iona ls 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 11 0 117 1
1 echnicians 21 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 83 45 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 121 46
Pro tec t ive
Service 9 1 31 0 70 1 0 0 26 53 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 142 55
I’ara-
Profess iona ls 17 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 20 50 0 0 1 2 1 0 5 0 47 52
Off ice
Clerical 133 5 4 1 30 4 1 0 61 2 1 0 1 0 6 0 15 , 0 252 12
Skil led
C ra f t 11 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 68 2
Service
M ain tenance 17 21 33 1 0 0 1 1 32 79 0 0 0 1 17 6 0 0 90 103
’ TOTAL 208 28 130 2 j 123 5 4 1 323 233 3 n ~> ‘l A ~! O
Escambia County
EEO-4 Summary
SALARY ANALYSIS
0 - 5.9
6.9 - 7.9
8.0 - 9.9
Zo
p
<
-J as< H — cn
Z £
< 25 Qu. <
W B
77 26
84
39 0
„ 1/1 ^ > cn <
S *
UJ X as O
H ^
s i X
W B
38
79 0
Zo
p
UJ UJ
-J OO as
ft, ft.
W B
29 4
32 0
87
t/3wu
OSXo
SIu
as
_J
<
osDH
<
Z
w
X
t-
- I
<
u
X
W B
148 167
68 27
68
. z
> UJt s
ZD O
S -4£ ui
2 >
O UJ U Q
w
z
o
p
u
UJ
as
as
O
u
w
<4S
z
o
H UJ
< ot <
< UJ
SI SI
W
21
19
Q UJ UJ O
5 £ >
t/J Q
t/5 7 W
-J - 4 Ju h r
z o i
X z u
w
- I
<
Ho
H
W B
327 207
292 34
215
4u
5©
10.0 - 24.9
TOTAL
24 0 37 0 18
208 28 130 172 321 196 46 44
96 0
930 247
oB
LA
C
K
1976 Escambia County EEO-4 Summary Job Classification Analysis
Fi
na
nc
ia
l
A
dm
in
is
tra
tio
n
St
re
et
s
&
H
ig
hw
ay
s
Po
lic
e
Pr
ot
ec
tio
n
N
at
ur
al
R
es
ou
rc
es
H
ou
si
ng
C
om
m
un
ity
D
ev
el
op
m
en
t
C
or
re
ct
io
ns
U
til
iti
es
&
Tr
an
sp
or
ta
tio
n
Sa
ni
ta
tio
n
&
Se
w
ag
e
N
ur
si
ng
H
om
e
Em
er
ge
nc
y
Se
rv
ic
es
To
ta
l «s
W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B
0 - 5.9 36 13 16 7 11 2 0 0 0 0 _ 1 1 - 0 1 5 21 - 69 45
6.0 - 126 21 38 3 17 4 2 2 1 0 1 0 - 1 0 3 2 17 54 6 0 212 86
8.0 - 9.9 79 10 24 0 37 1 1 0 _ _ 2 1 2 0 1 0 14 5 2 7 27 0 189 24
10.0 - 24.9 94 8 13 0 153 4 1 0 2 0 5 0 28 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 3 0 304 13
Total 335 52 91 10 218 11 4 2 3 0 8 1 31 2 3 0 20 8 25 82 36 0 774 168
1150
1976 Escambia County EEO-4 Summary Salary Analysis
Fi
na
nc
ia
l
A
dm
in
is
tra
tio
n
St
re
et
s
&
H
ig
hw
ay
s
Po
lic
e
Pr
ot
ec
tio
n
N
at
ur
al
Re
so
ur
ce
s
H
ou
si
ng
C
om
m
un
ity
| D
ev
el
op
m
en
t
C
or
re
ct
io
ns
U
til
iti
es
&
Tr
an
sp
or
ta
tio
n
Sa
ni
ta
tio
n
&
Se
w
ag
e
N
ur
si
ng
H
om
e
Em
er
ge
nc
y
Se
rv
ic
es
■ To
ta
l
ujg
33
#
W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B
Officials
Admin. 5 2 1 0 _ _ 1 0 1 0 _ _ 1 0 - _ 1 0 10 2
Professional 37 10 1 0 2 0 - 2 0 3 0 3 0 - 0 1 1 0 - 49 11
Technicians 62 3 8 0 41 0 - - 2 0 1 1 2 0 6 0 9 9 10 0 141 13
Protective
Service 2 0 1 0 139 6 _ _ _ 25 0 167 6
Para-
Profesionals 1 0 _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ 11 39 24 0 36 40
Office
Clerical 189 5 2 0 32 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 _ _ 3 0 1 0 233 6
Skilled
Craft 26 3 36 0 2 0 _ . _ _ _ _ _ 10 5 _ _ _ 74 8
Service
Maintenance 14 29 43 10 1 4 2 2 _ — _ _ 0 1 _ _ 3 2 1 34 _ 64 82
Total 335 52 91 10 218 11 4 2 3 0 8 1 31 2 3 0 20 8 25 82 36 0 774 168
EXHIBIT 92
Letter Appearing in the
Pensacola News Journal, August 23, 1959
(PENSACOLA NEWS JOURNAL, AUGUST 23, 1959)
INTEGRATION IS FORCED ON MAJORITY
With the beginning of another school year and the
renewed battle of segregation vs. non-segregation I wish to
express my opinion. I defy anyone that says integration is
the wish of the majority of the people There is a name for
a few who try to force their wishes on the majority no mat
ter what their reasons are. I and any sensible person know
that for whatever reason they might have. It isn’t for the
good of humanity or any one color or race of people. It is
for money or power politically or otherwise.
I know that if they were thinking of humanity they
would realize that God made us all whether we are black,
white, red or yellow. If he had wanted only one he could
have had that. He made one of every living creature and
gave each a nature of his own. Each one of us should do in
a way to be proud of who we are regardless of our color.
The law might force people together, but no one can
change the fact that it was force not acceptance. Can a
government look out for a country as a whole if its Na
tional Guards and troops have to stand by to force the
people to stay at peace with one another. The saying goes a
divided nation can’t stand and this is such. People always
have and always will resent being forced to do something
against their will.
If true integration ever comes it will be from the heart
not by force.
MRS. EVA DIAMOND
1794 North Kirk St.
1152
1153
EXHIBIT 95
Editorial Appearing in the
Pensacola Journal, August 13, 1959
(THE PENSACOLA JOURNAL, AUGUST 13, 1959)
FAIR USE ONLY VALIDATES
PUPIL PLACEMENT STATUTE
Ruling of a federal judge in Tampa that Negro pupils
must make application to Tampa schools under the pupil
placement law procedure instead of first taking their cases
to court was another indication of the inherent validity of
the Florida statute, which was strengthened at the last ses
sion of the Legislature.
However, J. Lewis Hall, Tallahassee, former member
of the Fabisinski Committee on racial relations and presi
dent of the Florida Bar, has warned that the law must be
used fairly and justly and not as a subterfuge if it is to re
main valid.
In other words, as Hall said soon after the law was
enacted, it is not an absolute bar to all integration. If it is
used as such, it can be held invalid by the U.S. Supreme
Court. If it permits some integration, while barring others
upon substantial grounds as set forth in the law, then it
most likely will be held constitutional.
This is where the split comes between extremist segrega
tionists who do not want even token mixing in schools and
so-called moderates who think a little mixing is better than
“massive resistance” followed by “mass integration” on
Court order.
Regardless of opinion on desegregation, many have come
to realize that it cannot be prevented if the public school
system is to be maintained: and sentiment in the last
Legislature showed that those in control preferred preser
1154
vation of public schools with token compliance under the
Pupil Placement Act to futile attempts to prevent any
desegregation with the consequent wrecking of public
schools as followed in Virginia and Arkansas.
Both states since have reopened schools to Negro pupils,
though one Virginia County has preferred to close its
public schools.
As the new school term nears, decisions will have to be
made in several counties, including Escambia, as to
whether the pupil placement law is to be used carefully and
legally, or as a ban against any desegregation. Upon those
decisions probably will rest the validity of the law in prac
tice, for up to now it has only been held valid on its face.
That is why Governor Collins said recently he expected
some integration in Florida in the next school year.