Update: Excel Renter Cost Burden Lookup by Income: State of Oregon, All Oregon Counties and Places.

Update: I added cost burden data for the State of Oregon in this workbook.  I also changed the default geographies displayed in first worksheet to include the state of Oregon and the ACS data link in the second workbook.
------
I have put together an Excel workbook HERE and embedded below that includes a worksheet that 

• Allows you to select up to four places or counties (or state of Oregon) to see key renter cost burden data side by side, focused on those with incomes BELOW and above $50,000.[Default is set to State of Oregon, cities of Portland and Gresham, and Multnomah county.
• Includes counts of households as well as the ratio of cost burdened renter households below $50,000 income compared to renter households with incomes above $50,000.
• Includes (to the right) graphs that illustrate the share of all cost burdened renter households grouped by incomes BELOW and above $50,000 for the cities and counties selected. 

A second worksheet in the workbook includes ALL cost burden data with additional income groupings along with home owner cost burdens; a link to the ACS 2008-2012 data source is included. 






Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Renter Cost Burden ACS 2006-2010: Find Rates/Counts by Income for 400+ Oregon Counties and Places.

American Community Survey 5 year data for 2006-2010 was published last week, and I put together a new Excel workbook HERE that shows comparisons of renter cost burdens by income levels for more than 400 Oregon counties and places. 

Cost Burden Lookup Worksheet With Graphs

In far left column, users can select from pull down list up to 12 Oregon places or counties for side by side comparisons (they are organized in alpha order). By default the geographies chosen are all Oregon CDBG entitlement communities, but you can select geographies of choice. Selection of geographies is the ONLY interaction you need in order to see ALL the values in this worksheet (all other cells are protected to prevent against inadvertent data entry; you can however select and print the graphs).

The table of the left in this worksheet shows by income the percentage of renters in that income group who have cost burdens. The table on the right shows the number of renters by income group with cost burden AND the share of all renters with cost burdens with incomes below $35,000. 

Data for the geography selected for the first row also appears in the graph below, so if you want to graph a particular geography select it for the first row.

Data B25074 Worksheet

A second worksheet in the workbook includes all of the data I downloaded and used to construct the primary worksheet. (Table B25074 from the ACS). It does not include any of my calculations, just the raw data as I downloaded it from the American Fact Finder website. This worksheet is not copy protected.

Some Observations: 

1. The percentage of renters with cost burdens drops off dramatically as income increases. Using Clackamas County as an example, 81% of renters with incomes between $20,000 and $34,999 were cost burdened, but for renters with incomes between $50,000-$74,999 that rental cost burden rate drops to 12%: So, in Clackamas County, renter households with incomes between $20,000 and $34,999 were nearly 7 times as likely to be cost burdened as renters with incomes between $50,000 -$74,999.
2. Because of the significantly higher incidence of cost burden at lower income levels, the share of ALL cost burdened renters with incomes below incomes of $35,000  is very high. In Clackamas County, 83% of all cost burdened renters had incomes below $35,000.

Notes: 

• The Cost Burden Lookup worksheet only includes estimates; if you want to see margin of errors and counts of all renters look at the data worksheet. 
• I computed rent burden %'s by including only those renter households where rent burdens were shown. If I had included renters where cost burden had not been determined the rent burden percentages in each income category would have been lower. My method I believe more accurately reflects cost burden rates by limiting the universe of renters to those where cost burden data is known.
• As always, if you run into any data errors or discrepancies please do email me or leave a comment on this post.(I encourage you to cross check data in the Lookup worksheet with the Data worksheet).
• Excel Downloading Tip:This workbook was created in Excel 2007/2010 format. Some users report they cannot directly view Excel files in this format from within their browser and/or that Excel files they save end up with a compressed .zip file extension. My suggestion is to RIGHT CLICK and save the file to your PC. Then navigate to the file you downloaded and look at its file extension. IF it appears as .ZIP extension, change the .ZIP extension to an Excel 2007/2010 extension (.xlsx), and THEN open the file with Excel 2007/2010.
   Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Using Metro's Method, Appears that Housing/Transportation Cost Burden Declined from 2005-2009--Should Food Stamps Really be Counted as Income When Measuring Affordability?

On many occasions I have taken exception to the one off method that Metro uses to calculate cost burdens for housing plus transportation expenditures. I have taken exception to the lack of documentation of the method as well as the use of after tax income and housing expenses not used in national H+T index or in any affordable housing program.

In my most recent infrastructure comments to Metro I pointed out Metro had no stated plan to update their Housing Transportation cost index data, and there was no documentation of the method they used, including public access to the underlying data.  I also pointed out that new national Consumer Expenditure Survey data was scheduled for release in October.

New 2009 Consumer Expenditure survey data HAS now been released, so using national data (from CES Excel table 7 for 2009 and 2005) I prepared the table HERE, that compares after tax income to expenditures reported for housing and transportation. 

Some observations:

1. Average renter income reportedly increased by 11%; this likely occurred because certain transfer payments, including food stamps are counted as income. (See CES income definition HERE).
2. Average rents also increased by 20%. (I have no ready explanation; it is possible that former homeowners converting to renters was a contributing factor?).
3. Average transportation expenses decreased by 10% (Higher unemployment was likely the most significant factor).
4. The net impact of these changes, applying the method that Metro apparently uses to national data, would mean that the [renter] housing/transportation cost burden index declined by 1.4% , from 49.3% to 48.6%.
5. Short version: Renter "income" increased by 11% while renter combined housing and transportation cost increased by only 10%.
6. It is entirely possible that Metro does not include some of the expenditures rolled up by CES into housing costs; it is impossible to know this as Metro has not provided the underlying methods or data for public review. Note also that Metro takes the national data, adjusts for local circumstances, and then carries their income and expenditure calculations down to the census tract level, using methods (aka "secret sauce") that have never been fully explained to the public. 
7. I continue to see the Metro method of calculating housing and transportation cost burdens as fatally flawed, and the inclusion of food stamps as income (not done in ANY other affordable housing program) is another good reason that the Metro method needs greater public transparency and modification to more closely match the national H+T method. 
   

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Which Cities Have the Most Housing Stress/Risk?: WSJ Story Includes Oregon Data.

WSJ story HERE includes interactive graphics for 534 areas of the country, using 2009 ACS data on owner cost burdens, health insurance coverage, and "population not working".

Using data I extracted from the WSJ story below is a table with my calculation of the ratings and rankings for Oregon areas

NOTES

1. GRANTS PASS has the highest Oregon risk.
2. Corvallis has the lowest Oregon risk.
3. The population not working is very high for some areas, and IF it includes retirees, the housing stress ratings/rankings could be somewhat distorted.

Oregon Ratings and Rankings for Housing Stress
Area	Spending More than 30% of Income on Housing	Without Health Insurance	Population Not Working	Housing-stress indicator	Housing Stress Rank
Grants Pass	52%	18%	40%	109.90	26
Coos Bay	42%	21%	39%	102.50	59
Bend	49%	18%	35%	101.30	68
Medford	48%	18%	35%	101.10	70
Eugene-Springfield	43%	18%	40%	100.20	72
Roseburg	39%	18%	40%	97.10	87
Klamath Falls	35%	21%	40%	96.50	93
Salem	41%	20%	35%	96.00	100
Albany-Lebanon	37%	16%	38%	91.90	124
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton	41%	15%	31%	87.00	185
United States	38%	15%	33%	85.70
Pendleton-Hermiston	29%	20%	35%	83.10	244
Corvallis	36%	12%	33%	82.00	258

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Metro Community Investment Comments Due COB FRIDAY OCT 1; New Portland Metro ACS Data Shows Cost Burdens Based on Income.

I have previously provided my comments on the Metro Community Investment strategy, for which comments are due COB Friday October 1st. (Prior post HERE includes email address of where to send comments and a MS Word version of my comments).

I also have received a copy of comments from Housing Land Advocates HERE. 
I ENCOURAGE you to make your OWN comments and/or to write in support of my comments or HLA comments.

ONE additional piece of information is just out in the American Community Survey for 2009.  I looked at the one year 2009 ACS estimate of Metro Portland cost burden data for renters, did some calculations, and created a table pasted below that shows how renter cost burdens are a function of income.   

The table shows:

1. For all renters, 48.9% are cost burdened. 
2. For renters below $35,000 (about 50% of area median income) 78.1% of renters are cost burdened. Renters in this income group are 53% of all renters, but 84% of all COST burdened renters.
3. For renters with incomes between $35,000 to $74,999, the cost burden percentage drops to 21.8%, and virtually disappears for renters with incomes above $75,000 (1.3%).

This data helps illustrate Corrective Action #1 in my Metro comments: 

A SPECIFIC portion of $3.8 billion in projected local Residential "incentives"/ subsidies must be targeted for exclusive use by low income renter households to help solve the problem of growing cost burdens and, as required by Title 7 (307.740 B.3.), future “Centers/ Corridors” supply reports must include counts of affordable housing placed into service or preserved. 

Table is pasted below:

Renter Income	Total Renter Occupied Units	Cost Burden 30% or More	Cost Burden %	Share of All Renters	Share of All Renters With Cost Burdens
ALL	321,521	157,068	48.9%	100%	100%
Less than $10,000	37,936	28,429	74.9%	12%	18%
$10,000-$19,999	53,759	48,305	89.9%	17%	31%
$20,000-$34,999	77,903	55,682	71.5%	24%	35%
$35,000-$49,999	57,661	18,158	31.5%	18%	12%
$50,000-$74,999	53,009	5,946	11.2%	16%	4%
$75,000-$99,999	21,129	501	2.4%	7%	0%
$100,000 or More	20,124	47	0.2%	6%	0%
Incomes Less than $35,000	169,598	132,416	78.1%	53%	84%
Incomes Between $35,000 and $74,999	110,670	24,104	21.8%	34%	15%
Incomes $75,000 and Above	41,253	548	1.3%	13%	0%

You can download the Portland Metro 2009 ACS Query and data I used for this analysis from the Census Bureau website HERE. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

My Comments on Metro Community Investment Strategy.

Metro has published their Community Investment Strategy for public comments until October 1st. 

Comments should be sent to arrive NLT October 1 ( I recommend you send EARLIER) by e-mail to 2040@oregonmetro.gov, or snail mail to:

Metro

Community Investment Strategy comments

600 NE Grand Ave.

Portland, OR 97232

The summary of the Investment Strategy and COO recommendations are in a 24 page document HERE.

The details are found in supporting documents HERE. (One of those documents,  Draft Capacity Ordinance and Exhibits includes proposed changes in the Framework plan and the Functional plan). 

While comments on the COO recommendations and other sections of the strategy may be useful, my view is that comments on the Framework and Functional plan language are the most critical, and especially the draft Functional Plan language.  Here's why:

• The only portion of the strategy that can be enforced at the LOCAL level are requirements that are included in the Functional Plan. 
• Changes in the Framework Plan may set Metro policy but they are NOT enforceable at the local jurisdictional level. 

This distinction is important because the only NEW affordable housing requirement of note, tracking the percentage of renter households spending 50% or more of their income for housing and transportation, is ONLY found in the Framework Plan, and is thus a region wide goal, and NOT a local goal.  

The draft plan has NO new affordable requirement that I can see for local government in the Metro functional plan, and changes in compliance reporting in Title 8 of the Functional Plan ALSO give the Metro Chief Operating Officer the authority to waive ANY functional plan reporting requirement, including local progress toward voluntary affordable housing targets, and reporting on changes in affordable housing supply. 

All of my comments can be found HERE; my recommendations for changes in the Metro draft amendments to the Framework and Functional plan are bold faced in "Corrective Actions" 9 and 10.
(NOTE: My comments are in MS Word 2007-2010 format. Do NOT try to open the file in your browser. To OPEN the file right click the link above and SAVE /download the file to your PC; once it has downloaded THEN double click the file and it will open). 

In particular I recommend that a ONE word change be made to Title 6 Functional plan language related to planning in "Centers, Corridors, Station Communities, and Main Streets ".  The current draft only "recommends" that "needed housing" (as defined by ORS) be included by local government in their planning; and I suggest that "recommend" be changed to "require" that local government consider ORS defined "needed housing" in their planning for Centers/Corridors. 

Even without a specific set aside existing Metro Functional plan language [Title 7 (307.740 B.3.] already requires reporting on changes in affordable housing in Centers/Corridors. However, Metro has waived existing required local semi annual reporting on changes in affordable housing supply due in both 2007 and 2009, but if that data were available it likely would should little affordable housing activity and/or a lack of equitable distribution. 

Metro projects some $3.8 billion of residential incentives will be made in Centers and urban renewal areas, so the failure to require that "needed housing"  be included in local planning for Centers, etc would allow spending of those incentives exclusively for multifamily home ownership units and high end rental units.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Metro Local Infrastructure "Residential Incentives"/Subsidies: $3.8 Billion Projected, but ZERO Require Income Targeting; City of Portland to Produce 71% of Units, Supply 84% of $$.

Metro is accepting comments on their Community Investment Strategy/ Infrastructure report through October 1, 2010. (My prior post HERE).

I hope to get a complete set of my comments posted by the early part of next week in time for others to review and make their own comments. [I will provide more details on where to comment in a future post, I would NOT use the on line questionnaire].

In the interim, this post contains one of the most important conclusions I reached after reading through most of this long report and its appendices.

Problem 1: Metro Says 97,290 Units will Receive Residential Infrastructure "Incentives"/Subsidies, But Does Not Show 
A. Total Costs. 
B. That Any Subsidies Will be Required to be Targeted to Low Income Renter Households with the Highest Cost Burden Rates. 
C. The Heavy Concentration of Units and Subsidies Within the City of Portland.

After reading through the report and appendices it is apparent to me that Metro clearly understands that:

1. Rising housing costs, NOT rising transportation costs are the reason that H+T cost burdens are projected to increase significantly.
2. The rate of cost burdens are the highest among low income renter households. 

With this knowledge the policy responses from Metro to deal with growing cost burdens can only be viewed as disappointing and ineffective.

The principle tool that Metro apparently sees to address the affordability problem is the use by local government of residential "incentives" /subsidies. These are primarily urban renewal funds and incentives in "centers".

Appendix 1 includes a  residential "incentives"/subsidy table by sub area HERE. I added the numbers in that table and conclude that Metro projects that a total of 97,920 units will receive these subsidies by 2030, but there are three problems:

1. NONE of the subsidies are REQUIRED to be targeted to low income renters who have the highest cost burdens and there is no apparent ongoing local reporting requirement for these incentives. 
2. There is no calculation that shows the projected COST of these subsidies. 
3. No where does Metro shows residential incentive totals by city, which would have revealed that the region is HEAVILY dependent on the City of Portland to deliver housing units and subsidies in centers and urban renewal districts for the entire region. 

To help address the second and third problems above I have created a table HERE that shows my projections (using Metro data) that:

1. Costs for these residential infrastructure "incentives"/ subsidies will total $3.8 billion through 2030. 
2. Residential "incentives"/subsidies in the City of Portland are projected to account for 71% of the units and supply 84% of the regions cost of these residential incentives. 

REQUIRED METRO ACTIONS:
With projecting rising rates of cost burdens (Metro's updated table is HERE) and a projected $3.8 billion local expenditure for residential "incentives" /subsidies through 2030:

1. SOME of those "incentives"/ subsidies must be targeted for exclusive use by low income renter households.
2. Future reporting on the actual deployment/use of these subsidies must include reporting by subarea and City on the income levels of the housing built with these subsidies.  
3. Metro's  Appendix 1 table must breakout residential infrastructure "incentives" by units and costs for each city and explicitly acknowledge that Metro's stated  "housing choice/ share the burdens and benefits of growth" policy is HEAVILY dependent on residential infrastructure incentives within the City of Portland, which is projected to produce 71% of the total regionwide units in center and urban renewal areas and supply 84% of the dollars through 2030.
4. Metro must help create/support an effective REGION WIDE strategy to leverage additional FEDERAL dollars for housing, as federal dollars have been and continue to be the primary source of funding for affordable housing, especially outside the City of Portland. This unified housing approach should be similar to the existing region wide approach that provides unified support for annual and long range federal transportation funding.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Metro Moving Forward on Growth Strategy, NEW H+T Cost Burden Data Included.

Metro continues to move forward to December finalization of Urban Growth process. Today was press event and release of new recommendations, data, and analysis.

Some quick links before my vacation: 

• PR with Chief Executive Officer recommendations HERE.
• Page with links to LOTS of related information HERE. (Includes information on public hearing opportunities).

• AND, for HOUSING advocates, the "money" document HERE, containing the REVISED cost burden data by sub area (doc will open to page 24 where sub area data begins). 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

New DC Metro Area Housing/Transportation Cost Burden Report

This new report, "Beltway Burden" is available HERE. (A link to a cost calculator HERE currently doesn't work, but hopefully will get fixed).

From the report:

Region-wide, households spend an average of nearly $23,000 per year on housing and $13,000 on transportation. Combined, these costs represent almost 47 percent of the median household income. These cost burdens vary significantly across the 22 jurisdictions.

Unlike the proposed Portland Metro inclusion of "furnishings" in renter housing costs the DC index uses gross rent, which includes rent and utilities. (The DC index methodology is the same used in several other Metro areas, see the link HERE for details).

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Middle Class in America Report from VP and Commerce.

HERE.

Includes hypothetical budgets for married couple, 2 child family and one parent, two child families including housing costs (see page 9 and 16).

Notes:

1. Housing costs shown are for home ownership.
2. Check out disparate income levels at medians; $80,600 for married couple, 2 child family and $25,200 for one parent, two child family.
3. Pg. 24 has interesting chart showing various price increases for middle class from 1990-2008.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Updated: Metro Meeting Recap, New Sub Area Cost Burden Table.

Update: I added names of organizations that submitted written comments, Housing Land Advocates and REACH Community Development.
---------

The Thursday Dec. 10th Metro Council meeting went pretty much as I anticipated, with Council accepted the Urban Growth Report without any changes.Nonetheless, I thought that there were positives to take away from the meeting:

1. There were a total of 7 people who testified on the UGR, ALL testimony included comments on the affordable housing needs section of the UGR.
2. Two additional organizations filed written comments on the affordable housing needs component of the UGR. These organizations were Housing Land Advocates and REACH Community Development.
   
3. For first time Council members heard directly from affordable housing community about the extent of the cost burden problem.
   
4. Data problems in the UGR are now part of the public record.
   
5. The Council is on record as saying that "policies" would be determined next year, via changes to the Framework plan. (I encourage advocates to pay careful attention to proposed changes in the Framework and Functional plans, including deletions of existing requirements).
   

Testifying organizations included City of Portland Planning Bureau, Northwest Housing Alternatives, Coalition for a Livable Community, Oregon ON, the Community Housing Fund ( Washington County), and a developer/attorney, and me. REACH Community Development and Northwest Land Advocates submitted written comments. I am VERY appreciative of ALL who took the time to appear or submit written comments.

Audio Video Resources
Audio of the Council meeting should be available in a few days from THIS website, look for the Dec 10th session. Streaming video will also likely show up in a few days HERE.

New Subarea Cost Burden Table
One of defects that I found in the written report was absence of table showing renter cost burdens by sub area. I have now created such a table using Census Tract level data previously sent to me by Metro. (Table HERE replaces ALL other drafts I have done and is DRAFT until I confirm with Metro).

NEW US Renter Affordability Summary Through 2008 Published.

Last week I did a posting showing my analysis of US renter affordability data from 1991 to 2005 HERE.

In the days before an expected release by HUD of the proposed formula to allocate any housing trust fund allocation (presuming such a fund is authorized by Congress and signed into law), the NLIHC has done a new summary of renter housing affordability through 2008, including an analysis of affordable AND available units. This summary uses American Community Survey data. Take aways from the summary HERE:

1. The number of all renter households in the United States increased by 2.4% between 2007 and 2008, but the number of extremely low income renter households increased by 3.5%.

2. During the same period, the supply of all rental homes increased by 2.2%, but the supply of rental homes affordable for extremely low income families decreased by 1.8%.

3. Households with extremely low incomes continue to be the only income group facing an absolute shortage of affordable rental housing.

4. Looking at the number of rental homes that are both affordable and available to the lowest income households, the picture is even worse. (Many of the homes that extremely low income families could afford are occupied by higher income people.) For every 100 extremely low income renter households, there were 39 rental housing units affordable and available for them in 2007. By 2008, the number of affordable and available units had declined to 37. A scarcity of housing that the poorest families can afford is the principle cause of homelessness in the United States. [NOTE: My 2005 summary, using a different data source [American Housing Survey] had put the number of affordable and available units at 35 out of 100 extremely low income renters].
   

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Metro's Housing Goals: A Decade + Slouch Into Irrelevance?

Readers may recall that I recently posted comments HERE pointing out some problems with the housing needs analysis done as part of Metro's Urban Growth Report and "Great Places" efforts.

I have done some additional reading of the latest reports coming out of Metro's advisory committees and have concluded that the already weak Metro housing goals and housing goal compliance efforts are about to become even weaker. Despite several good staff and some genuine interest from individual Council members it is hard not to conclude that the latest steps are part of a decade long slouch to irrelevancy for Metro in advancing affordable housing throughout the region.

The latest step by Metro advisory committees is to move to water down the planned housing performance goal. A revised non specific commitment to "reduce" renter cost burdens would replace ALL prior housing production/supply goals AND is a step back from the DRAFT goal which had been for a 25% reduction in renter cost burdens. Specifically the markup of the draft goal a Metro advisory committee HERE, apparently supported by Commissioner Liberty (see page 246) would now read :

Affordability – By 2035, reduce the share of households in the region spending more than 50 percent of income on housing and transportation combined compared to 2000

Note also there is NO local allocation of this goal, nor any transparent data source to track progress OR to require any specific actions IF cost burdens are NOT "reduced".

The Slouching of Metro's Affordable Housing Goals, and Goal Tracking, Over the Last Decade
To provide some perspective about prior housing goals I have prepared the table HERE showing a subset of the previously adopted Metro housing goals and the compliance and monitoring done of local compliance with these goals. (Note also my "Chopped Liver" comparison showing that Metro's new goals apparently reflect the belief that it is more important to be specific about the goals for low income resident access to transportation than resident access to affordable housing).

The Metro advisory committee recommendations still formally require adoption by the full Council, however I see no realistic likelihood that the Council will resist adopting housing goals that I believe represent a continued slouch toward affordable housing irrelevancy.

Weak Goals at Odds with Orfield Appearances; May Hurt Metro in Future Competitive Grant Opportunities
The irony of Council adoption of even weaker housing goals is that this action follows the recent appearance of Myron Orfield who provided examples of the role that regional governments can play in promoting regional equity via affordable housing. Expected funding for new HUD sustainable community programs may also mean that Metro's weak commitment to affordable housing goals could hurt it in future competitive grant application cycles, especially if affordable housing advocacy support is needed to effectively compete.

Metro Meetings, Agenda, Minutes and Calendar
IF you are interested in making your views know Metro holds a variety of advisory group meetings as well as Council meetings. The consolidated Metro calendar HERE shows a list of upcoming meetings, click on an individual meeting to get to agenda, minutes, and work materials.

Agree or Think Different?
I ENCOURAGE you to add your comment, whether you agree or disagree.

Correction: HUD Metro Transportation/ Growth Plan Comment Window Closes THURSDAY; My Comments.

Comment window closes on THURSDAY, not Wednesday....
-----------

The comment window on the Metro transportation and regional growth report is closing this THURSDAY. A copy of the comments I have just submitted are HERE, read it to see all of my comments. (I have included a a partial explanation below, as well as information on how YOU can comment).

I extracted HERE a SHORT housing/transportation performance section from the urban growth report; page 5 includes a table showing cost burdened HH's by sub area. I also went in an dug out housing related appendices from their HUGE urban growth report (771 pages) and have posted Appendices 7-10 HERE.

PROBLEM: The Growth Report Appears to Project Incomplete/ REDUCED Demand for Rental Units With Subsidy Needs.

My calculations from a table on page 72 (A8-21 in the printed report) show that Metro projects that the demand for the two lowest rent categories will SHRINK by 39%, from 29% of all rental units in 2005 to 18% of total rental units in 2030.

MOREOVER, In the lowest rent category, the ONLY category where metro shows that subsidy will be required, metro projects that category will shrink by 56%, from 20% to 7% of all rental unit demand.I might be missing something here but the reduction of subsidy need for rental housing seems highly UNLIKELY,and NOT supported by any trend that I can see.

I could understand if Metro was saying that subsidy needs would increase at higher rent points in the future, but this is NOT what the table appears to say to me. (IF someone believes I am misreading what this table shows, please add a comment with the alternative explanation).

COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES: Comments are due BEFORE COB on October 15th.
On Sept. 15, Metro opened a 30-day public comment opportunity for the Regional Transportation Plan, framework for urban and rural reserves and urban growth report. Remaining comment opportunities are:

Tuesday, Oct. 13
4 p.m. (open house) | 5:15 p.m. (hearing)
Clackamas County Public Services Building, 2051 Kaen Road, Oregon City

Thursday, Oct. 15
4 p.m. (open house) | 5:15 p.m. (hearing)
Metro Regional Center, 600 NE Grand Ave., Portland

Submit comments in writing

Greatest Place Comments
Planning and Development
600 NE Grand Ave.
Portland, OR 97232
greatestplace@oregonmetro.gov

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

ACS 2008: Oregon Severe Cost Burdens for Renters Increase, State Ranking Drops.

The American Community Survey released last week has lots of income and housing data.

I extracted the data for renter severe cost burdens (paying 50% or more of income for rent) and compared the 2008 Oregon data with other states and with the same ACS data for years since 2005.

The two page comparison I put together is HERE. It shows

• About 1/4 of all Oregon renters pay more than 50% of their income for rent, about the same as the national average.
• After a couple of years of improvement, Oregon's relative standing slipped from 33rd to 40th best in the country. (That is still better then the 45th ranking that Oregon had in 2005).
• Oregon's increase in renter cost burden was higher than the national increase from 2007-2008 (4.9% vs. 2.2%) but the decrease in Oregon from 2005-2008 was also higher than the national decrease ( -4.8% vs.-.01%).
• NOTE: I think my data is more precise than some other renter cost burden calculations because in the denominator of my calculations I use only the universe of renter households where rent burden has been calculated, instead of the entire universe of renter households.
  

Want MORE 2008 Renter Cost Burden Data?
I have also created a query for the 2008 ACS renter cost burden data table (B25020). My query includes ALL rent burden levels and ALL of the following geographic areas:

1. US
2. Oregon
3. Oregon Counties
4. Oregon Places
5. Oregon Congressional Districts

You can RIGHT CLICK and save that query to a location on your PC HERE.

Once you have downloaded the query to your PC you can then go to the main ACS American Fact Finder site HERE.

Look for the "Load Query" option underlined in blue near the top, and when the dialogue box opens ("Click 'Browse' to find the previously saved query on your computer"), browse to the query that you downloaded from me and then hit the "go" button. Once the query is loaded, the data for ALL levels of rent burden for ALL of these geographic areas will be visible for viewing and/or downloading. (Pretty cool, eh?).

(TIP: If you want to try to replicate the same query for other years you MIGHT try to substitute your year of interest for any and all "2008" references in the query as it appears in the LONG browser address line. I successfully tested this and it does work at least for 2007).

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

ACS 2007-2008: Median Cost for Homeowners With Mortgages by State

A Census Bureau American Community Survey report HERE shows the 2007 and 2008 median costs from homeowners with mortgages by state. Costs include "mortgages, taxes, insurance, utilities, and other components".

Oregon median costs increased from $1,567 to $1,585 per month, slightly higher than national median cost of $1,514 and 1,518.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Federally Assisted Housing: Oregon vs. US.

Remember the CBPP report on assisted housing and rental housing needs I posted about earlier in the week, HERE?

I grabbed data from the report, did some analysis, and produced two tables that illustrate that:

1.Vouchers Play Larger Role, Public Housing Lesser in Oregon vs. U.S.
The first table (pgs. 1-3) shows the % of all federally assisted units by program for all states. This illustrates the greater importance that housing vouchers have in Oregon compared to US, and the relatively lesser share that public housing plays in Oregon compared to rest of US.

2. To Achieve Same Ratio of Cost Burdened Renters to Federally Assisted Units as the Median for "All States", Oregon Would Need to INCREASE Federally Assisted Units by 47% (24,500+).
The last page (pg 4 of document/table) compares ratio of rent burdened to all federally assisted units for Oregon compared to median for all states. The table shows that:

To achieve the same median ratio as "All States", the number of federally assisted units in Oregon would need to increase by 47%, or more than 24,500 units.

Have a look. Tables (legal sized, landscape) are HERE.