Correction 1: New Excel Workbook Allows User Selection of Wages for 6 Oregon Metro Areas and 700 Occupations, And Calculation/Comparison of Affordable Rents and Median Family Incomes.

Correction 1. 
One of my many capable readers pointed out an error in one of my formulas, so I have reposted Excel workbook and deleted former workbook. Link below is to corrected version. 

Readers my recall that I recently posted HERE a comparison of salaried Real Estate sales agent income vs Median Family Incomes.

I decided to take the same wage data available for nearly 700 occupations in 6 different Oregon metro areas and create a workbook that does side by side comparisons for two metro areas, including the ability:

• To select and compare wages for different occupations,
• To see calculations of affordable rents,
• To see what share of wages would be required to pay for HUD 2 Bedroom FMR's,
• To see how wages compare to HUD Median Family Incomes.

Click to Enlarge Example

The Excel workbook HERE contains a worksheet that allows the USER to select up to 3 occupations and 2 different metro areas to reveal side by side comparisons of

1. Average and Median Wages,
2. Affordable housing costs using those wages,
3. The 2 Bedroom FMR for that area,
4. The share of wages required to pay for the 2 Bedroom FMR,
5. A comparison of wages to the HUD 4 Person Family Median Income.

Easy to Use

To see ALL of this data in this worksheet the user does NOT have to enter any data, but instead just select values from pull down lists found in 5 cells. (To prevent inadvertent data entry in this worksheet, data can ONLY be entered via the pull downs in the 5 cells where data entry is allowed; this worksheet is formatted legal sized to allow side by side comparisons).

Other Data in Workbook, Too

In the same workbook I have also included a worksheet that has ALL of the wage data for all 6 metro areas, including counts of jobs by occupation, share of jobs in each occupation, and wages at different intervals than just the median and average. The workbook also has  a worksheet showing the 2 BR FMR and 4 Person Median Family Income for the six Oregon Metro areas.

Downloading Tip-This workbook was created in Excel 2007 format.Some users report when they cannot direct view Excel files in this format from within their browser and 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 extension (.xlsx), and THEN open the file with Excel 2007/2010.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

COLA Used for Social Security and Other Programs Will be VERY Small or ZERO For Second Year in a Row.

Calculated Risk explains why HERE . Short version is that COLA increase will ONLY occur if third quarter 2010 index is higher than 2008 (NOT 2009) third quarter index (the third quarter 2008 index was higher than third quarter 2009 index).

(I have seen in a CBO document that they are using a projected .1% increase for SS COLA's this year, so it is possible that the increase will not be zero. A .1% increase on a $1,000 monthly benefit would be a monthly increase of ONE dollar or 12 dollars a year).

Most favorable way of looking at COLA increase process is that 2008 provided a windfall that was not recaptured when index went down (and has yet to get back to 3rd quarter 2008 level). How adequately official index captures actual cost of living expenses for retirees is another question, especially if greater share of elderly budgets for medical expenses are not properly reflected in index.

Increased Rent Burdens?
With a zero increase, renters whose sole or primary source of income is Social Security or SSI will have increasing cost burdens if rents increase, even if increase is only enough to cover increased property expenses.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

U.S. Renter Housing Affordability Mismatch Data, 1991-2005.

For some Metro background that I have been researching, I went back in and dug out renter housing mismatch data from 1991-2005 that I found in the latest HUD Worst Case Housing Report to Congress that I could locate.

Data table and graph HERE show

1. The count of extremely low income renters (<30% MFI) increased during the period, while the count of affordable AND affordable and available units decreased.("Affordable AND Available"= Units with rents that are affordable and occupied by renters in the income category being measured PLUS 100% of vacancies with rents that are affordable to that income category)
   
2. The result was a significant decline in the units affordable and available to renters <30% MFI:
   

• In 1991, 49% of renters <30% MFI renters had units both affordable and available to them,
  
• In 2005 only 35% of renters <30% MFI had units both affordable and available to them. That's a 28% decline in affordable and available units during that period for renters with incomes <30% MFI.
  

Notes: 1. I include a link to the HUD report that I used to do these calculations. 2.Comparisons for other income groups also appear in the table and in some income groupings there are a surplus of affordable and available renter units, I wanted to highlight the lowest income category as that is the income grouping where affordability and availability issues are the greatest. 3. If you discover any errors, or if you disagree with my analysis, if you add a comment below I will see it and will respond.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

New Version: Draft Metro Rental Housing Sub Area Growth vs. Growth in Cost Burdened Renters.

Ever work on a project that seems destined to be your version of Moby Dick?

Well...it sure feels like that with my work on the table I have previously posted showing Metro's projected growth in households vs the growth in cost burdened households (from their Urban Growth Report/Plan).

In my most recent "corrected" post I said that the numbers represented ALL households, not just rental households. But, "Au contraire, the big white one", it turns out that numbers ARE indeed ONLY renter households. (I confirmed this with Metro).

SO for what is the third and HOPEFULLY last time I have:

1. Deleted my earlier post and posted a revised table, with corrected labels, HERE.
2. Continued to sort the table by low growth disparity in growth of cost burdened renters vs growth in all renters. (that's column 13, highlighted with a red border).
3. I added conditional formatting in each % column so that any % that is higher than the regional average shows up in yellow.

I am hoping to get exact counts of renter households by sub area from Metro so that I can remove the DRAFT label from this table. Right now I calculated renter households by sub area using the rounded %'s that were in a Metro table.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Housing Related Appendices from Metro Urban Growth Report; Comments Due to Metro NLT Oct 15.

Metro has recently released their Greatest Places report; a web page with related web links is HERE and includes links to their transportation plan, framework for reserves, and urban growth report.

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

ONE APPARENT PROBLEM: Metro Projects 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, 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

I LIKELY WILL SUBMIT MY COMMENTS IN WRITING, I ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO ALSO.

Other Tidbits on What is Included in the Appendices:

1. Breakouts of combined transportation/housing cost burdens greater than 50% of income are shown by sub region. See NE Portland subarea on page 7 for an example.
   
2. The City of Portland accounted for nearly half of all new multifamily developed units from 2001 to 2006 and 71.5% percent of those were refill units. (p84).
3. A low growth scenario would marginally reduce the % of renters with housing/ transportation cost burdens; a high growth scenario would increase the % of renters with housing/transportation cost burdens (p73).

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

NLHC Data: Oregon's Renter Affordability Ranking Slips a Notch But Remains in Middle of Pack.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition [NLIHC] Out of Reach study for 2008-2009 was released today HERE.

Housing Wage State Ranking
Each year one set of NLIHC data released is a state ranking on the "housing wage", the hourly wage required for a family to be able to afford the 2 bedroom HUD Fair Market Rent for that state.

A HIGHER state ranking means a state is LESS affordable to renters; the worst ranking therefore would be 51, and the best 1. (The 51 areas include the District of Columbia. In order to allow comparison to 2000 my rankings exclude one of NLIHC areas; I exclude Puerto Rico, so my rankings may vary slightly from those posted by NLIHC).

My analysis: Housing wage state ranking for Oregon
1. In 2000 Oregon ranked 30th.
2. In 2002 it improved to 29th
3. In 2004 it improved to 25th
4. In 2006 it remained at 25th
5. In 2008 it improved to 24th
6. In 2009 Oregon's ranking dropped back to 25th.

My 2 page PDF compilation and table of two bedroom state housing wage data from 2000-2009 NLIHC Out of Reach studies is HERE.

Housing Wage $$ and % Change for 2009:
The 2009 Oregon housing wage was $14.54. Without adjusting for inflation/wage growth the housing wage increased by:
1. $2.87/25% since 2000. (Washington State grew by 33%)
2. $.67/4.8% since 2008. (Washington State grew by 5.4%)

Conclusion: Using this NLIHC measure Oregon's renter affordability slipped one notch in 2009; has improved since 2000; and Oregon remains firmly in the middle of the pack of all states.(Note that this measure effectively tracks changes in HUD 2 bedroom Fair Market Rents only, and not changes in actual family incomes).

Additional Perspectives: 273,000 Oregonians live in Renter HH’s paying more than 50% of their income for rent; 2/3rds of lowest income renters have that burden.

My Prior Analysis
While I have focused on changes in Oregon’s relative standing using the NLIHC study, there is NO doubt that cost burdens for renters are high, and especially so for very low income renters.

I did an extensive analysis HERE that points out that in 2007 24.2% of ALL Renter HH’s in Oregon paid more than 50% of their income for rent, compared to only 12.4% of homeowners.

Prior Center for Budget and Policy Priority Analysis
Page 5 of a Fall 2008 CBPP state analysis HERE of assisted housing and renters shows that there are 118,837 households paying more than 50% of their income for rent, with 2/3rds of those being households with incomes less than 30% of median family income.

Using the 2.3 persons per Oregon renter household population estimate from the 2007 American Community Survey, that’s about 273,325 Oregonians living in renter households that pay more than 50% of their income for rent.

Priced Out Report for Disabled Renters Issued Today; Tomorrow is Full NLIHC Out of Reach Report.

The Technical Assistance Collaborative has published a national Priced Out report for renters with disabilities HERE. (Focus is on renter affordability for SSI recipients)

I encourage you to read the entire report, some data that caught my attention:

1. Oregon % of SSI Required to Rent 1 Bedroom Better than National Average:
The table I constructed HERE shows relevant data including breakouts for U.S. , Oregon metro areas and non metro areas.

2. Oregon Has 41,913 SSI Adult recipients (age 18-64)

3. State SSI Supplement Amounts: Oregon LAST, Way Behind (Even) Idaho!
Oregon has LOWEST state SSI monthly supplement (among states with supplements).

• Oregon Monthly supplement $1.70
• Washington: $46
• Idaho: $32

Tomorrow the National Low Income Housing Coalition will publish their annual Out of Reach report.

CORRECTION: State and Oregon Housing Cost Burden Data from 2007 ACS, With Rankings and Comparisons.

Good thing I called the link below a Draft.

I discovered an error in the formula I used to calculate the severe cost burden rate for homeowners. I have corrected the PDF file, and the link below, to point to the correct version of this document. The earlier version of the PDF has been deleted and let's hope this is the last correction I need to make.

I have prepared a draft PDF document HERE that contains a comprehensive set of housing cost burden data from the 2007 American Community Survey, including state level data for Oregon and data for several Oregon counties and cities.

Key Points About This Housing Cost Burden Data:

• Data for all states included, as well as Oregon cities and counties large enough to be included in the ACS.
• File includes both homeowner and renter household cost burden rates and rankings.
• Both 30% or more cost burdens and severe (50% or greater) cost burden rates are included.
• The ACS tables used to calculate these cost burdens are also identified.

Within the document there are several sections

1. First section is alpha listing of states showing renter and homeowner cost burdens, with a set of columns showing % below or above state cost burden is compared to U.S. Average. (Green cell background indicates that state has lower cost burden than U.S. Average).
   
2. Second section is alpha listing of states, showing state cost burden rankings.
3. Third section displays cost burdens for Oregon cities and counties large enough to be included in the ACS. (Cities or counties with cost burdens greater than statewide average have yellow backgrounds).
4. The final section is a step by step description of process I used to calculate renter cost burdens.
   

2007 ACS : Rent Burdened Oregon HH's Decreased, New State and County Data Available.

This morning the American Community Survey (ACS) housing data was released.

Here's my quick analysis of Oregon Renter Burdened Househols for 2007 (I had previously blogged about 2006 Oregon renter affordability HERE).

2007 Quick Analysis (with 2006 figures in parenthesis):

• 24.2% of Oregon renter households (118,659) spent 50% or more of their income for rent and utilities (2006: 24.8%/119,794)
• 48% of Oregon renter households (234,843) spent 30% or more of their income for rent and utilities. (2006: 49.7%/239,954).
• 1,135 fewer Oregon households paid 50% or more of their income for rent and utilities in 2007 than in 2006.
• 5,111 fewer Oregon households paid 30% of their income for rent and utilities in 2007 than in 2006.

HERE is a PDF file with the data used for my analysis; note that county level data for the ACS is only available for counties with population of 65,000+.

Progress Board Committee Tuesday to Consider Changing Housing Affordability Standards.

The Oregon Progress Board is planning revisions to renter and home owner affordability measures and data sources. The planned revisions will be acted upon by the Assessment Committee at a meeting on Tuesday Sept 2nd. (If you want to listen in/participate in that Salem meeting that begins at 10 AM, the call in number is 1-877-475-9235 and the participant code is 219744).

My Comments on Renter Affordability Data Definition and Sources
I have sent my comments on the proposed renter affordability revised data standard to Progress Board staff HERE. My primary concerns

1. "Median state income" should be clarified to be "state median household income".
2. The state should include a worst case renter cost burden (50%+) measure.
3. A focus on renters below median state household income instead of renter median income will understate the rate at which lower income renters have costs burdens because "median household income" in Oregon was almost twice "median renter income".
4. It is not clear to me how the state will track renters below median state income as ACS does not to my knowledge have a table that shows rent burden using that definition of income.

New Goals:
Using the new data definition the proposed goal for renters would be revised to 60% of renters below median state household income paying no more than 30% of their income (down from 70% of renters below median renter income paying no more than 30% of their income).

In a new post tomorrow, I will provide information about a prior Assessment Committee decision to suspend the home ownership goal (which Oregon never came close to achieving).


The proposed renter affordability revised measure can be found HERE.
The proposed home ownership affordability revised measure can be found HERE.

CRS Report: Trends in Income Mobility, Inequality, and Economic Policy.

While somewhat "wonkish", this new report from Congressional Research Service provides useful perspective for housing affordability discussions.

Report is HERE.

From summary:

"While there appears to be considerable relative income mobility (about 60% of
individuals change income quintiles over 10 years), it is not far — about 60% of
those individuals who changed income quintile in the 1980s or 1990s only moved to
the next quintile. But most individuals in the poorest quintile in 1980 experienced
an increase in their real income between 1980 and 1989 — half saw their real income
increase by more than 36%. Of those in the richest quintile, almost half saw their
real income fall by 10% or more during the 1980s. But there are differences in
income changes between the 1980s and the 1990s: those in the poorest income
quintile may have done slightly better in the 1990s than in the 1980s, while
individuals higher up in the income distribution (quintiles 2-5) appear to have done
better in the 1980s than in the 1990s."

Update-NLIHC Data: Oregon Renter "Housing Wage" State Ranking Improves Again, Up By 6 Ranks Since 2000.

[Update: Changed (improper) reference to 2 bedroom median rent to HUD 2 Bedroom Fair Market Rent]

The National Low Income Housing Coalition [NLIHC] Out of Reach study for 2007-2008 was released today HERE.

Housing Wage State Ranking
Each year one set of NLIHC data released is a state ranking on the "housing wage", the hourly wage required for a family to be able to afford the 2 bedroom HUD Fair Market Rent for that state. A HIGHER state ranking means a state is LESS affordable to renters; the worst ranking therefore would be 51,and the best 1. (51 areas include the District of Columbia. In order to allow comparison to 2000 my rankings exclude one of NLIHC areas , Puerto Rico, as it was not included in the 2000 NLIHC rankings. My rankings are thus one place different than the published NLIHC rankings for 2002, 2004,2006 and 2008.

My analysis: Housing wage state ranking

1. In 2000 Oregon ranked 30th.
2. In 2002 it improved to 29th
3. In 2004 it improved to 25th
4. In 2006 it remained at 25th
5. In 2008 Oregon's improved to 24th
   

Conclusion: Note that this measure effectively tracks changes in HUD 2 bedroom Fair Market Rents only, and not changes in actual family incomes. Using this NLIHC measure, relative to other states, Oregon's renter affordability has improved since 2000 with Oregon firmly in the middle of the pack among states on this measure.

My 2 page PDF compilation and table of state housing wage data from 2000-2006 NLIHC Out of Reach studies is HERE.

Housing Wage $$ and % Change
The 2008 Oregon housing wage was $13.87. Without adjusting for inflation/wage growth the housing wage increased by:

1. $2.20/19% since 2000. (Washington state grew by 26%)
   
2. $.41/3% since 2006. (Washington state grew by 7%)
   

ACS 2006 Analysis 1: Rent Burdened Percentage Increased in United States Last Year and In Last 4 Years, But Oregon's Percentage Decreased.

I have just completed my first review of data from the American Community Survey for 2006. The analysis is of estimates of the state percentage of renters paying 30% or more of their income for housing, often called “rent burdened” households.

From 2005-2006 the US percentage of renters paying 30% of income increased by .7% , while Oregon’s percentage decreased by 2.3%.

Looking at change over a longer period from 2003-2006, Oregon did even better, with the fourth largest state decrease of 3.7% vs. a nation increase of 6.5%

Oregon’s improvement to 47% or renters paying 30% or more of income for rent in 2006 still left Oregon above the national average of 46%. Our state ranking improved from the #1 [The Worst] ranking of 4 years ago to a still less than stellar # 11 state ranking in 2006.

NOTE: Idaho’s improvement in last year and last 4 years was BEST in the country, bringing their 2006 rent burdened percentage below 40%. Idaho now ranks as the 46^th rent burdened state compared to a state ranking of 17 just four years ago.

My detailed state data analysis and comparisons are HERE in this three page PDF document.