New Report: The Shifting Nature of Housing Demand.

Report, from Demand Institute, is HERE. Key projections:

This will be a two-stage recovery. Seasonally adjusted average house prices will increase by up to 1 percent in the second half of 2012, rising to an annual rate of increase of 2.5 percent by 2014.Between 2015 and 2017, they will rise by 3 to 3.5 percent a year on average.

The recovery will be led by demand from buyers for rental properties, rather than, as in previous cycles, demand from buyers acquiring properties for themselves. More than 50 percent of those planning to move in the next two years say they intend to rent. Young people—who were particularly hard hit by the recession—and immigrants will lead the demand for rental properties.Developers and investors will fulfill it, developers by building multifamily homes for rent (that is, buildings containing two or more units, such as apartment blocks or townhouses), and investors by buying foreclosed single-family properties for the same purpose.

Rental demand will help to clear the huge oversupply of existing homes for sale. In 2011, some 14 percent of all housing units were vacant, while almost 13 percent of mortgages were in foreclosure or delinquent—increases of 12 and 129 percent respectively over 2005 levels. It will take two to three years for this oversupply to be cleared, and at that point home ownership rates will rise and return to historical levels. More than 70 percent of those planning to move three to five years from now say they intend to purchase their home.

The housing market recovery will not be uniform across the country. Some states will see annual price gains of 5 percent or more. Others will not recover for many years. The deciding factors will include the level of foreclosed inventory and rates of unemployment. There will also be vast differences within states. Here, additional factors count, such as whether local amenities, including access to public transport, are within walking distance of homes. By examining seven factors that influence house prices at a local level, the report identifies four categories of cities and towns in which prices will behave differently (population share in parentheses):
• Resilient Walkables (~15%)
• Slow and Steady (~35%)
• Damaged but Hopeful (~30%)
• Weighed Down (~20%)
We predict that each category will demonstrate a distinct pace and strength of price recovery.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Corrected: Oregon Legislature: In Every Republican House and Senate District Renters Were More Likely than Home Owners to Have Children Less than Age Six.

Correction: 
In text below I corrected percentage of Democratic held districts where renter HH were more likely than home owners to have child below age of 18 to read 54%, instead my original 72%; data in linked tables remains accurate.
---------------

I recently posted (HERE) that in Oregon renters were 56% more likely than home owners to have children below the age of 6. 

That got me thinking, I wonder if there were any differences between state legislative districts held by Republicans and Democrats?  

Well, it turns out that there were differences, but they weren't what most people (including me) likely expected....

Children Under Age Six
In EVERY Republican Held District Renters Were More Likely than Home Owners to Have a Child Less than Age Six

It turns out that in EVERY Republican legislative district (44 out of 44) it was more likely that renter households had children less than age 6 when compared to home owners.  

For Democratic held districts, renters were more likely that home owner households to have a child less than age six 72% of the time (33 out of 46 districts). 

Combined, in 77 of the 90 legislative districts (86%) it was more likely that renter households would include a child less than age 6 vs home owner households.  

All Children Less than 18

When looking at all children under 18, for Republican held districts renters were more likely than home owners to have a child less than eighteen 86% of the time ( 38 of 44). 

However in Democratic held districts, renters were more likely than home owners to have a child only 54% of the time ( 25 out of 46 districts). 

Combined, in 63 of the 90 districts (70%) it was more likely that renter households would include a child less than 18 vs. home owner households. 

TABLES
The table I constructed HERE provides a summary for each chamber and for the combined chambers, as well as a break out by party.

The legal sized PDF table I constructed HERE has the relevant percentages for each Oregon legislative district. The table is sorted by numerical order of Senate and House seats and includes the member name and party.

The bookmark HERE will take you to the Census 2010 data table for Oregon Legislative Districts (HCT 11) that I used to do my calculations. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

HUD HOME Budget Cuts Would Hurt Renters the Most; 91% of HOME $$ in Oregon Have Focused on Renters.

With action expected on the HUD FY 2012 appropriations bill next week, the National Housing Conference has put together a spreadsheet HERE showing how HOME dollars were spent by state from 1992-2011 including a count of completed units produced for different purposes. 

I culled out the Oregon data into PDF HERE and added some calculations to show how much was used for different purposes. Some observations:

1. Nearly 24,000 completed units in Oregon have received HOME assistance; 2,200 were home buyers and homeowners and the remainder of HOME assistance went for rental housing.
2. 91% of $$ and 90% of Oregon HOME units completed were for rental housing. 
3. The vast majority of Oregon HOME rental assistance went for Tenant Based Rental assistance. TBRA units accounted for 72% of all completed HOME units in Oregon--this was the HIGHEST percentage for any state in the country. The 14% of HOME funding spent for TBRA in Oregon was also the HIGHEST percentage in the country.
4. Oregon HOME non TBRA rental average costs per completed unit were 59% higher than the US average ($50,488 vs. $31,819). [This may have been because units were targeted for those with the lowest incomes. Feel free to add comments to this post if other known reasons account for cost differences].
5. All other HOME uses (home buyer, homeowner rehab, and TBRA) in Oregon had average per completed unit costs that were less than the national average.

 Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Biggest Growth in Renters? Single Moms.

WSJ story HERE.

In addition to highest growth rate , Single moms + single women make up 40% of all renter households: 

...married couples (with and without children) still account for the largest overall share of renters with 26%, although single moms and single women together comprise close to 40% of renters.

Not in story: HUD data show that nationally 47% of all voucher holder heads of households are women with children. (This data likely does not include M2W agency data; if these large metro MTW agencies were included my guess is that % of voucher households headed by women with children would climb above 50%). My guess is that if elderly households headed by women (no children) were added, TOTAL voucher households headed by women might climb to close 60%.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Census Brief: Housing 2010: Occupied Rental Units Rate of Increase DOUBLE That of Owner Occupied Rate Increase.

HERE.  

For Oregon this new Census Brief says that from 2000-2010 the number of occupied rental units increased by 20.5%, more than DOUBLE the rate of increase in owner occupied units (10.2%).

Readers will recall [prior post HERE] that the number of Oregon renter households also increased more than the number of home owner households from 2000-2010; Oregon was only 1 of 12 states where this occurred. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Oregon AND Portland Metro Had Lowest RENTAL Vacancy Rates in US in 1st Quarter, 2011; HO Vacancy Ranks Worse.

Daily Journal of Commerce story is HERE.  

I expanded a bit to create table below that shows vacancy rates and rankings for 1st Qtr 2011-2006 for both rentals and home ownership units.  (Rankings are best to worst among 51 states [includes DC] and 75 largest metro areas].

Table shows both Oregon and Portland Metro had the LOWEST rental vacancy rates in the country in 1st Qtr 2011. (While Oregon's rental vacancy rate is down from same quarter last year, the Portland metro rental vacancy rate actually bumped up slightly from same quarter last year).

For home ownership Oregon's vacancy rate ranked 43rd best [8th worst], and Portland's ranked 36th best in the first quarter of 2011. Important note: Despite the lower relative rankings, vacancy rates for both Oregon and Portland metro home ownership units are LESS than rental vacancy rates for the 1st Qtr 2011.

Detailed vacancy rate data for states and top 75 MSA's in country is available from Census HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Harvard Joint Center Report on Rental Housing Out.

Report is HERE, comes a few days before NLIHC Out of Reach annual report scheduled for release next week. 

PDF page 54 is table of cost burdened renters 2000 and 2009 by Metro area. Portland % of cost burdened renters increased from 18.8% to 25.5%; %'s would be higher for lower income renters.  

Extremely Low Income Affordable and Available Supply Continues to Decline

My calculations from important national table at PDF page 53 shows that <30% Median Family Income households grew by 11% from 2003 to 2009, while the supply of affordable AND available housing decreased by 5.8%. 

The supply gap for these households is now nearly 6.8 million units. For every 100 renters in this income group, only 36 units were affordable AND available in 2009. This is a decline of 15% since 2003 when the Affordable and Available units per 100 extremely low income renters was 42.

Also from report:

Renters are ethnically and racially diverse, with minorities accounting for 89 percent of the more than 4.0 million growth in their numbers from 2000 to 2010. Hispanics contributed 42 percent, and blacks 25 percent, of this increase. Over the decade, the minority share of renters thus rose from 39 percent to 45 percent—more than twice the minority share of owners. In large measure, these minority gains reflect the fact that half of all immigrants rent their housing. Indeed, the foreign-born head one in five renter households. With the recession-induced slowdown in immigration and the bust in the homeownership market, however, whites accounted for nearly half of all renter household growth in 2005–10. While the common perception of rental housing is of large structures in urban areas, more than half of all rental units are in buildings with four or fewer units—including 34 percent that are single-family homes. Renters are in fact more likely to live in the center cities of metropolitan areas than homeowners, but more than half live in suburban and nonmetropolitan areas. Indeed, two out of every five renters live in suburban areas and about one in seven in non-metro areas.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Excel Out of Reach Oregon Renter Affordability Data: 2009 and 2010.

On Wednesday the National Low Income Housing Coalition released their annual Out of Reach report on renter housing affordability.

NLIHC's 2010 summary for Oregon is HERE. (Their 2009 Oregon summary is HERE).

If YOU would like to do you own 2009 and 2010 comparisons, I have created an Excel workbook HERE with data for all Oregon counties. It includes separate 2009 and 2010 worksheets, a combined 2009 and 2010 worksheet, AND a pivot table that uses the combined worksheet.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

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.

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.

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.

HUD Secretary Says Renters Important, That's Why 225,000 Additional Vouchers in Budget.

THIS Philadelphia Inquirer story shouldn't be a story, but focus of last Administration solely on home ownership makes it one. From story:

"We've effectively had a national housing policy only about home ownership, with not even a focus or discussion in Washington about the importance of rental properties," Donovan said.

He said there would be a "recommitment" at HUD to provide rental housing for lower-income families.

In Obama's recent budget proposal, HUD would increase spending for rental vouchers by $1.8 billion - enough to house 225,000 additional individuals and families, Donovan said."

HUD Rental Housing Inventory Report: Low Income Units Lost at Much Faster Clip.

NLIHC had good links in their weekly report on HUD report showing the components of change in housing inventory. Summary of the report from NLIHC is HERE.

Separate NLIHC table HERE shows that the loss rate for lowest income rentals was nearly 3 times the overall rental loss rate. (unit are in thousands).

The HUD Components of Inventory Change report can be found HERE.

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.

Final FMR’s for FY 08 Published, Quick Review Indicates No Changes to Previously Proposed Rents for 2BR Units

Shortly after my retirement I published information HERE about HUD PROPOSED Oregon FY 2008 Fair Market Rent, including an Excel table HERE showing a comparison with FY 2007 FMR’s for 2 bedroom units.

Today, HUD finally published the FINAL 08 Fair Market Rents effective next Monday October 1st.

My quick review indicates there were NO changes to the 2Br Rents previously proposed for Oregon, so the comparisons in the prior Excel table between 07-08 FMR's remain valid. Want more Info? HUD's main fair market rent page is HERE.

Oregon Progress Board Renter Median HH Income Is 26% Below ACS Estimate for 2006, Invalidates OPB Rent Burden %'s

This is the first in a series of reviews of Oregon Progress Board Housing Benchmark Data and focuses on Renter Household Incomes and Rent Burdened Percentages.

Progress Board: The Oregon Progress Board [OPB] has changed the statement of this goal over time, invalidating comparisons to early periods. The now stated goal is that no more than 70% of renter households [HH's] below rental median income will pay more than 30% their income for rent. [See page 7 of 2007 Benchmark summary report HERE]

The Progress Board reports that the median rental household income for 2006 was $22.669 and that 82% of renters at that income level paid more than 30% of their income for rent in 2006. (You can confirm renter median income from OPB by generating a specific report HERE).

ACS 2006: The Census American Community Survey [ACS] estimates (Table B25119) that Oregon 2006 renter median household income was $28,582. (The 2005 ACS reported Oregon Renter Household Median Income estimate was $26,385, increasing to $27,236 in 2006 inflation adjusted dollars].

Analysis: OPB's estimated median renter household income for 2006 is $5,913 and 26.1% BELOW the 2006 ACS estimate and $1,346 and 4.9% BELOW the one year earlier inflation adjusted 2005 ACS renter household median estimate.

This wide variance in income directly impacts the accuracy of the rent burdened estimate, as rent burdens generally decrease as incomes increase. Higher ACS estimated renter median HH incomes would suggest that the percentage of below median rent burdened HH's was less than OPB reported.

[Note: ACS data available in the Fact Finder site does not directly provide rent burdens for median income renter HH's, so that no direct comparison can be made with OPB counts and percentages. Those with more skill , time, and software tools than I have MAY be able to calculate such a direct comparison using downloaded PUMS data and I encourage users to try that if they wish ].

Recommendation for Oregon Progress Board: Use ACS Data on Rent Burdens and Renter Median HH Income.

While I appreciate that there are differences in survey methods, including the size of sample and the period sampled, there is no way IMO that a difference of 26.1% in renter HH median income can be explained away by those variations.

OPB already selectively uses other ACS data. With ACS gradually expanding coverage to include smaller areas, if the Oregon Progress Board switched to using ACS data on rent burdens and median renter HH income:

• More valid year to year to year comparisons could be made.
• Some local geographies could be added to track this benchmark.
  
• Direct comparisons to other states could be made.
  

Moreover, OPB would be improve this benchmark to report not only above 30% , but also above 50% rent burdens, which disproportionately affect the lowest income Oregon renters.

2006-2005: ACS Says Oregon Severe Cost Burdened Rental Households Dropped by 8,500: 7 % Improvement Was 3rd Best in Nation

A comparison of American Community Survey (ACS) 2006 and 2005 state severe cost burdened rental housing data has turned up some unexpected good news for Oregon renters.

ACS estimates show that in Oregon there was a reduction of 8,673 renter l HH’s (from 128,467 HH’s to 119,794 HH’s ) who paid 50% or more of their income for rent—so called “severe cost burdened renters”. This numerical reduction coverts to a 7% percentage reduction in Oregon severe cost burdened renters. This was the third largest state percentage improvement in the country, trailing only Vermont and Alaska.

In 2005 among all states Oregon had the 5th highest state severe cost burden % for renters. With the 2006 reported improvements, Oregon's severe cost burden % for renters dropped Oregon's rank to the 17th highest in the country. (And subject to all the usual caveats about ACS limitations).

While the ACS estimate is that severe rent burdened rental HH’s in Oregon DID decline and our state rank did improve, it's sobering to remember that even with improvement one out of every four rental households continued to pay 50% or more of their income for rent, and Oregon still ranked about the median for all states in the degree of severe cost burden for our renters.

In the US the % of severe rent burdened households increased by .1% during the same period. This occurred even though the number of rent burdened households decreased by 49,000+ because the universe of HH’s for which rent burdens were calculated decreased in 2006 vs. 2005.

Adding Idaho as the 4^th ranked and Washington at the 6^th ranked states in severe cost rent burden % improvements from 2006-2005 means that four of the top six state % reductions in renters with severe cost burdens were in the Northwest. Moreover, more than HALF of the estimated 49,000+ national reduction in severe rent burdened households came from our four Northwest states.

Details can be found in the two page PDF file HERE showing 2005 and 2006 data for severe cost burdens by state, and state rankings by change in the percentage of HH’s with those burdens.

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.

NON Married Couple Households Are Majority of Oregon Households: Of This Majority, More than Half are Renters.

I have posted the title above as the first posting on a new Oregon Housing Data Blog that I have created that will highlight new (or a new take on existing) Oregon housing data.

I will try to remember to post headlines from that blog here in the future. (However to insure that you see postings on the Oregon Housing Data blog, I would suggest that you subscribe separately. Easy to use boxes for doing so are at the top right of the blog at www.oregonhousingdata.blogspot.com ).