Mind the Gap - California Housing...
Transcript of Mind the Gap - California Housing...
mba.org/research
ONE VOICE. ONE VISION. ONE RESOURCE.
Mind the Gap:A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing
Jamie Woodwell Vice President, Commercial Real Estate Research
Mortgage Bankers Association
14664
MBA RESEARCH DATANOTE
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 2 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
Introduction
There is a significant gap between the need for and the supply of affordable housing in the United States. The size of the gap can probably best be summarized by the dramatic fact that “more than a third of U.S. households live in housing that exceeds their means.” 1 In addition to the financial burdens this gap places on families and communities, numerous studies have found direct links between affordable housing and positive health, education, economic and other outcomes. 2
1. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, State of the Nation’s Housing 2014, www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/state_nations_housing
2. Enterprise, Impact of Affordable Housing on Families and Communities: A Review of the Evidence Base, www.enterprisecommunity.com/resources/ResourceDetails?ID=0093581
But the affordable housing gaps the country faces are not of just one type. Just as there are wide ranges of income levels (on the demand size) and housing types (on the supply side), there are also a variety of different mismatches between incomes and housing costs.
Much of the discussion of, and most of the programs established to address, affordable housing needs can be broken into three broad categories:
• The housing needs of low- and very-low-income households, whose incomes are not enough to cover the costs of building and maintaining safe and decent housing.
• The need for moderate-income, workforce housing, and the struggle to supply adequate affordable housing near job centers.
• The housing needs of special populations, who have special housing requirements that are not naturally met in full by the housing market.
The United States has a long history of challenges in each of these areas and has developed many successful programs and approaches to address them. Even, so, it is clear that housing needs continue to go unmet.
• Low- and very-low-income households: According to data from the American Community Survey, in 2012 there were more than 18 million households earning less than $20,000 per year. Not surprisingly 15 million of these households — 82 percent — paid 30 percent of their income or more for their housing.
• Workforce housing: During the Great Recession, real median household incomes plunged. At the same time, construction of multifamily housing fell to its lowest level since data began being collected in 1964, millennials began entering prime renting ages and millions of households shifted from owning homes to renting. The result has been an historic tightening of the rental market, with rental vacancy rates falling to levels not seen since 1985, and rents growing at twice the rate of inflation.
• Special populations: There are a number of populations that have special housing needs, including seniors, the disabled, veterans, people living with AIDS and others. The housing needs of these groups are not naturally met in full by the housing market, and despite many successful programs, needs continue to outstrip resources.
This paper presents a high-level overview of research on the affordable housing needs facing the country, and on some of the federal programs that have been developed to address them. Because of the central role multifamily rental housing plays — both through federal programs and through the natural market — in providing affordable housing, this paper focuses on that sector. A list of sources, references and additional resources, found in the footnotes, provides readers paths to get additional details and to learn more about particular topics.
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 3 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
Housing for Low-Income Households
A large gap exists between the incomes of many American households and the cost of building and maintaining safe and decent housing.
The first, and most fundamental, need for affordable housing comes from the simple gap that exists between the incomes of many American households and the cost of building and maintaining safe and decent housing.
THE NEEDAccording to data from the American Community Survey, in 2012 there were more than 18 million households earning less than $20,000 per year. Not surprisingly 15 million of these
households — 82 percent — paid 30 percent of their income or more for their housing. Another 18 million household earned between $20,000 and $35,000 per year, of which more than 10 million, or 58 percent, paid 30 percent or more of their income for their housing. 3 As can be seen in the chart on the following page, the growth in this number has been driven by increasing numbers of renter households falling into the lowest income groups.
3. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2013, FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS, 1-Year Estimates
Table 1. Share of Households by Income and Housing Cost Burdens, 2013
Occupied housing units
Owner-occupied housing units
Renter-occupied housing units
Occupied housing units
Owner- occupied
housing units
Renter- occupied
housing units
Occupied housing units 116,291,033 73,843,861 42,447,172
Monthly Housing Costs as a Percentage Of Household Income in the Past 12 Months
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Share of Income and Tenure Group
Less than $20,000 16.10% 10.00% 26.60% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Less than 20 percent 1.10% 1.30% 0.70% 6.8% 13.0% 2.6%
20 to 29 percent 1.70% 1.40% 2.30% 10.6% 14.0% 8.6%
30 percent or more 13.20% 7.30% 23.70% 82.0% 73.0% 89.1%
$20,000 to $34,999 15.40% 12.80% 19.90% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Less than 20 percent 3.20% 4.30% 1.20% 20.8% 33.6% 6.0%
20 to 29 percent 3.10% 2.50% 4.20% 20.1% 19.5% 21.1%
30 percent or more 9.00% 5.90% 14.50% 58.4% 46.1% 72.9%
$35,000 to $49,999 13.40% 12.80% 14.40% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Less than 20 percent 4.50% 5.50% 2.70% 33.6% 43.0% 18.8%
20 to 29 percent 4.10% 3.00% 6.00% 30.6% 23.4% 41.7%
30 percent or more 4.80% 4.30% 5.70% 35.8% 33.6% 39.6%
$50,000 to $74,999 17.70% 19.20% 15.00% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Less than 20 percent 8.40% 9.70% 6.10% 47.5% 50.5% 40.7%
20 to 29 percent 5.50% 5.20% 6.00% 31.1% 27.1% 40.0%
30 percent or more 3.80% 4.30% 2.90% 21.5% 22.4% 19.3%
$75,000 or more 34.20% 44.40% 16.50% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Less than 20 percent 24.40% 31.60% 11.90% 71.3% 71.2% 72.1%
20 to 29 percent 7.30% 9.30% 3.80% 21.3% 20.9% 23.0%
30 percent or more 2.60% 3.50% 0.90% 7.6% 7.9% 5.5%
Zero or negative income 1.40% 0.80% 2.30% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
No cash rent 1.90% (X) 5.30% 100.0% (X) 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2013, FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS, 1-Year Estimates
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 4 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
THE MISMATCHThe cost of building and maintaining safe and decent housing exceeds what can be afforded by many households’ low and very-low incomes.
Groups as diverse as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Center for American Progress (CAP) have highlighted the number and needs of very-low-income households in the United States. In October 2014, Michael Doar of AEI wrote “2013 was the third consecutive year in which more than 45 million Americans lived in poverty. The poverty rate remains two full percentage points above what it was in 2007 and 3.2 percentage points above where we were in 2000. If the 2013 rate mirrored that of 1999, almost 10 million fewer Americans would be in poverty.” 4 Melissa Boteach and Shawn Fremstad from CAP noted, “The share of families struggling on the economic brink also remains elevated, with about one-third — 33.9 percent — of Americans just one paycheck, sick child, or broken-down car away from poverty. Women, people of
4. American Enterprise Institute, Where’s the Outrage, October 2014, https://www.aei.org/publication/wheres-the-outrage/
color, and young workers are among those hardest hit by the recession and the subsequent weak recovery.” 5
Absent assistance, the incomes of these households are not enough to support the cost of building and maintaining safe and decent housing.
Given land and development costs, housing — particularly in dense, urban environments — is expensive to build and maintain. A 2009 study by the Urban Land Institute, Priced Out: Persistence of the Workforce Housing Gap in the Washington, D.C., Metro Area details the challenges of building housing affordable even to moderate-income households in a large metropolitan area. 6
5. Center for American Progress, The Top 3 Things You Need to Know About the 2013 Poverty and Income Data, September 2014, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/news/2014/09/16/97154/the-top-3-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-2013-poverty-and-income-data/
6. ULI, Priced Out: Persistence of the Workforce Housing Gap in the Washington, D.C., Metro Area, http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Priced-Out-DC-reduced.pdf
Number of Renter Households, by Income and Level of Housing Cost Burden (thousands)
Source: MBA and Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies
No BurdenSevere Burden Moderate Burden
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011
Less than $15,000 $15,000–$29,999 $30,000–$44,999
$45,000–$74,999 $75,000 and over
Median Household Income:2011: $50,502 2001: $42,228
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 5 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
ECONOMICS OF AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENTBuilding and maintaining affordable housing requires capital, and attracting capital requires a competitive return. Absent assistance, the rents affordable to many low- and very-low-income households would not provide a return adequate to attract private capital. As a result, development of affordable rental housing often relies on subsidies and grants to fill the gap between the cost of building and maintaining housing and rents that are affordable. In the redevelopment of 51st and King Apartments in Chicago, the National Housing Trust / Enterprise Preservation Corporation and Chicago Community Development Corp relied on the following sources to make the economics of the project work.
• 4% Low-Income-Housing Tax Credits• Private Activity BondsSection 236 Interest
Reduction Payments• Secondary Soft Loan from the Illinois Housing
Development Authority• Grant from the Federal Home Loan Bank’s
Affordable Housing Program• Section 8 Contract• Portable Enhanced Section 8 Vouchers
Source: www.nhtinc.org/51st_and_king.php
Analysis by Freddie Mac found that between 2007 and 2011, the number of very-low-income multifamily renters increased from 7.6 million to 8.7 million (a 14-percent increase). The number of very low income multifamily renters spending more than 50% of their income on housing increased from 2.5 million to 3.4 million (a 36-percent increase). 7
The study also found that the number of adequate and available multifamily rental units affordable to very-low-income households increased from 4.5 million to 4.6 million (a four-percent increase). As a result of the faster growth in need than in supply, the supply gap increased from 3.2 million units to 4.0 million units (a 28-percent increase) over the period.
7. Freddie Mac, Multifamily Affordability: Market Conditions and Policy Perspectives, www.freddiemac.com/multifamily/pdf/mrp_affordable.pdf
Freddie Mac also found that the need for multifamily rental housing for very-low-income households is acute across primary, secondary and tertiary markets. Tertiary markets account for a greater need for, and supply of, low-income units — with 48 percent of very-low-income renters and 53 percent of multifamily units occupied and affordable to very-low-income households in tertiary markets. But the analysis also found that the mismatch between supply and demand is greatest in the primary and secondary markets — with just 0.47 affordable multifamily rental units available for each very low income household in primary markets and 0.59 units available for each very low income household in tertiary markets. The study also found the absolute need highest in central cities, and the supply gap the greatest in the suburbs. Across all market types, Freddie Mac found four million more very-low-income households than multifamily units affordable to them. 8
Analysis by John Weicher found the following profile of housing that is affordable to households earning half the area median income:
• 69 percent of the affordable rental units are in “small” buildings — 54 percent in 1–4 unit buildings and 15 percent in 5–9 unit buildings.
• 31 percent are in “large” buildings — 20 percent in 10–49 unit buildings and 11 percent in 50+ unit buildings.
• 24 percent are in primary markets, 23 percent are in secondary markets and 53 percent are in tertiary markets.
• 55 percent are in central cities, 23 percent are in suburbs and 13 percent in Non-MSA markets 9
CLOSING THE GAPMany government programs work to fill the gap between the incomes of these low- and very-low-income households and the cost of housing. Some federal programs include subsidies to directly fill the gap between a tenant’s income and area rents. Others subsidize the cost of building housing in exchange for a commitment to make housing affordable to low or very-low-income households. Others provide low cost financing for properties that provide affordable housing.
Together, these programs make millions of units affordable to low- and very-low-income households. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the numbers cited above, these programs cover only a portion of the overall need. The following is a sample of the federal programs.
8. Freddie Mac, Multifamily Affordability: Market Conditions and Policy Perspectives, www.freddiemac.com/multifamily/pdf/mrp_affordable.pdf
9. Weicher, John, A Long Look at Affordable Rental Housing, May 4 2012 presentation.
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 6 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
HOUSING CHOICE, SECTION 8 AND OTHER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) PROGRAMSHUD describes the Housing Choice Voucher Program as “the federal government’s major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market… The participant is free to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and is not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects… A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the [Public Housing Authority] on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program.” 10 According to data from HUD and the U.S. Census Bureau, the Housing Choice Voucher Program provided housing to more than 5.3 million people in 2.1 million units in 2013, 91 percent of them earning less than 50 percent of the area median income. 11
HUD also provides assistance through project-based Section 8 contracts. “The project-based rental assistance makes up the difference between what an extremely low-, low-, or very low-income household can afford and the approved rent for an adequate housing unit in a multifamily project. Eligible tenants must pay the highest of 30 percent of adjusted income, 10 percent of gross income or the portion of welfare assistance designated for housing or the minimum rent established by HUD. Originally, the assistance was provided in connection with new construction or substantial rehabilitation or to support existing projects. Authority to use project-based rental assistance in connection with new construction or substantial rehabilitation was repealed in 1983. While funding is no longer available for new commitments, funding is available for the renewal of Section 8 Housing Assistance Program contracts for units already assisted with project-based Section 8 renewal assistance.” 12 Project-based assistance through the moderate rehabilitation and Section 8 new construction and
10. HUD, Housing Choice Vouchers Fact Sheet, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8
11. www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/picture/about.html
12. HUD, Renewal of Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
substantial rehabilitation programs provided housing to 1.3 million people in 863,000 units, 96 percent of them earning 50 percent of the area median income or less.
Public housing is likely the best known of all rent subsidy programs. “Public housing comes in all sizes and types, from scattered single-family houses to highrise apartments for elderly families… The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers federal aid to local housing agencies (HAs) that manage the housing for low-income residents at rents they can afford.” 13 Public housing provided homes to 2.3 million people in 1.2 million units, 91 percent of whom earned 50 percent of the area median income or less.
13. HUD, HUD’s Public Housing Program
Table 2. Selected Federal Housing Programs, 2013
ProgramSubsidized Units
Available % OccupiedNumber of
People: Total% Very Low
Income% Extremely Low
IncomeAverage Months on Waiting List
Public Housing 1,150,867 94 2,335,398 91 72 13
Housing Choice Vouchers 2,386,237 92 5,360,333 96 76 23
Mod Rehab 22,499 89 32,585 99 88 9
Section 8 NC / SR 840,900 96 1,246,697 96 73 n.a.
Section 236 126,859 93 155,842 93 71 n.a.
Multi-Family Other 656,456 95 945,692 98 78 n.a.
LIHTC 1,974,163 97 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Picture of Subsidized Households; CohnReznick, The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program: A Performance Update Analysis.
Table 3. LIHTC Projects Placed in Service, 1995–2012
Year Placed in ServiceNumber
of ProjectsNumber of Units
1995 1,585 91,663
1996 1,504 97,239
1997 1,438 94,661
1998 1,408 98,607
1999 1,632 124,501
2000 1,475 112,046
2001 1,552 115,967
2002 1,451 117,617
2003 1,655 138,300
2004 1,601 136,632
2005 1,696 137,146
2006 1,622 131,887
2007 1,573 124,851
2008 1,356 101,798
2009 1,095 85,319
2010 987 76,738
2011 1,037 76,444
2012 633 44,992
All Projects 25,300 1,906,408
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 7 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is one of the most successful programs for the development of affordable housing. According to HUD, “[t]he LIHTC Program, which is based on Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, was enacted by Congress in 1986 to provide the private market with an incentive to invest in affordable rental housing. Federal housing tax credits are awarded to developers of qualified projects. Developers then sell these credits to investors to raise capital (or equity) for their projects, which reduces the debt that the developer would otherwise have to borrow. Because the debt is lower, a tax credit property can in turn offer lower, more affordable rents.” 14
FEDERAL HOUSING = ADMINISTRATION (FHA) PROGRAMSFHA oversees a range of mortgage insurance programs that provide low-interest-rate loans for the financing and development of affordable multifamily rental properties. Generally referred to by the sections of the housing act from which their authority is derived, these programs range from Section 221(d)4 insurance on loans that facilitate the new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing to Section 223(f) loans for the purchase or refinancing of existing properties.
14. HUD, How Do Housing Tax Credits Work?, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/affordablehousing/training/web/lihtc/basics/work
While most of these programs are available to properties with either targeted affordable or market-rate units, FHA programs are closely aligned with providing housing for those with low and very-low incomes.
NEED FOR PRESERVATIONMany federal assistance programs — particularly those that are project-based — require units to remain affordable for a set period of time, after which property owners have the ability to either renew the contract that ties subsidies to affordable units, or to exit the program and adjust their rents to market levels. With a strong housing market, many of the properties whose use restrictions are expiring may follow the market.
Harvard’s Joint Center’s analysis of the National Housing Preservation Database shows, “that the contracts or affordability restrictions on more than 190,000 units are set to expire each year on average over the next decade. Potential losses thus amount to more than 2.0 million units out of a total subsidized stock of 4.8 million. HUD-funded, project-based rental assistance programs, along with the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, support more than three-quarters (85 percent) of this housing. Most of the remainder are FHA-insured properties or units supported by HOME funding or the USDA Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Loan program.” 15
Even with the existing support, millions of households are struggling to meet their housing costs.
15. www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/lihtc.html
Table 4. FHA Mortgage Insurance Programs, Fiscal Year 2014 Production — Initial Endorsements
ProgramNumber of Loans
Number of Units
Mortgage Volume
FHA NC / SR Apts 172 25,552 $2,327,411,800
223f Refi / Purchase Apts 671 99,715 $6,034,228,700
223a7 Refi Apts 176 25,520 $1,582,851,786
241a Impvmts Apts 1 100 $9,690,600
Other FHA 1 64 $1,672,200
232 Health Care 483 56,438 $4,203,814,200
HFA Risk Sharing 36 4,331 $299,370,860
QPE Risk Sharing 14 2,700 $306,767,000
Grand Total 1,554 214,420 $14,765,807,146
Source: HUD
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 8 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
Workforce Housing
There is an undersupply and mismatch of housing affordable to moderate-income households.
A second major challenge of housing affordability comes from an undersupply and mismatch of housing affordable to moderate-income households.
THE NEEDDuring the Great Recession, real median household incomes plunged. At the same time, construction of multifamily housing fell to its lowest level since data began being collected in 1964, 16 millennials began entering prime renting ages and millions of households shifted from owning homes to renting.
The result has been a tightening of the market — with vacancy rates falling to levels not seen since 1985 17 and rents growing
16. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. “New Residential Construction.” Table 3.
17. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. “Housing Vacancies and Homeownership.”
at twice the rate of inflation 18 — and an exacerbation of the mismatch between the demand for and the supply of rental housing. Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies found that compared to 2001 levels, rents in 2013 had increased five percent in real terms, but renter incomes had fallen 10 percent.
A Freddie Mac study found that, “Since 1980 renter income has increased 170% (in nominal terms), or 3.2% a year. During the same period rents increased 270%, about 4.3% per year. This suggests that a larger number of renters are paying a higher percentage of their income on rent.” 19
The market is responding, and new construction activity has begun to pick up. Multifamily starts are consistently exceeding a pace of 300,000 units per year and multifamily
18. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Year-over-year CPI-U October 2014: Rent of primary residence = 3.3%; All Items = 1.7%.
19. Freddie Mac, Multifamily Affordability: Market Conditions and Policy Perspectives, www.freddiemac.com/multifamily/pdf/mrp_affordable.pdf
Notes: Median costs and incomes are real values adjusted using the CPI-U for All Items. Owner housing costs are first and second mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, homeowner association fees, and utilities. Renter housing costs are cash rent and utilities.Source: JCHS tabulations of US Census Bureau, American Community Surveys.
Changes in Incomes and Housing Costs, 2001 to 2013
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
200
1
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
2007
200
8
200
9
2010
2011
2012
2013
Renters
Housing Costs Income Housing Costs Income
Index (2001 = 100)
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
200
1
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
2007
200
8
200
9
2010
2011
2012
2013
Owners Index (2001 = 100)
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 9 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
construction is on pace to see more than 400,000 units authorized in 2014, one of the strongest years since the 1980s. New construction must accommodate not only household growth, but also the hundreds of thousands of units that are removed from the stock each year due to demolition, destruction and casualty loss. 20 Recent levels of construction have failed on both accounts.
The underdevelopment of the last decade, coupled with the fact that new housing tends to be built at higher price points than the rest of the stock, means that there remains a limited supply of workforce housing, making it difficult for working households to find safe, decent affordable housing, particularly near job centers.
20. Pierce-Eislen, U.S. Multifamily 2015 Rent Forecast & Outlook, http://media.whatcounts.com/sitestuff_yardi/123014_PierceEislenForecast/Pierce-Eislen2015Forecast.pdf
THE MISMATCHRental housing — and multifamily rental housing — tends to be affordable housing. A 2010 analysis by Fannie Mae found that 91 percent of multifamily rental housing was affordable to households earning the area median income (AMI), and 86 percent was affordable to households earning 80 percent of the AMI. 21
But in recent years, a tightening multifamily rental housing market has faced off against lackluster incomes.
In their report Out of Reach 2014, the National Low Income Housing Coalition found that, ”In the United States, the 2014 two-bedroom Housing Wage 22 is $18.92. This national average
21. Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae and Workforce Rental Housing, https://www.fanniemae.com/content/fact_sheet/wpworkhouse.pdf
22. “[T]the hourly wage a full-time worker must earn to afford a decent two-bedroom rental home at HUD-estimated Fair Market Rent (FMR) while spending no more than 30% of income on housing costs.”
Change in Population Age 16–29 and Multifamily Housing Starts (thousands)
Source: MBA and Census
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
–1,000
–500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
200
0
200
4
200
8
2012
2016
2020
2024
Change in Population Age 16-29 (thousands) — left scale
Five-year Average Multifamily Housing Starts (thousands) — right scale
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 10 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
is more than two-and-a-half times the federal minimum wage, and 52% higher than it was in 2000. In no state can a full-time minimum wage worker afford a one-bedroom or a two-bedroom rental unit at Fair Market Rent. 23” 24
A key challenge in addressing the tight rental market is that much of the supply of affordable housing comes from stock that was built during a previous period that has aged and become more affordable over time. The median monthly rent for housing units built during the 2000s is $1,072, compared to $930 for units built during the 1990s and $880 for units built during the 1980s (Table 5).
John Weicher has performed a detailed analysis of the rental housing stock, tracking properties and their affordability. Of the rental housing stock that was affordable in 2005, only 18 percent had not been in the housing stock in 1985. One third (35 percent) had been affordable rental units in 1985, one quarter (26 percent) had been rental but not affordable in 1985 and one fifth (20 percent) had not been rental units in 2005. 25 This “filtering” of housing from higher rents and income groups to lower income groups as it ages is a key source of affordable housing.
In recent years, the amount of new construction has significantly lagged the demand for rental housing — leading to a very tight market, limited availability and increasing costs. Construction has begun to pick up, but there is relatively scarce housing filtering through the system to meet current demand.
23. “ Fair Market Rent (FMR) is the 40th percentile of gross rents for typical, non-substandard rental units. FMRs are determined by HUD on an annual basis, and reflect the cost of shelter and utilities. FMRs are used to determine payment standards for the Housing Choice Voucher program and Section 8 contracts.”
24. National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2014, http://nlihc.org/oor
25. Weicher, John, A Long Look at Affordable Rental Housing, May 4 2012 presentation.
CLOSING THE GAPThere are a variety of government and government-related programs designed to promote the construction of new multifamily rental housing and to help close the gap between the demand for and supply of workforce housing. FHA insures construction loans through 221(d)4 and other programs. Fannie Mae’s, Freddie Mac’s and others’ permanent financing for apartment properties promotes construction by providing a steady supply of take-out financing. And LIHTC can provide market-rate as well as targeted affordable units. The following is a sample of the federal programs.
FHAThe Federal Housing Administration has a wide range of loan guarantee products that promote the development of workforce housing, chief among them Section 221(d)4 loans.
According to HUD, “Section 221(d)(4) insures lenders against loss on mortgage defaults. Section 221(d)(4) assists private industry in the construction or rehabilitation of rental and cooperative housing for moderate-income and displaced families by making capital more readily available. The program allows for long-term mortgages (up to 40 years) that can be financed with Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) Mortgage Backed Securities.” 26 In fiscal year 2014, HUD endorsed 172 new construction and substantial rehabilitation projects, guaranteeing $2.3 billion in loans for the construction of more than 25,000 units. 27
While 221(d)4 loans promote new construction, other FHA programs such 223f and 223(a)7 provide permanent financing (and refinancing) for existing properties. As is the case with multifamily loans from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and others, such financing can promote the development — and preservation — of workforce housing by increasing the stability and liquidity of debt products available to investors. All told, FHA provided loan guarantees on $10 billion of apartment financing in fiscal year 2014. 28
26. HUD, Mortgage Insurance for Rental and Cooperative Housing: Section 221(d)(4), http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/mfh/progdesc/rentcoophsg221d3n4
27. HUD, Multifamily Initial Endorsements, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/mfh/mfdata/miebyfy
28. HUD, Multifamily Initial Endorsements, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/mfh/mfdata/miebyfy
Table 5. Median Monthly Gross Rent and Number of Rental Units, by Year Structure Built, 2013
Median Rent Number of Units
Total: $905 42,447,172
Built 2010 or later $1,023 701,327
Built 2000 to 2009 $1,075 5,353,377
Built 1990 to 1999 $930 5,331,233
Built 1980 to 1989 $880 6,000,590
Built 1970 to 1979 $842 7,389,484
Built 1960 to 1969 $872 4,886,292
Built 1950 to 1959 $900 4,232,520
Built 1940 to 1949 $870 2,387,125
Built 1939 or earlier $894 6,165,224
Source: 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 11 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC AND OTHER LENDERSSimilar to FHA’s market-rate programs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other lenders — including banks, life insurance companies, the commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) market and others — provide permanent financing backed by multifamily rental properties. This financing
enhances investors’ abilities to build and maintain workforce rental housing, thus helping increase the supply and promote affordability. At the end of 2014 there was more than $940 billion in mortgage debt in place on multifamily rental properties. 29
29. MBA, Quarterly Analysis of Commercial and Multifamily Mortgage Debt Outstanding, mba.org/research
HOW SHOULD WE THINK ABOUT RISING RENTS?Rising rents are a challenge to households, particularly when incomes are growing slowly, if at all. And stagnant rents are a challenge to property owners, particularly when expenses are rising and investment dollars require a return.
To attract the investment dollars that are needed to add supply to the market, apartment properties must provide a competitive return, and must see incomes — and rents — rise over time.
Today, investors in multifamily properties are purchasing (and building) properties for the lowest returns (as measured by capitalization rates) on record. To justify this investment, especially with interest rates expected to rise, the incomes of these properties must rise as well, which will require raising rents.
Constraining rents and rent growth helps some households in the short term, but limits new construction and upkeep, which ends up raising rents over the long term.
Apartment Cap Rates
Source: Real Capital Analytics
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
200
1 Q1
200
2 Q
1
200
3 Q
1
200
4 Q
1
200
5 Q
1
200
6 Q
1
2007
Q1
200
8 Q
1
200
9 Q
1
2010
Q1
2011
Q1
2012
Q1
2013
Q1
2014
Q1
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 12 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATIONHousing affordability generally refers to the degree to which an area’s housing costs match the incomes of its residents. Affordability is therefore driven by an area’s incomes and housing costs, and by the distributions of each. Areas with more lower-income households, with higher land and development costs, and / or with mismatches between area incomes and housing costs tend to have higher shares of households that are rent burdened.
Share of Renter Households Spending More than 30 Percent of Their Incomes for Rent
Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 13 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION (CONTINUED)A look at five selected metro areas provides further insights. The distribution of incomes is relatively similar across many metro areas. Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and New York share distributions of income similar to the United States as a whole. Denver has relatively fewer lower-income households and relatively more higher-income households, and San Francisco has a much higher share of households earning higher incomes.
Housing costs vary more by metro area. Of the selected metros, Pittsburgh — with an older housing stock built for a population larger than its current size — has the highest share of less-expensive housing, followed by Denver, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Of the selected metros, Pittsburgh has the best fit of incomes and housing cost, and the fewest households paying high shares of their incomes for housing. Los Angeles has the highest cost burdens.
The fact that a greater share of the population in San Francisco has higher wages compensates for the high cost of housing. New York, with a large share of households earning lower incomes and a relatively expensive housing market, also has a relatively high share of households facing higher burdens.
More metro-specific findings can be found in the Appendix.
Note: Data for United States is from 2013. Data for New York is from 2009. Source: American Housing Survey, 2011
Distribution of Household Incomes, 2011 Distribution of Monthly Housing Costs, 2011
0
20
40
60
80
100
$12
0,0
00
or
mo
re
$10
0,0
00
to
$11
9,9
99
$8
0,0
00
to
$9
9,9
99
$6
0,0
00
to
$79
,99
9
$5
0,0
00
to
$5
9,9
99
$4
0,0
00
to
$4
9,9
99
$35
,00
0 t
o $
39,9
99
$3
0,0
00
to
$3
4,9
99
$2
5,0
00
to
$2
9,9
99
$2
0,0
00
to
$24
,99
9
$15
,00
0 t
o $
19,9
99
$10
,00
0 t
o $
14,9
99
$5
,00
0 t
o $
9,9
99
Less
th
an $
5,0
00
0
20
40
60
80
100
No
cas
h r
ent
$2
,50
0 o
r m
ore
$2
,00
0 t
o $
2,4
99
$1,
50
0 t
o $
1,9
99
$1,
25
0 t
o $
1,4
99
$1,
00
0 t
o $
1,24
9
$8
00
to
$9
99
$70
0 t
o $
799
$6
00
to
$6
99
$5
00
to
$5
99
$4
50
to
$4
99
$4
00
to
$4
49
$3
50
to
$3
99
$3
00
to
$3
49
$2
50
to
$2
99
$2
00
to
$24
9
$10
0 t
o $
199
Less
th
an $
100
Distribution of Housing Costs as a Percent of Income, 2011
0
20
40
60
80
100
No
cas
h r
ent
Zer
o o
r n
egat
ive
inco
me
100
per
cen
t o
r m
ore
70 t
o 9
9 p
erce
nt
60
to
69
per
cen
t
50
to
59
per
cen
t
40
to
49
per
cen
t
35
to
39
per
cen
t
30
to
34
per
cen
t
25
to
29
per
cen
t
20
to
24
per
cen
t
15 t
o 1
9 p
erce
nt
10 t
o 1
4 p
erce
nt
5 t
o 9
per
cen
t
Less
th
an 5
per
cen
t
U.S. (2013) Pittsburgh Denver
Los Angeles San Francisco New York (2009)
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 14 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
Housing for Special Populations
Supportive housing is required for certain populations with special needs, including seniors, the disabled, persons with AIDS, veterans and others.
A third major category of affordable housing need is the need for affordable housing for special populations. Groups ranging from the elderly to the disabled to veterans and people with AIDS have special housing needs that are often unmet or insufficiently met by natural market forces.
THE NEEDThere are a number of populations that have special housing needs, including seniors, the disabled, people living with AIDS and others. The housing needs of these groups are not naturally met in full by the housing market, and despite many successful programs, needs continue to outstrip resources.
THE MISMATCH
SENIORSAccording to a 2013 report from HUD’s Policy Development and Research Group, “Demographers project that by 2040, the US population aged 65 and older will double to 80 million and their share of the total population will rise from 13 to 20 percent.” 30 But, according to Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, “the existing housing stock is unprepared to meet the escalating need for affordability, accessibility, social connectivity and supportive services.” 31
DISABLEDA 2009 analysis by HUD found, “Renter households that include nonelderly people with disabilities are more likely than those that do not include people with disabilities to have very low incomes, experience worst care needs, pay more than one-half their income for rents and have other housing problems, such as living in inadequate or overcrowded housing. On the positive side, renter households that include nonelderly people with disabilities are two times as likely to
30. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Evidence Matters: Aging in Place: Facilitating Choice and Independence, www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/em/fall13/highlight1.html
31. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, Housing America’s Older Adults. www.jchs.harvard.edu/research/housing_americas_older_adults
receive housing assistance that those that do not include people with disabilities.” 32
PEOPLE LIVING WITH AIDSAccording to the National AIDS Housing Coalition, “Research has shown that housing is the greatest unmet service need for people living with the disease. Housing is healthcare. Stable, affordable housing offers the best opportunity for persons living with HIV / AIDS to access drug therapies and treatments and supportive services that will enhance the quality of life for themselves and their families. When people are housed, they can access and adhere to drug treatments and therapies and require fewer hospitalizations and less emergency room care. It has been estimated that as many as half of all people living with HIV / AIDS will need housing assistance at some point in their illness.” 33
VETERANSAccording to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Rental assistance helps more than 340,000 veterans — the great majority of them poor or near poor — afford decent housing. It appears to have played a central role in the 33 percent reduction in veterans’ homelessness between 2010 and 2014, and it allows recipients to devote more of their limited resources to other basic needs, like food or medicine. But it reaches only a fraction of veterans in need; many veterans continue to experience homelessness or pay very high shares of their income for housing.” 34
32. HUD, 2009 Worst Case Housing Needs of People with Disabilities, www.huduser.org/portal/publications/WorstCaseDisabilities03_2011.pdf
33. National AIDS Housing Coalition, HOPWA, http://nationalaidshousing.org/legisadvocacy/hopwa/
34. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Rental Assistance Helps More Than 340,000 Veterans Afford Homes, but Large Unmet Needs Remain, www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4045
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 15 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
CLOSING THE GAPA range of federal programs have been developed to help address the housing needs of specific populations. In most cases, unique programs have been tailored to address the specifics of each group. The exception to this is the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. The following is a sample of the federal programs.
FAIR HOUSING ACT“Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and disability.” 35 In concert with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it further requires that reasonable accommodations be made and: “Requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities; Requires housing providers to allow persons with disabilities to make reasonable modifications; Requires that new covered multifamily housing be designed and constructed to be accessible.” 36
SECTION 202“HUD provides capital advances to finance the construction, rehabilitation or acquisition with or without rehabilitation of structures that will serve as supportive housing for very low-income elderly persons, including the frail elderly, and provides rent subsidies for the projects to help make them affordable.” 37 According to HUD, “[t]he Section 202 program has provided 400,000 affordable homes over the last fifty years to the elderly, including many with extremely low-incomes or significant health concerns.” 38
SECTION 811“Through the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program, HUD provides funding to develop and subsidize rental housing with the availability of supportive services for very low- and extremely low-income adults
35. HUD, Fair Housing Laws and Presidential Executive Orders, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws
36. HUD, Disability Rights in Housing, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/inhousing
37. HUD, Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/mfh/progdesc/eld202
38. HUD, Section 202 Legislative Discussion Draft, www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/202811/sec202reform.cfm
with disabilities.” 39 “At its high point in the mid-1990s, Section 811 created approximately 3,000 units annually, but appropriations — and the number of new units created annually — declined so substantially that only 984 units were funded in the combined fiscal years 2010 and 2011 NOFA (Notice of Funding Availability). Of the 984 units, 244 were in group homes and 698 were independent living apartments.” 40 The Melville Act, signed into law in 2011, made modifications to the program to increase efficiency.
HUD-VASH“The HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program combines Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) rental assistance for homeless Veterans with case management and clinical services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). VA provides these services for participating Veterans at VA medical centers (VAMCs) and community-based outreach clinics... HUD has awarded funding for approximately 10,000 HUD-VASH vouchers each year in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014. In 2011, $50 million was appropriated to serve approximately 7,000 voucher families. In addition, HUD held two competitions, one in 2010 and one in 2014, set-aside to competitively award a total of over 2200 project-based HUD-VASH vouchers. Since 2008, a total of 68,020 vouchers have been awarded.” 41
HOPWA“The Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) Program is the only Federal program dedicated to the housing needs of people living with HIV / AIDS. Under the HOPWA Program, HUD makes grants to local communities, States, and nonprofit organizations for projects that benefit low-income persons living with HIV / AIDS and their families.” 42 “In 2012, $298.8 million in HOPWA formula funds were awarded to 135 grantees within 135 eligible areas. These grantees represent 94 eligible metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and 41 eligible states and Puerto Rico. $32.9 million in competitive HOPWA funds were renewed for 29 grantees.” 43
39. HUD, Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/mfh/progdesc/disab811
40. HUD, Bringing Permanent Supportive Housing to Scale, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=Sec811_Congressional_Rpt.pdf
41. HUD, HUD-VASH Vouchers, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/vash
42. HUD Exchange, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, https://www.hudexchange.info/hopwa/
43. The National AIDS Housing Coalition, FY 2014 HOPWA Need Paper, www.nationalaidshousing.org/PDF/2014HOPWANeedPaper
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 16 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
FHA HEALTH CARE“By reducing the cost of capital needed by hospitals and residential care facilities to finance the construction, renovation, acquisition, or refinancing of facilities, these programs improve access to quality healthcare and work to decrease overall healthcare costs. Since 1959, over 7,000 Section 232 mortgage insurance commitments have been issued in all 50 states. Since the Section 242 program’s inception in 1968, over 400 mortgage insurance commitments have been issued for hospitals in 42 states and Puerto Rico.” 44
44. HUD, Office of Healthcare Programs, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/federal_housing_administration/healthcare_facilities
CONCLUSIONThe United States has a long history of housing needs, and a long history of successful programs designed to address those needs. Even with these programs, however, millions of American households face housing burdens because of low incomes, housing market mismatches and / or special housing needs that are not naturally met by the housing markets.
ABOUT RESEARCH DATANOTES
AUTHOR:Jamie Woodwell, Vice President of Commercial Real Estate Research, Mortgage Bankers Association
Any questions or for more information, please contact Jamie at [email protected].
Research DataNotes are a series produced by members of MBA’s research and economics group designed to explain and explore technical aspects of the real estate finance industry.
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 17 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
AppendixPe
rcen
t of A
rea Hou
seho
lds P
aying More than
30 Pe
rcen
t of Incom
e in Hou
sing
Costs, 2013
Source: A
CS 5‐year, 2013
Geo
grap
hyTO
TAL
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
LNew
York‐New
ark‐Jersey City
, NY‐NJ‐PA
Metro Area
22%
3%4%
3%4%
8%25%
11%
7%4%
3%1%
47%
Los A
ngeles‐Lon
g Be
ach‐An
aheim, CA Metro Area
21%
3%3%
3%5%
8%29%
11%
8%5%
3%1%
51%
Chicago‐Nap
erville‐Elgin, IL‐IN‐W
I Metro Area
24%
5%5%
4%5%
5%18%
9%5%
2%1%
0%41%
Dallas‐Fort W
orth‐Arlington, TX Metro Area
16%
4%4%
3%3%
2%18%
9%6%
2%1%
0%34%
Houston‐Th
e Woo
dlands‐Sugar Lan
d, TX Metro Area
16%
4%4%
3%3%
2%18%
9%6%
2%1%
0%35%
Philade
lphia‐Ca
mde
n‐Wilm
ington
, PA‐NJ‐DE
‐MD Metro Area
22%
5%4%
4%4%
5%17%
8%5%
2%1%
0%39%
Washington‐Arlington
‐Alexand
ria, D
C‐VA
‐MD‐WV Metro Area
19%
2%2%
3%4%
8%17%
5%4%
4%3%
1%37%
Miami‐Fort Lau
derdale‐West P
alm Beach, FL Metro Area
28%
8%6%
5%5%
4%23%
10%
7%4%
2%0%
51%
Atlanta‐Sand
y Sprin
gs‐Roswell, GA Metro Area
20%
5%5%
4%4%
3%18%
9%6%
2%1%
0%38%
Boston
‐Cam
bridge‐New
ton, M
A‐NH Metro Area
21%
3%3%
3%5%
6%19%
8%5%
3%2%
1%40%
San Fran
cisco‐Oakland
‐Hayward, CA Metro Area
21%
3%2%
2%4%
10%
23%
8%6%
4%3%
2%44%
Phoe
nix‐Mesa‐Scottsdale, A
Z Metro Area
20%
5%5%
4%4%
3%19%
9%6%
2%1%
0%39%
Riverside‐San Be
rnardino
‐Ontario, CA Metro Area
27%
5%5%
5%6%
6%21%
9%6%
3%2%
0%48%
Detroit‐Warren‐De
arbo
rn, M
I Metro Area
21%
7%5%
4%3%
2%16%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
37%
Seattle
‐Tacom
a‐Be
llevue, W
A Metro Area
21%
3%3%
3%5%
6%19%
8%6%
3%2%
0%40%
Minne
apolis‐St. Paul‐Bloom
ington
, MN‐W
I Metro Area
19%
3%3%
4%5%
4%14%
7%5%
2%1%
0%33%
San Diego‐Ca
rlsba
d, CA Metro Area
22%
4%3%
3%5%
8%27%
9%8%
5%4%
1%49%
Tampa
‐St. Pe
tersbu
rg‐Clearwater, FL Metro Area
23%
7%5%
4%4%
3%18%
9%6%
2%1%
0%41%
Baltimore‐Co
lumbia‐To
wson,MDMetro
Area
20%
4%3%
3%4%
5%17%
7%5%
3%2%
0%37%
Owne
r‐occupied
hou
sing
units:
Renter‐occup
ied ho
using un
its:
BaltimoreCo
lumbiaTo
wson, M
D Metro Area
20%
4%3%
3%4%
5%17%
7%5%
3%2%
0%37%
Denver‐Aurora‐Lakewoo
d, CO M
etro Area
18%
4%3%
4%4%
3%18%
8%6%
2%1%
0%37%
Pittsburgh, PA Metro Area
15%
6%4%
2%2%
1%13%
9%3%
1%0%
0%28%
Charlotte‐Co
ncord‐Gastonia, NC‐SC
Metro Area
18%
5%4%
4%3%
2%16%
9%5%
1%0%
0%34%
San An
tonio‐New
Braun
fels, TX Metro Area
15%
5%4%
3%2%
1%17%
9%5%
2%1%
0%32%
Orla
ndo‐Kissim
mee
‐San
ford, FL Metro Area
24%
6%6%
5%5%
3%22%
9%8%
3%1%
0%45%
Sacram
ento‐‐R
oseville‐‐Arden
‐Arcad
e, CA Metro Area
22%
4%4%
4%5%
6%22%
10%
7%3%
2%0%
45%
Cincinnati, OH‐KY
‐IN M
etro Area
17%
5%4%
3%3%
2%16%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
33%
Cleveland‐Elyria, O
H Metro Area
18%
6%5%
4%3%
2%17%
11%
5%1%
0%0%
36%
Kansas City
, MO‐KS Metro Area
16%
4%4%
3%3%
2%15%
8%5%
2%0%
0%31%
Las V
egas‐Hen
derson
‐Parad
ise, NV Metro Area
20%
4%4%
4%4%
3%24%
10%
8%4%
2%0%
44%
Columbu
s, OH Metro Area
16%
4%4%
3%3%
2%18%
11%
6%1%
0%0%
34%
Indian
apolis‐Carmel‐And
erson, IN
Metro Area
15%
4%4%
3%2%
1%17%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
32%
San Jose‐Sun
nyvale‐San
ta Clara, CA Metro Area
21%
3%2%
2%4%
11%
20%
6%5%
4%3%
1%41%
Austin‐Rou
nd Rock, TX Metro Area
16%
3%3%
3%4%
3%21%
10%
7%3%
1%0%
37%
Nashville‐Da
vidson
‐‐Murfreesboro‐‐Franklin, TN M
etro Area
17%
5%4%
4%3%
2%16%
9%5%
2%0%
0%33%
Virginia Beach‐Norfolk‐New
port New
s, VA‐NC Metro Area
21%
4%4%
4%5%
4%20%
8%6%
4%2%
0%41%
Providen
ce‐W
arwick, RI‐M
A Metro Area
22%
5%4%
4%5%
4%19%
11%
6%2%
1%0%
41%
Milw
aukee‐Wau
kesha‐West A
llis, W
I Metro Area
18%
4%4%
3%4%
2%20%
12%
6%2%
0%0%
38%
Jacksonville, FL Metro Area
22%
6%5%
4%4%
3%17%
8%6%
2%1%
0%39%
Mem
phis, TN‐M
S‐AR
Metro Area
18%
6%5%
3%3%
1%20%
12%
6%2%
0%0%
38%
Page A1
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 18 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
Percen
t of A
rea Hou
seho
lds P
aying More than
30 Pe
rcen
t of Incom
e in Hou
sing
Costs, 2013
Source: A
CS 5‐year, 2013
Geo
grap
hyTO
TAL
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Owne
r‐occupied
hou
sing
units:
Renter‐occup
ied ho
using un
its:
Oklahom
a City, O
K Metro Area
14%
5%4%
3%2%
1%17%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
31%
Louisville/Jeffe
rson
Cou
nty, KY‐IN M
etro Area
16%
5%4%
3%2%
1%15%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
31%
Richmon
d, VA Metro Area
19%
4%4%
4%4%
3%17%
8%6%
2%1%
0%35%
New
Orle
ans‐Metairie
, LA Metro Area
17%
6%4%
3%3%
2%21%
12%
6%2%
1%0%
38%
Hartford‐W
est H
artford‐East Hartford, CT Metro Area
21%
4%4%
4%5%
5%16%
8%5%
2%1%
0%37%
Raleigh, NC Metro Area
16%
4%4%
4%3%
2%15%
8%6%
2%0%
0%32%
Salt Lake City
, UT Metro Area
19%
3%4%
4%5%
3%16%
8%6%
2%1%
0%35%
Birm
ingham
‐Hoo
ver, AL
Metro Area
18%
7%4%
3%2%
1%15%
9%4%
1%0%
0%32%
Buffa
lo‐Che
ektowaga‐Niagara Falls, N
Y Metro Area
15%
5%4%
2%2%
1%17%
12%
4%1%
0%0%
32%
Rochester, NY Metro Area
17%
5%5%
3%3%
2%17%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
34%
Grand
Rapids‐Wyoming, M
I Metro Area
18%
6%5%
4%3%
1%13%
8%4%
1%0%
0%31%
Tucson
, AZ Metro Area
18%
6%5%
3%3%
2%20%
12%
5%2%
1%0%
38%
Urban
Hon
olulu, HI M
etro Area
20%
3%2%
2%4%
8%24%
7%6%
5%5%
3%45%
Tulsa, OK Metro Area
14%
5%4%
3%2%
1%15%
9%4%
1%0%
0%29%
Fresno
, CA Metro Area
19%
4%4%
4%4%
3%26%
14%
8%3%
1%0%
45%
Bridgepo
rt‐Stamford‐Norwalk, CT Metro Area
28%
4%4%
4%5%
10%
16%
6%4%
3%2%
1%44%
Worcester, M
A‐CT
Metro Area
21%
4%4%
3%5%
5%16%
9%5%
2%1%
0%37%
Albu
querqu
e, NM M
etro Area
19%
6%5%
4%3%
2%17%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
36%
Omah
a‐Co
uncilBluffs,N
E‐IA
Metro
Area
15%
4%4%
3%3%
2%15%
9%5%
1%0%
0%30%
Omah
aCo
uncil Bluffs, N
EIA M
etro Area
15%
4%4%
3%3%
2%15%
9%5%
1%0%
0%30%
Albany
‐Schen
ectady
‐Troy, NY Metro Area
17%
4%3%
3%4%
2%16%
9%5%
2%1%
0%33%
Bakersfie
ld, CA Metro Area
19%
5%4%
4%4%
3%23%
12%
7%2%
1%0%
42%
New
Haven
‐Milford, CT Metro Area
24%
4%5%
4%6%
5%21%
10%
6%3%
1%0%
44%
Knoxville, TN M
etro Area
15%
6%4%
3%2%
1%14%
9%4%
1%0%
0%30%
Green
ville‐And
erson‐Mau
ldin, SC Metro Area
15%
6%4%
3%2%
1%15%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
30%
Oxnard‐Th
ousand
Oaks‐Ve
ntura, CA Metro Area
26%
3%3%
3%5%
11%
20%
6%5%
4%4%
1%46%
Elkhart‐Goshe
n, IN
Metro Area
16%
5%5%
3%2%
1%13%
9%4%
0%0%
0%30%
Elmira
, NY Metro Area
12%
5%3%
2%2%
0%16%
11%
4%1%
0%0%
28%
Allentow
n‐Be
thlehe
m‐Easton, PA‐NJ M
etro Area
22%
5%5%
4%5%
4%15%
7%5%
2%1%
0%37%
Baton Ro
uge, LA Metro Area
14%
5%3%
2%2%
1%16%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
30%
McAllen‐Ed
inbu
rg‐M
ission
, TX Metro Area
20%
11%
5%2%
1%1%
16%
12%
3%1%
0%0%
36%
Dayton
, OH Metro Area
16%
5%4%
3%2%
1%18%
11%
5%1%
0%0%
34%
Columbia, SC Metro Area
17%
6%4%
3%2%
1%16%
9%5%
2%0%
0%32%
Green
sboro‐High
Point, N
C Metro Area
17%
6%5%
3%2%
1%17%
11%
5%1%
0%0%
34%
North Port‐Sarasota‐Brade
nton
, FL Metro Area
25%
8%6%
4%4%
3%15%
7%5%
2%1%
0%40%
Little Rock‐North Little Rock‐Co
nway, A
R Metro Area
14%
5%4%
2%2%
1%16%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
30%
Charleston
‐North Cha
rleston
, SC Metro Area
20%
6%4%
4%3%
3%18%
9%6%
2%1%
0%39%
Akron, OH Metro Area
17%
5%4%
3%3%
1%16%
11%
4%1%
0%0%
33%
Stockton
‐Lod
i, CA
Metro Area
22%
4%4%
4%5%
5%23%
11%
7%3%
2%0%
46%
Colorado
Springs, CO M
etro Area
19%
4%4%
4%4%
2%18%
8%6%
3%1%
0%36%
Page A2
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 19 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
Percen
t of A
rea Hou
seho
lds P
aying More than
30 Pe
rcen
t of Incom
e in Hou
sing
Costs, 2013
Source: A
CS 5‐year, 2013
Geo
grap
hyTO
TAL
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Owne
r‐occupied
hou
sing
units:
Renter‐occup
ied ho
using un
its:
Syracuse, N
Y Metro Area
15%
5%4%
3%2%
1%16%
11%
5%1%
0%0%
32%
Cape
Coral‐Fort M
yers, FL Metro Area
25%
8%6%
4%4%
3%16%
7%6%
2%1%
0%41%
Winston
‐Salem
, NC Metro Area
17%
6%5%
3%2%
1%15%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
31%
Boise City, ID Metro Area
20%
5%5%
4%4%
2%15%
9%5%
1%0%
0%35%
Wichita, KS Metro Area
14%
5%4%
3%2%
1%15%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
29%
Mad
ison
, WI M
etro Area
17%
3%3%
3%4%
3%18%
10%
6%2%
1%0%
36%
Sprin
gfield, M
A Metro Area
19%
5%4%
4%4%
2%20%
12%
5%2%
0%0%
39%
Lakeland
‐Winter H
aven
, FL Metro Area
21%
8%5%
3%3%
1%15%
8%5%
2%0%
0%36%
Ogden
‐Clearfie
ld, U
T Metro Area
18%
3%4%
4%4%
2%11%
6%4%
1%0%
0%29%
Toledo
, OH Metro Area
16%
6%4%
3%2%
1%18%
13%
4%1%
0%0%
35%
Delto
na‐Daytona
Beach‐Orm
ond Be
ach, FL Metro Area
26%
9%6%
5%4%
2%16%
8%5%
2%1%
0%41%
Des M
oine
s‐West D
es M
oine
s, IA
Metro Area
15%
4%4%
3%3%
1%13%
7%4%
1%0%
0%28%
Augusta‐Richmon
d Co
unty, G
A‐SC
Metro Area
17%
7%4%
2%2%
1%16%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
33%
Jackson, M
S Metro Area
16%
7%4%
2%2%
1%16%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
32%
Provo‐Orem, U
T Metro Area
19%
3%3%
4%5%
3%16%
8%5%
2%1%
0%35%
Scranton
‐‐Wilkes‐Barre‐‐H
azleton, PA Metro Area
18%
7%5%
3%2%
1%14%
9%4%
1%0%
0%32%
Harrisbu
rg‐Carlisle, PA Metro Area
16%
4%4%
3%3%
2%13%
7%4%
1%0%
0%29%
Youn
gstown‐Warren‐Bo
ardm
an, O
H‐PA
Metro Area
16%
7%4%
3%2%
1%14%
10%
3%0%
0%0%
30%
Palm
Bay‐Melbo
urne
‐Titu
sville,FL
Metro
Area
23%
7%5%
4%3%
2%14%
7%5%
2%1%
0%37%
Palm
Bay
Melbo
urne
Titusville, FL Metro Area
23%
7%5%
4%3%
2%14%
7%5%
2%1%
0%37%
Chattano
oga, TN‐GA Metro Area
16%
6%4%
3%2%
1%15%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
31%
Spokan
e‐Spokan
e Va
lley, W
A Metro Area
18%
5%4%
4%3%
2%18%
11%
5%1%
0%0%
36%
Durham
‐Cha
pel H
ill, N
C Metro Area
15%
4%4%
3%3%
2%20%
11%
6%2%
1%0%
35%
Lancaster, PA
Metro Area
18%
4%4%
4%4%
2%15%
8%5%
2%0%
0%34%
Mod
esto, CA Metro Area
22%
5%5%
5%5%
4%24%
12%
8%3%
1%0%
46%
Santa Ro
sa, CA Metro Area
24%
4%4%
3%5%
8%22%
7%7%
5%3%
1%46%
Fayetteville‐Sprin
gdale‐Ro
gers, A
R‐MO M
etro Area
13%
4%4%
3%2%
1%16%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
29%
Lexington‐Fayette, KY Metro Area
13%
4%3%
2%2%
1%19%
12%
6%1%
0%0%
32%
Lafayette, LA Metro Area
14%
6%3%
2%1%
1%13%
9%3%
1%0%
0%26%
Lansing‐East Lan
sing, M
I Metro Area
16%
5%4%
3%3%
1%19%
12%
5%1%
0%0%
35%
Pensacola‐Ferry Pass‐Brent, FL Metro Area
19%
6%5%
3%3%
2%17%
9%6%
2%1%
0%36%
Visalia‐Porterville, CA Metro Area
21%
5%5%
4%4%
2%23%
13%
7%2%
1%0%
44%
Sprin
gfield, M
O M
etro Area
14%
5%4%
3%1%
1%17%
11%
5%1%
0%0%
32%
Shrevepo
rt‐Bossier City
, LA Metro Area
13%
6%3%
2%2%
1%17%
11%
5%1%
0%0%
30%
Corpus Christi, TX Metro Area
14%
5%4%
2%2%
1%19%
10%
6%2%
1%0%
33%
Reno
, NV Metro Area
20%
4%4%
3%4%
4%22%
11%
7%3%
1%0%
42%
York‐Han
over, PA Metro Area
21%
5%5%
4%5%
3%12%
6%4%
1%0%
0%33%
Port St. Lucie, FL Metro Area
27%
9%7%
5%4%
3%15%
8%5%
2%1%
0%43%
Portland
‐Vancouver‐Hillsboro, OR‐WA Metro Area
20%
4%4%
4%5%
4%20%
9%7%
3%1%
0%40%
Portland
‐Sou
th Portla
nd, M
E Metro Area
22%
5%5%
4%5%
3%15%
7%5%
2%1%
0%37%
Page A3
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 20 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
Percen
t of A
rea Hou
seho
lds P
aying More than
30 Pe
rcen
t of Incom
e in Hou
sing
Costs, 2013
Source: A
CS 5‐year, 2013
Geo
grap
hyTO
TAL
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Owne
r‐occupied
hou
sing
units:
Renter‐occup
ied ho
using un
its:
Ashe
ville, N
C Metro Area
18%
6%5%
3%3%
1%14%
8%4%
1%0%
0%32%
Huntsville, AL Metro Area
13%
5%4%
2%1%
1%13%
8%4%
1%0%
0%26%
Santa Maria‐San
ta Barba
ra, CA Metro Area
20%
3%3%
3%4%
7%27%
9%7%
5%4%
1%46%
Salinas, CA Metro Area
20%
3%3%
3%4%
7%28%
9%9%
5%3%
2%48%
Vallejo‐Fairfield, CA Metro Area
23%
3%3%
3%6%
8%22%
8%6%
4%3%
1%45%
Fort W
ayne
, IN M
etro Area
13%
4%4%
2%2%
1%13%
9%3%
0%0%
0%25%
Killeen
‐Tem
ple, TX Metro Area
13%
5%3%
2%2%
1%19%
9%6%
2%1%
0%32%
Brow
nsville‐Harlingen, TX Metro Area
19%
10%
5%2%
1%0%
17%
12%
4%0%
0%0%
35%
Flint, MI M
etro Area
21%
8%5%
4%2%
1%17%
12%
4%1%
0%0%
38%
Mob
ile, A
L Metro Area
17%
7%4%
3%2%
1%18%
12%
5%1%
0%0%
35%
Read
ing, PA Metro Area
21%
5%5%
4%4%
3%14%
8%4%
1%0%
0%36%
Myrtle
Beach‐Con
way‐North M
yrtle
Beach, SC‐NC Metro Area
22%
8%5%
5%3%
2%15%
9%5%
1%0%
0%38%
Man
chester‐Nashu
a, NH Metro Area
23%
4%4%
4%6%
6%16%
6%5%
3%1%
0%39%
Canton
‐Massillon, OH Metro Area
16%
6%4%
3%2%
1%14%
9%4%
0%0%
0%30%
Beau
mon
t‐Po
rt Arthu
r, TX
Metro Area
14%
7%3%
2%1%
1%14%
10%
3%1%
0%0%
28%
Anchorage, AK Metro Area
17%
3%3%
3%5%
4%16%
5%5%
3%2%
1%33%
Salisbu
ry, M
D‐DE
Metro Area
23%
7%6%
4%4%
3%13%
7%4%
1%1%
0%36%
Davenp
ort‐Moline‐Ro
ck Island
, IA‐IL M
etro Area
14%
5%4%
3%2%
1%13%
9%3%
1%0%
0%27%
Peoria,ILMetro
Area
13%
5%4%
2%2%
1%12%
8%4%
1%0%
0%25%
Peoria, IL Metro Area
13%
5%4%
2%2%
1%12%
8%4%
1%0%
0%25%
Gulfport‐Biloxi‐Pascagoula, M
S Metro Area
18%
6%5%
4%2%
1%17%
9%6%
2%0%
0%35%
Fayetteville, NC Metro Area
16%
6%4%
3%2%
1%21%
11%
7%2%
0%0%
37%
Mon
tgom
ery, AL Metro Area
17%
6%4%
3%2%
1%17%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
34%
Tallaha
ssee, FL Metro Area
17%
5%4%
3%3%
2%25%
15%
6%3%
1%0%
42%
Tren
ton, NJ M
etro Area
23%
4%4%
3%5%
7%18%
8%5%
2%2%
1%41%
Savann
ah, G
A Metro Area
18%
5%4%
4%3%
2%21%
11%
7%3%
1%0%
39%
Huntington
‐Ashland
, WV‐KY
‐OH Metro Area
13%
7%3%
2%1%
0%13%
10%
2%0%
0%0%
25%
Hickory‐Leno
ir‐Morganton
, NC Metro Area
16%
7%5%
2%1%
1%12%
9%3%
0%0%
0%28%
Eugene
, OR Metro Area
20%
5%4%
4%4%
2%23%
14%
6%2%
1%0%
43%
Ann Arbo
r, MI M
etro Area
17%
3%4%
3%4%
3%21%
12%
7%2%
1%0%
39%
Rockford, IL Metro Area
20%
6%6%
4%3%
1%16%
11%
4%1%
0%0%
36%
Naples‐Im
mokalee
‐Marco Island
, FL Metro Area
27%
7%6%
4%5%
5%14%
5%5%
2%1%
0%41%
Ocala, FL Metro Area
24%
10%
6%4%
3%1%
13%
7%4%
1%0%
0%37%
Kalamazoo
‐Portage, M
I Metro Area
18%
6%5%
3%3%
1%18%
12%
5%1%
0%0%
36%
Spartanb
urg, SC Metro Area
16%
6%4%
3%2%
1%14%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
30%
South Be
nd‐M
isha
waka, IN
‐MI M
etro Area
16%
6%5%
3%2%
1%14%
9%4%
1%0%
0%30%
Lincoln, NE Metro Area
12%
3%3%
3%2%
1%18%
12%
5%1%
0%0%
30%
Fort Collins, CO M
etro Area
18%
4%4%
3%4%
3%19%
9%6%
3%1%
0%37%
Columbu
s, GA‐AL
Metro Area
17%
6%5%
3%2%
1%21%
13%
6%2%
1%0%
38%
Evan
sville, IN
‐KY Metro Area
14%
5%4%
2%2%
1%15%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
29%
Page A4
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 21 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
Percen
t of A
rea Hou
seho
lds P
aying More than
30 Pe
rcen
t of Incom
e in Hou
sing
Costs, 2013
Source: A
CS 5‐year, 2013
Geo
grap
hyTO
TAL
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Owne
r‐occupied
hou
sing
units:
Renter‐occup
ied ho
using un
its:
Green
Bay, W
I Metro Area
17%
5%4%
4%3%
2%13%
8%4%
1%0%
0%30%
Roan
oke, VA Metro Area
18%
6%4%
4%3%
2%13%
8%4%
1%0%
0%31%
Boulde
r, CO
Metro Area
16%
3%3%
3%3%
4%21%
10%
6%3%
1%1%
37%
Kingsport‐Bristol‐B
ristol, TN
‐VA Metro Area
15%
8%4%
2%1%
1%11%
8%2%
0%0%
0%26%
Lubb
ock, TX Metro Area
12%
5%3%
2%1%
1%22%
13%
6%2%
0%0%
34%
Utica‐Ro
me, NY Metro Area
15%
6%4%
2%2%
1%15%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
30%
Erie, PA Metro Area
15%
5%4%
3%2%
1%16%
12%
4%1%
0%0%
31%
Fort Smith
, AR‐OK Metro Area
15%
7%4%
2%1%
0%14%
11%
3%0%
0%0%
29%
Duluth, M
N‐W
I Metro Area
17%
6%5%
3%3%
1%15%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
32%
San Luis Obispo‐Paso Rob
les‐Arroyo
Grand
e, CA Metro Area
23%
4%3%
3%5%
7%23%
9%7%
4%2%
1%46%
Atlantic City
‐Ham
mon
ton, NJ M
etro Area
31%
6%7%
6%6%
6%19%
9%6%
2%1%
0%49%
Norwich‐New
Lon
don, CT Metro Area
22%
4%4%
4%5%
5%15%
6%5%
2%1%
0%37%
Gaine
sville, FL Metro Area
16%
6%4%
3%2%
2%27%
17%
7%2%
1%0%
43%
Clarksville, TN‐KY Metro Area
15%
6%4%
3%2%
1%18%
10%
6%2%
0%0%
34%
Kenn
ewick‐Richland
, WA Metro Area
13%
3%3%
3%2%
1%14%
8%4%
1%1%
0%27%
Greeley, CO M
etro Area
20%
5%5%
4%5%
2%16%
9%5%
2%1%
0%36%
Santa Cruz‐W
atsonville, CA Metro Area
24%
4%3%
3%5%
11%
25%
9%6%
5%4%
2%49%
Wilm
ington
, NC Metro Area
20%
6%5%
3%4%
2%20%
11%
6%2%
1%0%
39%
Merced,CA
Metro
Area
19%
4%5%
3%4%
2%24%
13%
8%2%
1%0%
43%
Merced, CA Metro Area
19%
4%5%
3%4%
2%24%
13%
8%2%
1%0%
43%
Laredo
, TX Metro Area
21%
8%5%
4%2%
1%20%
14%
5%1%
0%0%
41%
Ceda
r Rapids, IA
Metro Area
14%
4%4%
3%2%
1%10%
7%3%
0%0%
0%24%
Olympia‐Tu
mwater, W
A Metro Area
21%
5%3%
4%6%
4%17%
7%6%
3%1%
0%37%
Lynchb
urg, VA Metro Area
17%
6%4%
3%2%
1%14%
9%4%
1%0%
0%31%
Amarillo, TX Metro Area
13%
5%4%
2%2%
1%16%
11%
5%1%
0%0%
30%
Hagerstown‐Martin
sburg, M
D‐WV Metro Area
19%
5%4%
4%4%
2%14%
8%4%
2%1%
0%33%
Waco, TX Metro Area
14%
6%4%
2%1%
1%21%
14%
5%1%
0%0%
34%
Brem
erton‐Silverda
le, W
A Metro Area
21%
4%3%
4%5%
4%16%
6%5%
3%1%
0%37%
Crestview‐Fort W
alton Be
ach‐De
stin, FL Metro Area
21%
6%5%
4%4%
3%16%
7%5%
2%1%
0%36%
Binghamton, NY Metro Area
15%
5%5%
2%2%
1%16%
11%
4%1%
0%0%
31%
Yakima, W
A Metro Area
17%
5%5%
3%3%
1%20%
11%
6%1%
0%0%
36%
Siou
x Falls, SD Metro Area
13%
3%3%
3%2%
1%13%
7%5%
1%0%
0%26%
College Statio
n‐Bryan, TX Metro Area
12%
5%3%
2%2%
1%31%
21%
8%2%
1%0%
43%
Tope
ka, KS Metro Area
14%
5%4%
3%2%
1%15%
9%4%
1%0%
0%28%
Cham
paign‐Urban
a, IL M
etro Area
12%
4%3%
2%2%
1%24%
16%
6%1%
0%0%
36%
Tuscaloo
sa, A
L Metro Area
17%
7%4%
3%2%
1%17%
12%
4%1%
0%0%
34%
Macon
, GA Metro Area
17%
7%4%
3%2%
1%21%
15%
5%1%
0%0%
38%
Appleton
, WI M
etro Area
17%
4%4%
3%4%
2%10%
7%3%
1%0%
0%27%
Charlottesville, V
A Metro Area
17%
5%3%
3%3%
3%17%
8%4%
3%1%
0%34%
Charleston
, WV Metro Area
11%
6%2%
1%1%
0%11%
7%3%
0%0%
0%22%
Page A5
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 22 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
Percen
t of A
rea Hou
seho
lds P
aying More than
30 Pe
rcen
t of Incom
e in Hou
sing
Costs, 2013
Source: A
CS 5‐year, 2013
Geo
grap
hyTO
TAL
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Owne
r‐occupied
hou
sing
units:
Renter‐occup
ied ho
using un
its:
Fargo, ND‐MN M
etro Area
11%
2%3%
2%2%
1%19%
12%
5%1%
0%0%
29%
Chico, CA Metro Area
21%
6%4%
3%4%
3%23%
12%
8%2%
1%0%
44%
Longview
, TX Metro Area
13%
6%3%
2%1%
0%13%
8%4%
1%0%
0%26%
Tyler, TX
Metro Area
16%
6%5%
2%2%
1%16%
9%5%
1%0%
0%32%
Burlington‐South Bu
rlington, VT Metro Area
20%
4%4%
4%5%
3%17%
9%5%
3%1%
0%38%
Prescott, A
Z Metro Area
23%
7%6%
4%3%
2%15%
9%4%
1%1%
0%38%
Barnstab
le Tow
n, M
A Metro Area
31%
8%6%
5%6%
6%11%
5%3%
2%1%
0%42%
Las C
ruces, NM M
etro Area
17%
7%5%
3%1%
1%19%
13%
5%1%
0%0%
36%
Rochester, MN M
etro Area
17%
4%4%
3%3%
2%10%
6%3%
1%0%
0%27%
Sprin
gfield, IL Metro Area
13%
5%4%
2%2%
1%14%
9%4%
1%0%
0%27%
Houm
a‐Th
ibod
aux, LA Metro Area
13%
6%3%
2%1%
1%9%
5%3%
1%0%
0%22%
Lafayette‐West Lafayette, IN M
etro Area
11%
4%3%
2%1%
1%24%
16%
7%1%
0%0%
34%
Med
ford, O
R Metro Area
22%
7%5%
4%4%
2%22%
12%
7%2%
1%0%
44%
Bellingha
m, W
A Metro Area
20%
5%4%
3%5%
3%20%
11%
6%2%
1%0%
40%
Floren
ce, SC Metro Area
15%
7%4%
2%1%
0%14%
10%
3%1%
0%0%
29%
Lake Havasu City‐Kingm
an, A
Z Metro Area
20%
8%5%
4%3%
1%14%
8%5%
1%0%
0%35%
Lake Cha
rles, LA Metro Area
13%
6%3%
2%1%
1%13%
9%4%
1%0%
0%26%
Yuma, AZ Metro Area
20%
8%5%
3%2%
1%15%
8%5%
2%1%
0%35%
John
sonCity,TNMetro
Area
15%
7%5%
2%1%
0%15%
12%
2%1%
0%0%
30%
John
son City, TN M
etro Area
15%
7%5%
2%1%
0%15%
12%
2%1%
0%0%
30%
Hilto
n He
ad Island
‐Bluffton
‐Beaufort, SC
Metro Area
25%
7%5%
4%5%
5%14%
5%5%
2%1%
0%39%
Athe
ns‐Clarke Co
unty, G
A Metro Area
14%
5%3%
2%2%
1%25%
18%
6%1%
0%0%
40%
Salem, O
R Metro Area
20%
4%4%
4%5%
2%20%
11%
6%2%
0%0%
40%
Sagina
w, M
I Metro Area
19%
8%6%
3%2%
1%15%
11%
4%0%
0%0%
34%
Daph
ne‐Fairhop
e‐Foley, AL Metro Area
18%
7%4%
3%3%
2%13%
6%5%
2%0%
0%32%
Racine
, WI M
etro Area
20%
5%5%
4%4%
2%16%
9%5%
1%0%
0%36%
Bloo
mington
, IL Metro Area
12%
4%3%
2%2%
1%14%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
26%
Pana
ma City, FL Metro Area
18%
6%4%
3%3%
2%19%
9%6%
3%1%
0%37%
Gaine
sville, GA Metro Area
20%
5%5%
4%4%
2%16%
8%6%
1%0%
0%35%
Warne
r Rob
ins, GA Metro Area
14%
5%4%
2%2%
1%16%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
30%
Jacksonville, NC Metro Area
17%
5%4%
4%3%
1%23%
10%
9%4%
1%0%
40%
Kingston
, NY Metro Area
25%
5%6%
4%5%
5%16%
8%5%
2%1%
0%42%
Blacksbu
rg‐Christia
nsbu
rg‐Radford, V
A Metro Area
13%
5%3%
2%2%
1%21%
15%
4%1%
1%0%
34%
Redd
ing, CA Metro Area
23%
6%5%
4%4%
3%21%
11%
6%2%
1%0%
44%
Mon
roe, LA Metro Area
13%
6%3%
2%1%
1%19%
14%
4%1%
0%0%
32%
El Cen
tro, CA Metro Area
20%
6%4%
4%4%
2%23%
16%
6%1%
1%0%
43%
El Paso, TX Metro Area
16%
7%4%
3%2%
1%19%
11%
5%2%
0%0%
35%
Joplin, M
O M
etro Area
15%
6%4%
3%1%
0%14%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
29%
Green
ville, N
C Metro Area
15%
6%3%
2%2%
1%24%
16%
6%1%
0%0%
40%
Muskegon, M
I Metro Area
20%
8%6%
3%2%
1%15%
11%
4%0%
0%0%
35%
Page A6
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 23 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
Percen
t of A
rea Hou
seho
lds P
aying More than
30 Pe
rcen
t of Incom
e in Hou
sing
Costs, 2013
Source: A
CS 5‐year, 2013
Geo
grap
hyTO
TAL
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Owne
r‐occupied
hou
sing
units:
Renter‐occup
ied ho
using un
its:
Columbia, M
O M
etro Area
11%
3%3%
2%2%
1%24%
16%
6%1%
1%0%
35%
Oshkosh‐Neenah, W
I Metro Area
15%
4%4%
3%2%
1%14%
9%4%
1%0%
0%30%
Waterloo‐Ce
dar F
alls, IA Metro Area
12%
4%4%
2%1%
0%15%
10%
3%1%
0%0%
27%
Dover, DE
Metro Area
21%
5%4%
5%5%
3%15%
7%5%
2%1%
0%36%
Yuba
City
, CA Metro Area
21%
5%4%
5%5%
3%22%
10%
7%3%
1%0%
43%
Siou
x City, IA‐NE‐SD
Metro Area
12%
5%4%
2%2%
0%13%
9%3%
1%0%
0%25%
Terre Ha
ute, IN
Metro Area
13%
6%5%
2%1%
0%16%
11%
4%1%
0%0%
29%
Abilene
, TX Metro Area
12%
6%3%
2%1%
0%16%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
28%
East Strou
dsbu
rg, PA Metro Area
32%
8%7%
5%7%
4%10%
5%4%
1%0%
0%42%
Bend
‐Red
mon
d, OR Metro Area
25%
6%6%
4%5%
4%19%
9%7%
2%1%
0%43%
Billings, M
T Metro Area
16%
5%4%
3%3%
1%14%
8%4%
1%0%
0%29%
Punta Gorda, FL Metro Area
27%
9%7%
4%4%
2%11%
5%4%
1%1%
0%38%
Eau Claire, W
I Metro Area
15%
5%4%
3%2%
1%16%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
31%
Bowling Green
, KY Metro Area
14%
6%4%
2%1%
1%17%
13%
4%0%
0%0%
31%
Bloo
mington
, IN M
etro Area
13%
5%4%
3%2%
1%27%
19%
6%1%
0%0%
40%
Pueb
lo, CO M
etro Area
18%
7%5%
3%2%
1%18%
12%
6%1%
0%0%
37%
Iowa City, IA Metro Area
12%
3%3%
2%3%
1%21%
13%
5%2%
1%0%
33%
Jane
sville‐Be
loit, W
I Metro Area
20%
6%5%
4%3%
1%15%
9%5%
1%0%
0%35%
Jackson,MIM
etro
Area
19%
7%5%
3%3%
1%14%
9%4%
1%0%
0%33%
Jackson, M
I Metro Area
19%
7%5%
3%3%
1%14%
9%4%
1%0%
0%33%
Kahu
lui‐W
ailuku
‐Lah
aina
, HI M
etro Area
24%
4%3%
4%5%
9%21%
7%6%
4%3%
1%45%
Vine
land
‐Brid
geton, NJ M
etro Area
24%
6%6%
5%5%
3%20%
11%
6%2%
1%0%
44%
Alba
ny, G
A Metro Area
16%
7%4%
2%2%
1%24%
17%
5%1%
0%0%
40%
Midland
, TX Metro Area
11%
4%3%
2%2%
1%13%
6%5%
1%1%
0%24%
State Co
llege, PA Metro Area
12%
3%3%
2%2%
1%23%
15%
6%2%
1%0%
36%
Niles‐Be
nton
Harbo
r, MI M
etro Area
17%
6%5%
2%2%
1%15%
11%
3%1%
0%0%
32%
Alexan
dria, LA Metro Area
14%
7%3%
2%1%
0%16%
11%
4%1%
0%0%
29%
Burlington, NC Metro Area
17%
6%5%
3%2%
1%16%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
34%
Decatur, AL
Metro Area
15%
8%4%
2%1%
0%10%
8%2%
0%0%
0%26%
Bangor, M
E Metro Area
17%
6%4%
3%3%
1%17%
11%
5%1%
1%0%
34%
Mad
era, CA Metro Area
26%
6%6%
5%6%
3%19%
9%7%
2%1%
0%45%
Cham
bersbu
rg‐W
ayne
sboro, PA Metro Area
18%
5%4%
4%3%
1%12%
7%4%
1%0%
0%29%
Elizabethtow
n‐Fort Kno
x, KY Metro Area
14%
5%4%
2%2%
1%14%
8%4%
1%0%
0%28%
Hanford‐Co
rcoran
, CA Metro Area
17%
4%4%
3%4%
2%23%
12%
8%3%
1%0%
40%
Aubu
rn‐Ope
lika, AL Metro Area
16%
7%4%
3%2%
1%21%
14%
6%1%
0%0%
38%
Rocky Mou
nt, N
C Metro Area
18%
8%4%
3%2%
1%18%
11%
5%1%
0%0%
36%
Mon
roe, M
I Metro Area
22%
7%5%
4%4%
2%10%
6%3%
1%0%
0%32%
Texarkan
a, TX‐AR
Metro Area
13%
6%4%
2%1%
0%15%
11%
3%0%
0%0%
28%
Ode
ssa, TX Metro Area
11%
4%3%
2%1%
1%12%
8%3%
1%0%
0%23%
Jeffe
rson
City
, MO M
etro Area
13%
5%3%
2%2%
1%11%
8%2%
0%0%
0%23%
Page A7
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 24 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
Percen
t of A
rea Hou
seho
lds P
aying More than
30 Pe
rcen
t of Incom
e in Hou
sing
Costs, 2013
Source: A
CS 5‐year, 2013
Geo
grap
hyTO
TAL
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Owne
r‐occupied
hou
sing
units:
Renter‐occup
ied ho
using un
its:
Hattiesburg, M
S Metro Area
14%
6%3%
2%2%
1%20%
14%
5%1%
0%0%
34%
Dothan, A
L Metro Area
14%
7%3%
2%1%
1%14%
10%
3%0%
0%0%
28%
Grand
Junctio
n, CO M
etro Area
22%
6%5%
5%4%
2%15%
8%4%
2%1%
0%37%
Santa Fe, N
M M
etro Area
23%
7%5%
4%4%
3%15%
8%5%
2%1%
0%38%
Floren
ce‐M
uscle Shoa
ls, A
L Metro Area
15%
7%4%
2%1%
1%13%
11%
3%0%
0%0%
28%
Wichita Falls, TX Metro Area
13%
5%4%
2%2%
1%15%
9%4%
1%0%
0%28%
Whe
eling, W
V‐OH Metro Area
12%
6%4%
1%1%
0%11%
8%2%
0%0%
0%23%
Coeu
r d'Alene
, ID Metro Area
21%
5%5%
4%4%
2%15%
8%4%
2%0%
0%36%
Valdosta, G
A Metro Area
16%
6%4%
2%2%
1%23%
14%
7%1%
0%0%
39%
Dalto
n, GA Metro Area
18%
7%5%
3%2%
1%16%
10%
5%0%
0%0%
33%
Seba
stian‐Ve
ro Beach, FL Metro Area
24%
8%6%
4%4%
2%15%
8%5%
1%0%
0%39%
Rapid City, SD Metro Area
16%
4%4%
4%3%
1%14%
8%5%
1%0%
0%30%
John
stow
n, PA Metro Area
14%
7%4%
2%1%
0%11%
8%2%
0%0%
0%25%
Nap
a, CA Metro Area
23%
4%3%
3%5%
9%21%
6%6%
4%3%
1%43%
Homosassa Springs, FL Metro Area
22%
10%
6%4%
2%1%
9%6%
3%0%
0%0%
32%
Idah
o Falls, ID Metro Area
17%
4%5%
4%3%
1%11%
7%4%
1%0%
0%29%
Flagstaff, AZ
Metro Area
16%
5%3%
3%3%
2%21%
11%
6%3%
1%0%
37%
St. G
eorge, UT Metro Area
23%
5%5%
5%6%
2%15%
7%5%
2%1%
0%38%
Sprin
gfield,O
HMetro
Area
15%
5%4%
3%2%
1%17%
11%
5%1%
0%0%
32%
Sprin
gfield, O
H Metro Area
15%
5%4%
3%2%
1%17%
11%
5%1%
0%0%
32%
St. Lou
is, M
O‐IL
Metro Area
17%
5%4%
3%3%
2%15%
9%4%
1%0%
0%32%
St. Cloud
, MN M
etro Area
17%
4%4%
3%3%
2%14%
9%4%
1%0%
0%30%
St. Josep
h, M
O‐KS Metro Area
13%
5%3%
2%1%
1%15%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
28%
Morgantow
n, W
V Metro Area
10%
5%2%
1%1%
1%19%
15%
3%1%
0%0%
29%
La Crosse‐Ona
laska, W
I‐MN M
etro Area
15%
5%3%
3%3%
1%15%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
30%
Lebano
n, PA Metro Area
17%
4%4%
3%4%
2%12%
7%4%
1%0%
0%29%
Wau
sau, W
I Metro Area
16%
4%4%
3%3%
1%11%
7%3%
0%0%
0%27%
Battle Creek, M
I Metro Area
19%
7%6%
3%2%
1%15%
10%
4%0%
0%0%
34%
Lawton, OK Metro Area
12%
5%3%
2%1%
0%17%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
29%
Jackson, TN M
etro Area
17%
7%6%
3%1%
1%18%
13%
4%1%
0%0%
34%
Logan, UT‐ID M
etro Area
17%
4%4%
5%3%
1%15%
8%5%
1%0%
0%32%
Pittsfield, M
A Metro Area
21%
7%5%
4%3%
2%16%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
37%
Sierra Vista‐Dou
glas, A
Z Metro Area
17%
7%4%
2%3%
1%13%
8%3%
1%1%
0%30%
Harrison
burg, V
A Metro Area
16%
4%4%
3%3%
2%19%
12%
5%1%
1%0%
35%
New
Bern, NC Metro Area
19%
7%5%
4%2%
1%16%
8%5%
2%1%
0%35%
Glens Falls, N
Y Metro Area
20%
5%6%
3%4%
2%13%
8%4%
1%0%
0%33%
Winchester, VA
‐WV Metro Area
17%
4%3%
3%3%
3%14%
7%5%
1%1%
0%31%
Carbon
dale‐M
arion, IL M
etro Area
13%
6%4%
2%1%
0%21%
16%
3%1%
0%0%
33%
Farm
ington
, NM M
etro Area
15%
7%3%
2%1%
1%11%
7%3%
1%0%
0%26%
Altoon
a, PA Metro Area
14%
6%4%
2%1%
1%12%
9%3%
1%0%
0%27%
Page A8
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 25 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
Percen
t of A
rea Hou
seho
lds P
aying More than
30 Pe
rcen
t of Incom
e in Hou
sing
Costs, 2013
Source: A
CS 5‐year, 2013
Geo
grap
hyTO
TAL
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Owne
r‐occupied
hou
sing
units:
Renter‐occup
ied ho
using un
its:
Jone
sboro, AR Metro Area
10%
5%3%
1%1%
0%19%
14%
4%0%
0%0%
29%
Hammon
d, LA Metro Area
16%
8%3%
2%1%
1%15%
11%
4%0%
0%0%
31%
Bism
arck, N
D Metro Area
11%
3%3%
2%2%
1%10%
7%3%
1%0%
0%21%
Weirton
‐Steub
enville, W
V‐OH Metro Area
13%
7%3%
2%1%
0%10%
8%2%
0%0%
0%23%
Goldsbo
ro, N
C Metro Area
14%
6%4%
2%1%
1%19%
12%
6%1%
0%0%
32%
Beckley, W
V Metro Area
12%
7%3%
1%1%
0%10%
8%2%
0%0%
0%22%
Sherman
‐Den
ison
, TX Metro Area
16%
6%4%
2%2%
1%14%
9%4%
1%0%
0%30%
Man
sfield, O
H Metro Area
15%
6%4%
3%2%
1%13%
9%3%
0%0%
0%28%
Cleveland, TN M
etro Area
16%
7%4%
3%1%
1%16%
11%
4%1%
0%0%
31%
Watertown‐Fort Drum, N
Y Metro Area
14%
5%4%
3%2%
1%19%
9%6%
3%1%
0%33%
Mou
nt Verno
n‐An
acortes, W
A Metro Area
23%
5%5%
4%6%
4%17%
8%6%
3%1%
0%40%
Alba
ny, O
R Metro Area
20%
5%4%
4%4%
2%17%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
37%
Mun
cie, IN
Metro Area
12%
5%3%
2%1%
0%21%
16%
4%1%
0%0%
33%
Owen
sboro, KY Metro Area
12%
5%4%
2%1%
0%12%
9%3%
0%0%
0%24%
Staunton
‐Wayne
sboro, VA Metro Area
18%
6%4%
3%3%
2%14%
8%4%
1%0%
0%31%
San An
gelo, TX Metro Area
13%
6%3%
2%1%
0%16%
10%
5%1%
0%0%
28%
Williamsport, PA
Metro Area
17%
6%5%
3%2%
1%13%
9%3%
1%0%
0%31%
Anniston
‐Oxford‐Jacksonville, AL Metro Area
16%
9%4%
2%1%
0%14%
11%
2%1%
0%0%
30%
Morristown,TN
Metro
Area
17%
8%5%
2%1%
1%12%
9%3%
0%0%
0%30%
Morristown, TN M
etro Area
17%
8%5%
2%1%
1%12%
9%3%
0%0%
0%30%
Sheb
oygan, W
I Metro Area
17%
4%4%
3%3%
2%12%
7%4%
0%0%
0%28%
Lawrence, KS Metro Area
12%
3%3%
3%2%
1%26%
16%
7%3%
1%0%
38%
Wen
atchee, W
A Metro Area
19%
5%3%
5%4%
2%13%
7%4%
2%0%
0%32%
Brun
swick, GA Metro Area
19%
7%5%
3%2%
2%16%
9%5%
1%0%
0%35%
Kankakee, IL Metro Area
20%
6%5%
4%4%
2%15%
9%4%
1%0%
0%35%
Missoula, M
T Metro Area
17%
4%4%
3%4%
2%23%
13%
7%1%
1%0%
40%
Michigan City‐La Po
rte, IN
Metro Area
16%
6%5%
2%2%
1%14%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
30%
California‐Lexington Park, M
D Metro Area
19%
4%2%
3%4%
6%11%
4%3%
2%2%
0%30%
Decatur, IL M
etro Area
13%
5%4%
2%1%
0%14%
10%
4%0%
0%0%
27%
Sumter, SC
Metro Area
14%
6%4%
2%1%
0%15%
9%4%
2%0%
0%29%
Lewiston‐Au
burn, M
E Metro Area
19%
5%5%
5%3%
1%17%
11%
5%1%
0%0%
36%
The Villages, FL Metro Area
22%
9%5%
4%2%
1%4%
2%1%
0%0%
0%26%
Bay City, M
I Metro Area
19%
7%6%
3%2%
0%12%
9%3%
0%0%
0%31%
Lima, OH Metro Area
14%
5%4%
2%2%
1%16%
12%
4%0%
0%0%
31%
Gadsden
, AL Metro Area
18%
9%4%
2%1%
1%12%
9%3%
0%0%
0%30%
Ithaca, NY Metro Area
13%
3%3%
3%3%
1%26%
16%
6%3%
1%0%
39%
Longview
, WA Metro Area
19%
5%4%
4%4%
2%19%
12%
6%1%
0%0%
38%
Fond
du Lac, W
I Metro Area
18%
5%4%
4%3%
2%11%
8%3%
0%0%
0%29%
Gettysburg, PA Metro Area
22%
5%5%
4%5%
3%11%
5%4%
1%1%
0%33%
Cumbe
rland
, MD‐WV Metro Area
15%
6%5%
2%2%
1%14%
11%
3%0%
0%0%
29%
Page A9
Mind the Gap: A High-level Review of the Need for — and Supply of — Affordable Multifamily Rental Housing 26 © Mortgage Bankers Association January 2015. All rights reserved.
Percen
t of A
rea Hou
seho
lds P
aying More than
30 Pe
rcen
t of Incom
e in Hou
sing
Costs, 2013
Source: A
CS 5‐year, 2013
Geo
grap
hyTO
TAL
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Less
than
$20,000
$20,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or m
ore
TOTA
L
Owne
r‐occupied
hou
sing
units:
Renter‐occup
ied ho
using un
its:
Grand
Forks, N
D‐MN M
etro Area
11%
3%3%
3%2%
1%20%
13%
5%1%
0%0%
31%
Fairb
anks, A
K Metro Area
15%
3%2%
3%4%
3%20%
7%6%
3%3%
1%35%
Man
kato‐North M
ankato, M
N M
etro Area
15%
4%4%
3%3%
2%16%
10%
4%1%
0%0%
31%
Man
hattan
, KS Metro Area
11%
4%2%
2%2%
1%25%
14%
7%2%
1%0%
36%
Sebring, FL Metro Area
20%
9%5%
3%2%
1%12%
7%4%
1%0%
0%32%
Hot S
prings, A
R Metro Area
16%
8%4%
3%2%
0%15%
10%
4%0%
0%0%
31%
Pine
Bluff, AR Metro Area
15%
8%4%
1%1%
0%16%
13%
3%0%
0%0%
31%
Victoria, TX Metro Area
13%
5%3%
2%2%
1%15%
9%5%
1%0%
0%28%
Ocean
City
, NJ M
etro Area
29%
6%6%
5%6%
5%13%
7%4%
2%1%
0%43%
Rome, GA Metro Area
17%
7%5%
2%2%
1%18%
13%
5%1%
0%0%
35%
Cheyen
ne, W
Y Metro Area
15%
4%4%
3%3%
1%12%
7%4%
1%0%
0%27%
Dubu
que, IA
Metro Area
14%
4%4%
3%2%
1%13%
8%4%
0%0%
0%26%
Cape
Gira
rdeau, M
O‐IL
Metro Area
14%
6%3%
2%2%
0%14%
10%
3%1%
0%0%
28%
Parkersburg‐Vien
na, W
V Metro Area
13%
6%4%
2%1%
0%12%
9%2%
0%0%
0%25%
Ames, IA Metro Area
9%3%
2%2%
2%1%
25%
16%
7%2%
0%0%
35%
Corvallis, O
R Metro Area
15%
4%3%
3%3%
3%26%
17%
6%1%
1%0%
41%
Bloo
msburg‐Be
rwick, PA Metro Area
15%
6%4%
2%2%
1%14%
10%
3%1%
0%0%
29%
Grand
Island
, NE Metro Area
12%
4%4%
2%2%
1%12%
8%3%
1%0%
0%24%
Midland
,MIM
etro
Area
17%
6%5%
3%2%
1%12%
8%3%
1%0%
0%29%
Midland
, MI M
etro Area
17%
6%5%
3%2%
1%12%
8%3%
1%0%
0%29%
Grants P
ass, OR Metro Area
22%
8%6%
4%3%
1%19%
12%
5%1%
1%0%
41%
Pocatello, ID Metro Area
16%
6%4%
4%2%
1%16%
12%
3%0%
0%0%
32%
Kokomo, IN
Metro Area
13%
5%4%
2%1%
0%15%
11%
4%0%
0%0%
28%
Great Falls, M
T Metro Area
15%
5%4%
3%2%
1%13%
9%3%
1%0%
0%28%
Hine
sville, GA Metro Area
16%
6%4%
3%2%
1%23%
11%
8%4%
1%0%
39%
Casper, W
Y Metro Area
13%
4%3%
2%2%
1%11%
5%4%
1%0%
0%24%
Danville, IL M
etro Area
13%
6%4%
1%1%
1%14%
10%
3%0%
0%0%
27%
Columbu
s, IN
Metro Area
13%
5%3%
3%1%
1%11%
6%4%
1%0%
0%24%
Walla W
alla, W
A Metro Area
15%
5%3%
3%3%
1%19%
12%
5%1%
1%0%
34%
Lewiston, ID
‐WA Metro Area
16%
4%5%
3%3%
1%13%
8%4%
1%0%
0%29%
Carson
City
, NV Metro Area
15%
4%3%
3%3%
2%19%
12%
5%1%
0%0%
35%
Page A10