Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Funding for this report was provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
and the Policy Advisory Board of the Joint Center for Housing Studies.
The opinions expressed in Americas Rental HousingThe Key to a Balanced National Policy do not necessarily represent the
views of Harvard University, the Policy Advisory Board of the Joint Center for Housing Studies, or the MacArthur Foundation.
FIGURE 1
1,400
1,200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1998:4 1999:4
2001:4
2003:4
2005:4
2007:4
Prime Subprime
Note: Numbers equal four-quarter moving average of non-seasonally adjusted conventional loans serviced,
multiplied by the seasonally adjusted rates of delinquencies and foreclosure starts.
Source: Mortgage Bankers Association.
Aggressive marketing by many mortgage industry participants helped to spark the meteoric rise in high-risk products.
Reinforcing this trend was the structure of the mortgage
industry itselfin particular Wall Streets seemingly insatiable
appetite for mortgage-backed securities and the widespread
use of incentives for brokers and loan officers to push risky,
higher-priced products. The surge in foreclosures suggests
that many borrowers who took on subprime loans and other
forms of high-priced debt had little or no capacity to repay.
The plentiful supply of mortgage capital also fed a substantial
rise in high-risk lending to absentee owners of one- to four-
While some owners who have lost their homes will quickly
buy another unit and others will move in with family and
friends, many will become renters. Indeed, after averaging just
0.7 percent annual growth from 2003 to 2006, the number
of renter households jumped by 2.8 percent or nearly one
million in 2007.
The growing numbers of renters must now compete for the
limited supply of affordable housing, adding to the long-
FIGURE 2
One Minimum-Wage Earner Cannot Afford a Modest Rental Unit Anywhere in the Country
Housing Wage Needed to Afford a Two-Bedroom Apartment
Housing Wage
12 Times the Minimum Wage
23 Times the Minimum Wage
3 or More Times the Minimum Wage
Notes: The housing wage is the income required to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment at the local fair market rent, assuming the household pays 30% of income for housing and works 40 hours a week
for 52 weeks. The federal minimum wage in February 2008 was $5.85 per hour. Analysis is based on methodology developed by Cushing N. Dolbeare and the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fiscal Year 2008 Fair Market Rents.
FIGURE 3
Average Annual
Percent Change
2003
2006
2007
200306
200607
Occupied
105,560
109,575
110,306
1.3
0.7
Own
72,054
75,380
75,159
1.5
-0.3
Rent
33,506
34,195
35,147
0.7
2.8
11,631
12,459
13,276
2.3
6.6
For Rent
3,676
3,737
3,848
0.5
3.0
For Sale
1,308
1,836
2,117
12.0
15.3
5,672
5,778
6,181
0.6
7.0
3,643
3,978
4,376
3.0
10.0
Year-Round Vacant
Seasonal Vacant
SUPPLY PRESSURES
21
3
FIGURE 4
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
Low
Income
Middle
Income
High
Income
Minority Neighborhoods
Low
Income
Middle
Income
High
Income
Low
Income
Mixed Neighborhoods
Middle
Income
High
Income
White Neighborhoods
Notes: Loans are rst lien mortgages originated for owner-occupied, one- to four-unit properties. Low- (middle-/high-) income neighborhoods are dened as census tracts with less than 80% (80120%/more
than 120%) of the MSA/MD median income. Minority neighborhoods are more than 50% minority; mixed neighborhoods are 1050% minority; and white neighborhoods are less than 10% minority.
Source: JCHS tabulations of 2000 Decennial Census and 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data.
Rates of early payment delinquencies are a widely used indicator of how a set of loans is likely to perform over time. Based
on an analysis of loans that are currently 60 days or more late,
most industry experts predict loans originated in 2006 and
2007 will be the most foreclosure-prone in history.
DEMOGRAPHIC DRIVERS
OF RENTAL DEMAND
FIGURE 5
Strong Growth in Minority Renters Has Offset the Dramatic Decline in Younger White Renters
Change in Renter Households, 19952005 (Thousands)
1,500
1,000
500
0
-500
-1,000
-1,500
-2,000
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian/Other
21
5
FIGURE 6
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Under 30
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 and Over
FIGURE 7a
shorter expected stays are more likely to rent, while households with longer expected stays are more likely to buy given
that they can spread the high transaction costs over a longer
period. Younger households that anticipate major changes in
education, employment, income, and marital status are therefore more apt to rent than otherwise similar households that
have finished their schooling, settled down, and do not expect
to move in the near future.
Because owned units require higher monthly outlays and are
usually larger and of better quality than rental units, higherincome renters are more likely than lower-income renters to
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Under 30
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 and Over
Bottom
Lower Middle
Upper Middle
Top
Income Quartile
Note: Income quartiles are equal fourths of all households sorted by pre-tax income.
Source: JCHS tabulations of the 2003 and 2005 American Housing Survey, using JCHS-adjusted weights.
FIGURE 7b
While Owners That Become Renters Are Much Younger and Have Lower Incomes
Share of Owner Households in 2003 That Rented in 2005 (Percent)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Under 30
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 and Over
Bottom
Lower Middle
Upper Middle
Top
Income Quartile
Note: Income quartiles are equal fourths of all households sorted by pre-tax income.
Source: JCHS tabulations of the 2003 and 2005 American Housing Survey, using JCHS-adjusted weights.
21
7
switch to ownership (Figure 7a). Indeed, over one-third of renter households in the top income quartile in 2003 purchased
homes in the ensuing two years, compared with less than 2.5
percent of renters in the bottom income quartile. Given the
long-standing disparity in income and the lingering effects of
racial discrimination, white renters are twice as likely as black
renters to make the transition to owning.
The number of owner households that switch to renting is
also noteworthy. The reason most of these households cite
for making such a move is a change in marital status, although
other family/personal reasons, a new job or job transfer, and
proximity to work or school are also common motivations.
Some of these moves, however, are involuntaryespecially if
the owners faced foreclosure. While rising across the country,
foreclosures appear to be highly concentrated in the lowestincome and minority communities. Consistent with these
findings is the fact that homeowners in the bottom income
quartile were three times more likely than those in the top
income quartile to switch from owning to renting (Figure 7b).
Todays mortgage market woes will not only force many
owners into the rental market, but also limit the homebuying
opportunities for other lower-income renters. Another fallout
from the crisis is the reported increase in renter evictions
from foreclosed properties owned by absentee landlords and
financed with subprime loans. At best, the rash of foreclosures
will increase the number of households searching for rental
units. At worst, it will add to the ranks of the homeless.
FIGURE 8
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Bottom
Lower Middle
Upper Middle
Income Quartile
Renter Owner
Note: Income quartiles are equal fourths of all households sorted by pre-tax income.
Source: JCHS tabulations of the 2005 American Housing Survey, using JCHS-adjusted weights.
Top
The income and wealth gap between owners and renters continues to widen. According to the American Housing Survey,
median renter income declined by 6 percent in real terms to
$26,000 from 1995 to 2005, while median owner income
increased by 8 percent to $55,000. By the end of that decade,
some 41 percent of renters were in the lowest income quartile
($21,000 or less), compared with just 17 percent of owners
(Figure 8). At the other end of the distribution, only 9 percent
of renters were in the highest income quartile (over $76,000),
compared with 33 percent of owners.
The wide income gap reflects in part the steady movement of
rentersand particularly white rentersinto homeownership
during the decade. Indeed, the number of white renters fell in
all income quartiles except the lowest. While many minority
households also bought homes during the boom, the number
of minority renters in the lowest income quartile increased
by over one million. In 2005, over 51 percent (3.6 million)
of black and 39 percent (2.4 million) of Hispanic renters had
incomes in the bottom income quartile.
The latest available data from the Survey of Consumer Finance
show that the inequality in wealth holdings of owners and
renters has also increased. From 1995 to 2004, the surge in
home prices and unusually favorable mortgage environment
enabled most owners to accumulate home equity at a rapid
clip. Over this same period, the median net wealth of owners
(aggregate value of assets less debts) was up by 44 percent.
In sharp contrast, the median net wealth of renters fell by 32
percent (Figure 9).
Rapid home price appreciation helped to increase the disparity.
By 2004, homeowners had aggregate net wealth of approximately $50 trillion, including nearly $12 trillion in home
equity. Joint Center research indicates that growth in homeowner wealth for highest-income households also reflects
gains in stocks and other financial assets, funded in part by
equity cashed out either through home sales or refinancings.
In contrast, income-constrained owners more typically used
accumulated home equity to fund daily consumption needs
rather than savings and investments. As a result, the disparity in wealth within the ranks of homeowners also grew in
19952004 as the median net wealth of highest-income owners nearly doubled while that of lowest-income owners fell.
While lowest-quartile renter households did achieve some
modest gains in net wealth between 1995 and 2004, this category includes many households who switched from owning
to renting and took with them home equity acquired over the
FIGURE 9
Percent Change
1995
2004
19952004
79,160
75,850
-4.2
Owner
Bottom
Lower Middle
99,473
118,300
18.9
Upper Middle
107,598
161,000
49.6
Top
237,910
453,600
90.7
Total
127,813
184,560
44.4
Bottom
1,231
1,830
48.7
Lower Middle
6,771
5,400
-20.2
Renter
Upper Middle
20,436
19,720
-3.5
Top
62,417
60,500
-3.1
Total
5,934
4,050
-31.7
Notes: Income quartiles are equal fourths of all households sorted by pre-tax income. Dollar values are
adjusted for ination by the CPI-UX for all items.
Source: Joint Center tabulations of the 1995 and 2004 Surveys of Consumer Finance.
21
9
FIGURE 10
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
10
2001
2003
2005
2007e
FIGURE 11
Apartment Property Prices Are Rising Faster than Their Net Operating Income
Annual Percent Change
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
21
11
FIGURE 12
1049 Units
ts
21%
Sin Family
Single
39%
nits
59 Units
12%
24 Units
20%
Single
g Family
17%
24 Units
2
18%
18
nits
1049 Units
27%
59 Units
17%
Note: Single-family units include manufactured housing.
Source: JCHS tabulations of the 2005 American Housing Survey, using JCHS-adjusted weights.
12
FIGURE 13
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Site-Built
Single Family
Manufactured
Housing
24 Units
59 Units
1019 Units
2049 Units
50+ Units
Survey, 3 million private market rental units have severe structural deficiencies and are at risk of loss.
From 1995 to 2005, nearly 2.2 million of the 37 million initially available rental units (occupied and vacant) were demolished or otherwise permanently removed from the inventory.
Though representing just 6 percent of the 1995 rental stock,
these losses offset nearly 70 percent of the 3.2 million new
rental units built over the decade. While occurring across
all types of properties, losses among single-family and small
multifamily rentals have been particularly highin fact more
than three times those of units in large multifamily buildings
(Figure 13). Also experiencing high losses are communities with
large shares of older, lower-quality, and structurally inadequate units.
Relative to the low levels of rental construction over this
period, these losses are even more troubling. Indeed, between
1995 and 2005, two rental units were permanently removed
from the inventory for every three units built (Table A-7).
Inventory losses were highest in the Northeast, where two
rental units were lost for every one built. In the Midwest,
construction of 596,000 rental units barely offset removals of
441,000. Within metropolitan areas, center cities were particularly hard hit by the rental losses since most new construction occurs in outlying areas.
SHIFTS IN MORTGAGE FINANCE
21
13
FIGURE 14
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
14
Units
Owner-Occupied
14
Units
59
Units
1049
Units
50+
Units
Renter
14
AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGES
FIGURE 15
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
$400599
$600799
$800999
$0399
$1,000+
21
15
FIGURE 16
Low-Income Renters with High Housing Costs Spend Much Less on Other Needs
Average Monthly Expenditures of Renters in the Bottom Expenditure Quartile
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Transportation
Food
Clothes
Healthcare
Personal Insurance
and Pensions
Entertainment
Other
Renters with High Housing Outlays Renters with Low Housing Outlays
Notes: Expenditure quartiles are equal fourths of households sorted by total monthly expenditures. High (low) housing outlays are housing costs that are over 50% (under 30%) of monthly expenditures.
Source: JCHS tabulations of the 2005 Consumer Expenditure Survey, using Quarterly Interview Survey data.
16
live in crowded units while almost 11 percent live in structurally inadequate housing. Comparable shares for homeowners
are just 1 percent and 3 percent. Moreover, renters are more
likely than owners to face threats to health and safety in their
neighborhoods, especially those living in older housing units
that are located in economically distressed center city neighborhoods. For example, more than 21 percent of renters
reported crimes in their neighborhoods in 2005, compared
with 12 percent of owners.
Rather than sacrifice the quality of their housing, some households pay half or more of their incomes for rent and skimp
on other expenses. To meet high rents and utility payments,
these severely cost-burdened renters make difficult trade-offs
(Table A-5). Those in the bottom expenditure quartile devote
33 percent less to food, 42 percent less to healthcare, and
almost 60 percent less to clothing than renters with the same
total expenses but living in affordable housing (Figure 16).
While renters with high housing costs spend 74 percent less
on transportation than those with low housing expenses, this
trade-off may be no bargain if it means that they are unable
to access areas where job growth is strongest. Indeed, almost
60 percent of lowest-income renters do not own cars and thus
face serious obstacles to seeking jobs in high-growth suburban
employment centers. While public transit is sometimes an
option, these systems are generally ill-suited to moving people
from core areas to widely scattered suburbs.
FIGURE 17
All Households
Households With
Wage/Salary Income
Number
(000s)
Percent
With Wage/
Salary
Income
Percent
Working
40+ Hours
Per Week
Percent
Unable
to Afford
FMR
One
14,050
61.1
58.4
39.4
Two
9,691
82.8
74.4
36.9
Three to Four
9,534
90.6
76.3
46.1
Five or More
2,770
91.6
79.9
59.3
36,045
77.1
80.5
42.6
Number in
Household
All
Note: FMRs (fair market rents) are HUD estimates of the gross rent for a modest two-bedroom unit in 530 metropolitan
areas and 2,045 non-metropolitan areas.
Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition tabulations of 2006 American Community Survey.
Faced with high housing costs that leave little left over for
other necessities, many renters in the lowest-income quartile
have to borrow to make ends meet. Indeed, the number of
lowest-quartile renters in debt grew by 20 percent from 1995
to 2004, to 7.6 million. For all lowest-income renters, average outstanding debt was up 62 percent in inflation-adjusted
terms, from $3,200 to $5,200 (Figure 18). While increasing
across all age and racial groups, mean debt among renter
households with heads age 55 and older surged by 76 percent,
to $8,800. Among minorities, mean debt rose by 61 percent
to $7,900.
Despite these growing debt levels, the combination of low
interest rates and easy credit terms kept minimum monthly
payments low. According to the 2004 Survey of Consumer
Finances, the typical lowest-income renter with debt put just
9 percent of his or her meager income toward debt repayment
21
17
FIGURE 18
Top
Under 35
Income Quartile
35 to 54
55 and Over
White
Minority
Race/Ethnicity
Notes: Income quartiles are equal fourths of all households sorted by pre-tax income. White householders are non-Hispanic, and minority households are all others.
Source: JCHS tabulations of the 1995 and 2004 Surveys of Consumer Finances..
18
POLICY DIRECTIONS
FIGURE 19
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Bottom
Lower Middle
All Quartiles
Income Quartile
Age of Household Head
21
19
FIGURE 20
Assisted Renters
Low-Income Renters
All Renters
All Households
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
White Households
Minority Households
Notes: Low-income households are in the bottom fourth of all households sorted by pre-tax income. White householders are non-Hispanic, and minority households are all others.
Source: JCHS tabulations of the 2005 American Housing Survey, using JCHS-adjusted weights and AHS metro denitions.
Recognizing that housing assistance is not an entitlement program, Congress has attempted to target families most in need.
Lack of available assisted units, however, makes this difficult.
While estimates vary, the 2005 American Housing Survey
suggests that only one in five (or 6.7 million) of all renters
live in assisted housing. Even among elderly renters in the
lowest income quartile, less than four in ten receive housing
assistance (Figure 19).
PRESERVING AFFORDABLE UNITS
20
and now to foreclosure. Since developing new affordable rental housing remains difficult without steep subsidy, preserving
whatever low-cost units remain should be an urgent priority.
The success of preservation efforts depends in large measure
on the willingness of Congress to appropriate sufficient funds
to renew expiring project-based contracts and fund additional
efforts to slow the loss of privately owned low-cost rentals.
Without new affordable housing initiatives and expanded
funding to bring these initiatives to scale, the affordable rental
inventory will continue to shrink.
REMOVING BARRIERS TO DEVELOPMENT
On top of the persistent problems of growing income inequality, concentration of poverty, and ongoing loss of affordable
FIGURE 21
Share of Loans
in Foreclosure
Under 1.0%
1.01.9%
2.02.9%
3.0% and Over
Note: Data are not seasonally adjusted.
Source: Mortgage Bankers Association.
21
21
22
FIGURE 22
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Owner
Renter
Bottom
Owner
Renter
Owner
Lower Middle
Renter
Owner
Upper Middle
Renter
Top
Income Quartile
Severely Burdened Moderately Burdened
Notes: Income quartiles are equal fourths of all households sorted by pre-tax income. Severely (moderately) burdened households are dened as paying more than 50% (3050%) of income for housing.
Source: JCHS tabulations of the 2006 American Community Survey.
21
23
APPENDIX TABLES
24
Table A-1
Table A-2
Table A-3
Table A-4
Table A-5
Table A-6
Table A-7
Table A-8
Table A-1
Multifamily
Permits 1
Multifamily
Starts 2
Multifamily
Completions3
Year
(000s)
(000s)
For Sale
(000s)
For Rent
(000s)
1975
264
268
121
321
Size of New
Multifamily
For-Rent Units 4
Residential Upkeep
and Improvement of
Rental Properties5
Rental
Vacancy
Rates6
Value Put
in Place:
Multifamily
Units 7
(Millions of 2007
dollars)
(Percent)
(Millions of
2007 dollars)
32,852
6.0
25,735
942
1976
403
375
75
268
894
32,075
5.6
25,175
1977
564
536
77
322
881
28,499
5.2
34,266
1978
618
587
91
408
863
35,502
5.0
40,799
1979
570
551
135
434
893
34,436
5.4
48,584
1980
480
440
174
371
915
30,750
5.4
42,034
1981
421
379
164
283
930
32,190
5.0
39,818
1982
454
400
148
226
925
29,022
5.3
33,379
1983
704
635
152
314
893
31,089
5.7
46,720
1984
759
665
197
430
871
47,525
5.9
56,306
1985
777
669
184
447
882
59,323
6.5
54,983
1986
692
626
133
503
876
67,259
7.3
58,706
1987
510
474
134
412
920
70,551
7.7
46,445
1988
462
407
117
329
940
68,358
7.7
39,073
37,287
1989
407
373
90
307
940
70,313
7.4
1990
317
298
76
266
955
76,387
7.2
30,532
1991
195
174
56
197
980
62,335
7.4
23,056
1992
184
170
44
150
985
58,931
7.4
19,347
1993
213
162
44
109
1,005
60,395
7.3
15,476
1994
303
259
49
138
1,015
55,909
7.4
19,696
1995
335
278
51
196
1,040
55,851
7.6
24,333
1996
356
316
50
234
1,030
56,588
7.8
26,853
1997
379
340
54
230
1,050
51,166
7.7
29,555
31,253
1998
425
346
55
260
1,020
43,613
7.9
1999
417
339
55
279
1,054
54,275
8.1
34,136
2000
394
338
60
272
1,091
58,256
8.0
34,019
2001
401
329
75
240
1,094
56,329
8.4
35,473
2002
415
346
63
260
1,092
59,710
8.9
37,520
2003
428
349
56
236
1,108
64,194
9.8
39,563
2004
457
345
72
238
1,159
60,493
10.2
43,835
2005
473
353
97
199
1,180
51,728
9.8
50,203
2006
461
336
127
198
1,192
51,960
9.7
54,519
2007
407
309
116
169
1,138
50,845
9.8
49,149
Note: All value series are deflated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI-UX) for All Items. Web links confirmed as of April 2008.
Sources: 1. US Census Bureau, Construction Statistics, New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits, www.census.gov/pub/const/bpann.pdf.
2. US Census Bureau, New Privately Owned Housing Units Started, www.census.gov/const/startsan.pdf.
3. US Census Bureau, New Privately Owned Housing Units Completed in the United States, by Purpose and Design, www.census.gov/const/compsusintenta.pdf.
4. US Census Bureau, New Privately Owned Housing Units Started in the United States, by Purpose and Design, www.census.gov/const/startsusintenta.pdf.
5. US Census Bureau, Expenditures by Region and Property Type, www.census.gov/const/C50/histtab2new.pdf.
6. US Census Bureau, Housing Vacancy Survey.
7. US Census Bureau, Annual Value of Private Construction Put in Place, www.census.gov/const/C30/private.pdf.
21
25
Table A-2
Year
Renter
Incomes
Contract
Rent
Gross
Rent
Asking
Rent
Contract
Rent
Gross
Rent
Asking
Rent
1975
2,779
654
708
813
23.5
25.5
29.3
1976
2,697
654
710
798
24.2
26.3
29.6
1977
2,714
653
712
794
24.0
26.2
29.2
1978
2,750
651
711
798
23.7
25.9
29.0
1979
2,691
629
688
777
23.4
25.6
28.9
1980
2,551
605
666
775
23.7
26.1
30.4
1981
2,517
597
660
792
23.7
26.2
31.4
1982
2,542
607
675
827
23.9
26.5
32.5
1983
2,536
625
696
804
24.6
27.4
31.7
1984
2,614
632
703
784
24.2
26.9
30.0
1985
2,652
650
720
832
24.5
27.1
31.4
1986
2,683
677
745
865
25.2
27.8
32.2
1987
2,657
680
745
944
25.6
28.0
35.5
1988
2,737
678
741
964
24.8
27.1
35.2
1989
2,828
672
734
987
23.8
25.9
34.9
1990
2,739
664
724
952
24.3
26.4
34.8
1991
2,625
660
719
935
25.1
27.4
35.6
1992
2,553
657
716
866
25.7
28.0
33.9
1993
2,526
653
712
822
25.8
28.2
32.5
1994
2,493
652
710
806
26.2
28.5
32.3
1995
2,558
650
706
891
25.4
27.6
34.8
1996
2,580
648
704
888
25.1
27.3
34.4
1997
2,639
652
708
935
24.7
26.8
35.4
1998
2,691
662
717
934
24.6
26.6
34.7
1999
2,788
668
722
984
24.0
25.9
35.3
2000
2,805
670
724
1,013
23.9
25.8
36.1
2001
2,781
681
739
1,031
24.5
26.6
37.1
2002
2,677
696
751
1,058
26.0
28.1
39.5
2003
2,588
701
758
1,049
27.1
29.3
40.5
2004
2,551
701
759
1,071
27.5
29.7
42.0
2005
2,568
698
760
1,000
27.2
29.6
38.9
2006
2,639
701
766
1,057
26.5
29.0
40.1
2007
2,615
710
775
982
27.2
29.6
37.5
Notes and Sources: All dollar amounts are expressed in 2007 constant dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI-UX) for All Items.
Renter median incomes through 2006 are from Current Population Survey P60 published reports. Renters exclude those paying no cash rent. Income for 2007 is based
on Moodys Economy.com estimate for all households, adjusted by the three-year average ratio of CPS renter incomes to all household incomes. Contract rent equals
median 2005 contract rent from the American Housing Survey, indexed by the CPI residential rent index with adjustments for depreciation in the stock before 1987.
Gross rent is equal to contract rent plus fuel and utilities. Asking rent is for newly completed, privately financed, unsubsidized unfurnished rental apartments in
structures of five or more units. Annual asking rent for 2007 is the average of the first and second quarters.
26
Table A-3
1995
2005
White
Black
Asian/Other
Hispanic
All Renters
White
Black
Asian/Other
Hispanic
All Renters
21,530
6,502
1,606
4,512
34,150
21,096
7,004
1,993
6,065
36,776
3,136
383
241
524
4,284
2,576
443
357
731
4,174
3,263
766
424
1,279
5,732
2,654
591
457
1,641
5,417
Single Parent
2,693
2,054
220
1,042
6,008
2,588
1,993
203
1,299
6,197
Other Family
1,155
773
156
463
2,547
1,203
842
213
687
2,990
Single Person
8,783
2,118
427
864
12,192
9,424
2,750
592
1,183
14,180
Other Non-Family
2,500
408
137
341
3,386
2,650
385
171
524
3,817
251
71
26
77
424
443
143
40
98
746
Total
Family Type
Age
Under 20
2029
5,884
1,670
453
1,347
9,355
5,535
1,579
480
1,723
9,482
3039
5,785
1,934
512
1,411
9,642
4,235
1,709
575
1,789
8,468
4049
3,555
1,380
302
756
5,992
3,827
1,577
407
1,211
7,129
5059
1,895
619
164
409
3,086
2,755
1,025
227
632
4,729
6069
1,390
397
72
274
2,133
1,588
509
122
324
2,585
70 and Over
2,770
432
77
239
3,518
2,713
461
142
288
3,638
Income Quartile
Bottom
7,179
3,348
582
1,972
13,082
7,982
3,581
685
2,385
14,897
Lower Middle
6,744
1,814
439
1,450
10,448
6,607
2,186
542
2,142
11,661
Upper Middle
5,147
1,047
365
810
7,369
4,336
884
480
1,135
6,923
Top
2,459
293
220
279
3,251
2,172
352
286
403
3,296
Notes: Household counts from 2005 exclude multirace, which was not a reported category in the 1995 data. Income quartiles are equal fourths of all households, sorted
by pre-tax income. Black, white and Asian/other householders are non-Hispanic, and Hispanic householders may be of any race. Asian/other includes Pacific Islanders,
Native Americans and Aleuts.
Source: JCHS tabulations of the 1995 and 2005 American Housing Surveys, using JCHS-adjusted weights in 2005.
21
27
Table A-4
Total
Renters in 2005
Total
Owners in 2005
Percent
72,424
1,876
2.6
36,004
3,576
9.9
46,495
692
1.5
10,716
1,991
18.6
Marital Status
Married
Widowed
8,678
220
2.5
3,175
48
1.5
10,477
730
7.0
9,071
560
6.2
6,774
234
3.5
13,042
977
7.5
26,049
305
1.2
4,196
880
21.0
19,540
312
1.6
5,486
1,057
19.3
4,110
270
6.6
5,889
346
5.9
105
2.2
2,910
173
6.0
15,310
744
4.9
13,753
795
5.8
2,558
139
5.4
3,770
326
8.7
77
17
22.1
511
11
2.2
2029
4,184
227
5.4
9,693
1,093
11.3
3039
12,521
438
3.5
8,724
1,149
13.2
6,877
784
11.4
4,295
417
9.7
Divorced/Separated
Never Married
Family Type
Single Parent
Other Family
Single Person
Other Non-Family
4,857
Age
Under 20
4049
17,404
453
2.6
5059
15,240
312
2.0
6069
10,477
170
1.6
2,385
91
3.8
70 and Over
12,520
258
2.1
3,520
31
0.9
White
58,336
1,431
2.5
21,103
2,439
11.6
Black
5,816
151
2.6
6,686
362
5.4
165
3.2
5,685
512
9.0
2,534
65
2.6
1,995
209
10.5
634
64
10.1
535
55
10.3
14,088
445
3.2
14,901
1,138
7.6
Race/Ethnicity
Hispanic
5,104
Asian
Multirace
All Minority
Income Quartile
Bottom
12,905
509
3.9
14,506
332
2.3
Lower Middle
16,052
610
3.8
11,225
769
6.8
Upper Middle
19,833
454
2.3
7,188
1,320
18.4
23,634
303
1.3
3,086
1,156
37.5
Top
Notes: Income quartiles are equal fourths of all households, sorted by pre-tax income. Black, white and Asian/other householders are non-Hispanic, and Hispanic
householders may be of any race.
Source: JCHS tabulations of the 2003 and 2005 American Housing Surveys, using JCHS-adjusted weights.
28
Table A-5
Housing
Transportation
Food
Clothes
Healthcare
Personal Insurance
and Pensions
Entertainment
Other
Bottom
209
173
286
45
50
80
52
189
3050%
465
117
250
32
54
83
42
131
646
45
184
19
29
48
24
72
All
428
117
245
33
46
73
40
135
499
449
439
96
103
232
110
418
3050%
852
301
389
68
76
218
82
247
1,397
128
280
34
74
130
48
132
754
348
400
77
88
215
90
310
Lower Middle
Upper Middle
751
732
569
152
179
402
176
678
3050%
1,260
493
540
103
125
374
128
423
2,088
227
399
77
161
232
77
279
971
636
551
134
163
385
156
583
All
Top
1,113
1,231
821
248
346
717
345
1,594
3050%
2,119
705
779
157
215
712
220
805
4,515
491
637
144
187
494
122
695
All
1,364
1,116
810
229
318
712
317
1,424
Note: Expenditure quartiles are equal fourths of households sorted by total monthly expenditures.
Source: JCHS tabulations of the Consumer Expenditure Survey, using Quarterly Interview Survey data for calendar year 2005.
21
29
Table A-6
Households by Tenure, Income, and Housing Cost Burdens, 2001 and 2006
Thousands
2001
Tenure and
Income Quartile
2006
No
Burden
Moderate
Burden
Severe
Burden
Total
No
Burden
Moderate
Burden
Severe
Burden
Total
8,769
6,511
11,328
26,609
8,036
6,620
13,247
27,904
All Households
Bottom
Lower Middle
18,393
6,340
1,876
26,609
17,253
7,590
3,061
27,904
Upper Middle
22,786
3,319
504
26,609
22,085
4,751
1,068
27,904
Top
25,191
1,280
138
26,609
25,318
2,294
293
27,904
Total
75,140
17,450
13,846
106,436
72,692
21,256
17,669
111,617
5,065
2,549
4,428
12,042
4,507
2,654
5,168
12,329
Owners
Bottom
Lower Middle
10,695
3,630
1,456
15,781
10,390
4,358
2,346
17,094
Upper Middle
16,015
2,882
465
19,362
15,923
4,110
1,002
21,035
Top
21,457
1,208
137
22,802
22,103
2,222
292
24,616
Total
53,231
10,270
6,485
69,986
52,924
13,343
8,808
75,075
Bottom
3,705
3,962
6,901
14,567
3,529
3,967
8,079
15,575
Lower Middle
7,698
2,710
419
10,828
6,862
3,232
716
10,810
Renters
Upper Middle
6,771
437
39
7,247
6,162
641
65
6,869
Top
3,735
71
3,807
3,215
72
3,288
Total
21,908
7,180
7,361
36,449
19,769
7,912
8,861
36,542
Notes: Income quartiles are equal fourths of all households sorted by pre-tax income. Moderate (severe) burdens are defined as housing costs of 3050% (over 50%)
of household income.
Source: JCHS tabulations of the 2001 and 2006 American Community Surveys.
30
Table A-7
Characteristics
in 1995
Loss Rate
(%)
Completions
19962005
(000s)
Replacement Rate
(%)
36,815
2,183
5.9
3,183
145.8
Structure Type
Single-Family
11,857
708
6.0
386
54.5
24 Units
8,196
664
8.1
206
31.0
59 Units
4,674
215
4.6
347
161.4
1019 Units
4,343
154
3.5
645
418.8
2049 Units
3,150
76
2.4
812
1,068.4
3,144
72
2.3
440
611.1
Manufactured Homes
1,452
294
20.2
347
118.0
Northeast
7,821
455
5.8
234
51.4
Midwest
7,651
441
5.8
596
135.1
South
12,299
911
7.4
1,608
176.5
West
9,044
377
4.2
743
197.1
8,597
944
11.0
NA
NA
Region
9,852
538
5.5
NA
NA
$600 to $799
8,504
292
3.4
NA
NA
$800 to $1,000
4,538
115
2.5
NA
NA
3,914
110
2.8
NA
NA
Notes: Gross rents are in 2005 dollars. Loss rates are defined as share of all units in 1995 that were reported as a Type C Non-Interview (permanent removal from
the stock) in 2005. Replacement rate is defined as housing units completed as a percent of inventory losses. NA is not available.
Sources: US Census Bureau, New Privately Owned Housing Units Completed in the United States By Intent and Design, and Joint Center tabulations
of the 1995 and 2005 American Housing Surveys, using JCHS-adjusted weights for 2005.
21
31
Table A-8
First Lien Mortgages on One- to Four-Unit Properties by Owner and Neighborhood Characteristics, 2006
For Purchase
For Refinance
High Cost
All
High Cost
High Cost
Total Number
(000s)
Number
(000s)
Share
(%)
Total Number
(000s)
Number
(000s)
Share
(%)
Total Number
(000s)
Number
(000s)
Share
(%)
3,833
888
23.2
3,892
1,161
29.8
7,726
2,049
26.5
Owner Occupied
All
Low Income
White
55
15
27.4
62
23
37.2
117
38
32.6
Mixed
231
70
30.1
226
85
37.5
457
154
33.7
Minority
360
158
43.9
462
207
44.9
822
365
44.4
594
108
18.3
622
175
28.1
1,215
283
23.3
Middle Income
White
Mixed
980
230
23.5
946
284
30.0
1,926
514
26.7
Minority
266
104
38.9
376
138
36.6
642
241
37.6
High Income
White
484
53
10.9
418
81
19.4
902
134
14.8
Mixed
775
124
15.9
671
139
20.7
1,446
262
18.1
89
27
30.6
110
30
27.1
198
57
28.7
717
211
29.4
455
136
29.9
1,172
347
29.6
Minority
Non-Resident Owned
All
Low Income
White
13
31.3
29.9
22
30.7
Mixed
74
25
33.8
49
15
31.3
123
40
32.8
110
54
48.7
102
44
43.5
212
98
46.2
White
98
22
22.7
55
13
24.1
152
35
23.2
Mixed
194
52
26.9
106
27
25.6
300
79
26.4
43
17
38.5
38
13
34.9
81
30
36.8
Minority
Middle Income
Minority
High Income
White
66
12
17.5
32
18.5
98
17
17.8
Mixed
109
23
20.7
55
11
20.9
163
34
20.8
12
29.1
27.0
20
28.2
Minority
Notes: Low- (middle-/high-) income neighborhoods are defined as census tracts with less than 80% (80120%/more than 120%) of the MSA/MD median income.
Minority neighborhoods are more than 50% minority; mixed neighborhoods are 1050% minority; and white neighborhoods are less than 10% minority.
Source: Joint Center tabulations of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data.
32
Barbara Alexander
William Apgar
Kermit Baker
Pamela Baldwin
Eric Belsky
Zhu Xiao Di
Rachel Bogardus Drew
Elizabeth England
Ren Essene
Gary Fauth
Angela Flynn
Jackie Hernandez
Nancy Jennings
George Masnick
Dan McCue
John Meyer
Meg Nipson
Kevin Park
Nicolas Retsinas
Laurel Trayes
Alexander von Hoffman
www.jchs.harvard.edu