US Residential Rental Market Trends Revealed for Landlords, Property Managers and Property Management Companies

The national rental vacancy rate during the second quarter of 2009 was up from both the previous quarter and the same quarter in 2008. However, changes in vacancy rates varied regionally — from a marginal annual decline in the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett metropolitan statistical area (MSA) to a noteworthy yearly increase in the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale MSA.

A new working paper, “U.S. Rental Housing Characteristics: Supply, Vacancy, and Affordability,” from HUD reports these findings as part of its overview of the current residential rental housing market dynamics, in relation to supply, local conditions, the national assisted rental housing stock, and both need and demand for affordable rental housing. Trends in rental housing characteristics over time are also noted.

Some of the Key Findings are:

1. The national rental vacancy rate was 10.6 percent in the second quarter of 2009, up from both the previous quarter and the same quarter in 2008.

2. In 2008, regional vacancy rates ranged from 4.5 to 18.3 percent.

3. From 2006–2008, Section 8 vacancy rates varied marginally and did not exceed 5%; public housing vacancies fell 2%.

4. Low-income housing tax credit developments represented approximately half of all newly constructed multifamily units since 2000.

5. From 2001–2007, the stock of affordable unassisted rentals dropped 6.3%; high-rent units increased 94.3%.

6. Renter households spending at least 50% of their incomes on housing increased from 8.3 million in 2007 to 8.7 million in 2008.

Download the study from US Housing and Urban Development about by CLICKING HERE

This blog post for Real Estate Professionals, Investors, Landlord, Property Manager, and Property Management Companies is brought to you by SimplifyEm Pay Rent Online and Property Management Software

HUD PD&R WORKING PAPER 10-01

U.S. Rental Housing Characteristics: Supply, Vacancy, and Affordability

By Rob Collinson and Ben Winter

January 2010

Abstract

The aim of this working paper is to document key empirical facts on U.S. rental housing market conditions – reporting both current conditions (as of second quarter 2009) as well as notable historic trends. This analysis draws upon the findings of existing scholarly work and includes original analysis utilizing a mix of public and proprietary data.

This working paper is not a comprehensive assessment of U.S. rental housing market conditions; rather it focuses on describing market dynamics in the context of rental housing supply, variations across local rental housing markets, conditions in the nation’s assisted rental housing stock, and the evolving need and demand for affordable rental housing.

The contents of this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government. Any errors or omissions in this document are those of the authors. Furthermore any analysis in this document may be subject to change.

Table of Contents

I. Key Findings ………………4

II. Introduction ………………6

III. Rental Housing Supply ………………6

IV. Variations Across Local Rental Housing Markets ………………9

V. Conditions in the Assisted Rental Housing Stock ………………11

VI. Evolving Need and Demand for Affordable Rental Housing ………………12

VII. Conclusion ………………15

Appendix 1 – Map: Change in Rental Vacancy Rates

from 2005 to 2008 in the 75 Largest MSAs ………………16

Appendix 2 – Households by Income and Housing Expenditure

as a Percent of Income ………………17

Appendix 3 – Rental Vacancy Rates Across Structure Type ………………20

Appendix 4 – Vacant Units for Rent by Monthly Rents ………………20

Appendix 5 – Vacancy Rates in the Low Income Housing Tax

Credit Portfolios of Major Investors by State ………………21

4

I. Key Findings

Vacancy Rates

• The softening of the rental housing market in 2009 has been marked by increases in the nationwide rental vacancy rate through the second quarter of this year. The rental vacancy rate of 10.6 percent in the second quarter of 2009 was up fifty basis points from the 1st quarter level and sixty basis points from the second quarter of the previous year.1

1 HUDUSER.ORG “U.S. Housing Market Conditions, 2nd Quarter 2009”

2 Low cost units are those renting for less than $600 a month.

3 Affordable to households earning at or below 60% of the local area median income (AMI), excluding subsidized units or no cash rent units. High rent defined as affordable to households earning at or above 100% of AMI.

• There is considerable regional variation in vacancy rates and vacancy rate trends. Significantly, those rental markets that are very tight have shown either slow growth or contraction in rental supply from 2005 to 2008.

• Though vacancy rates are rising nationally, the additional supply has mainly been higher-priced units. From the second quarter of 2008 to 2009, the percentage of vacant rental units with rents of $1,500 or more have climbed from 7.6 percent to 9.3 percent. The share of vacant units with rents below $400 fell from 10.8 percent to 9.3 percent over the same span.

• Conditions in the nation’s assisted housing stock have been considerably tighter than the overall rental market in recent years. Vacancy rates in project-based Section 8 developments have not exceeded 5 percent. Public housing vacancies fell 2 percentage points from 2006 to 2008.

• Proprietary data from the portfolios of six private and two nonprofit investors indicate that properties receiving the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) have considerably lower vacancy rates than the nation’s overall rental market from 2005 to 2009.

Rental Supply

• Since 2000, LIHTC properties have comprised about 50 percent of all newly constructed multifamily rental units.

• From 1995-2005, two rental units were permanently removed from supply for every three produced. Over this same time period, the nation permanently lost 1.5 million low-cost rental units.2

• From 2001 to 2007 the nation’s affordable unassisted rental housing stock decreased by 6.3%, while the high-rent rental housing stock increased 94.3% (Figure 3). This translates into a loss of more than 1.2 million affordable unassisted rental units from 2001 to 2007.3

5

Rental Affordability

• Based on estimates from the 2008 American Community Survey, 8.7 million renter households paid 50% or more of their income on housing, up from 8.3 million renter households in 2007 and 6.2 million in 2000.

• For many metropolitan areas, the proportion of rent burdened households remains high. This fraction has increased or changed little from 2005 to 2008 across a wide cross-section of metropolitan areas, including Atlanta, Detroit, Phoenix, Tampa, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle.4

4 “Rent burdened” is defined as paying more than 35 percent of income on gross rent.

• The continued rise in foreclosures and worsening economic circumstances may have caused some household consolidation or “doubling up.” Data show a 25.3 percent increase from 2005 to 2009 in the percentage of movers joining an existing household, with 12.6 and 2.6 percent the year-over-year changes from 2007 to 2008 and from 2008 to 2009, respectively.

6

II. Introduction

While the housing market continues to soften as the supply of rental housing expands, housing affordability remains an issue for millions of American households. Based on estimates from the 2008 American Community Survey, 8.7 million renter households paid 50% or more of their income on housing, up from 8.3 million renter households in 2007 and 6.2 million in 2000. This working paper describes the changing characteristics of rental housing supply, variations across local housing markets, conditions in the nation’s assisted rental housing stock, and the evolving need and demand for rental housing.

III. Rental Housing Supply

• In their 2008 report on the nation’s rental housing market, the JCHS notes that “although expanding the overall supply, these additions [excess single-family homes, condos, and vacation homes for rent] are generally higher-quality units that provide little relief to the large and growing number of low-income renters who to struggle to afford even marginal housing.”

• Inflation-adjusted gross rents have risen steadily from a national average of $715 in 1996 to $790 in 2008.5

5 Joint Center for Housing Studies “State of the Nation’s Housing 2009” Appendix, Table A-1

6 JCHS “America’s Rental Housing – The Key to a Balanced National Policy,” 2008, Pg. 15

7Affordable defined as rental units that renters with incomes at or below 60% of the local area median income (AMI) could afford. This figure also includes the loss of subsidized units or no cash rent units.

• This historical upward drift in rents has been driven by the addition of high-rent units to the inventory and the loss of lower-rent units. According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies, 1.5 million units renting for less than $600 a month were lost from the rental housing inventory between 1995 and 2005.6o In addition, according to HUD’s 2005-2007 Rental Dynamics Report of the American Housing Survey, the amount of rental units that are considered affordable declined by 1.526 million units from 2005 to 2007. Meanwhile, units considered affordable to households with incomes 80% and greater of the area median income increased by 1.248 million units during the same period. 7

• Rising vacancies imply that the demand for rental housing is being outstripped by additional supply, but new construction of multifamily rental units has held at around 200,000 units per

7 8

• As Figure 2 shows, units subsidized through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit make up a sizeable share of new multi-family production. The figure below shows the production of new construction LIHTC units (this excludes market-rate units in LIHTC developments and rehabbed units), units placed in service in LIHTC developments (includes rehab and market-rate units), and privately-owned multifamily12 rental units completed.

12 Multifamily defined here as buildings of two or more units

0

100

200

300

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Multifamily Rental Units Completed 1995-2006

(thousands)

New Construction LIHTC Units

Units in LIHTC Developments

Units For Rent in Buildings of 2 units or more

Figure 2: Multifamily Rental Units Completed 1995-2006

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau “Manufacturing and Construction Statistics,” 2009. HUD LIHTC Database

• As Figure 3 shows, from 2001 to 2007 the nation’s affordable rental housing stock (below 60% AMI) decreased by 6.3%, while the high-rent rental housing stock increased 94.3%. This translates into a loss of more than 1.2 million unassisted affordable rental units from 2001 to 2007.

9

Figure 3: Change in Rental Housing Inventory 2001-2007

Source: CINCH Rental Market Dynamics 2001-03, 2003-05, 2005-07.

American Housing Survey 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007. Note: Using CINCH Weights

IV. Variations Across Local Rental Housing Markets

• The rental vacancy rate of 10.6 percent in the second quarter of 2009 was up fifty basis points from the first quarter level and sixty basis points from the second quarter of the previous year. 13

13 HUDUSER.ORG “U.S. Housing Market Conditions, 2nd Quarter 2009”

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2001-2003

2003-2005

2005-2007

Change in Rental Housing Inventory 2001-2007

Below 60% AMI

60-100% AMI

100%+ AMI

• As Figure 4 shows, there is considerable variation in vacancy rates across local rental markets. Some areas experienced consistently high or low vacancy rates since 2005, while others have increased or decreased their vacancy rates from year to year.

• See Appendix 1 for a map illustrating the differences in rental vacancy changes from 2005 to 2008 across the nation.

10

Figure 4: Metropolitan Areas by Highest Rental Vacancy Rate in 2008

Metropolitan Areas by Highest Rental Vacancy Rate in 200814
Rank		2005		2006		2007		2008
1	Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MSA		15.2		21.2		19.4		18.3
2	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, MSA		15.3		12.3		14.7		16.1
3	Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, MSA		15.4		16.8		17.3		15.6
4	Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, MSA		9.4		7.8		12.8		15.4
5	Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, MSA		11.2		9.1		9.2		15.0

14 Restricted to the 25 largest metropolitan areas

15 Restricted to the 25 largest metropolitan areas

Source: 2008 CPS/HVS

• Despite the overriding nationwide downturn, market conditions remain fairly tight in many of the nation’s coastal metropolitan areas, as shown in Figure 5. Traditionally high-rent cities such as New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles maintain fairly low rental vacancy rates.

Figure 5: Metropolitan Areas by Lowest Rental Vacancy Rate in 2008

Metropolitan Areas by Lowest Rental Vacancy Rate in 200815
Rank		2005		2006		2007		2008
1	Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, MSA		6.9		5.6		4.9		4.5
2	New York City -NJ–Long Island, MSA		5.0		5.4		5.7		5.2
3	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, MSA		4.4		4.0		4.7		5.3
4	San Francisco-Oakland-Freemont, MSA		8.0		6.9		6.2		5.4
5	Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, MSA		9.7		7.1		4.8		5.5

Source: 2008 CPS/HVS

• Figure 6 describes the net change of rental units in the largest metropolitan areas that have the highest and lowest vacancy rates. Overall, ACS data show that the country’s rental housing stock increased by 2.74% from 2005 to 2008. Four out of the five areas with the highest vacancy rates experienced increases in rental housing stock, three of those with increases greater than 5%. Meanwhile, the areas with the lowest vacancy rates experienced either slow growth in rental supply or contraction. In addition to changes in the rental supply, variations in job loss across markets may also be contributing to the observed variation in rental vacancy rates.

11

Figure 6: Growth/Shrinkage in Rental Supply (2005 – 2008) using American Community Survey

Growth in Rental Supply
MSA		Tot Rental Units 08*		Tot Rental Units 05*		2005 – 2008	% Change
High Vacancy	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metro Area		687,114		677,547	9,567	1.41%
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metro Area		506,513		511,247		-4,734	-0.93%
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area		833,252		783,980		49,272	6.28%
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro Area		538,522		508,193		30,329	5.97%
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area		391,935		356,595		35,340	9.91%
Low Vacancy	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area		2,126,314		2,077,933	48,381	2.33%
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area		3,351,476		3,323,028		28,448	0.86%
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Metro Area		313,371		319,473		-6,102	-1.91%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area		719,341		709,486		9,855	1.39%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metro Area		516,816		516,872		-56	-0.01%
US		41,618,783		40,507,316		1,111,467	2.74%
*Including vacant rental units that are rented and for rent
Source: ACS 2005 and ACS 2008

V. Conditions in the Assisted Rental Housing Stock

• Figure 7 shows that vacancy rates for the nation’s assisted housing units are considerably tighter than the overall rental market in recent years. The available data indicates that vacancy rates remain quite low (5 percent or below) in project-based section 8 developments. Vacancy rates in the public housing stock have fallen from 11.5 percent in 2006 to 9.5 percent in 2008.16

16 Changes in the nation’s public housing vacancy rates may reflect major recent redevelopment efforts.

• Proprietary data from the portfolios of six private and two nonprofit investors indicate that properties receiving the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) have considerably lower vacancy rates than the nation’s overall rental market from 2005 to 2009 (See Appendix 5).

12

Figure 7: Comparison of Vacancy Rates for Assisted Rental Housing to the General Rental Market

Rental Vacancy Rates (2003-2008)
Year	Public Housing	Project – Based Section 8	All Rentals
2003	12.2	-	9.8
2004	12.0	5.0	10.2
2005	11.5	-	9.8
2006	11.5	5.0	9.7
2007	9.2	4.4	9.7
2008	9.5	4.9	10.0
2009	-	4.3	-
Sources: LIHTC, Public Housing, Section 8 – HUD, All Rentals –Housing Vacancy Survey

VI. Evolving Need and Demand for Affordable Rental Housing

• Figure 8 shows that 37.64% of US rental households in 2005 spent 35% or more of their income on gross rent. In 2008, this number increased to 37.85%, which indicates that a large portion of renters still face high rent burdens even in times of large growth of rental supply in some markets. For instance, even though the rental supply in the Tampa metropolitan area grew by 9.91% from 2005 to 2008 (Figure 6), and its vacancy rate grew by 6 percentage points (Figure 4), there are 5.03% more rental households that are rent burdened in 2008 than in 2005 (Figure 8).

• The tables in Appendix 2 show in more detail that the proportion of low income rental households that spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent has increased substantially from 2005 to 2008.

13

Figure 8: Percentage Point Change in the Amount of Households spending 35% of Income on Gross Rent

MSA		2005						2008
Total HHs in Rental Structures	HHs Spending 35% of Income on Gross Rent	% Rental HHs spending 35% or more of Income on Rent		Total HHs in Rental Structures		HHs Spending 35% of Income on Gross Rent			% Rental HHs spending 35% or more of Income on Rent	% Point Change (2005 – 2008)
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metro Area	559,314	212,314	37.96%		568,514		211,318		37.17%	-0.79%
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metro Area	447,639	181,121	40.46%		439,168		175,743		40.02%	-0.44%
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area	644,307	253,001	39.27%		688,792		238,336		34.60%	-4.67%
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro Area	434,233	158,159	36.42%		445,624		171,265		38.43%	2.01%
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area	299,287	112,957	37.74%		316,607		135,417		42.77%	5.03%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area	1,972,339	872,684	44.25%		2,000,393		902,392		45.11%	0.86%
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area	3,134,755	1,265,690	40.38%		3,144,978		1,245,731		39.61%	-0.77%
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Metro Area	288,040	116,781	40.54%		284,315		107,603		37.85%	-2.70%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area	655,405	252,392	38.51%		671,202		258,562		38.52%	0.01%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metro Area	467,747	170,791	36.51%		480,412		174,009		36.22%	-0.29%
US	35,013,076	13,178,782	37.64%		35,902,433		13,588,844		37.85%	0.21%
Source: ACS 2005 and ACS2008

14

• Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) provide some evidence that household size increased by 0.4 percent from March 2008 to March 2009 as a result of household consolidation, although this increase was not statistically significant. During the same time period, household sizes in the Pacific Census Division rose by 1 percent, 1.1 percent in the Mountain Census Division, and .9% in the Middle Atlantic.17

17 Data analysis provided by Geoffery Newton and Mark Stanton from the Economic Market Analysis Division on 10/15/2009.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

• The CPS also shows that 11.9 percent of all individuals that moved between March 2008 and March 2009 joined an existing household, which has been steadily increasing from 9.5 percent in March 2005. This increase in household size may be caused by households doubling up in response to the foreclosure crisis, job loss, and the ongoing lack of affordable housing stock in many regions.18

Figure 919: Percent of Movers Joining Existing Household and Annual Percentage Change

Percent of Movers Joining Existing Household and Annual Percentage Change
% of Movers Joining Existing Household									Annual Percentage Change
2005		2006		2007		2008		2009		2005 to 2006		2006 to 2007		2007 to 2008		2008 to 2009
Overall	9.5%		9.7%		10.3%		11.6%		11.9%		1.2%		6.6%		12.5%		3.0%

Source: U. S. Current Population Survey

15

VII. Conclusion

Overall, we find that the characteristics of the nation’s rental housing stock vary greatly across markets. For instance, even though the national rental vacancy is 10.6 percent in 2009Q2—up 50 basis points since 2009Q1—some markets have experienced pronounced declines in rental vacancies. The differences in these trends are caused by various factors, including but not limited to, an increase in households doubling up, job loss in some areas and robustness in others, a glut of new rental housing from single-family foreclosure activity, contraction of rental housing supply from multi-family foreclosure activity, and local land-use restrictions. There are a myriad of local and national factors that interact to make each rental housing market unique.

One persistent theme across rental housing markets, however, is housing affordability for low-income renters as illustrated in the charts in Appendix 2. Across soft and tight markets, upwards of 70% of renters earning less than $20,000 spend more than 35% of their income on housing. In low-vacancy markets such as New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco housing affordability remains an acute concern for moderate-income renters. For example, in 2008 over 47 percent of moderate income renters in the Bay Area were rent-burdened compared to just 12 percent of moderate income renters in Houston.20 While there’s considerable variation across markets, affordability concerns are exacerbated by continual loss of low-cost rental units. From 2005 to 2007 alone, the amount of rental units that are affordable to households at or below 60% of their area median income declined by more than 1.5 million.

20 Moderate income defined here as earning $35-$50,000.

It is essential that future rental housing policy is guided by rigorous analysis and sound empirical evidence. This working paper is intended to document timely research and identify key facts and historical trends on the nation’s rental housing market to better inform future policy making efforts.

16

Appendix 1: Change in Rental Vacancy Rates from 2005 to 2008 in the 75 Largest MSAs

17

Appendix 2: Households by Income and Housing Expenditure as a Percent of Income

Relative to full tenure population
2008	Less than 20,000	$20,000 to $34,999:		$35,000 to $49,999:		$50,000 to $74,999:		$75,000 or more:	Total
Owner
Less than 20%	1.3%	4.1%		5.1%		8.9%		26.2%	45.6%
20 to 29%	1.3%	2.5%		2.9%		5.6%		10.8%	23.1%
30% or more	1.5%	6.2%	5.2%		5.9%		5.9%	24.7%	93.4%
Renter
Less than 20%	0.8%	1.7%		3.7%		7.1%		10.4%	23.8%
20 to 29%	2.6%	5.4%		6.4%		5.5%		2.8%	22.8%
30%. or more	24.4%	13.6%	5.2%		2.3%		0.6%	46.1%	92.7%
NOTE: Percentages are of all owners or all renters. Residual of owners is zero or negative income; residual of renters is zero or negative income or no cash rent Source: 2008 ACS
2005	Less than 20,000	$20,000 to $34,999:		$35,000 to $49,999:		$50,000 to $74,999:		$75,000 or more:	Total
Owners
Less than 20%	2.0%	5.3%		6.0%		10.1%		23.8%	47.3%
20 to 29%	2.0%	3.0%		3.7%		6.3%		8.9%	23.8%
30% or more	8.5%	6.5%	5.0%		4.8%		3.5%	28.3%	99.4%
Renters
Less than 20%	1.1%	2.3%		4.7%		7.7%		8.0%	23.8%
20 to 29%	3.3%	7.0%		6.6%		4.3%		1.6%	22.8%
30% or more	27.5%	12.7%	3.8%		1.5%		0.3%	45.7%	92.3%
NOTE: Percentages are of all owners or all renters. Residual of owners is zero or negative income; residual of renters is zero or negative income or no cash rent. Source: 2008 ACS

18

Relative to income/tenure subpopulation
2008	Less than 20,000	$20,000 to $34,999:	$35,000 to $49,999:	$50,000 to $74,999:	$75,000 or more:
Owners
Less than 20%	13.2%	32.0%	38.6%	43.6%	61.1%
20 to 29%	14.8%	19.4%	22.0%	27.4%	25.2%
30% or more	71.9%	48.6%	39.4%	29.0%	13.7%
Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Renters
Less than 20%	2.9%	8.2%	24.1%	47.6%	75.1%
20 to 29%	9.5%	26.1%	42.0%	36.7%	20.4%
30% or more	87.6%	65.7%	33.9%	15.7%	4.5%
Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
NOTE: Percentages are of owners or renters within an income group. Residual of owners is zero or negative income; residual of renters is zero or negative income or no cash rent. Source: 2008 ACS
2005	Less than 20,000	$20,000 to $34,999:	$35,000 to $49,999:	$50,000 to $74,999:	$75,000 or more:
Owners
Less than 20%	15.7%	36.0%	41.2%	47.6%	65.7%
20 to 29%	16.3%	20.2%	24.9%	29.6%	24.5%
30% or more	68.0%	43.9%	33.9%	22.8%	9.8%
Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Renters
Less than 20%	3.4%	10.7%	31.1%	57.0%	80.7%
20 to 29%	10.4%	31.8%	43.9%	31.9%	16.2%
30% or more	86.2%	57.5%	25.0%	11.1%	3.1%
Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
NOTE: Percentages are of owners or renters within an income group. Residual of owners is zero or negative income; residual of renters is zero or negative income or no cash rent. Source: 2005 ACS Survey

19

2008				Percentage of Renters Spending 35% or more of Income on Housing Relative to Tenure Population in Income Bracket
Less than 20,000		$20,000 to $34,999:				$35,000 to $49,999:
United States	71.1%			47.4%			19.4%
Soft Rental Markets	Atlanta		78.2%		57.3%			17.5%
Detroit	72.1%			45.9%			14.0%
Houston	79.8%			44.1%			12.7%
Phoenix	76.0%			59.1%			26.0%
Tampa	78.9%			60.0%			20.5%
Tight Rental Markets	Los Angeles		79.2%		76.8%			43.9%
New York	72.9%			69.1%			36.3%
Portland	80.1%			55.0%			13.4%
San Francisco-Oakland	74.1%			75.4%			47.1%
Seattle	75.6%			61.1%			25.6%
Income brackets in 2008 dollars, Source: ACS 2008
2005				Percentage of Renters Spending 35% or more of Income on Housing Relative to Tenure Population in Income Bracket
Less than 20,000		$20,000 to $34,999:				$35,000 to $49,999:
United States	70.0%			38.9%			13.4%
Soft Rental Markets	Atlanta		78.1%		51.2%			12.3%
Detroit	74.0%			39.8%			7.7%
Houston	79.9%			36.2%			9.5%
Phoenix	76.1%			41.8%			12.0%
Tampa	76.2%			40.2%			10.4%
Tight Rental Markets	Los Angeles		79.5%		67.6%			30.4%
New York	73.4%			61.8%			26.2%
Portland	79.6%			42.9%			10.2%
San Francisco-Oakland	73.1%			70.0%			36.3%
Seattle	74.9%			49.5%			14.3%

Income brackets in 2008 dollars, Source: ACS 2005

20

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

$800+

$600-$799

$400-$599

Less than $400

Appendix 3: Rental Vacancy Rates Across Structure Type

Source: U.S. Census Housing Vacancy Survey

Appendix 4: Vacant Units for Rent by Monthly Rents

Source: U.S. Housing Vacancy Survey

21

Appendix 5: Vacancy Rates in the LIHTC Portfolios of Major Investors by State

Source: Proprietary Data, US Housing Vacancy Survey, and HUD LIHTC Database

22

Notes on Appendix 5:

While all data is reported as of the second quarter of each year, the reader should interpret this chart with caution due to limited sample size in most states and the diversity of vacancy measurements reported by different investors. Data from 2005 to 2008 include vacancies from four major private investors and one nonprofit investor. Data from 2009 include two additional investors and one additional nonprofit. Some investors report vacancies in only those units that receive the LIHTC, while others report on buildings that contain LIHTC units, which include some small fraction of market rate units.

This is a blog post for Real Estate Professionals, Investors, Landlord, Property Manager, and Property Management Companies. US Residential Rental Market Trends Revealed for Landlords, Property Managers and Property Management Companies is brought to you by SimplifyEm Pay Rent Online and Property Management Software

Welcome back! What did you think of our Property Management Software? Are you subscribed to our feed and receiving email updates?

You might also want to read:

1. 2010 1st Quarter Real Estate Market Data – The State of US Housing Stock At the end of the first quarter of 2010 the estimate of the total housing stock, 130,873,000 units, was up a statistically insignificant 0.2 percent from the fourth quarter of 2009 and up a statistically......
2. 2010 Residential Rental Housing Market – National Outlook The rental housing market, like most sectors, has taken a few more lumps than anticipated in 2009 as the economy continues its struggle towards recovery. The demand for apartments weakened as vacancy rates grew 7.2......
3. Multi-family, Apartment Residential Rental Market 2009 4th Quarter Results – Vacancy Rate Declines Performance in the multifamily (five or more units) housing sector continued to be weak in the fourth quarter of 2009 but showed signs of improvement. In the production sector, the number of starts and completions......
4. Detailed look at the 2009 US Real Estate Property, Housing Market Data Single-family housing production indicators (permits, starts, and completions) declined during 2009 and ranged between 24 and 36 percent below their 2008 levels. New home sales also fell during the past year. A bright spot in......
5. Real Estate Apartment Residential Rental Market driven by Echo Boomers NAHB (National Association of Housing Builders) chief economist believes that 83 million echo boomers entering the market over the next decade is a positive demographic trend for the residential apartment rental market. This trend is going......

Tagged as: Landlord, landlord software, online rent payment, Pay Rent, pay rent online, Property Management, property management accounting software, Property Management Software, Property Manager, real estate, rental management software, rental property management software, rental property software, rental software, software for property management, tax tips, Tenant