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 jwoodwell@mba.org.

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