Affordable Parcel Inventory

Transcription

1

2

3 Affordable Parcel Inventory Prepared by the Central Florida Regional Planning Council For the Florida Heartland Consisting of DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties 555 E Church St, Bartow, FL The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under an award with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government." Affordable Parcel Inventory 1

4 This page intentionally left blank. Affordable Parcel Inventory 2

5 Table of Contents ABSTRACT:... 7 BACKGROUND:... 8 METHODS: RESULTS: Affordability Regional County-by-County DeSoto County Glades County Hardee County Hendry County Highlands County Okeechobee County Local Affordability Affordability by Income Group Regionally Affordability by Residential Parcel Types Regional ANALYSIS: Large-Scale Regional Trends Annual Median Household Income Housing Costs Housing Costs per Acre Cities vs. Unincorporated Areas Single Family vs. Multi-Family Parcels An Urban-to-Rural Gradient using Distance from Good and Services CONCLUSIONS: APPENDIX A: REFERENCES: Affordable Parcel Inventory 3

6 List of Tables Table 1: Population of the rural counties in the Florida Heartland... 8 Table 2: General Housing Statistics... 9 Table 3: Estimations of rental and housing costs, from City-data.com... 9 Table 4: Travel time estimates for commuters Table 5: HUD Income Levels of Concern Table 6: Selected Florida Department of Revenue Land Use Codes Table 7: Estimated Rent for Central Florida Counties Table 8: Comparison of Estimated Costs based on Property Type Table 9: Residential Parcel Affordability by County Table 10: Affordable Parcel Level-of-Service Measurement Table 11: Parcels affordable at Annual Median Household Income (AMI) Table 12: Actual Mean Annual Median Income for HUD Income Groups Table 13: Residential Parcel Affordability for HUD Income Groups Table 14: Parcel Affordability by Income Group and Housing Type Table 15: All Parcels (Including Rental Parcels) Table 16: Number of Residential Parcels along an Urban-to-Rural Gradient Table 17: Urban-to-Rural: Housing Cost Isoclines Table 18: Urban-to-Rural: Number of Parcels - County by TCC Table 19: Parcel Affordability at Different Income Levels Table 20: Affordable Parcel Level-of-Service Measurement Table 21: A-1: Assumptions present in the Affordable Parcel Inventory Table 22: A-2: Housing Cost Data, Assumptions, Calculations List of Figures Figure 1: Affordable Parcel Inventory Methodology Figure 2: Region: Annual Median Household Income Range (2010) Figure 3: Region: Estimated Monthly Rent (2010) Figure 4: Region: % of Parcels Affordable at Annual Median Income Figure 5: Region: Housing + Transportation Costs Figure 6: DeSoto County: Parcels Affordable to Households Figure 7: DeSoto County: Housing and Transportation Costs by Housing Type Figure 8: Glades County: Parcels Affordable to Households Figure 9: Glades County: Housing and Transportation Cost by Housing Type Figure 10: Hardee County: Parcels Affordable to Households Figure 11: Hardee County: Housing and Transportation Cost by Housing Type Affordable Parcel Inventory 4

7 Figure 12: Hendry County: Parcels affordable to Households Figure 13: Hendry County: Housing and Transpiration Costs by Housing Type Figure 14: Highlands County: Parcels Affordable to Households Figure 15: Highlands County: Housing and Transportation Cost by Housing Type Figure 16: Okeechobee County: Parcels Affordable to Households Figure 17: Okeechobee County: Housing and Transportation Cost by Housing Type Figure 18: Local Affordability at Annual Median Household Income (AMI) Figure 19: Region: Affordability by Income Groups Figure 20: Region: Mean Housing + Transportation Costs by Housing Type Figure 21: Region: Transportation vs. Housing Costs Figure 22: Region: Housing Costs vs. Median Income (AMI) Figure 23: Region: Transportation vs. Parcel Size Figure 24: Region: Annual Median Household Income Range Figure 25: Region: Mean Annual Median Income by Parcel Housing Type Figure 26: Regional: Estimated Monthly Rent Range Figure 27: Mean Housing Costs Per Acre Figure 28: Region: Estimated Mean Monthly Transportation Costs Figure 29: Region: Mean Median Annual Household Income (AMI) Figure 30: Region: Mean Parcel Costs Figure 31: Estimated Mean Monthly Transportation Costs Figure 32: Median Annual Household Income (AMI) Figure 33: Mean Estimated Monthly Rent in Cities vs. Unincorporated Areas Figure 34: Region: Mean Parcel Costs Figure 35: Region: Mean Parcel Costs as a Percentage of AMI Figure 36: Region: Mean Costs by Residential Parcel Type Figure 37: Region: Mean Parcel Costs as a Percentage of AMI Figure 38: Region: Mean Median Annual Household Income Figure 39: Urban-to-Rural: Distribution of Residential Parcels Figure 40: Urban-to-Rural: Mean Housing Costs Figure 41: Urban-to-Rural: Housing Cost Isoclines and Mean Housing Costs Figure 42: Urban-to-Rural: Mean Annual Median Household Income Figure 43: Urban-to-Rural: Median Annual Household Income Range Figure 44: Region: Mean Housing Costs (total and per acre) Figure 45: Urban-to-Rural: Parcel Affordability at (AMI) Figure 46: Urban-to-Rural: Mean AMI for Affordable vs. Unaffordable Parcels Figure 47: Urban-to-Rural: Distribution of Residential Parcels Figure 48: Urban-to-Rural: Parcel Affordability by County at Distances from City Center. 77 Affordable Parcel Inventory 5

8 List of Maps Affordable Parcel Inventory Map 1: Annual Median Household Income Map 2: Estimated Rent Costs Map 3: Estimated Transportation Costs Map 4: Regional: Affordable Parcel Inventory Map 5: DeSoto County: Affordable Parcel Inventory Map 6: Glades County: Affordable Parcel Inventory Map 7: Hardee County: Affordable Parcel Inventory Map 8: Hendry County: Affordable Parcel Inventory Map 9: Highlands County: Affordable Parcel Inventory Map 10: Okeechobee County: Affordable Parcel Inventory Map 11: Regional Affordable Parcel Inventory Map 12: Residential Housing Costs Per Acre Map 13: Jurisdictional Status Map 14: Residential Parcel Locations Map 15: Travel Cost Category Map 16: Housing Cost Isoclines Affordable Parcel Inventory 6

9 ABSTRACT: Affordable Parcel Inventory This is the Affordable Parcel Inventory for the six rural counties within the Florida Heartland (DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties). This project seeks to estimate and examine the affordability of all residential parcels in the six rural counties of the Florida Heartland by estimating their combined housing- and transportation-related costs. This study is unique in that it investigates housing affordability for both rental and for-purchase residential parcels using estimated transportation-related costs, at a regional and localized level. Using the same definition as the Center for Neighborhood Technology, affordability is based on a residential parcel's combined housing- and transportation-related costs being less than 45% of Annual Median Household Income (AMI). Affordability is also examined for Low Income (80% AMI), Very Low Income (50% AMI), and Extremely Low Income (30% AMI) groups, which are of particular interest to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Results indicate that affordability is as much determined by housing- and transportation-related costs as it is by differences in localized AMI, which was evaluated at the census tract level. Differences between parcels within city limits and those in unincorporated areas are also found to be substantial, often because of differences in transportation costs. In addition, some examination of the data is made using transportation costs as a proxy measurement for distance from urban centers an urbanto-rural gradient - in this rural region. This Inventory was created by the Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) as part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Sustainable Communities grant, in part using new data created by the University of Florida (UF) Shimberg Center for Housing Studies. Local Property Appraiser data and general GIS data from the Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL) was also used. Abstract 7

10 BACKGROUND: Affordable Parcel Inventory In a period where affordable and workforce housing are becoming scarcer (Tober 2011), this tool has been developed to assist local governments in making planning decisions with regard to affordable housing and its impact on land use. This inventory model has been developed to determine the availability and location of affordable residential parcels within a county. Currently, this model is unique and innovative in that it assesses housing and transportation affordability in rural as well as urban areas, for rental and for-purchase residential parcels. Parcel cost is defined as the sum of both housing costs for a particular parcel, and the transportation costs associated with residing at that particular parcel. This definition more fully accounts for the complexities of where people live, where they work, and where they go for goods and services. Assessing the affordability of parcels in this way allows for a better assessment of affordable and workforce housing, both spatially and for different income groups. This information can also be coordinated with future land use planning to ensure equitable housing availability. Partial potential contributors to the current lack of affordable housing include the recent recession and rising prices of transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel). The rise in transportation fuel costs has had a particular impact on communities that have been designed for a commuter lifestyle as most communities in the United State have been. The rising cost of transportation fuels has potentially had more effect on parcels that are on the outskirts of urban areas. These areas are also known as suburbs, exurbs, or rural burbs. Urban areas generally contain employment centers and providers of goods and services necessary to households. The distance from rural areas to these centers of goods and services represents a cost related to the location of the housing that is borne by the occupant of that housing. Table 1: Population of the rural counties in the Florida Heartland Place Population Estimate (2011 BEBR) DeSoto County 34,708 Glades County 12,812 Hardee County 27,653 Hendry County 38,908 Highlands County 98,712 Okeechobee County 39,870 The six rural counties of the Florida Heartland consist of DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee. The population of the six counties is approximately 253,000 residents (see Table 1). Overall, these areas are primarily agricultural or conservation lands. Background 8

11 In relation to state and national averages, the rural Heartland counties generally have lower median household incomes, a higher proportion of retirees and seniors in the population, higher crime rates, and lower educational attainment rates. Rural regions like the Heartland also face different challenges from urban areas, and this exploration of affordable housing will help shed some light on those differences. Some general statistics on housing in the Heartland are displayed in Table 2. County Households ( ) Table 2: General Housing Statistics Housing, by its very nature, is a commodity unlike other goods. Among other unique features, housing (usually) cannot be moved from one location to another. Therefore, residential parcels (i.e. parcels with housing) adopt some of their value and costs from the area in which they are located. Previous attempts to define affordability (notably by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)) have not included a measure of location-specific transportation costs as they apply to housing affordability. Table 3: Estimations of rental and housing costs, from City-data.com County People per household ( ) Persons below poverty level (2009) Housing units (2009) Median monthly contract rent for apartments (2009) Home ownership rate ( ) Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent ( ) Median monthly housing costs for homes and condos with a mortgage DeSoto $529 $1,293 Glades $561 $1,201 Hardee $486 $1,206 Hendry $553 $1,380 Highlands $556 $1,003 Okeechobee $608 $1,283 Florida $802 $1,470 Median value of owneroccupied housing units ( ) DeSoto 10, % 14, % 11.7% $110,600 Glades 3, % 6, % 4.8% $103,200 Hardee 8, % 10, % 8.9% $113,300 Hendry 10, % 13, % 8.6% $116,400 Highlands 40, % 55, % 10.7% $121,500 Okeechobee 12, % 17, % 3.6% $134,000 Florida 7,076, % 8,852, % 30.0% $211,300 From 2010 Census Quickfacts and American Community Survey Background 9

12 Although rents are difficult to measure, some data exists. The rental data within this study was summarized by Census tract, and attempts to be more detailed than a county-level analysis (see also Map 2). Table 3 presents rent data from City-data.com for context and comparisons. In general, it is assumed that residents of rural areas must spend more resources than urban residents on transportation in the pursuit of the goods and services necessary for living, although exact figures do vary. These trips may include groceries, school or job commutes, shopping, and other trips. In addition to transportation fuel costs, commuting also has associated time costs. The graph below shows a relative comparison of commute times for the rural Heartland counties. The transportation-related costs considered in this study were estimated on a sub-county level, and are more spatially accurate than the information below. The information In Table 4 is provided for context. County Table 4: Travel time estimates for commuters Mean travel time to work (minutes) ( ) Mean travel time to work (minutes) DeSoto Glades Hardee Hendry Highlands Okeechobee Florida 25.8 n/a Source: American Community-Survey, City-data.com According to HUD, affordability is achieved when housing costs (cost of ownership or rental, plus associated costs such as mortgage or insurance(s), and including utilities) are less than 30% of median income. Recent attempts to reassess affordability by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) have incorporated transportation costs. CNT defines affordability as the sum of costs on a parcel or housing unit. A parcel is defined as affordable when housing + transportation costs are less than 45% of median income. (Note: CNT defines housing costs in the same way as HUD.) CNT has yet to apply their methodology to rural areas due to sample size deficiencies in the underlying datasets. The Affordable Parcel Inventory (API) is a tool that has been developed at the Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC), in part using data created by the University of Florida (UF) Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, as part of the HUD Sustainable Communities Initiative (FY2010), specifically to estimate parcel affordability in the rural counties of the Heartland of central Florida. In this case, the rural counties of the Florida Background 10

13 Heartland are DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties. This tool also has applicability in urban areas, and although an API has also been completed for Polk County (which is an urban county included in the Heartland), it is not included in this report. In an effort to avoid the problems that CNT has encountered with sample size deficiencies, the API uses local Property Appraiser datasets and a custom transportation costs dataset developed by UF for this purpose. In the API, parcel costs are comprised of housing costs (estimated average rent plus estimated average utility costs for rental parcels, or estimated mortgage and homeowner costs plus estimated average utility costs for forpurchase parcels) and location-specific transportation costs (based on each parcel s average household size and distance from employment centers, goods, and services). The API defines a parcel as affordable if the total parcel costs are less than 45% of median household income ( The API can be used by local governments to more fully and transparently plan for and incorporate affordable and workforce housing concerns into housing and land use planning. This dataset is both spatial and tabular, and can be used for analysis and actual on-the-ground planning. The coordination of affordable housing and land use planning can lead to increased overall efficiencies, as workers are closer to employment centers and goods and service providers, as well as increased social equity and opportunity in the built environment. The supposition is that jurisdictions that provide well-planned supply and access to affordable housing will be more prosperous than those that do not, all other things being equal. Background 11

14 METHODS: Affordable Parcel Inventory In the API, parcel costs are comprised of housing costs (estimated average rent plus estimated average utility costs for rental parcels or estimated mortgage and homeowner costs plus estimated average utility costs for for-purchase parcels) and location-specific transportation costs (based on each parcel s average household size and distance from employment centers and goods and services) (see Figure 1). Affordability of parcels is determined by comparing the percentage of median income consumed by parcel costs. Parcels that are affordable have combined housing + transportation costs that are less than 45% of Annual Median Household Income (AMI) (as per Center for Neighborhood Technology, at Figure 1: Affordable Parcel Inventory Methodology Methods 12

15 Figure 2: Region: Annual Median Household Income Range (2010) $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 DeSoto County Glades County Hardee County Hendry County Highlands County Okeechobee County Annual Median Household Income (AMI) is assessed at the Census tract level, using 2010 U.S. Census data (see Figure 2 and Map 1). This means that AMI is not uniform across an entire county. This sub-county-level data allows for a finer-grained analysis of affordability, but does not allow easy comparisons within or across county borders. Even so, county-tocounty comparisons are provided in this report for rough comparative purposes, as generally speaking, the AMIs are still similar enough to warrant comparisons. In addition, income level is calculated by Census tract for three other groups of concern, low income (80% of AMI), very low income (50% of AMI), and extremely low income (30% of AMI) (income group definitions from HUD) (see Table 5). Affordability is explored for each parcel for each of the four income groups. Source: American Community Survey Data County Table 5: HUD Income Levels of Concern Median Household Income (2009) Low Income household (<80%AMI) Calculated data Very Low Income (VLI) household (<50% AMI) Extremely Low Income (ELI) household (<50% AMI) DeSoto $33,791 $27, $16, $10, Glades $34,920 $27, $17, $10, Hardee $33,728 $26, $16, $10, Hendry $35,858 $28, $17, $10, Highlands $33,401 $26, $16, $10, Okeechobe $35,349 $28, $17, $10, e Florida $44,755 $35, $22, $13, Methods 13

16 Map 1: Annual Median Household Income Affordable Parcel Inventory Local Property Appraiser data and state Department of Revenue use codes were used to determine Just Value of each parcel, and to discriminate between different types of residential parcels: those more likely to be purchased (for-purchase parcels), and those more likely to be rented (rental, or for-rent parcels). A mortgage estimation calculator was used to determine potential monthly mortgage costs, as well as associated potential homeowner and mortgage costs. A list of assumptions used in the calculations of affordability can be seen in Appendix A. These assumptions were vetted by the local county governments, in order to ensure the possibility of customization to conditions specific to each jurisdiction. Methods 14

17 The Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) land use codes range from and are used by the county Property Appraisers to organize parcels of different land use for purposes of property taxation. In this project, these codes are used to separate residential parcels (DOR codes 0-9) by their land use. DOR codes 3, 5, and 8 were deemed to be rental parcels, and DOR codes 1, 2, and 4 were deemed to be for-purchase parcels (see Table 6). Table 6: Selected Florida Department of Revenue Land Use Codes DOR Land Use Code Description API Model Usage 0* Vacant Residential Not applicable 1 Single Family For-purchase parcel 2 Mobile Home For-purchase parcel 3 Multi-family, 10 units or more Rental parcel 4 Condominiums For-purchase parcel 5 Cooperatives Rental parcel 6 Retirement homes Not used in this analysis 7 Miscellaneous residential Not used in this analysis 8 Multi-family, less than 10 units Rental parcel 9 Undefined residential Not applicable *These are generally residential parcels without buildings. Average rental costs were estimated using 2010 U.S. Census data by census tract. Weighted averages were computed for each Census tract (see Map 2, Table 7 and Figure 3). Average rent for a Census tract was estimated using a weighted average from U.S. Census 2010 data, using the low end of rent range weighted by the number of renters in each category. Stated similarly, the low estimate from each rental cost grouping was used during the weighting process to avoid overestimation. For Census tracts without renters or rent data, the average weighted rent of all other Census tracts combined in that county was used. Annual Median Household Income (AMI) was taken from U.S. Census 2010 data by census tract, and was used when computing affordability. Methods 15

18 Map 2: Estimated Rent Costs Affordable Parcel Inventory Average monthly electric utility costs (approx. $163 per household) were obtained for the state of Florida, as this was the finest grain of data available at the time of data processing. Other utility costs (water, sewer, garbage, gas, etc.) were not estimated, as there was little basis for estimating these costs. Since the time of this Inventory s creation, more refined data has been published about localized utility costs, and any future iteration of this Inventory will utilize the most current and accurate data available. Methods 16

19 Table 7: Estimated Rent for Central Florida Counties County Maximum Minimum Mean Rent Rent Rent DeSoto County $1,276 $400 $703 Glades County $1,136 $550 $833 Hardee County $1,021 $400 $705 Hendry County $1,389 $472 $771 Highlands County $1,356 $376 $799 Okeechobee County $1,500 $500 $754 Source U.S. Census 2010 Affordable Parcel Inventory All assumptions present in the API have been approved by a representative from each of the rural counties involved in the Inventory. A representative from each county has been present from the beginning of the project in parameter and assumption development and refinement. The incorporation of local governments in the model development has allowed custom tailoring to local context, and increased applicability to planning issues. Location-specific transportation costs were developed by the University of Florida, Shimberg Center for Housing Studies. Average household size and individual parcel distance from employment centers and providers of goods and services was considered relevant to the calculation of transportation costs for each parcel. Map 3 shows that, in general, transportation costs are lower nearer cities and urban areas, and higher in areas that are far from urban amenities. Figure 3: Region: Estimated Monthly Rent (2010) $1,700 $1,500 $1,300 $1,100 $900 $700 $500 $300 DeSoto County Glades County Hardee County Hendry County Highlands County Okeechobee County Methods 17

20 Map 3: Estimated Transportation Costs Affordable Parcel Inventory Geospatial database software (ArcGIS 9.3 initially, but since transitioned to ArcGIS 10.1) was used to process the information that generated this Inventory. During the processing, parcels in the final dataset less than one square foot in area were excluded from consideration. Primarily, these parcels represented slivers or remnant objects that were not representative of actual parcels. This is common in GIS data, because of differences in original data sources of different datasets and other issues that occur in the processing of files. These slivers were deemed insignificant in the overall analysis of affordability in the Heartland. Methods 18

21 Datasets generated incidentally during the creation of the Affordable Parcel Inventory (API) include information on rent, transportation costs, residential parcel type and location, and income levels. Some of this data is presented later as an attempt to understand the underlying reasons for spatial differences in affordability. Additionally, some of this data is also available in the appendices. Methods 19

22 RESULTS: Affordable Parcel Inventory Affordability Regional The Affordable Parcel Inventory (API) for the six rural counties in the Florida Heartland (DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and Okeechobee) identified 82,527 residential parcels as either for-purchase or rental. Of these, 58,540 parcels (71%) are estimated to be affordable when using the Center for Neighborhood Technology s definition. Of the total parcels in the region, 79,602 parcels were determined to be for-purchase parcels, and used estimated mortgage costs and homeowner costs when calculating housing-related costs. The remaining 2,925 parcels were determined for-rent, and used the census-derived rent value for each Census tract as their housing-related costs. Estimated utility costs were also factored into each group, and were considered equal, which was an assumption necessary for completing this project. It should be noted that the mean transportation costs for rental properties is slightly lower than for-purchase properties, although the mean housing costs are significantly higher (see Table 8). Table 8: Comparison of Estimated Costs based on Property Type Property Type Mean Housing Costs Mean Transportation Costs Mean AMI Mean Rent Costs For-purchase $669 $616 $37,911 N/A For-rent $912 $599 $37,214 $776 Affordability varied spatially, as well as by county, and as expected, most residential parcels were located nearer to existing developed areas (see Map 4). These rural counties are largely agricultural and/or conservation areas and only a small number of residential parcels were found mixed in among these types of land uses. Most residential parcels are located along major roadways, or clustered around existing urban centers (cities, townships, unincorporated towns, or villages). Generally, more affordable parcels are located close to existing urban centers than in more rural areas. Results 20

23 Map 4: Regional: Affordable Parcel Inventory Affordable Parcel Inventory According to the results of this study regarding mean housing + transportation costs, Glades County is the most affordable of all counties in this study, followed closely by Hardee County, based on the percentage of residential parcels within each county. The percentage of median household income consumed by housing + transportation costs ranged from a low 37% in Glades County to a high 52% in DeSoto County, potentially because DeSoto County had the highest mean housing costs. Hardee County had the lowest mean housing costs, and Highlands County had the lowest mean transportation costs. The gross affordability of each county is summarized in the Table 9. Results 21

24 Table 9: Residential Parcel Affordability by County Place % of Parcels Affordable at Annual Median Income DeSoto County 44% Glades County 82% Hardee County 79% Hendry County 74% Highlands County 73% Okeechobee County 74% Affordable Parcel Inventory Parcel affordability differs by county, and is summarized in Figure 4. These results summarize the percentage of residential parcels in each county that are deemed affordable to households of AMI. However, these results do not take into account local demand for affordable housing, but simply characterize existing conditions. Figure 4: Region: Percentage (%) of Parcels Affordable at Annual Median Income 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Overall, across the region, mean county housing + transportation costs were between 37-52% of Annual Median Household Income (AMI). According to the definition of affordability put forth by the Center for Neighborhood Technology ( that housing + transportation costs should be less than 45% of AMI, this means that in five of the six counties involved in this study the average parcel is deemed affordable to a household of median income. Mean housing costs varied more than mean transportation Results 22

25 costs between counties, and were probably more responsible for differences in affordability, although differences in AMI was also probably a factor. Figure 5: Region: Housing + Transportation Costs Est. Monthly Parcel Costs $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 52% 37% 38% 40% 42% 41% Mean Housing Cost Mean Transportation Cost Mean Housing + Transportation Cost *Percentages show proportion of AMI consumed by Mean Housing + Transportation Costs. Differences between counties appear to be driven more by average housing costs or income differences than by average transportation costs, although results vary by county (see Figure 5). Transportation costs are fairly similar across all counties compared to these other costs. DeSoto County has the highest mean housing cost and Hardee County has the lowest. Hardee County has the highest mean transportation costs and Highlands County has the lowest. With housing and transportation costs combined, Hardee County has the lowest housing + transportation costs and DeSoto County has the highest. However, as a percentage of AMI, Glades County has the lowest housing + transportation costs, and DeSoto County has the highest. The percentage of AMI consumed by housing + transportation costs in each county is calculated at the tract level, and then summarized for the whole, so it is possible that the Estimated Monthly Parcel Costs in Figure 5 are not the exact percentage of the mean AMI for each county. Results 23

26 The number of affordable parcels in an area can be thought of in a level-of-service context. This helps to compare counties by the supply of available affordable residential parcels they contain relative to the number of households within each county. Table 10 is a summary of affordability with respect to total households in the study area. It displays the total residential parcels in each county, and their relative affordability, and an investigation of the level of service of residential parcel affordability in each county. Table 10: Affordable Parcel Level-of-Service Measurement County Households (U.S Census) Total Residential Parcels Parcels Affordable at AMI Residential Parcels per 100 Households Affordable Parcels (at AMI) per 100 Households* DeSoto 11,445 8,685 3, Glades 4,533 4,211 3, Hardee 8,245 6,391 5, Hendry 12,025 10,304 7, Highlands 42,604 39,666 28, Okeechobee 14,013 13,270 9, Results 24

27 County-by-County DeSoto County According to the results of this study, DeSoto County has the highest percentage of unaffordable parcels in the rural counties of the Heartland, with 56% of total residential parcels unaffordable at AMI. Approximately 44% of parcels are considered affordable to households of AMI. Overall DeSoto County has the highest mean housing costs and moderate mean transportation costs, and the highest combined housing + transportation costs. However, DeSoto County also generally has a lower range of median incomes among census tracts, according to 2010 U.S. Census data. DeSoto County s mean AMI is roughly 4% lower than the next lowest county (Highlands) and 12% lower than the highest county (Okeechobee). These factors combined may at least partially help explain this snapshot of residential parcel affordability depicted in DeSoto County. Zero parcels were deemed affordable to households of Extremely Low income (30% of AMI). See Figure 6. Figure 6: DeSoto County: Parcels Affordable to Households 15% 0.2% 0% Unaffordable to AMI or lower income households Annual Median Household Income (AMI) or higher Low Income (80% of AMI) or higher 29% 56% Very Low Income (50% of AMI) or higher Extremely Low Income (30% of AMI) or higher The spatial distribution of affordable parcels is depicted in Map 5. The parcels have been separated based on affordability by income group. The majority of all parcels are distributed around the existing cities and population centers. The majority of residential parcels are clustered either around the City of Arcadia, existing major roadways such as Hwy 17, or near the border, as in the southwest of the county. Results 25

28 Map 5: DeSoto County: Affordable Parcel Inventory Affordable Parcel Inventory Results 26

29 Figure 7 examines the distribution of parcel costs by housing type, as recorded in the county Property Appraiser data. In DeSoto County, single family residential parcels have the highest mean housing costs, although condominia are a close second. Mobile homes have the highest mean transportation costs. Single family residential parcels have the highest combined mean housing + transportation costs, again with condominia as a close second. Multi-family residential parcels are the least affordable at AMI. Figure 7: DeSoto County: Housing and Transportation Costs by Housing Type Est. Monthly Household Costs $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 57% 46% 58% 41% Condominia Mobile Homes Multi Family Single Family Mean Housing Cost Mean Transportation Cost Mean Housing + Transportation Cost *Percentages show proportion of annual median household income (AMI) consumed by Mean Housing + Transportation Costs. Results 27

30 Glades County Affordable Parcel Inventory According to the results of this study, Glades County has the lowest percentage of unaffordable parcels, with only 19% of total residential parcels unaffordable at AMI. Approximately 81% of parcels are considered affordable to households of AMI. Glades County also has the highest percentage of parcels affordable to households of Low Income (~57%). Overall Glades County has the second lowest mean housing costs and moderate mean transportation costs. Zero parcels were deemed affordable to households of Extremely Low income (30% of AMI). See Figure 8. Figure 8: Glades County: Parcels Affordable to Households 0.9% 0% Unaffordable to AMI or lower income households 19% Annual Median Household Income (AMI) or higher 56% 24% Low Income (80% of AMI) or higher Very Low Income (50% of AMI) or higher Extremely Low Income (30% of AMI) or higher The spatial distribution of affordable parcels is depicted in Map 6. The parcels have been separated based on affordability by income group. The majority of all parcels are distributed around the existing cities and population centers. The majority of residential parcels are clustered around existing cities, most notably Moore Haven. The Brighton Seminole Indian Reservation also occupies a large portion of land in the northeast quadrant of the county (not shown on the map), but any residential parcels within their boundaries are not governed by the same laws as the rest of the county and are not available for purchase in a traditional sense. The Seminole Tribe has sovereign rights on the reservation, and if there are traditional parcels on that land, they are not recorded in the County Property Appraiser data, which served as the foundation for this study. Results 28

31 Map 6: Glades County: Affordable Parcel Inventory Affordable Parcel Inventory Results 29

32 Figure 9 examines the distribution of parcel costs by housing type, as recorded in the county Property Appraiser data. In Glades County, multi-family residential parcels have the highest mean housing costs. Single family residential parcels have the highest mean transportation costs, although the lowest transportation costs are only $24 less than that value. Multi-family residential parcels have the highest combined mean housing + transportation costs, and are the least affordable at AMI. Figure 9: Glades County: Housing and Transportation Cost by Housing Type Est. Monthly Household Costs $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 49% 43% 33% 33% Condominia Mobile Homes Multi Family Single Family Mean Housing Cost Mean Transportation Cost Mean Housing + Transportation Cost *Percentages show proportion of annual median household income (AMI) consumed by Mean Housing + Transportation Costs. Results 30

33 Hardee County Affordable Parcel Inventory According to the results of this study, Hardee County has approximately 28% of total residential parcels unaffordable at AMI. Approximately 72% of parcels are considered affordable to households of AMI. Overall Hardee County has the lowest mean housing costs and moderate mean transportation costs. Hardee County has the highest proportion of parcels (6.6%) affordable to households of Very Low Income. Zero parcels were deemed affordable to households of Extremely Low income (30% of AMI). See Figure 10. Figure 10: Hardee County: Parcels Affordable to Households 39% 6.6% 0% Unaffordable to AMI or lower income households 28% Annual Median Household Income (AMI) or higher Low Income (80% of AMI) or higher Very Low Income (50% of AMI) or higher 27% Extremely Low Income (30% of AMI) or higher The spatial distribution of affordable parcels is depicted in Map 7. The parcels have been separated based on affordability by income group. The majority of all parcels are distributed around the existing cities and population centers. Residential parcels are largely distributed in the center and northern parts of the county, along the major roadways, particularly Hwy 17. Results 31

34 Map 7: Hardee County: Affordable Parcel Inventory Affordable Parcel Inventory Results 32

35 Figure 11 examines the distribution of parcel costs by housing type, as recorded in the county Property Appraiser data. In Hardee County, multi-family residential parcels have the highest mean housing costs. Condominia have the highest mean transportation costs by a small margin. Multi-family residential parcels have the highest combined mean housing + transportation costs, and are the least affordable at AMI. Figure 11: Hardee County: Housing and Transportation Cost by Housing Type Est. Monthly Household Costs $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 47% 34% 34% 39% Condominia Mobile Homes Multi Family Single Family Mean Housing Cost Mean Transportation Cost Mean Housing + Transportation Cost *Percentages show proportion of annual median household income (AMI) consumed by Mean Housing + Transportation Costs. Results 33

36 Hendry County Affordable Parcel Inventory According to the results of this study, Hendry County has approximately 29% of total residential parcels unaffordable at AMI. Approximately 71% of parcels are considered affordable to households of AMI. Hendry County is the second most affordable county in this study to households of Low income, with approximately 51% of residential parcels affordable to those households. Overall Hendry County has moderate mean housing costs and moderate mean transportation costs. Zero parcels were deemed affordable to households of Extremely Low income (30% of AMI). See Figure 12. Figure 12: Hendry County: Parcels affordable to Households 3.0% 0% Unaffordable to AMI or lower income households 29% Annual Median Household Income (AMI) or higher Low Income (80% of AMI) or higher 48% Very Low Income (50% of AMI) or higher 20% Extremely Low Income (30% of AMI) or higher The spatial distribution of affordable parcels is depicted in Map 8. The parcels have been separated based on affordability by income group. The majority of all parcels are distributed around the existing cities and population centers. However, a large grouping of affordable parcels exists in a fairly rural part of Hendry County in the northern, central portion of the county. These parcels are primarily under the stewardship of the Howard E. Hill Foundation, which has affordable housing as a core tenet of its organization. The presence of this organization in the county is likely responsible for a larger proportion of affordable parcels than would otherwise occur. Results 34

37 Map 8: Hendry County: Affordable Parcel Inventory Affordable Parcel Inventory Results 35

38 Figure 13 examines the distribution of parcel costs by housing type, as recorded in the county Property Appraiser data. In Hendry County, multi-family residential parcels have the highest mean housing costs. Mobile homes have the highest mean transportation costs. Multi-family residential parcels have the highest combined mean housing + transportation costs, and are the least affordable at AMI. Figure 13: Hendry County: Housing and Transpiration Costs by Housing Type Est. Monthly Household Costs $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 49% 37% 43% 35% Condominia Mobile Homes Multi Family Single Family Mean Housing Cost Mean Transportation Cost Mean Housing + Transportation Cost *Percentages show proportion of annual median household income (AMI) consumed by Mean Housing + Transportation Costs. Results 36

39 Highlands County Affordable Parcel Inventory According to the results of this study, Highlands County has approximately 28% of total residential parcels unaffordable at AMI. Approximately 72% of parcels are considered affordable to households of AMI. Overall Highlands County has moderate mean housing costs and the second lowest mean transportation costs. Zero parcels were deemed affordable to households of Extremely Low income (30% of AMI). See Figure 14. Figure 14: Highlands County: Parcels Affordable to Households 1.0% 0% Unaffordable to AMI or lower income households 38% 28% Annual Median Household Income (AMI) or higher Low Income (80% of AMI) or higher Very Low Income (50% of AMI) or higher 33% Extremely Low Income (30% of AMI) or higher The spatial distribution of affordable parcels is depicted in Map 9. The parcels have been separated based on affordability by income group. The majority of all parcels are distributed around the existing cities and population centers. As can be inferred for the distribution of residential parcels, the majority of the population of Highlands County lives in a swath extending southeastward from the northwest corner of the county, and more-orless terminates at State Route 70. The northeast portion of the county is covered by the Avon Park Air Force Range, and although some people live on the base, there are no parcels there available for purchase in the traditional sense. Results 37

40 Map 9: Highlands County: Affordable Parcel Inventory Affordable Parcel Inventory Results 38

41 Figure 15 examines the distribution of parcel costs by housing type, as recorded in the county Property Appraiser data. In Highlands County, cooperatives have the highest mean housing costs, with multi-family residential parcels a close second. Mobile homes have the highest mean transportation costs. Cooperatives have the highest combined mean housing + transportation costs, with multi-family residential parcels a close second. At AMI, multifamily residential parcels are the least affordable, in Highlands County. Figure 15: Highlands County: Housing and Transportation Cost by Housing Type Est. Monthly Household Costs $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 51% 52% 42% 34% 35% Condominia Cooperatives Mobile Homes Multi Family Single Family Mean Housing Cost Mean Transportation Cost Mean Housing + Transportation Cost *Percentages show proportion of annual median household income (AMI) consumed by Mean Housing + Transportation Costs. Results 39

42 Okeechobee County Affordable Parcel Inventory According to the results of this study, Okeechobee County has approximately 28% of total residential parcels unaffordable at AMI. Approximately 72% of parcels are considered affordable to households of AMI, and 35% are available to households of Low Income. Overall, Okeechobee County has moderate mean housing costs and moderate mean transportation costs. Zero parcels were deemed affordable to households of Extremely Low income (30% of AMI). See Figure 16. Figure 16: Okeechobee County: Parcels Affordable to Households 1.2% 0% Unaffordable to AMI or lower income households 34% 28% Annual Median Household Income (AMI) or higher Low Income (80% of AMI) or higher Very Low Income (50% of AMI) or higher 37% Extremely Low Income (30% of AMI) or higher The spatial distribution of affordable parcels is depicted in Map 10. The parcels have been separated based on affordability by income group. The majority of all parcels are distributed around the existing cities and population centers. The majority of residential parcels are clustered around the City of Okeechobee, which is the only incorporated city in the county. There are also other, smaller groupings of residential parcels elsewhere in the county, such as along Hwy 441 in the north of the county. Results 40

43 Map 10: Okeechobee County: Affordable Parcel Inventory Affordable Parcel Inventory Results 41

44 Figure 17 examines the distribution of parcel costs by housing type, as recorded in the county Property Appraiser data. In Okeechobee County, multi-family residential parcels have the highest mean housing costs, with single family residential parcels a close second. Mobile homes have the highest mean transportation costs, with single family residential parcels a close second again. Multi-family residential parcels have the highest combined mean housing + transportation costs, and are the least affordable at AMI. Figure 17: Okeechobee County: Housing and Transportation Cost by Housing Type Est. Monthly Household Costs $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 48% 45% 36% 36% Condominia Mobile Homes Multi Family Single Family Mean Housing Cost Mean Transportation Cost Mean Housing + Transportation Cost *Percentages show proportion of annual median household income (AMI) consumed by Mean Housing + Transportation Costs. Results 42

45 Local Affordability Affordable Parcel Inventory Parcel affordability differs by location as well. Table 11 compares affordability in the municipalities and unincorporated areas of each county. In general, parcels within municipal limits are more affordable, but this is not always the case. Table 11: Parcels affordable at Annual Median Household Income (AMI) Jurisdiction % of parcels Arcadia 45% Desoto County (Unincorporated) 43% Moore Haven 88% Glades County (Unincorporated) 80% Bowling Green 59% Wauchula 91% Zolfo Springs 88% Hardee County (Unincorporated) 78% Clewiston 82% Labelle 84% Hendry County (Unincorporated) 70% Avon Park 78% Lake Placid 68% Sebring 70% Highlands County (Unincorporated) 73% Okeechobee 72% Okeechobee County (Unincorporated) 74% An examination of the percent of local AMI consumed by housing and transportation costs provides some additional insight. Figure 18 shows housing and transportation costs across the region, based on local AMI. Differences in component contributors are apparent. With this chart, it is clear that when measuring the average parcel, the least affordable parcels are found in Arcadia, DeSoto County, Bowling Green, Lake Placid, and Sebring. Results 43

46 Figure 18: Local Affordability at Annual Median Household Income (AMI) 60% % of AMI consumed 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Mean Housing costs Mean Transportation costs Mean Housing + Transportation costs 0% Results 44

47 Affordability by Income Group Regionally HUD has defined several income groups as deserving additional analysis. These income groups are Low Income (80% AMI), Very Low Income (50% AMI), and Extremely Low Income (30% AMI) (see Table 12). Affordability at these lower income groups is determined in the same fashion as above. Table 12: Actual Mean Annual Median Income for HUD Income Groups Place Annual Median Income (AMI) Low Income (80% AMI) Very Low Income (50% AMI) Extremely Low Income (30% AMI) DeSoto County $35,731 $28,585 $17,866 $10,719 Glades County $39,696 $31,757 $19,848 $11,909 Hardee County $38,979 $31,183 $19,489 $11,694 Hendry County $38,443 $30,734 $19,209 $11,525 Highlands County $37,155 $29,723 $18,577 $11,146 Okeechobee County $40,008 $32,007 $20,004 $12,003 Among the rural counties, Glades County is more affordable than the rest for AMI and Low income households. Hardee County is the most affordable county for households of Very Low income. DeSoto County is by far the least affordable county considered in this study in all income groups examined, although this perhaps has as much to do with household income levels as parcel characteristics. None of the rural counties had any parcels that were affordable to households of Extremely Low income (30% of AMI) (see Table 13 and Figure 19). Table 13: Residential Parcel Affordability for HUD Income Groups Place Annual Median Income (AMI) % of Parcels Affordable to Households of Low Income (80% AMI) Very Low Income (50% AMI) DeSoto County 44% 15% 0.2% Glades County 82% 57% 1% Hardee County 79% 45% 7% Hendry County 74% 51% 3% Highlands County 73% 39% 1% Okeechobee County 74% 35% 1% Extremely Low Income (30% AMI) no parcels are affordable at this income level Results 45

48 Affordability is defined according to the Center for Neighborhood Technology as combined parcel costs that are less than 45% of median household income for each income group. (Note: Parcels that are affordable to a lower income group are also affordable to higher income groups. For example, the total number of parcels affordable to households of Very Low Income also includes those parcels that are affordable to households of Extremely Low Income.) Map 11 shows a graphical representation of residential parcels based on their affordability to multiple income groups. These income groups are of special concern to HUD. The map shows that there are clearly that neither affordable nor unaffordable parcels are distributed evenly throughout the region or within counties. Figure 19: Region: Affordability by Income Groups 100% % of Residential Parcels Affordable 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% DeSoto County Glades County Hardee County Hendry County Highlands County 0% Annual Median Household Income (AMI) Low Income (80% AMI) Very Low Income (50% AMI) Extremely Low Income (30% AMI) Okeechobee County Zero parcels are affordable to households of Extremely Low Income (30% AMI). Results 46

49 Map 11: Regional Affordable Parcel Inventory Affordable Parcel Inventory Results 47

50 Affordability by Residential Parcel Types Affordable Parcel Inventory Regional Affordability also differs by residential parcel type as well as by county. Figure 20 displays the differences in affordability of different parcels, as classified by each county s Property Appraiser. Figure 20: Region: Mean Housing + Transportation Costs by Housing Type 65% % of Median Household Income Spent on Mean Housing + Transportation Costs 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% Condominia Mobile Homes Multi Family Single Family Affordability by different income groups for residential parcels with different housing types is displayed in Table 14. It is interesting that Multi-family parcels are often the least affordable, according to the results of this Inventory. Few parcels are available to households of Very Low Income. No parcels are affordable to households of Extremely Low Income, meaning that these households must spend more than 45% of their income on housing + transportation related expenses. Results 48

51 Table 14: Parcel Affordability by Income Group and Housing Type County DeSoto County Glades County Hardee County Hendry County Highlands County Okeechobee County Residential Parcel Type Parcels Affordable at Median Income Parcels Affordable at Low Income Parcels Affordable at Very Low Income Condominia 45% 0.2% 0% Mobile Homes 71% 34% 1% Multi Family 35% 6% 0% Single Family 31% 7% 0% Condominia 99% 81% 0% Mobile Homes 95% 75% 1% Multi Family 19% 0% 0% Single Family 66% 35% 1% Condominia 99% 67% 0% Mobile Homes 88% 52% 15% Multi Family 44% 11% 0% Single Family 76% 43% 4% Condominia 97% 69% 0% Mobile Homes 83% 63% 7% Multi Family 37% 6% 0% Single Family 70% 44% 0.3% Condominia 96% 60% 11% Cooperatives 40% 0% 0% Mobile Homes 89% 59% 3% Multi Family 22% 5% 0% Single Family 71% 37% 1% Condominia 100% 69% 0% Mobile Homes 92% 49% 3% Multi Family 36% 7% 0% Single Family 62% 26% 0.2% Parcels Affordable at Extremely Low Income No parcels are affordable at this income level. Results 49

52 ANALYSIS: Affordable Parcel Inventory As measured in this study, affordability involves the complex interaction between potential homeowner or renter costs and transportation costs. Rural counties and areas potentially differ from more urbanized areas, because spatial employment and housing distribution may not be as nodal or concentrated as in urban areas. Relatively speaking, the more urbanized counties (as measured by the number of cities and residents) tend to have a wider range of AMI, often with higher maximum AMI, than the relatively more rural, less populous counties. Since AMI is assessed by census tract, localized income also plays an important role in the analysis, because areas with lower AMI will be less affordable if all other quantities are equal. Large-Scale Regional Trends With a statistical population of 82,527 parcels, it is possible to examine large-scale regional trends by looking at the population as a whole. At this level of analysis, in an observational study such as this, detection focuses on subtle correlations between variables. For instance, Figure 21 shows that there is a greater range of housing costs for the parcels with intermediate transportation costs. However, it should also be noted that there is not a strong correlation between the two variables, reinforcing the notion that housing is a complex commodity to study. $12,000 Figure 21: Region: Transportation vs. Housing Costs Est. Monthly Housing Costs $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 Estimated Monthly Transportation Costs Analysis 50

53 An investigation of the population when looking at housing costs and median income suggests that the range of acceptable housing costs grows as median household income grows (see Figure 22). This generally fits with the common assumption that people will spend more on the housing when they have more income to spend. $12,000 Figure 22: Region: Housing Costs vs. Median Income (AMI) Est. Monthly Housing Costs $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 $15,000 $25,000 $35,000 $45,000 $55,000 $65,000 Annual Median Household Income Another potential influencing factor on parcel affordability is the size of the parcel. All other things being equal, a larger parcel will cost more to purchase or rent than a smaller parcel. One would also expect that parcels closer to a city center are smaller than parcels on the outskirts or in rural areas. This general trend holds also true in this study (see Figure 23). This follows from the standard economic theory of urban areas regarding the monocentric city. Indeed, in the Heartland, this holds true. Using transportation costs as a proxy of distance from city center, the data suggests a weak, but existent, relationship with parcel size. In general, the further one moves away from a city center (i.e. the higher the transportation costs of a parcel) the larger the parcel. Analysis 51

54 Figure 23: Region: Transportation vs. Parcel Size Affordable Parcel Inventory Parcel Area (in acres) $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 Estimated Monthly Transportation Costs Annual Median Household Income As stated above, differences in Annual Median Household Income (AMI) were assessed at the Census tract level, which allowed for a finer examination of affordability spatially. Figure 24 shows income ranges by city and unincorporated parts of each county. In part, this may explain trends in affordability. For instance, DeSoto County, including Arcadia, which was found to have the least affordable percentage of parcels, also has income ranges which are relatively lower than the other counties and cities. Analysis 52

55 Figure 24: Region: Annual Median Household Income Range $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 Since the annual median household income data was taken from sub-county, Census tract sources, it can vary significantly within a county. Residential parcels are not necessarily distributed evenly between these census tracts, nor are housing types. Subsequently, localized AMI may play a large part in the determination of affordability. Figure 25 compares the mean of the median household income across census tracts within each county by housing type. Analyzing the data in this way can provide clues as to why, for instance, multi-family housing is so relatively unaffordable in some places. Analysis 53

56 Figure 25: Region: Mean Annual Median Income by Parcel Housing Type $44,000 $42,000 $40,000 $38,000 $36,000 $34,000 $32,000 DeSoto Glades Hardee Hendry Highlands Okeechobee $30,000 Condominia Mobile Homes Multi Family Single Family Housing Costs As stated above, housing costs vary by location and by housing type; however, in general, multi-family and single-family parcels are more expensive than condominia and mobile homes. Rental costs, for rental parcels, also vary by location (see Figure 26). Figure 26: Regional: Estimated Monthly Rent Range $1,700 $1,500 $1,300 $1,100 $900 $700 $500 $300 Analysis 54

57 Housing Costs per Acre Affordable Parcel Inventory Standardizing housing costs by area allows comparisons regardless of parcel size. Larger parcels will generally cost more, with all other factors being equal, so the true value of housing can be teased out by standardizing housing-related costs by acreage of the parcel (see Table 15 and Figure 27). Map 12 below displays parcel housing costs standardized by acreage. This is essentially the same as a dollar per square foot comparison that is commonly used in comparing the value of houses. Table 15 shows the residential parcel housing costs per acre for each county. Differences between rental and for-purchase parcels were negligible. Figure 27 further divides the results by jurisdiction, and Map 12 shows the spatial variation. Table 15: All Parcels (Including Rental Parcels) County Mean Housing Costs per Acre DeSoto $4,705 Glades $2,534 Hardee $1,699 Hendry $1,467 Highlands $3,165 Okeechobee $2,945 Figure 27: Mean Housing Costs Per Acre $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 Analysis 55

58 Map 12: Residential Housing Costs Per Acre Affordable Parcel Inventory Cities vs. Unincorporated Areas Cities often house a concentration of uses that support residential life, such as goods and services, and employment centers. Therefore it stands to reason that residential parcels within existing city limits should have lower transportation costs versus residential parcels in the unincorporated areas of counties. Also, it is important to investigate if there is a discernible impact on housing prices as distance from city center increases, as measured with a distance proxy, estimated monthly transportation costs. These analyses were performed using the existing city limits of However, these results may not fully Analysis 56

59 account for the impact of people living technically just outside of city limits, but still functionally as part of that city. The results also may not account for the impact of large areas of little or no population that have been strategically annexed by a city but are not functionally part of that city with regard to residency and transportation patterns. Map 13 delineates those parcels that are incorporated and unincorporated. Map 13: Jurisdictional Status Analysis 57

60 According to the logic above, transportation costs would be expected to be lower in incorporated areas. Indeed, that trend is observed in the data (see Figure 28). Figure 28: Region: Estimated Mean Monthly Transportation Costs $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 Incorporated Unincorporated Generally speaking, current thinking also holds that household incomes in urban areas would be higher than those in rural areas. This generality is not supported by the data (see Figure 29). It is possible that this trend applies more to urban counties and does not hold for the rural counties in this analysis, or it is possible that the number of residential parcels on the fringe of city limits have skewed the results. For instance, many cities have extensive housing developments on their outskirts that have not been annexed, and the presence of these parcels may drive up figures relating to wealth. Figure 29: Region: Mean Median Annual Household Income (AMI) $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 Incorporated Unincorporated Analysis 58

61 Relative parcel costs are displayed in Figure 30. A slightly greater percentage of household income is consumed by housing + transportation costs in unincorporated areas than within the boundaries of cities. Figure 30: Region: Mean Parcel Costs $1,400 $1,200 41% 42% Mean Housing Costs $1,000 $800 Mean Transportation Costs $600 $400 $200 Mean Housing + Transportation Costs $0 Incorporated Unincorporated *Percentages show proportion of annual median household income (AMI) consumed by Mean Housing + Transportation Costs. On a county wide level, transportation costs differ greatly in incorporated vs. unincorporated areas (see Figure 30 and Figure 31). Housing costs also vary (see Figure 30). Interestingly, the percentage of AMI consumed in incorporated and unincorporated areas does not differ significantly only one percent. That indicates that perhaps differences in AMI has a substantial contribution to the total affordability of the region. Figure 32 displays these differences. Figure 31: Estimated Mean Monthly Transportation Costs $900 $850 $800 $750 $700 $650 $600 $550 $500 $450 $400 Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated DeSoto Glades Hardee Hendry Highlands Okeechobee Analysis 59

62 Another noticeable trend is that residents in cities have a lower mean median household income and median household income range than in their unincorporated areas, and the unincorporated county ranges always extend both higher and lower than their associated city ranges. Figure 32 depicts these differences on a county level. Figure 32: Median Annual Household Income (AMI) $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated DeSoto Glades Hardee Hendry Highlands Okeechobee Figure 33 displays differences across the counties in rent in incorporated and unincorporated areas. Rent also varies by location, although the results are county-specific. $900 $850 Figure 33: Mean Estimated Monthly Rent in Cities vs. Unincorporated Areas $800 $750 $700 Incorporated Unincorporated $650 $600 DeSoto County Glades County Hardee County Hendry County Highlands County Okeechobee County Analysis 60

63 In general, housing and transportation costs are higher in unincorporated areas, although nuances occur in each specific location (see Figure 34). Figure 34: Region: Mean Parcel Costs $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Mean Housing Costs Mean Transportation Costs Mean Housing + Transportation Costs DeSoto Glades Hardee Hendry Highlands Okeechobee Despite the lower transportation costs associated with living within city limits, the overall amount of AMI consumed by parcel costs varies by location (see Figure 35). It appears that the lower median incomes of city dwellers means that affordability is affected by household income as well as by the overall costs of a parcel. Figure 35: Region: Mean Parcel Costs as a Percentage of AMI 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated Mean Percent Transportatin Costs Mean Percent Housing Costs DeSoto Glades Hardee Hendry Highlands Okeechobee Analysis 61

64 Single Family vs. Multi-Family Parcels Affordable Parcel Inventory Residential parcels were also divided by residential parcel type: single-family vs. multifamily. While single-family parcels were strictly for-purchase, multi-family parcels included for-purchase and rental properties. Map 14 depicts the location of these parcels. Map 14: Residential Parcel Locations Analysis 62

65 Of the two residential parcel types, multi-family parcels consume a greater percentage of household income (see Figure 36). At the regional level, multi-family parcels also have a higher transportation cost than single-family parcels. This is perhaps surprising, because generally one would expect to find multi-family parcels in more dense urban areas, close to goods and services. Perhaps this is a peculiarity to the region, where farmworker housing is ubiquitous and often sited so that it is close to agricultural employment centers. Or perhaps the prevalence of retirement communities also reinforces this trend, since retirement communities are often sited to reduce the housing costs, such as property taxes, which are often higher in incorporated areas. Figure 36: Region: Mean Costs by Residential Parcel Type $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 46% 42% Mean Housing Costs $1,000 $800 $600 Mean Transportation Costs $400 $200 Mean Housing + Transportation Costs $0 MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY *Percentages show proportion of annual median household income (AMI) consumed by Mean Housing + Transportation Costs. At the county level, it appears that in all but DeSoto County, the general trend still holds that multi-family parcels are more costly than single-family parcels. This means that multifamily parcels are generally less affordable than single-family parcels. Figure 37 shows mean parcel costs as a percentage of median household income for multi- and single-family parcels in each county. Analysis 63

66 Figure 37: Region: Mean Parcel Costs as a Percentage of Annual Median Household Income 60% 50% 40% 30% Mean Percent Transportatin Costs 20% 10% Mean Percent Housing Costs 0% MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY DeSoto Glades Hardee Hendry Highlands Okeechobee It is possible that household income plays a strong role in the affordability of residential parcels of different types. However, the data is mixed in this respect, and no definitive trend presents itself. Household incomes vary by residential parcel type (see Figure 38). Figure 38: Region: Mean Median Annual Household Income $41,000 $40,000 $39,000 $38,000 $37,000 $36,000 $35,000 $34,000 $33,000 DeSoto Glades Hardee Hendry Highlands Okeechobee MULTI-FAMILY The Mean Median Annual Household Income displayed above is a mean of the Census tract reported median annual household income, weighted by population in each tract. SINGLE FAMILY Analysis 64

67 An Urban-to-Rural Gradient using Distance from Good and Services A useful tool for examining differences across the landscape is the concept of the urban-torural gradient. This concept is useful in asking whether a particular variable changes in a predictable fashion as one moves from an urban center toward a rural environment. This concept was useful in discovering such important climatic phenomena as the urban heat island, which is the occurrence of hotter temperatures in urban areas relative to their rural surroundings. Even though these counties are considered rural, they may actually provide a more fertile ground for examining urban-to-rural gradients than in more urban counties. The reason for this is that in these rural counties, the cities are often fairly isolated from each other by vast expanses of rural land. This makes each city function almost as an island unto itself. One exception to this rule is the Hwy 27 corridor in Highlands County, between Avon Park and Sebring, where development between the cities has tended to blur the lines between urban and rural. However, in general throughout the region, each city is isolated from its neighbors. In order to examine an urban-to-rural gradient, it is necessary to have a measurement of distance from the city center. Ideally, one could use an actual distance from the city center, moving outward toward the rural surrounding lands. However, many cities have irregular boundaries, making this measure potentially unrepresentative. Within the scope of this project, monthly transportation costs have been estimated for each parcel. In some sense, this is a better measure for an urban-to-rural gradient, because it represents an actual cost for households to live a given distance from goods and services. Thus the estimated monthly transportation costs for each parcel will function as a proxy measurement for distance from urban center, with a lower cost representing parcels that are more urban, and a higher cost representing parcels that are more rural. Indeed, when reviewing the Estimated Transportation Costs map (as presented in the Methods section), this relationship generally holds true. For the purposes of investigating an urban-to-rural gradient in the Heartland, the parcelspecific transportation costs have been aggregated into Transportation Cost Categories (TCC). This has been done for investigatory purposes and to simplify the display of information. The TCC intervals were chosen because they represent the data well, occur at regular intervals, and capture the major trends in a large dataset. Within each TCC, there are a minimum of 3,306 parcels (see Table 16), which means that even though there is still potentially a large amount of variation within each grouping, the means of variables within each TCC can be considered an accurate representation for purposes of significance. The TCC bounds and the number of parcels represented by each are displayed in Table 16. Analysis 65

68 Table 16: Number of Residential Parcels along an Urban-to-Rural Gradient Travel Cost Category Count <$499 3,306 $500-$532 8,402 $533-$565 10,710 $566-$599 12,694 $600-$632 12,978 $633-$665 10,300 $666-$699 7,035 $700-$732 13,250 $733-$853 3,852 Figure 39 is displays the percentage of total parcels across the region that fall into each TCC. Figure 39: Urban-to-Rural: Distribution of Residential Parcels Percentage of residential parcels 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Transportation Cost Category Analysis 66

69 Map 15 displays the location of the residential parcels, grouped into TCCs, across the region. Map 15: Travel Cost Category Analysis 67

70 As can be seen, on average, housing costs increase further from urban areas (see Figure 40). Regionally, there appears to be a sweet spot (i.e., a low-cost band of residential parcels) at areas close to urban areas ( TCC $500-$532), a hot spot (i.e., a high-cost band) at moderate distances (TCC $566-$599), and another relatively low-cost band at moderate distances (TCC $600-$665). This is interesting because, all other things being equal, one might expect housing costs to vary inversely with transportation costs. Figure 40: Urban-to-Rural: Mean Housing Costs $800 $750 $700 $650 $600 $550 $500 <$499 $500-$532 $533-$565 $566-$599 $600-$632 $633-$665 $666-$699 $700-$732 $733-$853 Distance from city center (proxy) Thus a household would be trading costs as they move farther from the city center. However, as has been noted before, housing is a commodity unlike others, and these sweet spots and higher cost bands may be legacies from other parcel cost contributors. These other contributors might be factors such as age of housing stock or size of parcel. Indeed, we have seen before that parcel size does tend to increase with distance from a city center. The apparent increase in housing costs at the hot spot located at the TCC corresponding to $566-$599 transportation costs likely has something to do with either the value of parcels or household incomes at this distance. The previous chart also suggests the presence of housing cost isoclines, or areas at certain distances from city center where parcels have similar or equal housing costs. In this case however, the isocline groups are determined by parcel housing costs after the parcels are ranked according to TCC. The parcels in this study can be generally split into three Analysis 68

71 housing cost isoclines, as seen in Figure 41 and Table 17. Map 16 also graphically shows the suggested isoclines, and their spatial relationship. As will be revealed later, only three counties have parcels within the lowest housing cost isocline (isocline 1): DeSoto, Hendry, and Highlands. Figure 41: Urban-to-Rural: Housing Cost Isoclines and Mean Housing Costs $800 Mean Housing Costs $750 $700 $650 $600 $550 Isocline 3 Isocline 2 Isocline 1 $500 <$499 $500-$532 $533-$565 $566-$599 $600-$632 $633-$665 $666-$699 $700-$732 Distance from city center (proxy) $733-$853 Table 17: Urban-to-Rural: Housing Cost Isoclines Housing Cost Mean Housing Transportation Cost Parcels Isocline Costs Categories 1 11,708 $573-$579 <$ ,988 $652-$674 $533-$565 and $600-$ ,831 $702-$740 $566-$599 and >$666 The most interesting part of the isocline examination is the hot spot of parcels at TCC $566-$599 where housing costs are out-of-sync with what would normally be expected (see Figure 41). This band of higher housing costs may also coincide with lower affordability of parcels, and is explored further later in this section. Analysis 69

72 Map 16 shows the housing cost isoclines and their spatial relationship to each other. As previously stated, the hot spot in housing costs located at TCC $566-$599 is a phenomenon of interest. It can be seen graphically in the map occurring in as a ring of red that seems out of place between the orange areas or between orange and green areas. This is particularly visible in cities like Arcadia, Zolfo Springs, and Okeechobee. Map 16: Housing Cost Isoclines Figure 42 shows how household incomes change along the urban-to-rural gradient. There appears to be no major decrease in household income at the hot spot identified. However, there are interesting changes at the outer ends of the curve. These drops at the lower end Analysis 70