Perceptions & Associations: A Statewide Analysis of Renter Affordability in Oregon Communities By: Roderick D. Hall P D X Getting to this stage of life and completing a project of this nature would not have been possible without a lot of people in my life. I dedicate this entire project to my mom who sacrificed more than I could ever imagine to provide me with countless opportunities to better myself and attend college. To my dad whose life was taken tragically before I was born but as continued to be with me on this journey of life. Finally, to my hometowns, thank you to Armour, Sandyfield, and East Arcadia for the support of a lifetime. Thank you to Drs. Rebecca Lewis, PhD and Anne Brown, PhD for serving as my first and second chairs, respectively. Without y’all I would not have gotten through this project or felt capable of doing suck work. Thank y’all for being patient with me, listening to me (even when it was a waste of time), and being positive mentors within PPPM. To you specifically Rebecca, thank you for taking me under your wings as I entered graduate school and giving me the opportunity to better myself and find my footing in this field. Lastly, thank you to Drs. Sharon Paynter, PhD; Peter Francia, PhD; Jay Morris, PhD; and Ms. Nichelle Shuck for writing my recommendation letters to graduate school. My time at East Carolina was nothing short of amazing because of y’all. Thank you each for inspiring my love of public service, research, and leadership and service-learning. Those experiences will always guide me as I move through my professional life. Chapter 1 – Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Who among Renters is Cost-burdened and Why? .................................................................................... 7 Regulatory Barriers and the Impact on Housing Supply & Cost-burden .................................................. 8 Share of Cost-burden from Community to Community ........................................................................... 9 Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Why Oregon? ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2 - Research Questions, Methods, and Data ................................................................................. 12 Research Questions ................................................................................................................................ 12 Data ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 13 Multivariate linear Regression: ........................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 3 - Characteristics of Survey Respondents and Oregon’s Housing Affordability .......................... 15 Chapter 4 – City Staff Perception of Housing Affordability ........................................................................ 21 Perception of Housing Affordability ....................................................................................................... 21 Type of Housing Needed ......................................................................................................................... 22 Barriers to Affordable Housing ............................................................................................................... 23 Housing Importance across AMI ............................................................................................................. 24 Housing Need by AMI ............................................................................................................................. 24 Chapter 5 – Understanding Association of Community Characteristics with Renters who are Cost-burdened ............................................................................................................................................ 26 Chapter 6 – Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations .................................................................. 28 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 28 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 29 Future Research ...................................................................................................................................... 29 Data Needs .............................................................................................................................................. 30 References .................................................................................................................................................. 31 Appendix A: Survey Instrument .................................................................................................................. 34 Perceptions & Associations 2 Nearly half (48.6% or 288,660) of renter households in Oregon are cost-burdened, meaning they allocate more than 30 percent of their income to housing. This is slightly above the national average of 45.8 percent. Additionally, in Oregon the share of renters living in single- family housing is almost equal to the share of renters living in multi-family housing (46.15 percent and 48.65 percent, respectively). Unfortunately, many communities in Oregon and across the nation struggle with how to reduce the share of cost-burdened renters. In reviewing the literature to understand this issue, I studied how regulatory barriers, demographics, and housing for various incomes intersected with other determinants of poverty, housing conditions, and cost-burden. This report provides an overview on city staff’s perceptions of housing, the types of housing needed, and why needed housing is not being produced in Oregon communities. Furthermore, this report will provide an understanding of community characteristics and demographics associated with the share of renters that are cost-burdened. Importance of Housing Affordability Housing Needs & Barriers to Needs  Over 60 percent of city staff in  88 percent of city staff perceived Oregon believe their residents and there to be a need for both market- their local elected officials perceive rate, family sized rental units, and a housing affordability problem affordable, market-rate rental units.  43 percent of city staff believe their  City staff perceive a need (moderate issues with housing affordability are + extreme need) for all types of more challenging than other housing, but single-family housing communities in Oregon and duplexes have the highest percentages  76 percent believe housing affordability is as important if not  Over 60 percent of city staff more important than other issues in perceived a need (moderate + their community extreme need) for multi-family housing in their communities  Regardless of the percent of cost- burdened renters present in their Housing Need by # of Units communities, city staff continued to o 10 to 19 units (49 percent agree) believe that housing was an o 20 or more units (44 percent important issue agree) o 3 or 4 units (37 percent agree) o 5 to 9 units (36 percent agree) Perceptions & Associations 3  City staff believe there are five key Predicting the Share of Cost-burdened barriers (moderate + extreme Renters barrier) to affordable housing:  In Oregon, median income, the 1. Lack of available vacant land (60 share of housing that is single-family percent agree) detached, and the share of the 2. Affordable housing from developers community that is renters have a (59 percent agree) statistically significant relationship 3. The high cost of land (58 percent with the share of cost-burdened agree) renters 4. Land not being development ready  Percent of the community that is (50 percent agree) renters has a positive association 5. Constrained Lands (43 percent with the percent of renters that are agree) cost-burdened Housing Affordability & Area Median  Median income has a positive Income (AMI) association with the percent of cost-  Strategies to address housing burdened renters in a city, it is also affordability must differ in approach the strongest predictor the percent when factoring in AMI and the of cost-burdened renters percent of renters who are cost-  Percent of housing that is single- burdened family detached has a negative  City staff generally perceive housing association with the percent of cost- for higher AMIs as more needed burdened renters than housing for lower AMIs, even o This should come as no though the share of cost-burdened surprise given the share of renters in communities increases as renters currently living in AMI decreases single-family housing (and the amount of single-family housing in Oregon in general)  Demographics alone do not provide a complete understanding of what determines the share of cost- burdened renters in communities Perceptions & Associations 4 The State of Oregon is the 27th most populous state with approximately 4,143,000 residents according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2017 population estimate. Little research exists on housing affordability specifically in the State of Oregon. Much of the existing research focuses exclusively on the state’s largest city: Portland. However, there is enough research and data present to depict, at least to a certain extent, the current state of housing affordability for those who rent in the rest of the state. According to the 2015 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data, 593,795 renter households live within the State of Oregon. Currently, renter households account for approximately 38.7 percent of households in the state, an increase from the 36.2 percent in 2010. Among the 593,795 renter households, the share of renters living in multi-family housing (48.65 percent) is higher than the share of renters living in single-family housing (46.15 percent) in Oregon. However, Oregon is one of four states (Ohio, South Dakota, and Virginia) where the share of renters living in single-family housing is within 3 percentage points of the share of renters living in multi-family housing. Oregon having similar rates among renters in single-family and multi-family housing can be explained by the fact that 73.3 percent of housing in the state is single-family. Additionally, the need for rental housing is not income discriminatory. According to Lewis, Parker, Hall (2018), 60 percent or more of the following area median incomes1 — extremely low income2, very low income3, low income4, and moderate income5 need housing that is affordable to their AMI within Oregon. Additionally, data shows that within Oregon 48.6 percent (or 288,660) of renter households were cost-burdened, meaning they allocate more than 30 percent of their income towards housing. This is slightly above the national average of 45.8 percent. Knowing this, this research aims to understand the condition of renter affordability using Oregon communities to shed light on the perceptions of housing, the types of housing needed, and why needed housing is not being produced in Oregon communities. Furthermore, this research seeks to understand the associations between community characteristics, demographics, and the share of renters that are cost-burdened. 1 The household income for the middle household in a region 2 Less than 30 percent of AMI 3 Between 30 and 50 percent of AMI 4 Between 50 and 80 percent of AMI 5 Between 80 and 120 percent of AMI Perceptions & Associations 5 I begin by providing background on the housing affordability at the national level, followed by discussing why renters at various income levels are cost-burdened, and then I move to a discussion of the impact of regulatory barriers on housing supply and the share of cost-burden renters in communities. This is followed up with a discussion of why the share of cost-burden differs from community to community and then a summary of assessed literature. Finally, I conclude by explaining why Oregon is a suitable state for this research. Following the literature review, I explain my research questions, methodology and the variables used to conduct the research. I then present hypotheses and conclude with a discussion of findings, the generalizability of the data, and the implications of my findings for Oregon as the state continues to addressing issues of renter affordability. Housing has long been the largest expenditure for households in the United States (Quigley & Raphael, 2004; Downs, 2008; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018; Desmond, 2018). Despite this knowledge, current issues surrounding housing affordability have not historically been a topic of discussion, at least not as we know them today (Katz & Turner, 2007). As a result of the housing crisis of 2008, the share of households renting substantially increased (from 31.2 percent in 2006 to 36.6 percent in 2016), leading practitioners, academics, and policy-makers to begin to pay special attention to housing affordability, with a particular interest in those who rent (Cilluffo, Geiger, & Fry, 2017; Wegmann & Christensen, 2017). According to the 2015 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), approximately 45.8 percent (or 19,519,465) of renter households were cost-burdened nationally, meaning they allocate more than 30 percent of their income towards housing. The Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS) (2017) reported a similar percentage of 47 percent, while also noting that this was the fourth time in five years that the share of cost-burdened renter households had declined. While a decline in the share of cost-burdened renter households is to be celebrated, nearly half of rental households remain cost-burdened, highlighting the need for solutions to address the issue of renter affordability (JCHS, 2017). Over the last 30 years, renter affordability research has ranged from understanding the association renter cost-burden has with different levels of income (e.g., Allan, 1991; The University of Georgia’s Housing and Demographics Center, 2001; Sirmans et al., 2003), to understanding what factors influence renter cost-burden (e.g., Quigley et al., 2004; Katz et al., 2007), to understanding the specific regulatory barriers and the effects they have on housing supply (e.g., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1990; Glaeser et al., 2002; Knaap et al., 2007). Decades later we see that the discussions surrounding the issue of renter affordability have not really changed. Practitioners, academics, and policy-makers are still producing reports detailing data about housing, housing affordability, and trends, along with their respective explanations (e.g., The University of Georgia’s Housing and Demographics Center, 2001; Joint Center for Housing Studies 2017, 2018; Lewis, Parker, Hall, 2018). A lot of Perceptions & Associations 6 these reports end with the same recommendations (e.g., increasing density, providing incentives, and reducing regulatory barriers) that practitioners and policy-makers have been suggesting since Former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Jack Kemp appointed a commission to investigate and provide solutions about regulatory barriers in 1990, almost 30 years ago. For almost the past three decades the same type of issues related to housing affordability have remained prevalent, highlighting the fact that while issues have persisted, the government has fallen short at solving them. Historically, issues of renter affordability were largely concerned with housing for extremely low- and low-income households. According to Sirmans and Macpherson (2003), lack of affordable housing for extremely low-income households was the number one housing problem. This viewpoint is also reflected in current policy at the federal level as well, where policies focus mostly on securing housing for extremely low- and low-income renters (Li, 2014). However, as the share of renters has increased over time, policy has shifted to addressing issues of renter affordability for extremely low-, low- and moderate-income renters (Li, 2014). Research shows that failure to accommodate housing for moderate-income renters will prevent many communities from achieving full prosperity (Gunderson, 2007). At the same time, not accommodating moderate-income renters also places an extra burden on extremely low- and low-income who are forced to compete with higher-incomes for a more constrained supply of rental housing. For renters at any income level, lack of affordable housing can serve as a barrier to a better life (Wegmann & Christensen, 2016). The Joint Center for Housing Studies (2017) found that in a 15-year time frame (2001 to 2016), the percent of cost-burdened renters with an income ranging from $30,000 to $45,000 annually rose from 37 percent to 50 percent. During the same time frame, the percent of cost-burden renters who had an annual income of $45,000 to $75,000 almost doubled from 12 percent to 23 percent. However, the percent of cost-burden renters making less than $15,000 remained at 83 percent. Bostic and Ellen (2014), Freeman and Schuetz (2017), and the Joint Center for Housing Studies (2018) found that rents either rose or remained steady (a year-over-year growth rate of 3.8 percent), while the incomes for low- and moderate-income households remained stagnant and federal subsidies for affordable housing declined. Not only does this create a financial strain on renters as rent is always the first thing paid, this prevents renters from purchasing homes due to the lack of financial resources (Katz & Turner, 2007; Downs 2008). Moreover, Oregon, a state that was already underproducing housing, continued to underproduce housing units following the Great Recession (2010 – 2016), adding 63 houses for every 100 households formed, falling further behind household formation (Up For Growth, 2018). Perceptions & Associations 7 Furthermore, a combination of high-income populations demanding central city housing, constrained land availability, and regulatory barriers are also found to be contributing to higher rents (Quigley & Raphael, 2004; Freeman and Schuetz, 2017; Joint Center for Housing, 2017, 2018). This means that rent increases are being driven by skyrocketing land prices due to more competition in the market and regulatory barriers, regulatory barriers specifically are limiting the supply of available land for homes and increasing time and complexity for housing (Downs 2008; Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2018). Regulatory barriers are the single most important influence on housing supply (Gyourko & Molloy, 2015). Because the current supply of housing in most communities is dominated by home owners, regulatory barriers are seldom removed (Downs, 2008). In their research, Knaap, Meck, Moore, & Parker (2007) and Gyourko & Molloy (2015) found that there is no one regulatory barrier to the housing supply, they come in many forms that involve land use regulation, environmental regulations, urban growth boundaries, density and height restrictions, and minimum lot sizes. We have known for almost three decades now that there are three ways to classify the ways in which regulatory barriers can raise housing costs: (1) Direct restrictions on housing supply; (2) Direct cost increases; and (3) Delay-causing requirements (Downs, 1991). Knaap et al. (2007) reported that regulatory barriers can: 1. Directly raise costs of housing anywhere from 20 to 35 percent; 2. Prevent development in high job growth areas, which prevents lower-income households from living within proximity to job opportunities; and 3. Restrict higher-density housing, multifamily rental housing, accessory dwelling units, and manufactured homes, all of which serve as ways to produce more affordable housing. Regulatory barriers such as zoning do not always increase the percentage of cost-burden in a community (Knaap, Meck, Moore, & Parker, 2007), but in communities where housing affordability is an issue, regulatory barriers are more responsible than not for issues related to housing affordability (Glaeser & Gyourko, 2002). Because states and local communities define the context for their regulatory barriers (Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2017), the State of Oregon must lead the effort to ensure that rental housing can keep pace with state and community growth. Perceptions & Associations 8 At each level of government, it is difficult to determine what it means to lead efforts to address renter-affordability and what policies should be in place. Determining how to lead that effort is challenging as the share of cost-burden renters present in communities differs from one location to the next. Practitioners, academics, and policy-makers know that most research shows that in communities where housing prices are high and construction is limited, there are more regulatory barriers in place (Gyourko & Molloy, 2015). However, as time has shown, not only do regulatory barriers differ from community to community, the measures used to study these regulatory barriers also differ (Downs, 1991; Gyourko & Molloy, 2015). Unfortunately, these differences in measures prevents practitioners, academics, and policy-makers from drawing broad generalizations based on empirical studies. Equally as concerning is that these studies only look at the association between one characteristic of a community (regulatory barriers), but fail to account for the diverse community characteristics (i.e., demographics) that also determine the share of renter cost-burden. Skaburskis (2004), a Canadian academic, posed a question regarding the importance of the diverse community characteristics and their role in determining the chance that households in these communities would fall below the low-income cut off (Canadian version of cost-burden) and would pay more than 50 percent of their income towards housing. In his study, Skaburskis (2004) analyzed eight characteristics of communities and found that different characteristics affected the prevalence of housing affordability in different ways. The characteristics Skaburskis chose were associated with aspects of housing affordability (e.g., poverty and housing conditions) that were not directly available. He did note however, that the differences in housing conditions due to several factors (e.g., city size and local housing programs) were worth further research. Unfortunately, there is a major gap in the literature regarding analyzing housing affordability at a scale bigger than the household. Housing affordability is multifaceted and involves economic, social, political, and demographic factors (Katz & Turner, 2007). At the national level, renter housing is shifting towards higher- cost units, making it more difficult for renters (especially for those who are extremely low- income) to obtain housing (Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2018). Scholars generally agree that solutions to housing affordability include incentive programs to encourage affordable housing (e.g., a density bonus) (Pendall, 2007; Downs, 2008; Freeman & Schuetz, 2017; Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2018). However, even with the current literature and agreement between scholars and practitioners, significant gaps persist in areas that could help bring forth solutions (e.g., forms of incentives) to address renter affordability. Perceptions & Associations 9 Due to lack of research, we are still unaware of why the percentage of cost-burden varies from community to community. Furthermore, there has been no research focused on understanding what characteristics of a community are associated with cost-burden, and what that looks like at a community scale as opposed to the individual household, which is the lens that the bulk of affordability research looks through. Specifically, we are not seeing research that analyzes multiple independent variables that describe the characteristics of communities and how they are associated with the percent of cost-burden in those communities. Skaburskis (2004) concludes his research noting that the geographical differences in housing conditions due to multiple reasons (community size being one of them) are useful reasons to engage in further research that use communities as the study area rather than the individual household. Additionally, given the literature we also know that communities differ in terms of the regulatory barriers that they have in place. Because of this we also want to understand how Oregon communities perceive regulatory barriers and their association with housing affordability. Oregon is a unique context for housing affordability as it is one of few states (Washington and Tennessee) with strong state involvement in local land use planning. Oregon’s land-use system requires that communities submit their proposed UGBs to the Land Conversation and Development Commission and justify them according to Oregon’s 19 statewide planning goals. For this research, Goal 10: Housing is the most important of the 19 Goals as it requires communities to create a buildable lands inventory for residential use that “encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density” (OAR 660-015-0000(10)). Furthermore, according to United Van Lines, Oregon has consistently remained in the top 10 among the 48 continuous states for either a medium or high inbound of people moving into the state since 1987 (32 years). For the purposes of the United Van Lines’ (2017) study, “high inbound” is defined as 55 percent or more of moves into a state as opposed to out of a state. However, according to Bach (2017) new residents were met with an already constrained and somewhat expensive housing market. Knowing that a high influx of new residents into Oregon over the years is not the sole cause of renter affordability issues, there is an opportunity to research and understand what other characteristics are associated with the share of renter cost-burden within Oregon communities. Perceptions & Associations 10 Lastly, even with what some consider a more robust planning system Lewis, Parker, and Hall (2018) found that most communities feel that they do not have the sufficient tools needed to address housing affordability. This highlights a need to research and understand the perceptions of communities in Oregon, while simultaneously working to understand what demographics are associated with renter cost-burden to begin to develop policies and tools that are sufficient enough to address housing affordability in those same communities. This research will put Oregon in a position to become a model for how other states can understand and address issues of renter affordability in their communities. Perceptions & Associations 11 Given the gaps in housing literature and the current landscape of housing affordability in Oregon my research seeks to answer four questions: 1. How do City Managers and Staff Planners perceive issues surrounding housing affordability in Oregon communities? 2. What is the relationship between perceived importance of housing affordability and actual housing needs? 3. What is the relationship between perceived housing needs and actual housing needs? 4. What is the association between community characteristics and the share of renter cost-burden within Oregon communities? Data for the research came from the American Community Survey (2017), the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (2015), Oregon’s Housing Affordability Crisis: Results of a Statewide Survey of Oregon Cities (2018), and Oregon Statewide Zoning (2017). Oregon’s Housing Affordability Crisis: Results of a Statewide Survey of Oregon Cities was a survey conducted to understand the state of housing affordability in communities in Oregon. The survey was administered to City Managers and Staff Planners from all Oregon cities in Oregon during fall 2017. The survey included questions surrounding issues of housing affordability, needed types of housing, barriers to providing housing, and policy adoption. Individuals were asked to take the survey will by using an email database provided by the League of Oregon Cities. The League of Oregon Cities gave permission to use the database for the research. Individuals chose to take the survey voluntarily. After initial recruitment, several follow up emails were sent to remind participants to complete the survey. Blank responses were removed (when a participant opened the link but did not answer any questions). Some cities provided multiple responses because of technical issues. The most complete response provided was used and the other attempts were deleted. The sample size was 115 cities out of 242, approximately 48 percent of Oregon cities. Perceptions & Associations 12 Method Being Used to Answer Question Question Being Answered Question 1: How do City Managers and Staff Planners perceive issues Survey Analysis surrounding housing affordability in Oregon communities? Crosstab and Chi- Question 2: What is the relationship between perceived importance of square housing affordability and actual housing needs? Crosstab and Chi- Question 3: What is the relationship between perceived housing needs square and actual housing needs Multi-linear Question 4: What is the association between community characteristics regression and the share of renter cost-burden within Oregon communities? Dependent Variable: % of renters cost-burdened in Oregon communities, for the purposes of this research I define “% of renters cost-burdened” as the share of households paying more than 30 percent of their income towards rent. Data was obtained from 2011-2015 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) estimates. Independent Variables: Independent variables are grouped by themes and contain both the source and the year, some of the variables used were influenced by Skaburskis (2004). They are identified in Table 1. Perceptions & Associations 13 Theme Variable Source Year % Female % People of Color U.S. Census (American Community 2017 Survey, 5-Year Estimates) % Ages 18 to 24 % Age 65 and over U.S. Census (American Community % Bachelor's Degree or Higher 2017 Survey, 5-Year Estimates) Eastern Oregon (1 = Yes, 0 = No) Oregon’s Housing Affordability Central Oregon (1 = Yes, 0 = No) Crisis: Results of a Statewide Survey 2018 Coastal Oregon (1 = Yes, 0 = No) of Oregon Cities Southern Oregon (1 = Yes, 0 = No) % Single-family detached U.S. Census (American Community % Vacant Rental Units 2017Survey, 5-Year Estimates) % Renters U.S. Census (American Community Median Income ($10s of $1000s) 2017 Survey, 5-Year Estimates) Please indicate the extent to which you perceive housing affordability to be important relative to other issues in your community. (5 = "not at all important" to 9 = "much more important") Oreg on’s Housing Affordability Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements Crisis: Results of a relative to your perception of housing need in your community: (1 = "Strongly diagree" to 2018 Statewide Survey of Oregon Cities, 5 = "Strongly Agree") Q4, Q5, Q9 Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statement: Our community has sufficient tools to address housing affordability. (-1 = "Strongly Disagree + Disagree" to 1 = "Strongly Agree + Agree") % of Low Density Residential Land Oregon Statewide Zoning 2017 Perceptions & Associations 14 Zoning and Educational Survey Questions Income Housing Region Demographics Land Use Attainment Figure 1 shows survey responses by position within communities. The largest percentage of respondents were city administrators. The “other “category includes city recorders, mayors, supervisors, and community development staff or directors. Source: Oregon Housing Affordability Survey, UO Institute for Policy Research and Engagement, Q2 Figure 2 shows survey responses for knowledge about housing. Fifty-one percent of respondents felt “very to extremely knowledgeable” about housing, while 36 percent felt “somewhat knowledgeable” about housing. Thirteen percent of respondents felt that they have “little to no knowledge” about housing. Perceptions & Associations 15 Source: Oregon Housing Affordability Survey, UO Institute for Policy Research and Engagement, Q3 Figure 3 shows the share of cost-burdened renters in Oregon communities. The most cost- burdened community in Oregon is Prescott with 100 percent of renters being cost-burdened. While, the least share of cost-burdened communities in Oregon are Rivergrove; Paisley; Imbler; Jordan Valley; Unity; Lone Rock; Granite; and Shaniko, with zero percent of renters being cost- burdened. However, it is important to note that all of these communities have under 500 residents, which means these communities either have few to no renters at all. Additionally, almost half (119 of 242) of communities have between 25 to 50 percent of renters who are cost-burdened, while a majority (215 of 242) have between 25 to 75 percent of renters who are cost-burdened. Figure 4 and Table 2 shows the share of housing types by renters in Oregon communities. Overall, the share of renters living in multi-family housing is higher than the share of renters living in single-family housing (48.65 percent and 46.15 percent, respectively) in Oregon. However, there are substantially more communities in Oregon where at least 50 percent of renters live in single-family housing than there are for multi-family (150 and 45, respectively). Perceptions & Associations 16 It is worth noting that of the 242 Oregon communities, 48 communities (19.8 percent) have over a quarter of renters in their communities living in mobile home parks. This combination of housing types shows that renting in Oregon is not a single-family versus multi-family but rather a combination of single-family, multi-family, and mobile home parks. Table 3 shows cost-burden renters by region. The main takeaway from this table is that when it comes to renters who make less than 100 percent AMI regardless of region most renters across the state are cost-burdened. Share of Renters Share of Renters Share of Renters in Single-Family in Multi-Family in Mobile Homes Housing Housing Mean 55.8% 29.2% 13.4% Median 54.5% 28.6% 6.3% Low 0% 0% 0% High 100% 92.7% 100% # of communities where >= 50 percent 150 45 12 of renters live in housing type Source: American Community Survey, B25033, 2017, 5-year estimates Perceptions & Associations 17 Source : Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2011-2015 Estimates Perceptions & Predictions 18 Source: American Community Survey, B25033, 2017, 5-year estimates Perceptions & Associations 19 Cost Burden + Total (NCB + CB + Not Cost Burden Cost Burden Severe Cost Burden Severe Cost Burden SCB) Central Oregon Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent < 30% AMI 489 11% 388 9% 3,524 80% 3,912 89% 4,401 100% <50% AMI 1,041 11% 1,972 21% 6,191 67% 8,163 89% 9,204 100% Renter- <80% AMI 3,539 23% 5,046 32% 7,053 45% 12,099 77% 15,638 100% Occupied <100% AMI 5,612 30% 5,851 32% 7,083 38% 12,934 70% 18,546 100% > 100% AMI 6,864 90% 634 8% 154 2% 788 10% 7,652 100% Coastal Oregon < 30% AMI 489 23% 230 11% 1,363 65% 1,593 77% 2,082 100% <50% AMI 9 04 20% 1,210 27% 2,407 53% 3,617 80% 4,521 100% Renter- <80% AMI 1,816 25% 2,711 38% 2,698 37% 5,409 75% 7,225 100% Occupied <100% AMI 2,822 33% 3,098 36% 2,718 31% 5,816 67% 8,638 100% > 100% AMI 3,429 94% 178 5% 29 1% 207 6% 3,636 100% Eastern Oregon < 30% AMI 6 15 19% 308 9% 2,392 72% 2,700 81% 3,315 100% <50% AMI 1,395 20% 1,950 28% 3,515 51% 5,465 80% 6,860 100% Renter- <80% AMI 3,417 34% 3,006 29% 3,773 37% 6,779 66% 10,196 100% Occupied <100% AMI 4,845 41% 3,070 26% 3,773 32% 6,843 59% 11,688 100% > 100% AMI 4,055 99% 24 1% - 0% 24 1% 4,079 100% Portland Metro < 30% AMI 6,403 14% 4,204 9% 36,463 77% 40,667 86% 47,070 100% <50% AMI 10,657 13% 22,304 26% 52,003 61% 74,307 87% 84,964 100% Renter- <80% AMI 3 0,926 24% 42,968 33% 56,086 43% 99,054 76% 1 29,980 100% Occupied <100% AMI 4 8,879 32% 47,342 31% 56,396 37% 1 03,738 68% 1 52,617 100% > 100% AMI 57,539 94% 3,059 5% 530 1% 3,589 6% 61,128 100% Southern Oregon < 30% AMI 7 86 11% 653 9% 5,573 79% 6,226 89% 7,012 100% <50% AMI 1,728 11% 3,108 21% 10,311 68% 13,419 89% 15,147 100% Renter- <80% AMI 4,430 18% 7,852 32% 12,200 50% 20,052 82% 24,482 100% Occupied <100% AMI 6,753 24% 9,326 33% 12,435 44% 21,761 76% 28,514 100% > 100% AMI 1 0,730 91% 679 6% 369 3% 1,048 9% 11,778 100% Willamette Valley < 30% AMI 3,473 11% 2,959 9% 24,897 79% 27,856 89% 31,329 100% <50% AMI 7,461 13% 13,492 23% 36,658 64% 50,150 87% 57,611 100% Renter- <80% AMI 1 8,951 22% 26,545 31% 40,348 47% 66,893 78% 85,844 100% Occupied <100% AMI 29,117 29% 29,915 30% 40,833 41% 70,748 71% 99,865 100% > 100% AMI 3 3,204 92% 2,151 6% 715 2% 2,866 8% 36,070 100% State of Oregon < 30% AMI 1 2,759 13% 9,307 9% 77,661 78% 86,968 87% 99,727 100% <50% AMI 2 4,591 13% 46,435 25% 1 15,945 62% 1 62,380 87% 1 86,971 100% Renter- <80% AMI 66,287 23% 92,725 32% 1 27,322 44% 2 20,047 77% 2 86,334 100% Occupied <100% AMI 102,718 31% 1 03,645 31% 128,416 38% 232,061 69% 3 34,779 100% > 100% AMI 120,112 93% 6,947 5% 1,841 1% 8,788 7% 128,900 100% Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2011-2015 Estimates Perceptions & Predictions 20 This chapter utilizes survey data from Lewis, Parker, and Hall (2018) and discusses survey findings for all city staff respondents statewide. The full survey results are shown in the order questions were asked on the survey (Appendix A includes a copy of the survey instrument). Figures 5 and 6 show perception of the importance of housing affordability in Oregon communities. Figure 5 shows survey responses for how strongly (strongly agree + agree) respondents agreed with statements related to housing affordability as a problem in their community. The rates range from a high of 66 percent for “Our residents perceive a housing affordability problem” to a low of 7 percent for “Our community has sufficient tools to address housing affordability.” Source: Oregon Housing Affordability Survey, UO Institute for Policy Research and Engagement, Q9 Figure 6 shows responses to how respondents perceived the importance of housing in relation to other issues in their communities. Collectively, 84% of respondents said housing was as important as or more important than other issues in their communities. Perceptions & Associations 21 Source: Oregon Housing Affordability Survey, UO Institute for Policy Research and Engagement, Q4 Figures 7 and 8 show perceptions for what type of housing is needed within the state of Oregon. Figure 7 shows survey responses for how strongly (strongly agree + agree) respondents perceived the need for types of homes. The rates range from a high of 88 percent for a “lack of market-rate, family-sized units” and “lack of affordable, market-rate rental units” to a low of 53 percent for “lack of affordable units that are manufactured homes” being a problem. Source: Oregon Housing Affordability Survey, UO Institute for Policy Research and Engagement, Q5 Perceptions & Associations 22 Figure 8 shows responses of the need for need (moderate need + extreme need) for different types of multifamily housing structures. The rates range from a high of 61 percent for “apartments” to a low of 36 percent for multi-family units that have five to nine units. Source: Oregon Housing Affordability Survey, UO Institute for Policy Research and Engagement, Q7 Figure 9 shows survey responses for by respondent perceptions of the various barriers as moderate or extreme barriers to providing affordable housing. The rates range from a high of 60 percent for a “lack of available vacant land” to a low of 12 percent for “other SDCs” and “length of times it takes to process land use applications.” Source: Oregon Housing Affordability Survey, UO Institute for Policy Research and Engagement, Q11 Perceptions & Associations 23 Table 4 shows survey respondents for importance of affordable housing compared to the percent of cost-burdened renters. Approximately 54 percent of respondents surveyed work in communities where more than 25 percent and up to 50 percent of renters are cost-burdened. Overall, 84 percent of respondents perceive housing affordability anywhere from about the same importance to much more important. However, even when excluding “much more important”, respondents overwhelmingly perceived housing affordability to be about the same importance if not more important than other issues, regardless of the percent of cost-burdened renters in their community. Much Less or About the Percent Cost-burdened Less Same More Much More Renters (All AMI) Important Importance Important Important Total < 25 percent 0% 58% 42% 0% 12 > 25 percent to 50 percent 19% 32% 42% 6% 62 > 50 percent to 75 percent 15% 41% 31% 13% 39 > 75 percent 0% 50% 50% 0% 2 Total 16% 38% 38% 8% 115 Source: Oregon Housing Affordability Survey, UO Institute for Policy Research and Engagement, Q4 and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 2011-2015 Estimates Table 5 shows the perception of community need for housing for extremely low-income residents (<30 percent of AMI) compared to the percent of cost-burdened renters are extremely low-income. Approximately 60 percent of respondents surveyed work in communities where more than 75 percent of extremely low-income residents are cost- burdened. Of that 60 percent, respondents are evenly split in their perception of community need for housing for residents who make less than 30 percent AMI. Most concerning is that roughly one-third of respondents who work in communities where more than 75 percent of extremely low-income residents are cost-burdened only perceive housing for this group as somewhat needed. 6 X2(9, n = 115) = 8.12, p = .522 Perceptions & Associations 24 Percent Cost-burdened Renters (Extremely low- Somewhat Moderate Extreme income) Not Needed Needed Need Need Total < 25 percent 7% 36% 43% 14% 14 > 25 percent to 50 percent 0% 75% 25% 0% 4 > 50 percent to 75 percent 8% 28% 20% 44% 25 > 75 percent 6% 32% 31% 31% 65 Total 6% 33% 30% 31% 108 Source: Oregon Housing Affordability Survey, UO Institute for Policy Research and Engagement, Q6 and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 2011-2015 Estimates Table 6 shows survey responses for perception of community need for housing for residents who are moderate-income residents (80 to 100 percent AMI) compared to the percent of cost- burdened renters who are moderate-income residents. Approximately 71 percent of respondents surveyed work in communities where less than 25 percent of moderate-income residents are cost-burdened. Of that 71 percent, respondents are pretty evenly split in their perception of community need for housing for residents who are moderate-income. Most interesting is that roughly a third of respondents who work in communities where less than 25 percent of moderate-income residents are cost-burdened perceive housing for this group as extremely needed. Percent Cost-burdened Renters (Moderate Somewhat Moderate Extreme Income) Not Needed Needed Need Need Total < 25 percent 9% 30% 29% 32% 76 > 25 percent to 50 percent 0% 10% 35% 55% 20 > 50 percent to 75 percent 33% 33% 0% 33% 3 > 75 percent 0% 38% 0% 63% 8 Total 7% 27% 27% 38% 107 Source: Oregon Housing Affordability Survey, UO Institute for Policy Research and Engagement, Q6 and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 2011-2015 Estimates 7 X2(9, n = 108) = 8.12, p = .505 8 X2(9, n = 107) = 15.01, p = .091 Perceptions & Associations 25 This chapter discusses how community characteristics are associated with the percentage of renters who are cost-burdened in Oregon communities. I ran two models, one model without survey questions from Oregon’s Housing Affordability Crisis: Results of a Statewide Survey of Oregon Cities (Lewis, Parker, & Hall, 2018) and one model with questions from the report. See Table 1 for information regarding how survey questions were coded. Model 1 shows that there is a statistically significant relationship and positive association between the percent of a community that is renters and the percent of renters that are cost- burdened. Meaning, higher percentages of renters in a community are associated with higher percentages of cost-burdened renters. Model 2 shows that median income, the percent of housing that is single-family detached, and the percent of a community that is renters all have a statically significant relationship with the percent of renters who are cost-burdened in a community. Both median income and the share of renters have a positive association with cost burden, meaning that as median income and the percent of the community that is renters are associated with higher levels of cost burden. However, the percent of the housing in a community that is single-family detached has a negative association with cost burden. When compared to previous research, these models yield different results. Model 2 shows that of the three variables (share of renters, median income, and share of single-family detached housing) that are statistically significant; of these, median income has the strongest association with the percentage of renters who are cost-burdened in a community. Unfortunately, because Skaburskis analyzed the data at the household level (as opposed to the community level) and due to Canada’s census being different than that of the United States, it was difficult to compare results. However, in previous research, education and non-family females were statistically significant, which was not the case here. Perceptions & Associations 26 Model 1 Model 2 Median Income (10s of 1000s) 1.865 (.102) 4.611 (.017)** % of housing in community that is single-family detached -0.093 (.439) -0.533 (.018)** % of community that is renters 0.285 (.044)* 0.591 (.006)** % of community that is 18 to 24 years old .295 (.290) 0.164 (.671) % of community that is >= 65 years old 0.34 (.124) 0.155 (.644) % of community that is female 0.213 (.539) 0.335 (.513) % of community that are People of Color 0.141 (.185) 0.031 (.834) % of community that obtained a bachelor's degree or higher -0.016 (.874) 0.03 (.839) % of rental units in community that are vacant 0.041 (.524) 0.367 (.172) Communities located in Eastern Oregon -4.149 (.266) 3.661 (.515) Communities located in Central Oregon -1.121 (.804) 9.914 (.227) Communities located in Coastal Oregon -2.085 (.625) -4.829 (.497) Communities located in Southern Oregon 3.054 (.534) 6.751 (.496) % of land in community that is zoned low-density residential 0.049 (.648) 0.084 (.586) Perception of importance of housing affordability as a problem 0.088 (.973) Perception of the lack of affordable rental housing -1.824 (.466) Perception of the sufficiency of tools to address housing affordability -1.047 (.609) Adjusted R Square 0.031 0.163 Sample Size 117 58 9 grey shading represents variables that were statistically significant, ** p <.05, *** p <.01 Perceptions & Associations 27 This chapter synthesizes key findings and provides actionable next steps and data that should be collected. City staff across Oregon both think housing affordability is important and recognize that they need more housing. However, understanding how to achieve housing affordability is proving to be difficult for Oregon communities. This is not uncommon as communities across the nation are continuously putting forth solutions to address the same issues that have been around for almost three decades. Oregon, unlike most other states, requires that communities create a buildable lands inventory and address the issue of affordable housing within the creation of their UGB (Goal 10: Housing). A survey of city staff across Oregon shows that 44 percent of communities have Goal 10 studies that are over 19 years old or that have never been updated, while four of the top five barriers to affordable housing center on land. Unfortunately, this creates a discrepancy for the state because so many communities perceive land as a barrier without an up-to-date buildable lands inventory to justify their perception of limited buildable land as a barrier to affordable housing. Even with a comprehensive list of measures put together by the Division of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), many communities (93 percent) do not believe they have the tools needed to address housing affordability. At the same time, over half of these communities (57 percent) either do not understand or understand very few of the measures DLCD identified as being able to increase efficient use of residential lands. This is further confirmed when trying to understand what policies communities have adopted and how well they work. Very few communities (only 23 percent) have adopted new policies or measures related to housing affordability within the last three years. Additionally, most (89 percent) think the tools they have implemented have not been helpful in regard to addressing housing affordability. Because a majority of communities across Oregon have not tried to enact new policies or tools to address affordable housing, they cannot say what does or does not work for their community to develop more housing. Perceptions & Associations 28 Finally, past research highlights the importance of demographics and their association with other determinants of poverty and housing conditions. In Oregon, however, demographics alone do not provide an understanding of what determines the share of cost-burdened renters. Much like the national level, even when focusing only on AMI, city staff’s understanding of who needs housing is skewed towards higher income, meaning housing is going to continuously be produced at rates that are unattainable by most renters in Oregon. While Oregon has a robust statewide planning system, there is still a need for land that allows for the creation of housing that is affordable. The following recommendations and future research opportunities recognize the current limitations in our understanding of housing affordability and provide important next steps for practitioners, academics, and policy-makers to begin to make the appropriate strides to addressing these long-rooted issues. This research yielded the following recommendations regarding renter affordability within Oregon communities. 1. Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) should work with communities to provide staff capacity to update their Goal 10 housing needs to develop an updated understanding of buildable lands for housing further tackling what communities perceive as a barrier to providing affordable housing. 2. OHCS should design and implement a longitudinal study to understand whether adopting certain policies lowers the share of cost-burdened renters in a community. 3. OHCS and communities across Oregon should work jointly to understand how certain policies work to create or hinder the development of housing. 4. Oregon Housing and Community Services should work to create a toolkit that informs communities of how to use the measures identified by the Department of Land Conversation and Development that increase efficiency of the use of residential lands. a. OHCS should also hold regional workshops to allow for discussion and to answer questions about the toolkit. 1. Research that focuses on trying to predict the shared of cost-burden renters in Oregon communities based on community characteristics. 2. Research on duplexes that 1) examines if allowing duplexes in single-family zoning leads to more duplexes being built, and 2) if allowing duplexes in single-family zoning reduces renter cost-burden. 3. Research that highlights what housing developers perceive to be barriers to creating housing Perceptions & Associations 29 1. While there have already been data collected on what policies and tools communities across Oregon are using to address housing affordability, a more comprehensive list is needed as all communities did not participate in the survey that was administered by IPRE. a. Additionally, there is a need to quantify how much housing is being built by the policies and tools adopted in communities. Perceptions & Associations 30 References Atiles, J., Bacthel, D. C., Cude, B. J., Fleming, W., Ragsdale, M., Rodgers, T. ... & Valente, J. S. (2001). Workforce Housing in Georgia. University of Georgia Housing and Demographics Research Center. Athens: University of Georgia. Atiles and Bohon-Camas Calientes, 121. Bach, J. (2018, January 5). Oregon among most popular states to move to in 2017. Statesman Journal. Retrieved from https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/oregon-among-most- popular-states-to-move-to-in-2017/283-505365166 Boeing, G., & Waddell, P. (2017). New insights into rental housing markets across the United States: Web scraping and analyzing craigslist rental listings. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37(4), 457-476. Bostic, R., & Ellen, I. G. (2014). Introduction: Special issue on housing policy in the United States. Journal of Housing Economics, 24, 1-3. Cilluffo, A., Gieger, A., & Fry, R. (2017). More US Households Are Renting Than at Any Point in 50 Years. Pew Research Center, July, 19. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2005). Why not in our Community? Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing, An Update to the Report of the Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing. Department of Labor. (2018, September 11). Consumer Expenditures, 2017 [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cesan.pdf Desmond, M. (2018). Heavy is the house: Rent burden among the American Urban Poor. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 42(1), 160-170. Downs, A. (1991). The advisory commission on regulatory barriers to affordable housing: Its behavior and accomplishments. Downs, A. (2008). Introduction: Why rental housing is the neglected child of American shelter. Revisiting rental housing: Policies, programs, and priorities, 1-13. Freeman, L., & Schuetz, J. (2017). Producing affordable housing in rising markets: What works? Cityscape, 19(1), 217-236. Glaeser, E. L., & Gyourko, J. (2002). The impact of zoning on housing affordability (No. w8835). National Bureau of Economic Research. Gunderson, R. J. (2007). Housing affordability and workforce housing initiatives. Economic Development Journal, 6(2), 39. Perceptions & Associations 31 Gyourko, J., & Molloy, R. (2015). Regulation and housing supply. In Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 5, pp. 1289-1337). Elsevier. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.). (2017). America’s Rental Housing, 2017. CJHS. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.). (2018). State of the Nation's Housing. CJHS. Katz, B., & Turner, M. A. (2007). Rethinking US rental housing policy. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, March. Knaap, G. J., Meck, S., Moore, T., & Parker, R. (2007). Do we know regulatory barriers when we see them? An exploration using zoning and development indicators. Housing Policy Debate, 18(4), 711-749. Lewis, R., Parker, B., & Hall, R. (2018). Oregon’s Housing Affordability Crisis: Results of a Statewide Survey of Oregon Cities. Institute for Policy Research and Engagement: Eugene, OR. Li, J. (2015). Recent trends on housing affordability research: where are we up to?. National Association of Home Builders. (2018, August 9). Housing Affordability Hits 10-Year Low in Second Quarter. Retrieved from https://www.nahb.org/en/news-and- publications/press-releases/2018/08/housing-affordability-hits-ten-year-low-in-second- quarter.aspx Parker, B., & Lewis, R. (2016, Month Date). HB 4709 Analysis: Housing Supply and Demographics [Memorandum]. Prepared for: HB 4079 Rulemaking Advisory Committee, Department of Land Conservation & Development. Eugene, OR: Community Service Center. Retrieved from https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/UP/Documents/UO- Housing_Supply_and_Demographics.pdf Pendall, R. (2008). From hurdles to bridges: Local land-use regulations and the pursuit of affordable rental housing. Revisiting rental housing, 224-273. Quigley, J. M., & Raphael, S. (2004). Is housing unaffordable? Why isn't it more affordable?. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(1), 191-214. Quigley, J. M., & Rosenthal, L. A. (2005). The effects of land use regulation on the price of housing: What do we know? What can we learn?. Cityscape, 69-137. Sirmans, S., & Macpherson, D. (2003). The state of affordable housing. Journal of real estate literature, 11(2), 131-156. Perceptions & Associations 32 Skaburskis, A. (2004). Decomposing Canada's growing housing affordability problem: do city differences matter?. Urban Studies, 41(1), 117-149. United Van Lines. (2017, January 2). United Van Lines’ National Movers Study Shows Americans Continue To Move West and South [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.unitedvanlines.com/contact-united/news/movers-study-2017 Wegmann, J., & Christensen, K. (2016). Subsidized rental housing in the United States: What we know and what we need to learn in three themes. In Planning Forum (Vol. 17, pp. 55- 74). Perceptions & Associations 33 Appendix A: Survey Oregon Housing Affordability Survey Greetings! Thank you for participating in the Housing Affordability in Oregon survey. This questionnaire is being conducted for research purposes and will help us better understand what cities across Oregon are doing to encourage affordable housing, in addition to any barriers they face in increasing housing affordability. The questionnaire should take you 30-45 minutes to complete. Please complete the survey to the best of your ability as the more data we have the more robust the results. Please talk with other staff in your city (like your community development director, long-range planners, or housing policy planners) to fill in details as needed. We are seeking one response per city. If you represent more than one city please contact us to discuss how we can obtain data on all the cities you represent. The results of the survey will be summarized in a report that will be made available to survey participants and state agencies. As a benefit to you, we will send you a digital copy of the report when it is completed. Breach of confidentiality is considered a potential risk; we will mitigate this risk by securing all results on a secure server accessible to the principal investigators. We will retain data/results into the long-term to conduct future research. We will not use personally identifying information in any research products but may refer to specific communities or comments. If you have any questions please contact Rebecca Lewis, Principal Investigator at rlewis9@uoregon.edu or Bob Parker, Co-Investigator at rgp@uoregon.edu. You may also contact Research Compliance Services for questions about your rights as participants at 541-346-2510. Please print a copy of the consent information (or contact the investigator) if you would like it for reference. Consent Do you consent to taking this survey? By checking “yes,” you agree to take this survey. Checking “no” will end survey.  Yes (1)  No (2) Q2 What best describes your role in the community?  City Administrator/City Manager (1)  Planning Director (5)  City Staff Planner (2)  City Staff specifically focused on housing issues (3)  Contract Planner or Contract City Manager/Administrator (6)  Other (4) ________________________________________________ Perceptions & Associations 34 Q3 Please indicate the extent to which you feel knowledgeable about housing issues in your community.  Not at all knowledgeable (1)  A little knowledgeable (2)  Somewhat knowledgeable (3)  Very knowledgeable (4)  Extremely knowledgeable (5) Q4 Please indicate the extent to which you perceive housing affordability to be important relative to other issues in your community.  Much less important (1)  Less important (6)  About the same importance (7)  More important (8)  Much more important (9) Perceptions & Associations 35 Q5 Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements relative to your perception of housing need in your community: Neither Strongly Disagree agree nor Strongly Disagree Agree (4) (2) disagree Agree (5) (1) (3) There is a lack of affordable, market-rate rental units (1)      There is a lack of market-rate, family- sized rental units (2)      There is a lack of affordable units that are manufactured homes (3)      There is a lack of government assisted housing (4)      There is a lack of emergency shelter for homeless (5)      Concentrated poverty is a problem (clustering of residential locations where 20%-40% or more of residents live below      the poverty threshold) (7) Perceptions & Associations 36 Q6 Please indicate your community's need for various income levels of housing, stated as a percentage of Area Median Income (AMI): Not needed Somewhat Moderate Extreme (1) needed (2) need (3) need (4) Less than 30% of AMI (Extremely Low Income) (1)     Between 30% and 50% of AMI (Very Low Income) (2)     Between 50% and 80% of AMI (Low Income) (3)     Between 80% and 120% of AMI (aka Workforce Housing) (4)     Greater than 120% of AMI (5)     Perceptions & Associations 37 Q7 Please indicate your community's level of additional need for the types of housing shown below: Not Somewhat Moderate Extreme needed (1) needed (2) need (3) need (4) Detached single family (1)     Attached single family (e.g. condos, townhomes) (2)     Apartments (3)     Duplexes (2 units) (17)     Multi-Family (3 or 4 units) (5)     Multi-Family (5 to 9 units) (6)     Multi-Family (10 to 19 units) (7)     Multi-Family (20 or more units) (8)     Accessory Dwellings (9)     Manufactured Dwellings (4)     Single Room Occupancy (10)     Subsidized or government assisted housing (11)     Nontraditional housing types such as tiny homes, cluster housing (26)     Perceptions & Associations 38 Q9 Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements: Neither agree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly nor disagree Disagree (1) (2) (4) agree (5) (3) Our community has sufficient tools to address housing affordability (1)  o o o o The tools our community has implemented have successfully helped address housing affordability (7)      Our residents perceive a housing affordability problem (3)      Our local elected officials perceive a housing affordability problem (4)      Our issues with housing affordability are more challenging than other Oregon communities (5)      Perceptions & Associations 39 Q11 Please indicate the extent to which you perceive the following to be barriers to providing affordable housing in your community: Not a Minor Moderate Extreme barrier (1) barrier (2) barrier (3) barrier (4) Lack of available vacant land (e.g. for sale or owned     by builders) (1) Inability to bring land to a development ready state (e.g. bringing tract land to serviced lots ready for     development) (2) High cost of land (3)     Zoning restrictions (e.g. lot size, minimum density     requirements, etc.) (4) Parking requirements (5)     Building code requirements (6)     Constrained lands (e.g wetlands, steep slopes, etc.)     (15) Developers are not building the type of housing that     is needed and affordable (7) Lack of market demand (8)     Lack of political will from elected officials (9)     City system development charges (SDCs) (10)     Other SDCs (e.g. Special Districts) (24)     Permit fees (11)     General uncertainty in the land use entitlement     process (12) Opposition from neighbors (13)     Length of time it takes to process land use     entitlements (25) Perceptions & Associations 40