</p

Housing cost burdens are nearly ubiquitousrnamong the lowest-income renters. “An astounding 83 percent of renters with incomesrnof less than $15,000 were housing cost burdened in 2011, including a dismal 71 percentrnwith severe burdens. But the largest increases in shares in 2001-11 were for moderate-rnincome renters, up 11 percentage points among those with incomes of $30,000-44,999rnand 9 percentage points among those with incomes of $45,000-74,999,” the studyrnsays.</p

Unemployment accounted for some of thernincrease in housing burden but it has been even worse among households with full-timernworkers where the cost-burdened share of renters rose by nearly 10 percentage pointsrnor by 2.5 million between 2001 and 2011. </p

The consequences for those unable tornfind affordable housing the Center says is dire.  They spend about $130 less on food, 40rnpercent less than those living in housing they can afford.  Thus housing is clearly linked to hunger inrnthe U.S.  They also spend significantlyrnless on health care and retirement savings. </p

A family with a $15,000 in annual incomernwould have to find housing that costs no more than $375 a month to stay underrnthe 30 percent level.  By comparison, thern2011 median monthly cost for housing built within the previous four years was morernthan $1,000. Less than 34 percent of these new units rented under $800, and onlyrn5 percent for less than $400.”</p

Thus the gap between the demand for andrnthe supply of affordable units continues to grow.  In 2011, 11.8 million renters with extremely lowrnincome competed for just 6.9 million rentals affordable at that income level. Makingrnmatters worse, 2.6 million of these affordable rentals were occupied by higher-incomernhouseholds.  The study also evaluatesrnenergy costs and concludes that these costs also fall disproportionately on lowrnincome renters, either directly or as pass-throughs from land lords.  </p

Housing that is affordable to low incomernrenters tends to be older and more likely to be in poor condition and so atrngreatest risk of being demolished or otherwise lost from the housing stock. Overrnthe 10 years ending in 2011, 5.6 percent of all units available for rent were removedrnfrom the inventory as were 12.8 percent of those renting for those renting for lessrnthan $400. </p

Rental subsidies are also reaching fewerrnvery low income households.  Between 2007rnand 2011 the number of such renters increased by 3.3 million while the numberrnable to receive subsidies expanded by only 225,000 and the share of eligiblernhouseholds receiving assistance shrunk from 27.4 percent to 23.8 percent.  The number of renters with worse case needsrnreceiving no assistance jumped by 2.6 million to 8.5 million.</p

</p

Even where funding for assistancernincreased, rising rents and falling incomes raised cost and limited the reachrnto more households.   About $26 millionrnin capital investments for public housing remains unfunded and privately ownedrnhousing is rapidly aging and assistance contracts are expiring.  Mandatory budget cuts under sequestrationrncould reduce vouchers by 125,000 this year. </p

So far, the Low Income Housing Tax Creditrn(LIHTC) program has been spared from sequestration but its subsidies arerninadequate to make units affordable for extremely low-income tenants, so it is oftenrncombined with other forms of assistance. The program may be endangered when debaternabout tax reform begins in earnest. </p

The study looks at the two factors whichrnit says will influence rental growth over the next decades; the growth ofrnhouseholds and prevailing attitudes toward homeownership.  While economists can give some estimates ofrnthe first, the second is subject to so many influences it is nearly impossiblernto predict.  </p

The study points to other issues thatrncan impact rental housing going forward; the aging housing stock, barriers tornconstruction, and the looming reform of the government related sources whichrncurrently provide most of the financing for rental units.  </p

The study concludes that, despite thernmagnitude of the affordability crisis and the clear need for new thinking aboutrnassistance, active debate on rental housing policy has just begun.  There are promising approaches from bothrngovernment and advocates, but as the country faces difficult choices and anrnaging population and rising health care costs strain the federal budget, itrnwould be all too easy for rental housing concerns to get lost in therndebate. 

All Content Copyright © 2003 – 2009 Brown House Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.nReproduction in any form without permission of MortgageNewsDaily.com is prohibited.