Regional Affordable Housing Study

248 Pages·2015·8.62 MB·English

by  Kim, Suk

US Department of Housing and Urban Development|
Tri-County Regional Planning Commission|
Mid-Michigan Program for Greater Sustainability

Regional Affordable Housing Study

Suk-Kyung Kim | Ph.D.| Associate Professor of Interior Design|
School of Planning, Design, & Construction|
Michigan State University|

Research Assistants:
Jaechoon Lee, Ph.D., Cecilia Escobar, M.A., Kate Calabra, MUP,
Stephanie Space, B.A., & Larissa Fedoroff, B.A

0
1
Executive Summary
There has been a need for market analysis of housing condition in the Tri-County Region consisting
of Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties in Michigan. This area has a variety of demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics. However, there has never been a holistic attempt to diagnose
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the region, identify housing profiles in relation
to those characteristics, and propose goals for the housing affordability improvement in the
Region.

This regional affordable housing study was conducted to provide an accurate diagnosis of current
housing conditions and set practical and achievable goals to improve housing affordability across
the Region. Data collection began with a review of 2000 and 2010 census data. From the census
data, the research team obtained and analyzed information on the demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics of the regional population, its households and physical and
socioeconomic characteristics of housing stock. The census data were compared to identify
notable changes between 2000 and 2010. In addition, the research team reviewed real estate data,
and websites of local communities and jurisdiction. The team also visited neighborhoods located
in these regions to observe physical conditions of existing housing and understand housing related
issues. Based on these initial results, the team developed tools to investigate housing experts,
urban planners, and residents’ opinions on housing affordability in the region.

Regional housing experts were consulted for insights into housing affordability issues. Seventeen
urban planners were also interviewed to elicit suggestions about housing programs and services to
make regional housing more affordable. These two interview results were analyzed and complied
to build a foundation for the future housing planning direction. The research team also reviewed
comprehensive plans to analyze their community housing development strategies and
affordability. The team studies the land use and zoning regulations of each city or township in the
Tri-County Region to examine criteria and standards for improving housing affordability. The team
focused on housing profile, efforts to improve housing affordability, housing programs and
services, and the mixed-zoning and energy-efficient housing improvement.

Finally, the research team conducted a questionnaire survey to collect residents’ opinions on
regional housing conditions. This intensive survey delivered diverse voices from over 790 residents
and envisioned the future directions for enriching regional housing conditions. Based on the
results from the multiple data sources, the research team proposed suggestions for improving
housing affordability in the Tri-County Region.

1. Major Suggestions for Improving Housing Affordability in the Tri-County Region

a. Provide Affordable Owner- and Renter-Occupied Housing
The homeowners and renters in Tri-County areas need more affordable housing option. Housing
experts and planners from all three counties strongly emphasized more affordable housing units
and diverse types of affordable housing for both homeowners and renters. This report suggested
detailed strategies in proving affordable housing for homeowners and renters respectively in
Chapter 6. The need for more diverse rental housing options was strongly addressed by the
housing experts and planners from Eaton County, although this area provided more options than
the other two counties. Based on the evidence from the holistic data analysis, the research team
2
emphasized that the Tri-County Region should meet the need for more affordable rental units for
low-income families, single-parent families, homeless people, veterans, students, low-income
older people, and residents with disabilities. This need was addressed by many stakeholders from
the Region.

Additionally, rental housing is needed for people who are not interested in purchasing a home and
want to stay in the rental market purposely due to their preference or occupational situations. For
instance, this research discovered a new trend: some people have chosen to stay in the rental
housing market. Previous studies of housing affordability assumed that renters usually wanted to
become homeowners but they could not afford to so. This study found that some residents were
willing to stay in the rental market as long as they were satisfied with the quality of rental housing
options or properties. This result supports the finding that the Tri-County Region should provide a
variety of affordable rental units for different types of tenants.

b. Continue Existing Programs and Pursue New Partnerships
Planners who were already involved in housing programs reported that they would continue to
deliver the same services. Some planners, including those without existing programs, mentioned
reviving programs that had ended. Those programs included rehabilitation, land banking, quality
of life programs, community engagement programs, and down payment assistance.

Planners expressed a desire to implement programs that educate renters and owners about home
maintenance. Better maintenance would keep home affordable by preserving their quality and
their ability to be sold or rented again.

c. Target Senior Living in the Region
The results from the interviews with housing experts and planners and a resident survey
highlighted a need for more options of affordable housing for seniors. The census data analysis
also evidently showed an increase in the senior population in the Tri-County Region. The research
team thus suggested that planners and developers need to implement design strategies that allow
populations to age in place, so that the housing stock can evolve with the population. This will
make housing stock more diverse and better to accommodate special needs from seniors and
residents with disabilities. Easiness in the maintenance is also a component of affordability for
them, since seniors typically have less income to spend on housing.

d. Introduce More Mixed-Use Housing
Increasing density through mixed-use properties and downtown-living trended across many
planners as a way to diversify the housing stock. Future planning should incorporate such mixed-
use development tactics and the planners who indicated that such plans are already in place hope
to see the tactics implemented while there is still a demand for them. This strategy was especially
noted in the Lansing area. More mixed-use housing could increase density, integrate residents of
different socio-economic backgrounds, and provide an infrastructure for renters and buyers who
are more interested in the urban lifestyle.

e. Encourage Energy Efficiency
Only a few municipalities have been offered an incentive for energy-efficient housing upgrades.
Housing experts and planners participating in the data collection process expressed a need to
increase energy efficiency by making good use of subsidies and other available funds. From an
affordability standpoint, this will increase the durability of homes and decrease the long-term
3
costs. Energy efficiency should be considered both when retrofitting existing structures and
planning new construction.

f. Reduce Vacant Units
Before replacing vacant units with new buildings, developers and planners need to consider a way
to save some historically significant vacant buildings. Many residents supported offering incentives
to resolve the housing vacancy issue in the Region. Many of them also agreed to convert vacant
commercial or unaffordable housing units into more affordable housing units.

g. Offer More Options for Public Transportation
Public transportation has been planned to meet the regional transportation need. However, it is
not sufficient for Eaton and Clinton Counties. The data analysis showed that more Ingham County
respondents used public transportation while only small number of Clinton and Eaton County
respondents did. It was related to the insufficient and unavailability of transportation services.
Residents from the low-income group wanted to use public transportation more frequently if the
services were available to them. For the other income-groups the region will also need to provide
a variety of transportation modes so that residents can choose their preferred one.

h. Housing Plan Supporting Aging-In-Place and Positive Health Impact
Future housing plans should consider that owners, seniors, and middle- or higher-income
residents showed a greater intention to age in place. The survey results also showed that poor
housing conditions had disproportionately negative effect on the health of renters, low-income
people, younger residents, and students. They should be properly served when housing planning
considers the effects of unaffordable housing on residents’ health.

2. Suggestions for Planners and Developers in the Region
The Tri-County Region has demonstrated strong partnerships between its public and private
sectors. It is necessary to encourage this collaboration for improving housing affordability across
the region.

The research team suggests several items for developers to consider for improving housing
affordability in the region. The main expectations for the developers are to:
 Establish or continue their partnership with planners in local governments.
 Consider the local context as well as the individual project site for future development.
 Introduce new types of affordable housing to local markets
o Three- or four-bedroom rental units for low-income families were
addressed by housing experts.
o Contemporary housing types such as high-tech homes, net-zero houses
and zero-step homes need to be introduced to accommodate emerging
population groups. Residents expressed their interest in moving to
energy-efficient houses or upgrading their current homes to be more
energy efficient. They also showed strong desire for aging in place, so
more zero-step homes need to be introduced to the region.

The research team concluded that planners needed to establish a comprehensive regional housing
plan should be established. This plan will be a guideline for the future development and
partnerships with private sector or non-profit organizations. Specific housing and community
development plans need to be developed within the comprehensive housing plan. The priorities of
4
the housing and community development issues need to be tailored to the housing development
plan. The prioritized issues should be resolved through a systematic planning process and
implementation plan. This plan should determine the priority of housing related issues and rank
them. In addition, planners need to continue encouraging private developers in their areas to build
more affordable housing units for owners and renters.

3. Featured Comprehensive Plans for Three Counties

Comprehensive housing plans should be proposed based on the evidence from intensive housing
studies. As its cornerstone, this study presents key factors to consider for future housing plans in
three Michigan counties. Due to their demographic and socioeconomic differences, housing plans
for Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties should have different strategies and priorities in housing
issues.

a. Ingham County
This county’s population is becoming more diverse and median housing value is lower than in the
other two counties. Its gross rent, however, is not the lowest. This strongly indicates the need for
affordable tenant- and owner-occupied units. Among the three counties, Ingham County has a
higher percentage of younger population, the lowest demand for single-family detached housing,
and the highest demand for mixed-use development. The strategy to provide mid-rise affordable
rental units can be implemented in this county sooner than the other two counties. Ingham
County has more vacant housing units, so effective plans to reduce this percentage needs to be
established. Residents in Ingham County expressed the strongest needs for walkable and bikable
environments. The percentage of household without vehicles was highest and the need for public
transportation was strongest in Ingham County. These results showed transit-oriented plans
should be established soon in this County.

b. Clinton County
Among the three counties, Clinton County has the highest percentage of Whites. The average age
of the population is rising. This county has the lowest percentage of population living below the
poverty line. It also has the lowest percentage of vacant housing units, the highest desire for
single-family housing development and the lowest preference in offering diverse housing types.
The plan for this county needs to be slightly conservative and avoid dramatic change in community
settings because the majority of the county’s population preferred to have the current housing
features preserved. This county’s residents show the lowest need for walkability and public
transportation. The future housing plan, therefore, needs to adapt a step-by-step approach
without imposing too many new planning trends -- such as mixed-use development, compact
development, or public transit oriented plans -- in this county.

However, some parts of the county have been experiencing in an increase in younger and
international populations. More than 30% of residents expressed the need for better walkability
and bikability, public transportation, diverse housing types, and mixed-use developments. Future
plans should consider these features.

c. Eaton County
The interviews with housing experts and planners revealed that Eaton County has been managing
housing affordability issues somewhat better than the other two counties. The county has a
community development director and a housing service organization that could make it easier for
5
low-income residents to access affordable housing options and resources available. The county
also emphasizes affordable rental housing options for tenants with disabilities or shelters for
single-parent families that have escaped from domestic violence. The research team suggests that
Eaton County should continue these efforts. In addition, Eaton County needs to offer more diverse
types of housing. Both low-rise rental housing and mixed-use developments can offer affordable
housing units. In this county, planers and developers also need to pay attention to the fact that
the housing stock became outdated. Rehabilitation plans for old housing or vacant units should
thus be refined.

The outcome of this holistic and empirical research is a set of policy and program directions that
should be the basis of a strategic plan to maximize housing affordability in the Tri-County Region.

6
Contents
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2
I. Overview ................................................................................................................................... 15
1.1 Introduction to a Regional Affordable Housing Study .................................................................... 16
1.1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 16
1.1.2 Affordable Housing Need in the Tri-County Region in Michigan ......................................... 16
1.1.3 Research Scope of the Regional Affordable Housing Study ................................................. 17
1.2 Definitions and Programs ............................................................................................................... 19
1.2.1 Definitions of Affordable Housing and Relevant Problems .................................................. 19
1.2.2 Affordable Housing Programs ............................................................................................... 19

II. Housing and Community Profile ................................................................................................. 28
2.1. Study Area and Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 29
2.1.1 Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 29
2.1.2 Data Sources and Analysis Plan ............................................................................................. 30
2.2 Demographic and Socioeconomic Profile ....................................................................................... 32
2.2.1 Demographic Profile ............................................................................................................. 32
2.2.2 Regional Socioeconomic Profile ............................................................................................ 36
2.3. General Housing Profile: Based on Census 2000 and 2010 ........................................................... 40
2.3.1 Total Housing Units and Housing Occupancy ....................................................................... 40
2.3.2 Housing Tenure ..................................................................................................................... 46
2.3.3 Household Type by Housing Tenure ..................................................................................... 52
2.4. Specific Housing Characteristics: Based on Census 2000 and American ......................................... 61
2.4.1 Units in Structure .................................................................................................................. 61
2.4.2 Age of Housing Units ............................................................................................................. 63
2.4.3 Rooms and Bedrooms ........................................................................................................... 63
2.4.4 Year Householder Moved into Current Housing ................................................................... 64
2.4.5 Median Housing Values of Owner-Occupied Units ............................................................... 65
2.4.6 Housing Affordability ............................................................................................................ 69
2.4.7 Median Gross Rent ................................................................................................................ 73
2.4.8 Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................................ 75
2.4.9 Summary Statistics of Housing Characteristics ..................................................................... 76
2.5. Housing Maps ................................................................................................................................ 87
2.5.1 Data Source ........................................................................................................................... 87
2.5.2 Housing Maps ........................................................................................................................ 87
2.6 Observations of Housing Conditions Along Grand River Corridor, Lansing to Webberville ........... 91
2.6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 92
2.6.2 General Housing Characteristics ........................................................................................... 92
2.6.3 Examples of Current Housing ................................................................................................ 93
2.6.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 98
2.7 Key Features of Community and Housing Profile ........................................................................... 99

III. Regional Housing Programs and Services ................................................................................... 100
3.1 Housing Programs and Services .................................................................................................... 101
3.2 County Level ................................................................................................................................. 102
3.2.1 Clinton County..................................................................................................................... 102
7
3.2.2 Eaton County ....................................................................................................................... 104
3.2.3 Ingham County .................................................................................................................... 106
3.3 City Level ....................................................................................................................................... 107
3.3.1 Grand Ledge-Eaton County ................................................................................................. 107
3.3.2 East Lansing-Ingham County ............................................................................................... 109
3.3.3 Lansing-Ingham County ....................................................................................................... 113

IV. Housing Issues and Suggestions from Housing Experts and Planners ........................................... 117
4.1 Housing Expert Interview ............................................................................................................. 118
4.1.1 Purpose and Process ........................................................................................................... 118
4.1.2 Participants ......................................................................................................................... 119
4.1.3 Opinions on Regional Housing Affordability ....................................................................... 120
4.1.4 Particular Groups in Need of Affordable Housing Options ................................................. 126
4.1.5 Housing Options Available for the Residents with Disabilities or Elderly Residents .......... 127
4.1.6 Factors Influencing the Housing Market Value in This Area .............................................. 127
4.1.7 Reasons People Leave or Choose the Communities .......................................................... 128
4.1.8 Opinions on Vacant Units ................................................................................................... 130
4.1.9 Main Obstacles Preventing Housing Affordability ............................................................. 132
4.1.10 Suggestions for Possible Actions ...................................................................................... 135
4.2 Regional Housing Affordability and Planners’ Input .................................................................... 139
4.2.1 Purpose and Process .......................................................................................................... 139
4.2.2 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 140
4.2.3 Planners’ Opinions on Regional Housing Affordability ...................................................... 141
4.2.4 Foreclosure.......................................................................................................................... 144
4.2.5 Housing Vacancy ................................................................................................................. 145
4.2.6 Mixed-Use Development .................................................................................................... 145
4.2.7 Public Transportation .......................................................................................................... 146
4.2.8 Walkability .......................................................................................................................... 147
4.2.9 Possible Actions to Resolve Various Affordable Housing Issues ......................................... 149
4.2.10 Insufficient Housing Units for Specific Resident Groups................................................... 150
4.2.11 Present and Future Comprehensive Housing Plans .......................................................... 150
4.2.12 Commercial Hub of the City or Township ......................................................................... 168
4.2.13 Other Barriers and Concerns Relevant to Housing Affordability ...................................... 171

V. Resident Opinions and Suggestions for Regional Housing Affordability ........................................ 172
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 173
5.1.1 Survey Participants and Process ......................................................................................... 173
5.2 Findings and Discussion ............................................................................................................... 176
5.2.1 Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Housing Characteristics .............................................. 176
5.2.2 Factors to Affect Housing Choice ........................................................................................ 182
5.2.3 Housing Affordability .......................................................................................................... 184
5.2.4 Vacant Housing Units .......................................................................................................... 191
5.2.5 Mixed-Use Development .................................................................................................... 193
5.2.6 Public Transportation and Walkability ................................................................................ 196
5.2.7 Fair Housing ........................................................................................................................ 199
5.2.8 Energy-Efficient Housing ..................................................................................................... 202
5.2.9 Aging-In-Place and Health Impact ....................................................................................... 203
5.2.10 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 206
8
VI. Evidence-Based Suggestions for Improving Individual and Regional Housing Affordability .......... 208
6.1 Affordable Housing Needs ............................................................................................................ 209
6.2 Affordable Housing for Owners .................................................................................................... 211
6.3 Affordable Housing for Renters .................................................................................................... 213
6.4 Public and Private Partnership for Housing Affordability ............................................................. 218
6.5 Regional Efforts for Affordable Housing ....................................................................................... 219
6.5.1 Comprehensive Housing Plan ............................................................................................. 219

Appendics ...................................................................................................................................... 226
Appendix 1. Subsidized Housing List ............................................................................................ 227
Appendix 2. Tri-County Regional Affordable Housing Study - Resident Survey .......................... 232

9