Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Richmond, Chesterfield, and Henrico Counties 2017
Richmond Region Market Value Analysis
Reinvestment Fund
Reinvestment Fund builds wealth and opportunity for low-wealth communities and low and moderate income individuals through the promotion of socially and environmentally responsible development.
Capital. Grants, loans, and equity investments
Knowledge. Information and policy analysis
Innovation. Products, markets, and strategic partnerships
We achieve our mission through
City of Philadelphia MVA
The Market Value Analysis
The Market Value Analysis (MVA) is a tool to assist residents and policymakers to identify and understand the elements of their local real estate markets. It is an objective, data-driven tool built on local administrative data and validated with local experts.
With an MVA, public officials and private actors can more precisely target intervention strategies in weak markets and support sustainable growth in stronger markets.
How Cities are Using the MVA
▪ Component of a local land banking strategy (Phila., NOLA)
▪ Guide capital budget (Detroit)
▪ Focus code enforcement (Phila., Baltimore, Indianapolis, NOLA)
▪ Benchmark quality of life measures (Phila.)
▪ Transportation planning (St. Louis)
▪ Target statewide Strong Neighborhoods Revolving Loan Fund (DE/DSHA)
▪ Inform LIHTC QAP (DSHA)
▪ Develop CDBG ConPlan / Comprehensive plan (Detroit, Wilmington, St. Louis)
▪ Assess changes in the market over time (Phila., Baltimore, Pittsburgh)
▪ Evaluate development opportunities (Pittsburgh, Phila., Houston, Detroit, St. Louis, cities in NJ)
▪ Target demolition and acquisition activities (Baltimore, Phila., Detroit, NOLA)
▪ Select transformative tipping point projects (Phila., Baltimore, Pittsburgh, NOLA)
▪ Engage partners – philanthropic, non-profit, government – in coordinated efforts to rebuild
neighborhoods (Baltimore, Milwaukee, NOLA)
▪ Guide federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program Investment (States of
PA & NJ, Houston, Detroit)
Our Normative Assumptions
When analyzing markets we begin with these principles:
• Public subsidy is scarce; acting alone, subsidies cannot create a market
• Public policy and subsidy must leverage private investmentor create conditions for investment to occur
• In distressed markets, build from strength by investing near strong assets
• All residents are customers with an expectation of quality public services and amenities
• The best decisions are based on the sound and objective analysis of quantitative and qualitative data
Who is Using the MVA
MVAs have been funded by government agencies, local foundations, and financial institutions in cities and counties around the country:
• Philadelphia, PA
• Washington, DC
• Baltimore, MD
• San Antonio, TX
• Camden, NJ
• Newark, NJ
• Selected (8) NJ regions
• Kansas City, MO
• New Orleans, LA
• State of Delaware
• Detroit, MI
• Houston, TX
• Milwaukee, WI
• Pittsburgh, PA
• St. Louis, MO
• Atlantic City, NJ
• Allegheny County, PA
• Reading Area, PA
• Jacksonville, FL
• Wilmington, DE
• Prince George’s County, MD
• Indianapolis, IN
• Selma, AL
• Dallas, TX
• Bethlehem, PA
10,068,000
3,981,000 3,969,000
5,984,000 5,945,000
4,074,473
1,454,000 1,498,0001,247,933
1,648,000 1,804,0001,539,171
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000G
RA
NT7
5
GR
AN
T76
GR
AN
T77
GR
AN
T78
GR
AN
T79
GR
AN
T80
GR
AN
T81
GR
AN
T82
GR
AN
T83
GR
AN
T84
GR
AN
T85
GR
AN
T86
GR
AN
T87
GR
AN
T88
GR
AN
T89
GR
AN
T90
GR
AN
T91
GR
AN
T92
GR
AN
T93
GR
AN
T94
GR
AN
T95
GR
AN
T95
GR
AN
T97
GR
AN
T98
GR
AN
T99
GR
AN
T00
GR
AN
T01
GR
AN
T02
GR
AN
T03
GR
AN
T04
GR
AN
T05
GR
AN
T06
GR
AN
T07
GR
AN
T08
GR
AN
T09
GR
AN
T10
GR
AN
T11
GR
AN
T12
GR
AN
T13
GR
AN
T14
GR
AN
T15
GR
AN
T16
Do
llars
Allo
cate
d
Grant Year
CDBG Allocation History of Richmond, Chesterfield and Henrico Counties, 1975-2017
RICHMOND CHESTERFIELD COUNTY HENRICO COUNTY
CDBG Allocation History
1,954,630
2,165,036
1,229,168
1,036,354
467,707520,845
405,940 389,959
822,467
923,758
657,051 623,810
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000G
RA
NT0
7
GR
AN
T08
GR
AN
T09
GR
AN
T10
GR
AN
T11
GR
AN
T12
GR
AN
T13
GR
AN
T14
GR
AN
T15
GR
AN
T16
GR
AN
T17
Do
llars
Allo
cate
d
Year
HOME Allocation History of Richmond, Chesterfield and Henrico Counties, 2007-2017
RICHMOND CHESTERFIELD COUNTY HENRICO COUNTY
Home Allocation History
The MVA Process
Lessons from 15+ years of experience
Acquire local administrative data and geocode to Census block group geographies.
1
Manually inspect areas for conformity with local experts to assess fit.
4
Manually inspect and validate data layers by driving the area.
2
Alter parameters; re-solve and re-inspect until model accurately represents area.
5
Use statistical cluster analysis to identify areas with common attributes.
3
Summarize and describe the characteristics of each market.
6
Iterative
Validating Data Is Critical.
Researchers must systematically visit and observe neighborhoods in the city to understand the data and final model.
One Size Does Not Fit All.
MVA components and models share some similarities across cities but must be customized to the unique traits of each city.
Integrate Local Knowledge.
All models are tested with local experts to incorporate qualitative feedback from each geography.
Geographic Scale Matters.
MSA and Census tract geographies are too large to accurately reflect the nuances of local real estate markets.
Incorporating Local Knowledge and Expertise
The Local Steering Committee works with the Reinvestment Fund team to help adapt the MVA methodology to the local context, review interim findings, and affirm final results.
Tasks and Responsibilities
Help Team Secure Local Housing Data
Advise on Data Issues and Limitations
Contribute Local Knowledge of Markets
Help Validate Models and Methods
Support Dissemination to the Community
Recommend Strategic Actions for Public & Private Actors
Organizations on the Steering Committee
• Better Housing Coalition• Bon Secours Richmond
Health System• Bonner Center for Civic
Engagement at the University of Richmond
• Chesterfield County Manager's Office
• Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
• Henrico County Manager’s Office
• Henrico County Planning Dept.
• Housing & Development Advisors
• Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia
• Partnership for Housing Affordability
• Richmond Citizens Advisory Board
• Richmond City Health District
• Richmond City Office of Community Wealth Building
• Richmond Dept. of Economic and Community Development
• Richmond Dept. of Planning and Development Review
• Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority
• Richmond Regional Planning District Commission
• U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
• Va. Dept. of Housing and Community Development
• Va. Housing Development Authority
• Va. Local Initiatives Support Corporation
I. Market Characteristics
Analyzing the characteristics of the residential real estate markets
▪ City Overview
▪ Market Indicators
Market Value Analysis Sources and Definitions
Variable DefinitionSource
Property Values and Investment
Median sales price 2015-2017q1, altered for condominiums
Median Sales prices were calculated both with and without Condominiums and the higher of the two values is used in the
model.
Multiple Listing Service
data
Sales price variance 2015-2017q1
The coefficient of variance of homes used in the calculation above (Average Value ÷ Standard Deviation)
Multiple Listing Service
data
Percent of residential properties with building permits
Number of all residential parcels with building permit applications 2015-2017q1 as a percent of all residential parcels
County and Municipal parcel files and permit
offices
Percent of residential properties built/developed 2008-2016
Number of residential parcels with a built date from 2008-2016 as a percentage of all residential parcels
County and Municipal parcel files
Market Value Analysis Sources and Definitions
Housing Characteristics
Residential density Residential housing units per residential land area
County and Municipal
parcel files, ACS 2011-
2015
Percent owner occupied households
Percent of households that reported owning their homeACS 2011-
2015
Percent of Rentals with a Public Subsidy
Percent of all rental units with a subsidy (e.g., Housing Choice Voucher, Public Housing, etc.)
HUD, RRHA & ACS
2011-2015
Variable Definition Source
Blight, Distress, and
Vacancy
Average percent of vacant residential properties 2015-
2016
Average percent of all residential addresses that were vacant in each quarter 2015-2016. Percentage calculated as the number of
residential addresses that were vacant, divided by the total number of valid postal addresses, including vacant and no-stat
addresses. Vacant postal addresses are those where mail has not been collected for at least 90 days,
Valassis Lists
Percent bank sales 2015-2016 Percent of residential properties sold by banks 2015-2017Multiple
Listing Service data
Working with city officials and a local steering committee we identified a core set of 8 indicators that describe the characteristics and vitality of residential real estate markets.
Property Value and Investment
▪ Sales Price
▪ Sales Variance
▪ Building Permits
▪ New Construction
Blight, Distress, and Vacancy
▪ Bank Sales
▪ Vacancy
Housing Characteristics
▪ Tenure
▪ Residential Density
▪ Percent of Rentals with a Public Subsidy
Available Indicators of Residential Market Strength
Property Value and Investment
▪ Sales Price
▪ Sales Variance
▪ Building Permits
▪ New Construction
Blight, Distress, and Vacancy
▪ Bank Sales
▪ Vacancy
Housing Characteristics
▪ Tenure
▪ Residential Density
▪ Percent of Rental with a Public Subsidy
Property Values provide important information about how the private market values the properties and amenities in different areas of the city.
Available Indicators of Residential Market Strength
Median Residential Sales Price 2015-2017q1
Sales Price Variance 2015-2017q1
Percent of Residential Properties with Permits 2015-2016
Percent of Residential Parcels Built 2008-2016
Property Value and Investment
▪ Sales Price
▪ Sales Variance
▪ Building Permits
▪ New Construction
Blight, Distress, and Vacancy
▪ Bank Sales
▪ Vacancy
HousingCharacteristics
▪ Tenure
▪ Residential Density
▪ Percent of Rentals with a Public Subsidy
Blight, Distress, and Vacancy measures describe the level of distress in different areas of the city, indicating areas that may require additional investment or support.
Available Indicators of Residential Market Strength
Percent Vacant Residential Properties
Percent Bank Sales 2015-2017q1
Property Value and Investment
▪ Sales Price
▪ Sales Variance
▪ Building Permits
▪ New Construction
Blight, Distress, and Vacancy
▪ Bank Sales
▪ Vacancy
Housing Characteristics
▪ Tenure
▪ Residential Density
▪ Percent of Rentals with a Public Subsidy
Housing Characteristics describe the housing stock and tenure of residents living in different areas of the city.
Available Indicators of Residential Market Strength
Percent Owner Occupied 2011-2015
Percent Built Subsidized Rental
Residential Density
II. Market Value Analysis Results
Characterizing the strength of residential real estate markets
▪ Interpreting the MVA
▪ Market Characteristics
▪ Maps
Summary of Market Characteristics
Average Characteristics for Market Types
Number of Block Groups
Median Sales Price 2015-2016
Sales Price
Variance
Percent Bank Sales
Owner Occupancy
Percent Subsidized
Rental
Percent Vacant
Residential
Housing Units per
Acre
Percent Residential
Parcels Built 2008-
up
Percent Residential
Parcels with
Permits 2015-2016
A 32 $501,292 0.39 3% 90% 0% 0.4% 1.9 5.9% 11.6%
B 23 $425,851 0.47 3% 33% 10% 1.5% 17.2 4.7% 5.0%
C 82 $274,479 0.34 6% 83% 3% 0.6% 3.2 2.7% 7.2%
D 53 $195,175 0.35 9% 29% 7% 1.2% 9.8 3.4% 5.7%
E 103 $182,686 0.32 13% 80% 3% 0.9% 2.8 2.6% 5.5%
F 30 $140,358 0.38 21% 48% 77% 1.8% 4.0 2.5% 4.0%
G 62 $117,611 0.39 29% 59% 7% 3.0% 4.2 2.7% 4.9%
H 31 $ 63,465 0.61 33% 41% 12% 8.5% 5.6 1.9% 3.7%
I 18 $ 53,597 0.60 37% 30% 89% 3.2% 7.2 2.0% 2.0%Split 10
Non residential or rental
14
Subsidized rental
3
Richmond Region MVA 2017
Richmond Region MVA 2017
Richmond Region MVA 2017
Market Overview: A, B, and C
• Highest prices in the region
• Lowest level of bank sales• A & B have the highest
percent of properties built in the last 10 years
• A & C have the highest level of building permits filed
• B has the highest residential density of all categories
• These markets combined represent 102,838 (34%) of all households, including 75,457 (42%) of all owner occupied households in the region
Number of Block Groups
Median Sales Price 2015-
2016
Sales Price Variance
Percent Bank Sales
Owner Occupancy
Percent Subsidized
Rental
Percent Vacant
Residential
Housing Units per
Acre
Percent Residential
Parcels Built 2008-up
Percent Res. Parcels with Permits 15-
16
A 32 $501,292 0.39 3% 90% 0% 0.4% 1.9 5.9% 11.6%
B 23 $425,851 0.47 3% 33% 10% 1.5% 17.2 4.7% 5.0%
C 82 $274,479 0.34 6% 83% 3% 0.6% 3.2 2.7% 7.2%
Market Overview: D and E
• Prices near regional average
• E has the 3rd highest level of owner occupancy, D has the lowest
• D comprises nearly ¼ of the region’s rental households
• Low level of subsidized rental availability
• D has the second highest level of residential density
• These markets combined represent 105,052 (35%) of all households, including 63,350 (35%) of all owner occupied households in the region
Number of Block Groups
Median Sales Price 2015-2016
Sales Price Variance
Percent Bank Sales
Owner Occupancy
Percent Subsidized
Rental
Percent Vacant
Residential
Housing Units per
Acre
Percent Residential
Parcels Built 2008-up
Percent Res. Parcels with Permits 15-
16
D 53 $195,175 0.35 9% 29% 7% 1.2% 9.8 3.4% 5.7%
E 103 $182,686 0.32 13% 80% 3% 0.9% 2.8 2.6% 5.5%
Market Overview: F and G
Number of Block Groups
Median Sales Price 2015-2016
Sales Price Variance
Percent Bank Sales
Owner Occupancy
Percent Subsidized
Rental
Percent Vacant
Residential
Housing Units per
Acre
Percent Residential
Parcels Built 2008-up
Percent Res. Parcels with Permits 15-
16
F 30 $140,358 0.38 21% 48% 77% 1.8% 4.0 2.5% 4.0%
G 62 $117,611 0.39 29% 59% 7% 3.0% 4.2 2.7% 4.9%
• Prices ~30-40% below regional average
• Markedly higher levels of bank sales than A-E
• F & G have significant levels of owner occupancy
• In F, of the properties that are renters, the majority of them are subsidized
• G has the 3rd highest percentage of vacant properties
• These markets combined represent 56,604 (19%) of all households, including 29,537 (16%) of all owner occupied households in the region
Market Overview: H and I
Number of Block Groups
Median Sales Price 2015-2016
Sales Price Variance
Percent Bank Sales
Owner Occupancy
Percent Subsidized
Rental
Percent Vacant
Residential
Housing Units per
Acre
Percent Residential
Parcels Built 2008-up
Percent Res. Parcels with Permits 15-
16
H 31 $ 63,465 0.61 33% 41% 12% 8.5% 5.6 1.9% 3.7%
I 18 $ 53,597 0.60 37% 30% 89% 3.2% 7.2 2.0% 2.0%
• Lowest values in the region; roughly 70% lower than the regional average
• Highest levels of bank sales in the region
• Highest price variance• Lowest level of permit
activity and percent of properties built in the last 10 years
• I has the highest level of subsidized rental housing
• These markets combined represent 21,041 (7%) of all households, including 7,539 (4%) of all owner occupied households in the region
Market Summary
Number of Block Groups
Total Population Residential Parcels HouseholdsOwner Occupied
HouseholdsRenter Occupied
Households
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
A 32 8,848 8.8% 22,023 8.4% 23,926 7.9% 20,628 11.3% 3,298 2.8%
B 23 41,700 5.3% 9,419 3.6% 20,252 6.7% 6,307 3.5% 13,945 11.7%
C 82 155,458 19.9% 55,065 21.1% 58,660 19.5% 48,612 26.7% 10,048 8.4%
D 53 92,974 11.9% 15,435 5.9% 39,877 13.2% 11,171 6.1% 28,706 24.0%
E 103 178,048 22.8% 65,949 25.3% 65,175 21.6% 52,179 28.7% 12,996 10.9%
F 30 53,482 6.8% 14,465 5.5% 20,978 7.0% 9,878 5.4% 11,100 9.3%
G 62 90,655 11.6% 28,593 10.9% 35,626 11.8% 19,659 10.8% 15,967 13.4%
H 31 32,453 4.1% 9,987 3.8% 11,640 3.9% 4,759 2.6% 6,881 5.8%
I 18 26,112 3.3% 4,774 1.8% 9,401 3.1% 2,780 1.5% 6,621 5.5%
Split BGs 10 19,295 2.5% 6,928 2.7% 7,821 2.6% 5,591 3.1% 2,230 1.9%
Other (Rental/Nonres) 14 18,561 2.4% 28,465 10.9% 6,773 2.2% 369 0.2% 6,404 5.4%
Subsidized Rental BG 3 4,456 0.6% 43 0.0% 1,353 0.4% 9 0.0% 1,344 1.1%
Total 461 782,042 261,146 301,482 181,942 119,540
Richmond Region MVA 2017 Validation Routes
III. Supplemental Analyses
Contextualizing social, economic ,and public health outcomes with housing market characteristics
▪ Point-level Analyses
▪ Geographic-level Analyses
Compared to Chesterfield and Henrico Counties, Richmond Has a Smaller Middle Market and Larger Stressed Market Share of Residents
1.3%
3.4%
21.0%
62.3%52.4%
42.7%
35.6% 36.6%28.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Chesterfield Henrico Richmond
Perc
ent
of
Are
a's
Pop
ula
tio
nPercent of Area's Population by Market Category
OtherH ID E F GA B C
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
A B C D E F G H I
Richmond City Chesterfield Henrico
Percent of Area’s Population by Market Type
Richmond and Pittsburgh are Very Similar in Population Distribution Across Market Types; A Much Smaller Share in Stressed Areas than Akron
41.0%
22.0% 21.0%
36.0%
48.0%43.0%
20.0%22.0%
28.0%
Akron Pittsburgh Richmond
Per
cen
t o
f C
ity'
s Po
pu
lati
on
City
Population Distribution Across Market Types for Selected Cities
OtherStressed MiddleStrong
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A B C D E F G H I
Per
cen
t o
f P
op
ula
tio
n
Percent White Percent Black Percent Hispanic
Race/Ethnicity Composition by Market Type
MVA Markets and Race/Ethnicity
Richmond Region MVA 2017 with Built Subsidized Rentals
Richmond Region MVA 2017 with All Assisted Housing
Significant Portions of Owners and Renters are Cost-Burdened; Especially in Middle and Stressed Markets
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
A B C D E F G H I
Per
cen
t o
f O
wn
ers/
Ren
ters
Co
st B
urd
ened
MVA Market Category
Percent of Owners and Renters Who Are Cost-Burdened by MVA Market Category
Percent Owners Cost Burdened Percent Renters Cost Burdened
Richmond Cost Burdens Are High Compared to Other Cities
74.9%
48.1%
28.3%
6.9%
83.5%
39.9%
12.5%
2.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Under $35k $35-$50k $50-$75k $75k+ Under $35k $35-$50k $50-$75k $75k+
Owners Renters
Perc
ent
of
Ho
use
ho
lds
Tenure / Household Income
Percent of Households Cost Burdened (Spending 30%+ of Income on Housing) by Tenure and Household Income Level, 2011-2015
Akron Pittsburgh Richmond
Areas Affordable at up to 50% Median Household Income
Median household income in 2011-2015 for Richmond Metro Area $59,919. Visible MVA areas had average sales prices (2015/2016) less than 3x 50% of median.
Areas Affordable at up to 80% Median Household Income
Median household income in 2011-2015 for Richmond Metro Area $59,919. Visible MVA areas had average sales prices (2015/2016) less than 3x 80% of median.
Areas Affordable at up to 120% Median Household Income
Median household income in 2011-2015 for Richmond Metro Area $59,919. Visible MVA areas had average sales prices (2015/2016) less than 3x 120% of median.
Areas Affordable at up to 50% AMI in Pittsburgh
Median household income in 2015 for Pittsburgh Metro Area $54,080. Visible MVA areas had average sales prices (2013/2015) less than 3x 50% of median.
Areas Affordable at up to 80% AMI in Pittsburgh
Median household income in 2015 for Pittsburgh Metro Area $54,080. Visible MVA areas had average sales prices (2013/2015) less than 3x 80% of median.
Areas Affordable at up to 120% AMI in Pittsburgh
Median household income in 2015 for Pittsburgh Metro Area $54,080. Visible MVA areas had average sales prices (2013/2015) less than 3x 120% of median.
Richmond Region MVA 2017 with Limited Supermarket Access
Reinvestment Fund Policy Solutions
Ira Goldstein, [email protected]
Al Parker, Research [email protected]
Emily Dowdall, Associate [email protected]
Contact: 215-574-5800
Making Sense of Markets: Using Data to Guide Reinvestment Strategies
Chapter on the MVA in What Counts: Harnessing Data for America’s Communities, outlining opportunities and challenges for the strategic use of data to reduce poverty, improve health, expand access to quality education, and build stronger communities.
A Data-Based Approach to Understanding Urban Housing Markets
Chapter on the MVA by Reinvestment Fund’s Ira Goldstein in Putting Data to Work: Data-Driven Approaches to Strengthening Neighborhoods, by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The chapter highlights how the MVA approach can inform citywide strategies and decision-making.
Market Value Analysis: Understanding Where and How to Invest Limited Resources
Article by Ira Goldstein and Sean Closkey on using the Market Value Analysis (MVA) to prioritize investments for “Bridges,” the quarterly publication of the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank.
Maximizing the Impact of Federal NSP Investments through the Strategic Use of Local Market Data
Chapter by Reinvestment Fund’s Ira Goldstein for the book REO & Vacant Properties: Strategies for Neighborhood Stabilization, discussing the MVA as a means to strategize the targeting of resources under the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
On the Edge: America’s Middle Neighborhoods
Book edited by Paul C. Brophy on ways that policymakers and community development professionals can support “middle neighborhoods,” communities on the edge of decline or improvement.
Additional MVA Publications