Conducted by: William M. Rohe Spencer Cowan Daniel Rodriguez Conducted for:

1. A Long Way From Home:The Environmental, Economic, and Social Impacts of a Limited Supply of Workforce Housing in the Asheville Metropolitan Area Conducted by: William M. Rohe Spencer Cowan Daniel Rodriguez Conducted for: The North Carolina Association of Community Development Corporations in cooperation with Mountain Housing Opportunities Presentation to the Housing Works Conference November 4, 2009

2. Purposes of the Study • To assess the need for workforce housing in the Asheville metropolitan area • To assess the impacts of a lack of well located workforce housing on • the environment • the economic health of employers and employees • the quality of life in the area • To identify obstacles to the construction of more workforce housing in the area • Provide recommendations for expanding the supply of well located workforce housing in the area.

3. Study Methods Analysis of the need for workforce housing using data from sources, including: Census Bureau NC Employment Security Commission Office of State Management and Budget Survey of 581 lower-wage employees who commute more than 15 miles each way to work 258 responses 44.4 percent response rate

4. Study Methods (cont.) Suitability analysis to identify possible locations for the construction of workforce housing closer to major employment centers Analysis of potential decrease in commuting distances based on suitability analysis and survey data Interviews with 23 representatives of public, nonprofit and private organizations in the area

5. Population & Employment Growth The population and employment in both Buncombe County and the rest of the MSA is growing rapidly.

6. Change in Employment& Average Wages Paid in 2007 Some of the lowest wage job categories are the fastest growing.

7. Housing Types Most of the new housing is single family, while the number of manufactured homes has declined.

8. Fair Market Rents in the MSA Average increase of 43% for FMR between 2000 and 2009. Rents have been rising consistently, but particularly between 2004 and 2008.

9. Rent Burdens The percentage of households that pay more than 30% of their incomes for rent increased dramatically between 2000 and 2007. 19,200 renters with income under $35,000 were rent burdened in 2007.

10. Cost Burden The housing costs of homeowners also have risen greatly. 16,600 owners with income under $35,000 are cost burdened in 2007. Median house value is 4.2 times median income in 2007, up from 2.8 times median income in 2000.

11. Jobs Housing Mismatch Buncombe County 67 percent of all jobs in the MSA 54 percent of all housing units in the MSA The other three counties in the MSA 33 percent of the workforce work in another county 29 percent of the workforce commute more than 30 minutes to work 7,774 workers making less than $48,000 commute to within 7 miles of downtown Asheville

12. Are Those Who Commute Long Distances to Work Willing to Move Closer?

13. Potential Impacts of Additional Workforce Housing on Commuting Current and Hypothetical Yearly Miles Driven

14. Potential Impacts of Additional Workforce Housing on the Environment Yearly Air Pollutant Emissions Savings

15. Impacts on Fuel Costs Fuel Cost Savings

16. Reasons to Move or Not Move • I would be more likely to move if • Safe neighborhood • Neighborhood was safe for bicycling and walking • No more expensive than where I live now • Would not consider moving because • I like my neighborhood • I like my current house • I don’t want to pay more taxes • I don’t want to live in a denser area

17. Potential Impacts of Additional Workforce Housing on Commuting Costs At IRS deductible rate of $0.55 per mile • Current location • annual cost = $6,600 • After relocation • annual cost = $1,858 • Savings= $4,742

18. Potential Commuting Time Savedby Additional Workforce Housing • Time saved in commuting • 187 hours per person per year • Economic value of that time • $3,140 per person per year (@ $10/hr.) • Social value of that time • reduction in time with family and friends • loss of sense of community and community participation

19. Cost of Employee Turnover

20. Potential Impact of Additional Workforce Housing on Quality of Life

21. Summary of Benefitsof Additional Workforce Housing Well located workforce housing has a number of quantifiable benefits including: Significant reductions in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions Significant reductions in commuting costs Significant reductions in commuting times allowing more time for family, friends and community activities Significant reductions in employer costs for recruiting and training new employees

22. Perceived Obstacles to Developing Additional Workforce Housing in the Asheville Area High land values. Opposition from neighborhood and environmental groups. Long and difficult city and county development review processes. Insufficient public subsidies to help keep sale prices and rents low.

23. Frequently Suggested Ways to Increasethe Supply of Workforce Housing Increase contributions to the city and county housing trust funds. Adopt inclusionary zoning ordinances. Expand the number of affordable housing providers. Increase the number of public/private partnerships.

24. Recommendations Set yearly goals for production Assess current workforce housing policies Increase annual contributions to housing trust funds Consider inclusionary zoning and how to preserve existing supply

25. Recommendations (cont.) • Create working group of housing and environmental groups • Look for redevelopment opportunities • Improve cooperation and coordination among advocacy groups